U.S. to remove "squaw" from hundreds of federal lands place names


U.S. Interior Secretary Haaland addresses the Tribal Nations Summit at a 

White House auditorium, in Washington

Fri, November 19, 2021
By Nichola Groom

(Reuters) - The Biden administration will remove the word “squaw” from place names on federal land as part of an effort to reckon with the nation's racist past, the Department of Interior said on Friday.

The word, a term for Indigenous women that Native Americans find offensive, is used in more than 650 place names on federal lands, according to the Department.

Several states, including Maine, Minnesota and Montana, have already banned the use of the term in place names.

"Racist terms have no place in our vernacular or on our federal lands," said Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, the nation's first Native American cabinet official.

"Our nation's lands and waters should be places to celebrate the outdoors and our shared cultural heritage - not to perpetuate the legacies of oppression."

She said her agency would also create an advisory committee to begin a review to find and replace other derogatory names of places on federal land.

The so-called Advisory Committee on Reconciliation in Place Names will be comprised of representatives from tribes, Native Hawaiians, civil rights and cultural studies experts and members of the public.

The committee's creation is aimed at accelerating the renaming of properties. Currently, there are hundreds of name changes pending before the Board on Geographic Names, and the process can take years, the Department said.

A Native American rights group applauded Haaland's action.

"It is well past time for us, as a nation, to move forward, beyond these derogatory terms, and show Native people - and all people - equal respect," John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, said in a statement.

(Reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by Dan Grebler)

Feds move to strengthen protection for Indigenous sacred sites on public lands

Debra Utacia Krol, Arizona Republic
Sat, November 20, 2021

Eight federal agencies announced a new deal to coordinate efforts to protect Indigenous sacred sites, strengthening protections in an area where advocates have long said the government has fallen short.

The agencies will work to provide Native peoples more access and co-management of those sites, which include better protection for sites such as Red Butte, a Havasupai site just south of the Grand Canyon, and enhanced co-management of the Grand Canyon National Park, according to a memorandum of understanding obtained by The Arizona Republic.

Pinyon Plain Mine (formerly known as Canyon Mine), a uranium mine located 6 miles southeast of Tusayan on the Kaibab National Forest, on Oct. 5, 2018.

Bryan Newland, assistant secretary for Indian affairs, first publicly disclosed the new plan with a group of tribal leaders during the White House's Tribal Nations Summit on Tuesday.

The Biden administration is committed to protecting and preserving sacred places, said Newland, an Ojibwe and a citizen of the Bay Mills Indian Community. "Our new sacred sites agreement demonstrates this commitment."

“Since time immemorial, the Earth’s lands and waters have been central to the social, cultural, spiritual, mental, and physical wellbeing of Indigenous peoples. It is essential that we do everything we can to honor sites that hold historical, spiritual or ceremonial significance,” said Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo, in a statement.

She added that the Interior Department is committed to both protecting sacred sites and collaboration with Indigenous communities on access and stewardship issues.

The new agreement expands on an earlier agreement enacted in 2012.

In addition to the Interior Department, the signatory agencies are the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Transportation and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Transportation Department, the environmental quality council and the Tennessee Valley Authority are the three new agencies. The Defense Department, which was part of the older agreement, is not included in the new partnership.

The new agreement calls for the agencies to consult with tribes much earlier while evaluating projects on federal lands. Agency heads also agreed to incorporate the use of traditional ecological knowledge, known as TEK, when crafting new best practices guidance to manage and protect sacred sites. Provisions of the 2012 agreement, such as educating the public on the importance of protecting sacred sites and building interagency cooperation in site protections on federal lands were carried over to the new partnership agreement.

Federal agencies have a duty to protect Native sacred sites, according to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

In August, The Arizona Republic published a six-part series on the legal and bureaucratic hurdles tribes encounter when seeking to protect sacred and culturally important sites on public lands. One of the biggest complaints The Republic heard from tribal leaders, cultural practitioners and experts was that consultation with tribes rarely happened in time to make any substantive changes or to develop a project plan that all parties could live with, and that would avoid damaging sacred or culturally important sites.

Arizona: Indigenous people find legal, cultural barriers to protect sacred spaces off tribal lands

“In recent years, tribal sacred sites have been under attack by a disregard for the laws meant to protect these ancient places," said Maria Dadgar, executive director of the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona. "These sites ... serve as the foundation of our existence as Indigenous People.”

Leonard Sloan, vice president of the Navajo Bodaway-Gap chapter, puts his hat on after saying a prayer at the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado rivers at the Grand Canyon.

Dadgar, an enrolled member of the Piscataway Tribe of Accokeek, Maryland, said the administration's new sacred sites memorandum will create a stronger framework around efforts to protect these sites.

"Consultation with tribes will take place much earlier in the federal decision-making process," she said, "and a stronger commitment to incorporating Indigenous knowledge to help assess the impact of federal actions on sacred sites will also lead to much improved outcomes in the effort to protect tribal sacred sites.”

One Arizona project that will impact a Native sacred site won't be subject to the new directive: Oak Flat. The proposed copper mine at one of the Apache peoples' most sacred sites about 60 miles each of Phoenix was authorized through a 2014 congressional bill.

"This is the epitome of hypocrisy," said Robin Silver, co-founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, which has supported grassroots group Apache Stronghold and the San Carlos Apache Tribe in their efforts to defeat the land deal. Apache Stronghold sued to reverse the legislation, saying its First Amendment religious freedom rights were violated. The case is currently awaiting a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Justice Department has argued that even the complete destruction of Oak Flat would not pose a substantial burden on Apache religious practices and that the federal government has the right to use lands it controls as it sees fit.

"The Biden Justice Department is arguing that the loss of traditional Apaches' ability to practice their religion is not a 'burden,'" Silver said. "Their new proposal is like a Saturday Night Live skit."

Debra Krol reports on Indigenous communities at the confluence of climate, culture and commerce in Arizona and the Intermountain West. Reach Krol at debra.krol@azcentral.com. Follow her on Twitter at @debkrol.

Coverage of Indigenous issues at the intersection of climate, culture and commerce is supported by the Catena Foundation and the Water Funder Initiative.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: New policy seeks to protect Indigenous sacred sites on federal lands

‘Heal the past’: first Native American confirmed to oversee national parks


Hallie Golden
Sat, November 20, 2021

© Provided by PeopleBill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images Charles F. Sams III

Charles “Chuck” F Sams III made history this week in becoming the first-ever Native American confirmed to lead the National Park Service.

Sams, an enrolled tribal member of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, received unanimous consent by the US Senate on Thursday after being nominated by Joe Biden in August.

Sam’s confirmation comes nearly 150 years after US leaders began the practice of establishing national parks upon ancestral lands that were often violently seized from Indigenous communities.

Now, with the park service managing more than 400 areas across every state, along with the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, some Indigenous leaders see Sams’ appointment as a potential path toward healing from old but deeply rooted wounds.

“I see this as an opportunity to reconcile that past, to heal that past, and to recognize the deep knowledge and wisdom that a Native American brings to that post,” said Fawn Sharp, president of the National Congress of American Indians and vice-president of the Quinault Indian Nation.

In 1872, President Ulysses S Grant signed the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act into law, creating the country’s first national park. The establishment of this site and many others in the ensuing years have been hailed as a triumph, but came at a cost.

Related: Indigenous tribes tried to block a car battery mine. But the courts stood in the way

In an interview with the Guardian, Jeanette Wolfley, a former University of New Mexico School of Law professor, explained that members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes once inhabited the area now known as Yellowstone national park. She said the park’s establishment had had a “devastating” effect on the community as members were barred from returning.

Today, some tribal reservations actually overlap with national park spaces. For example, the Canyon de Chelly national monument is located within the Navajo Nation.

Recognizing the history of these parks, Jonathan Jarvis, the last Senate-approved National Park Service director (he left the post in 2017), said over the last 20 years, there had been an effort by park service leaders to establish stronger relationships with Indigenous residents. During his tenure, for example, the agency restored the rights of traditionally affiliated nations to collect plants within a park’s boundaries.

Sams, who has over 25 years of experience working in state and Indigenous governments as well as the non-profit natural resource and conservation management fields, could expand on this work.

The Old Faithful geyser erupts at Yellowstone national park.

 Photograph: Jordi Elias Grassot/Alamy

Jarvis said Sams would be responsible for implementing Biden’s park service agenda and would probably need to address such key issues as the parks’ major maintenance backlog and infrastructure needs, the impact of the climate crisis on these spaces and the parks’ response to Covid. But he will also have the opportunity to set his own vision for the parks.

He could further boost Indigenous nations’ ability to access key swaths of traditional vegetation by encouraging park officials to reach out to them directly to help establish collection agreements, explained Jarvis. And, although the park service already allows Indigenous people to access these spaces for ceremonies, he could issue a director’s order making this process easier.

Jarvis said there was huge potential for Sams to “look where there are opportunities for true co-management, true stewardship in partnership with tribes” of these national park spaces.

Last month, Sams said in a statement as part of his nomination hearing in front of the Senate energy and natural resources committee: “If confirmed, I will bring this spirit of consultation to my service as director. I look forward to consulting with neighboring communities, stakeholders, local, state and tribal governments, and members of Congress, even when the conversations and topics are challenging.”

But for some Indigenous people, healing from historical injustice is not simply a matter of boosting consultations or access to national parks; it’s a matter of returning the lands.

Sharp, president of the National Congress of American Indians, said she would like to see national parks returned to Indigenous people. But she cautioned that returning these spaces would need to be an individualized process.

“Tribes are unique and distinct. And the national parks in some parts of the country may have tribal nations who are prepared and ready to assume management over those and others may not,” she said.

Kat Brigham, chair of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation board of trustees, said she was extremely happy at the prospect of Sams taking his new position. She said she expected him to lead from “the tribal perspective”, which she described as “taking care of the land, so the land can take care of you”.

She said she hoped to see him help to spread awareness of the true history of these sites. She gave the example of Celilo Falls in Oregon, which was once a great gathering space for Indigenous people.

“He knows, for decades, that the tribes have been trying to get the federal and state agencies to start looking at things from a tribal perspective,” she said. “I think he will be asking us a lot more questions. And they’ll be involved more.”

RIDC GOP IN DEM CLOTHING

Joe Manchin worries Biden's social spending agenda costs too much, so why did he just vote for an infrastructure law that costs more?

Ben Winck
Sat, November 20, 2021

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.Drew Angerer/Getty Images


Manchin is among the last obstacles to Build Back Better's approval, but the CBO just blew up his main talking point.


He says he wants the package to be fully paid, and the CBO says it would add $160 billion to the deficit.


Along with several Republicans, Manchin just voted for an infrastructure law that will be even bigger, adding $259 billion to the deficit.

A centrist senator says the government shouldn't spend more than $1 trillion that would add to the deficit. Another centrist senator votes for a law that's larger than $1 trillion that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit.

There's just one problem: Both of these are Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. He has one stance on Joe Biden's Build Back Better agenda and another on the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Biden signed into law this week. Both can't be true.

Even Mitch McConnell voted for the infrastructure law, a return to his voting patterns during the Trump presidency, when he repeatedly voted for laws that increased the national deficit.

Manchin has already succeeded in cutting a lot from Build Back Better, whittling down the original $3.5 trillion price tag to roughly $2 trillion. Even with this reduction, he's adamant the plan must be fully paid for by a combination of tax hikes.

The Build Back Better Act passed by the House on Friday is estimated to add $367 billion to the government deficit over the next decade, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. The estimate doesn't include revenue from improved IRS enforcement, but even after factoring that in, the package is set to add $160 billion to the deficit. That looks paltry compared to the infrastructure bill that Manchin — and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — both just voted for.

The senator has hinted he won't back a plan that adds to the deficit, but he did just that in August. Manchin voted to pass the $1 trillion infrastructure plan in early August despite it not being fully paid for. He was among the few senators to craft the bipartisan package. Not only does it boost the deficit, but the CBO estimates the infrastructure plan will cost the US about $256 billion.

In other words, Manchin has already backed a bill that adds nearly $100 billion more to the deficit than the one he's worried is too expensive.

Manchin's office did not reply to a request for comment.

Caring about the price tag in all the wrong ways

Focus on the Build Back Better plan's cost strikes at a growing divide in the Democratic party. Progressives see the moment as key to creating a more equitable economy. Centrists like Manchin are expressing concerns similar to those coming out of the Republican Party.

For one, progressives initially pushed for a much larger spending bill and aimed to cover the costs with more aggressive taxation of billionaires and corporations. Members frequently pointed to the package's popularity, and President Joe Biden repeatedly noted he wanted to "go big" with his spending plans.

Yet Manchin railed against such tax proposals. The senator said he didn't like "targeting different people" with the billionaires' tax, and that opposition all but ensured the package would be smaller than Biden's $3.5 trillion proposal.

The senator's inflation concerns also resemble those on the other side of the aisle. Republicans have knocked the Build Back Better plan as an inflationary risk, arguing it would boost price growth beyond its already fast pace. Manchin voiced similar worries earlier in November, saying in a tweet that inflation is "not 'transitory'" and that "DC can no longer ignore the economic pain Americans feel every day."

Concerns that Build Back Better will worsen inflation are likely overblown. The package's funds would be doled out over 10 years, meaning it wouldn't contribute to a sudden burst of spending. Ratings agencies including Moody's and Fitch confirmed to Reuters this week the plan wouldn't have a material impact on inflation.

Manchin hasn't yet indicated how the CBO score affects his support for Build Back Better. The Senate is expected to adjust the House's bill in the coming days. Sen. Bernie Sanders said Friday he hopes to strengthen taxes on the wealthy and plans for climate reform. Manchin, meanwhile, has expressed plans to cut paid leave from the package. Doing so could eliminate the bill's cost.

As Manchin demonstrated in August, he's willing to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. He might have just decided roads and bridges matter more than paid leave.

Biden sounds like he's ready to sign whatever Manchin and Sinema decide on the social-spending bill

Ayelet Sheffey,Joseph Zeballos-Roig
Fri, November 19, 2021

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona following a vote at the US Capitol on November 3, 2021.Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Biden told a reporter he will sign Democrats' social-spending bill, even if it excludes paid leave.

The bill passed the House on Friday, and it heads to the Senate where it faces likely challenges

Manchin and Sinema have voiced opposition to measures in the House version, like tax hikes and paid leave.

President Joe Biden's economic agenda cleared a potentially major hurdle Friday morning when his $2 trillion social-spending package passed the House.

And although it now heads to the Senate, where it will likely face additional cuts due to opposition from centrist Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the president seems ready to take whatever the evenly-split Senate produces and sign it into law.

"I'm going to sign it, period!" Biden told Nancy Cordes of CBS News when asked if he would still sign a bill without paid family and medical leave.

All 50 Senate Democrats must stick together for the plan to clear the chamber over unified GOP resistance. Manchin and Sinema both haven't explicitly backed Biden's social spending bill, and objections from either could either stall or sink the centerpiece of the Democratic agenda.

Four weeks of paid national family and medical leave, along with a $555 billion investment in the climate, made it into the Build Back Better framework that passed through the House. But as Insider reported, the framework is likely to change once it reaches the Senate — especially when on issues like paid leave, to which Manchin has repeatedly voiced opposition.

"I've been very clear where I stand on that," Manchin told reporters on Wednesday, referring to his comments last month that he didn't think the measure belonged in a party-line package, and he has also indicated he wants workers to assume part of the cost to access the benefits with a new tax on their wages.

Along with Manchin's opposition to paid leave and the overall size of the package, Sinema — the other Democratic holdout — has balked at raising tax rates on high-earning individuals and corporations.

While Manchin and Sinema may try to cut elements from the House package, though, other Democrats want to see it grow even more. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a statement on Monday that while he is glad the House passed a key element of Biden's agenda, he still wants to see it "strengthened" through lower prescription drug prices and a Medicare expansion that would cover vision, dental, and hearing aids.

The House legislation only includes an expansion of Medicare to provide hearing benefits.

Biden indicated on Friday he wants to get the bill signed into law "as soon as possible," and it seems likely the final version of the bill rests in the hands of Sinema and Manchin.

"Senator Manchin: We're looking at you," Missouri Rep. Cori Bush wrote on Twitter. "The people must win."

KEY CORPRATIST OPPORTUNIST 
Key Democrat unlikely to budge on filibuster reform - Washington Post


FILE PHOTO: Senator Kyrsten Sinema at Senate Finance Committee hearing

Sat, November 20, 2021,

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a key centrist who is often a holdout on major elements of President Joe Biden's agenda, reiterated she does not support modifying or eliminating the filibuster to ease the passage of voting rights legislation, she said in an interview with the Washington Post.

Sinema, who is a co-sponsor of Democratic voting rights bills aimed at prohibiting racial discrimination and ensuring ballot access, told the newspaper that she continues to oppose efforts by fellow Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, a Senate rule that requires a 60-vote supermajority to pass most legislation.

“My opinion is that legislation that is crafted together, in a bipartisan way, is the legislation that’s most likely to pass and stand the test of time. And I would certainly encourage my colleagues to use that effort to move forward,” she told the Post.

She also brushed off the possibility of supporting an exception to the filibuster to enable passage of voting rights legislation, saying she was not sure it is a viable option.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had hinted at a change in Senate rules earlier this month to circumvent the filibuster, at least for some legislation.

"That caveat — ‘if it would even work’ — is the right question to ask,” Sinema, who rarely gives interviews, told the Post.

Senate Democrats earlier this month failed to advance voting rights legislation for the fourth time this year due to overwhelming Republican opposition, raising potential ramifications for the 2022 congressional and 2024 presidential elections.

The Senate voted 50-49 in favor of starting debate on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act but fell short of the 60 votes needed.

Named for the late civil rights activist and congressman, the legislation would restore state voting requirements to prohibit racial discrimination that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2013.

Democrats have made election reform a priority in light of Republican state balloting restrictions passed in response to former President Donald Trump's false claims of massive voter fraud in the 2020 election.

(This story has corrected spelling of Sinema's first name to Kyrsten instead of Krysten in paragraph 1)

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

NPR called out for reporting 'letdown,' 'disappointment' over Michelle Wu's Boston mayoral win



Ryan General
Thu, November 18, 2021

National Public Radio (NPR) sparked controversy for appearing to downplay Michelle Wu’s historic win as Boston’s first elected female and Asian American mayor.

The article: A story published by the media platform drew backlash for its lede, which referred to Wu’s victory as a “letdown” after she defeated three Black candidates running against her, reported the New York Post.

Originally posted as “Cheers and some letdown as 1st elected woman and person of color becomes Boston Mayor,” the article’s headline was eventually changed to “Why Boston will need to wait longer for its 1st elected Black mayor.”

While the “Morning Edition” commentary segment recognized Wu as “the first woman and first person of color” to lead the city, it goes on to say that “others see it as more of a disappointment that the three Black candidates in the race couldn’t even come close.”

The response: Former Portland State University professor of philosophy Peter Boghossian, who recently resigned from the school citing a culture of “illiberalism,” was one of many who took to Twitter to comment, along with former presidential candidate Andrew Yang.

Boghossian reposted a tweet from NPR promoting the article, which referred to Wu’s win as a disappointment, that has since been updated following online backlash.

The updated tweet now says that while “many were hopeful Boston would finally elect its first Black mayor … Black activists and political strategists [are now left to] reflect on what they can learn from the 2021 campaign season.”

NPR on Twitter:



In a separate tweet, the platform stated their original tweet and headline “misrepresented the story” and that they since “have updated the story;” however, the online article kept its controversial lede intact.

Backlash continues: Several users commented with screenshots of the deleted tweet, with some challenging NPR on its original headline and others suggesting they celebrate Wu’s victory “as a win for Asian Americans instead of making it about a loss for Black Americans.”

“Oh, please. You meant what you said, just didn't expect the backlash,” a commenter wrote.

“The previous tweet didn't misrepresent the story at all,” one user pointed out. “You just realized you said the quiet part out loud.”

“You didn't get it right the second time either. What's going on over there?” another user asked.

“No, that was literally your article,” wrote another. “Basically saying it’s a disappointment b/c the ‘wrong minority’ won.”

“Nice try in cleaning up but wrong again!” political strategist Chung Seto chimed in. “Michelle Wu, the first woman, first Asian American won in a heated contest that included other women of color. They endorsed her after loss [sic]. You are stoking false divisions! You don’t get to steal the joy of this historic moment!”

Wu, a daughter of Taiwanese immigrants, won the general election by 28 points over Polish Arab American and fellow Democrat Annissa Essaibi George and was sworn in as Boston’s mayor on Nov. 16.

Indian farmers in no mood to forgive despite Modi's U-turn on reforms

Saurabh Sharma
Fri, November 19, 2021

MOHRANIYA, India, Nov 19 (Reuters) - Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have caved in https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-modi-repeal-controversial-farm-laws-2021-11-19 to farmers' demands that he scraps laws they say threaten their livelihoods.

But reaction to the shock U-turn in India's rural north, where Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faces key elections next year, has been less than positive, a worrying sign for a leader seeking to maintain his grip on national politics.

In the village of Mohraniya, some 500 km by road east of the capital New Delhi and located in India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh, farmer Guru Sevak Singh said that he and others like him lost faith in Modi and his party.

"Today Prime Minister Modi realised that he was committing blunder, but it took him a year to recognise this and only because he now knows farmers will not vote for his party ever again," said Singh.

For the young farmer, the matter is deeply personal.

Singh's 19-year-old brother Guruvinder was killed in October https://www.reuters.com/world/india/son-india-govt-minister-arrested-accused-killing-farmers-2021-10-10 when a car ploughed into a crowd protesting against the farm legislation, one of eight people who died in a spate of violence related to the farmers' uprising.

Thousands of agricultural workers have protested outside the capital New Delhi and beyond for more than a year, shrugging off the pandemic to disrupt traffic and pile pressure on Modi and the BJP who say the new laws were key to modernising the sector.

"Today I can announce that my brother is a martyr," Singh told Reuters, weeping as he held a picture of his dead brother.

"My brother is among those brave farmers who sacrificed their lives to prove that the government was implementing laws to destroy the agrarian economy," he added.

Around him were several police officers, who Singh said were provided after his brother and three others were killed by the car. Ashish Mishra, son of junior home minister Ajay, is in police custody in relation to the incident.

Ajay Mishra Teni said at the time that his son was not at the site and that a car driven by "our driver" had lost control and hit the farmers after "miscreants" pelted it with stones and attacked it with sticks and swords.

'HOW CAN WE FORGET?'

In 2020, Modi's government passed three farm laws in a bid to overhaul the agriculture sector that employs about 60% of India's workforce but is deeply inefficient, in debt and prone to pricing wars.

Angry farmers took to the streets, saying the reforms put their jobs at risk and handed control over crops and prices to private corporations.

The resulting protest movement became one of the country's biggest and most protracted.

Leaders of six farmer unions who spearheaded the movement in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab states said they would not forgive a government that labelled protesting farmers as terrorists and anti-nationals.

"Farmers were beaten with sticks, rods and detained for demanding legitimate rights ... farmers were mowed down by a speeding car belonging to a minister's family ... tell me how can we forget it all?" said Sudhakar Rai, a senior member of a farmers' union in Uttar Pradesh.

Rai said at least 170 farmers were killed during anti-farm law protests across the country. There are no official data to verify his claims.

A senior BJP member who declined to be named said the decision to repeal the laws was taken by Modi after he consulted a top farmers' association affiliated to his party.

The politician, who was at the meeting when the party agreed to back down, said those present conceded the BJP had failed to communicate the benefits of the new laws clearly enough.

Leaders of the opposition and some analysts said Modi's move was linked to state elections next year in Uttar Pradesh - which accounts for more parliamentary seats than any other state - and Punjab.

"What cannot be achieved by democratic protests can be achieved by the fear of impending elections!" wrote P. Chidambaram, a senior figure in the opposition Congress party, on Twitter.

But farmers like Singh warned that the government could pay a price for its treatment of farmers.

"We are the backbone of the country and Modi has today accepted that his policies were against farmers," said Singh. "I lost my brother in this mess and no one can bring him back."

 (Additional reporting and writing by Rupam Jain in Mumbai; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

'Victory of Global Significance': Modi to Repeal Laws That Sparked Year-Long Farmers' Revolt

"After a year of strikes—and having faced brutal repression that claimed some 700 lives—India's farmers are victorious in their struggle."

Various student unions took to the streets of Kolkata, India on November 19, 2021 to celebrate and congratulate the farmers on the retraction of farm laws against which they have been protesting for a year. (Photo: Debarchan Chatterjee/NurPhoto via Getty Images)


KENNY STANCIL

November 19, 2021

Workers' rights activists around the globe rejoiced on Friday after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that his government will repeal three corporate-friendly agricultural laws that the nation's farmers have steadfastly resisted for more than a year.

"We will wait for the day when the farm laws are repealed in Parliament."

The Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), a coalition of over 40 farmers' unions that led the protests, called the development a "historic victory" for those "who struggled resolutely, unitedly, continuously, and peacefully for one year so far in the historic farmers' struggle," India Today reported, citing a statement from SKM.

"Prime Minister Narendra Modi's announcement to repeal three farm laws is a welcome step in the right direction," said SKM, though the organized labor coalition did not commit to ending its mobilization. "SKM hopes that the government of India will go the full length to fulfill all the legitimate demands of protesting farmers, including statutory legislation to guarantee a remunerative MSP [Minimum Support Price]."

Rakesh Tikait, a leader of the Bharatiya Kisan Union, welcomed Modi's announcement but said that "we will wait for the day when the farm laws are repealed in Parliament," where the winter session starts on November 29. He added that in addition to the MSP demand, "the government should talk to farmers on other issues."

Modi's announcement—and the sustained resistance of India's farmers—were celebrated by progressives worldwide.

Al Jazeera reported that Modi's "sudden concession comes ahead of elections early next year in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, and two other northern states with large rural populations." Opposition parties attributed the prime minister's move to sinking poll numbers, characterizing it as part of an effort to appeal to voters who support or sympathize with the nation's struggling farmers.

According to CNN, "Farmers are the biggest voting bloc in the country, and the agricultural sector sustains about 58% of India's 1.3 billion citizens. Angering farmers could see Modi lose a sizable number of votes."

"The repeal of the three farm laws... is a major political victory for India's peasant movement."

As India Today noted, "Hundreds of farmers have been camping at three places on the Delhi border since November 2020, demanding the repeal of the Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020; Farmers' (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020; and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020."

For over a year, CNN reported, "Indian farmers have fought the three laws, which they said leave them open to exploitation by large corporations and could destroy their livelihoods."

Al Jazeera explained that "the legislation the farmers object to," passed last September, "deregulates the sector, allowing farmers to sell produce to buyers beyond government-regulated wholesale markets, where growers are assured of a minimum price."

Modi's cabinet said the laws are "aimed at giving farmers the freedom to sell directly to institutional buyers such as big trading houses, large retailers, and food processors," Reuters reported. While Modi claimed the legislation "will 'unshackle' millions of farmers and help them get better prices," opposition parties said that "farmers' bargaining power will be diminished."

Small farmers expressed alarm about the legislation, saying that "the changes make them vulnerable to competition from big business, and that they could eventually lose price support for staples such as wheat and rice," Al Jazeera reported.

Beginning last September, farmers from regions of India that are major producers of wheat and rice blocked railway tracks, which was followed by larger, nationwide protests, including some that used trucks, tractors, and combine harvesters to block highways leading to New Dehli, the nation's capital.


Indian Farmers Continue Historic Protests After 250 Million People Rise Up Against Modi's Neoliberal Policies
Brett Wilkins

By last December, "protests spread across India, as farm organizations call[ed] for a nationwide strike after inconclusive talks with the government," Reuters reported, adding that demonstrations also took place throughout the Sikh diaspora.

In January, "India's Supreme Court order[ed] an indefinite stay on the implementation of the new agricultural laws, saying it wanted to protect farmers and would hear their objections," the news outlet noted.

Over the course of several months, which included a brutal winter and a devastating Covid-19 surge, farmers continued to agitate for full repeal of the three laws. Repression from Modi's right-wing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party resulted in hundreds of deaths.

At the largest rally to date, more than half a million farmers gathered in Uttar Pradesh on September 5, roughly 10 weeks before Modi announced that he will repeal the laws.

In response to Modi's decision on Friday, "farmers at [the] protest sites of Ghazipur, Tikri, and Singhu borders celebrated by bursting crackers, distributing sweets, and welcoming the [government's] move," India Today reported.

The Transnational Institute praised "the resilience, courage, and determination of India's farmers who succeeded in overturning the pernicious farm laws," calling it "the power of movements."

That sentiment was shared by numerous other observers.

"The repeal of the three farm laws—unconstitutional, with no demonstrable benefits, and aimed to expand corporate control over agriculture—is a major political victory for India's peasant movement," said R. Ramakumar, an economics professor in the School of Development Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai. "Their resolute struggle has shown and amplified the power of dissent in our democracy."

Priyamvada Gopal, a professor of postcolonial studies at the University of Cambridge, placed the overturning of Modi's unpopular reforms in a broader context, arguing that "the victory of farmers in North India is not a local matter."

"This is a victory of global significance," she added. "Immense class and oppressed caste solidarity, fierce determination, [and] deep courage defeated the combine of chauvinist authoritarianism and corporate greed—our common enemy."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

The dumbing-down of America hits a nerve

Lincoln Courier
Sat, November 20, 2021

“What's going on here?”

That's what I was wondering last week when a bunch of emails showed up in my Inbox, all related to the column I had written and submitted for last Saturday's edition of The Courier. You see, those messages began to arrive on Thursday, a few days before my column was scheduled for publication.

Hmmm, I wonder if there are some folks out there who can see into the future and know exactly what I wrote – long before it appears in a public forum. That sounded far-fetched – and it was. I turned to Leisa Richardson, executive editor for the State Journal-Register and this newspaper, for an answer.

She explained that the newspapers are digital-first, meaning that columns and stories scheduled for print editions are first published on newspaper websites and that, per an agreement with Yahoo News and Apple News, those Internet outlets have publishing rights for newspaper content. I then replied to a couple of those email writers, asking them where they had read my column. Turns out, it was published on the Yahoo News website prior to the Saturday publication date.

I received more than a dozen responses to my column from total strangers, some even asking if I were a real person or someone using a fake name to write this type of column.

In case you didn't read it, the column was all about the dumbing-down of our great country, as evidenced by Harvard-educated U.S. Senator Ted Cruz from Texas picking a fight with Sesame Street's Big Bird over a COVID-19 vaccination promotion aimed at kids by the yellow-feathered critter, and also highlighted by the gathering of a QAnon throng in Dallas awaiting the return of John F. Kennedy Jr. Never mind that JFK Jr. died in a 1999 plane crash. He obviously was a no-show.

Word had circulated among the QAnon disciples that the young Kennedy was returning to his worldly self to declare Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 presidential election and that he – JFK Jr. – would serve as his vice president.

Pretty silly stuff, huh? But let's not kid ourselves. Hundreds of thousands of Americans still believe Trump won the election and never mind that JFK Jr. was brought up in a famous American family with strong liberal viewpoints far removed from far-right philosophy. I can't help but wonder if many in that Dallas throng wouldn't delight in having a well-roasted Big Bird on their Thanksgiving table next week.

I'd like to share bits and pieces of some of the emails I received from throughout the country. Most writers were supportive of my viewpoints, but then, there was Muneerah Aoudad, whose email address describes her as “one nice lady1.” I don't believe Ms. Aouad was especially nice to me. Here's what she wrote:

“Mr. Tackett, I read your dumb article. Yes sir, it's just plain dumb. It's obvious in your old age that you still do not have a clue what is going on in this country. I made the sad, sorry mistake of being a democrat for years. I watched as they destroyed the lives of Americans.

“Perhaps you should take a trip to Los Angeles and then you can see what the DemoRats have done. Los Angeles, up until about 1990, was a thriving city and the largest post-production center in the world for the movie industry. Now, they do not film in Los Angeles.

Dan Tackett

“Meanwhile, the stupid DemoRATS continued to keep the southern border open and they made sure that Los Angeles was infected with millions and millions of illegal aliens who all got welfare, HUD housing, food stamps and our American jobs to the point that now in 2021, white or Black Americans cannot get a job in Los Angeles, which is ran by Latinos, including a Latino idiot mayor. Los Angeles has the worst homeless crisis of Americans sleeping on the streets of any place in the world!

“Do you think you can fly over and get a hotel in Los Angeles? Give it a try. Your hotel neighbors will be homeless drug addicts. I went to the east coast when I saw LA slipping into the muck in 2000 only to return in 2013 and to discover that I would never get a job there. I left and moved to the San Francisco Bay area, which is now being attacked by the Latinos.

“Very soon I will need to pack up and move. This time out of the U.S. And the DemoRats said we seniors would get dental care, eyeglasses and hearing aids. Now all that was a lie. What is true is that our Medicare is going up Jan .1 from $144 to $170, and I will never get my dentures, because no one regulates the cost of dental work and it now costs more than going to a doctor!

“Thank you DemoRAT!”

Folks who sided with my column threw out plenty of reasons why they believe American sanity is on a slippery slope. Here's a sampling:

From David Hildy: “This nonsense all began with Karl Rove. I'd forgotten that he castigated Max Cleland on the discussion of patriotism, but there's your lead in to QAnon, which led up to John McCain being accused of not being a hero because he got caught.

“Thank you for your article and it would seem to me that the Democrats need a ‘Joe the Plumber’ mouthpiece to counter the dumbness. Intellectuals will not be heard – needs to be a no-namer who's used by Democrats to spout common sense.”

From Michael Murray: “Unfortunately, you are 100% correct. These days I am continually asking myself, ‘How did we get here?’ There seems to be no end in sight. I wonder if it is all just one really bad dream.

“Thank you for your insight. I am not going crazy.”

From Manju Rupani: “Thank you for your article. Could not agree more.

“I would blame technology for dumbing our country as well. When the large tech companies are promoting themselves as leaders of science and goodness, we have a major problem.”

From Carroll Shirkey: Loved what you had to say. You’re right about the events and clowns involved. I’ve been saying America needs a re-boot – quickly.

From Tina Roeser: “I came across an article you wrote talking about America being dumb. Interesting. I feel we've been dumb for awhile.

“A few months ago, my husband and I were watching a program on PBS about Woodstock. In it, we noticed that nobody there was fat. The narrator said they ran out of food at the event rather quickly. People in surrounding towns were asked if they could help out with food. They sent eggs and oatmeal. I thought, ‘What, no chips?’ None of the junk we exist on today. Junk filled with additives and preservatives that the Food and Drug Administration has OK'd for consumption. Interesting

“Didn't the Food and Drug Administration say opioids were safe without being addictive, too? That went well, didn't it? Worked really well for those raking in the dough.

“But wait, here comes COVID. That really took the focus off opioids, didn't it? The problem is still with us, but you don't hear about the deaths from drug overdoses in the news anymore. All of my life, I'd hear ‘my doc say, ‘It's just a virus. It has to run its course,' if I asked about antibiotics for a cold or flu.

“There is no denying this virus is real and it is deadly. I think the vaccines were pushed through for profit. Hearing about side effects that can happen with them is frightening. Who wants a blood clot or inflammation of the heart? That's just two of them.

“America is getting dumb? I think we've been dumb for blindly following the FDA.”

From Anne Augustyn: “Gee, Dan, you missed a couple of obvious ones, like all of the media talking ‘heads who called the left-wing riots of 2020 ‘peaceful protests’ or of Joe Biden's plan to pay certain illegal immigrants $450,000 per person, both of which seem dumb to me. But I guess those examples don't seem dumb to you or at least don't support your agenda.”

From Steve Verbancsics: “Having read your column, you might find the following interesting (depressing? Not unexpected?)

“After the Dallas follies I couldn't help but reply to someone who took it all seriously: ‘You know of course that this is all being run by Ben Franklin and The Hellfire Club from their headquarters underneath The Tomb of The Unknown Soldier.’

“I doubt that you will be surprised that the person I replied to started a serious discussion of what I had said.

“The other thing is that having at one point been a night watchman for the Sesame Street set when I was going to Columbia in the late 60's, I can attest that even asleep Big Bird is more intelligent and a better conversationalist than teedie mexi-cruz.”

***

I'd be remiss if I didn't take the time and a few drops of printer's ink to sincerely wish you all a wonderful Thanksgiving and a blessed holiday season.

Dan Tackett is a retired managing editor of The Courier. He can be reached at dtackett@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on Lincoln Courier: Is American sanity on a slippery slope? Readers voice their opinion

The Leftist Millennial Who Could Lead One of Latin America's Wealthiest and Most Unequal Countries


Ciara Nugent
Fri, November 19, 2021,


Gabriel Boric
Supporters hold a cutout of Gabriel Boric, presidential candidate for the Social Convergence party, during a campaign rally ahead of the general election in Casablanca, Chile, on Thursday, Nov. 18, 2021. Credit - Cristobal Olivares—Bloomberg/Getty Images

Ten years ago, Gabriel Boric was a 25 year-old student protester, with shaggy hair and a beard, leading tens of thousands of young people through the streets of Santiago. As head of a major student union, he shook Chile’s establishment by leading rallies that brought reforms to Chile’s privatized education system. Today, aged 35—and with slightly tidier hair—Boric is within striking distance of Chile’s presidency.

Chile’s Nov. 21 election, where Boric is one of two frontrunners, is the most high-stakes moment yet in a tumultuous two year national debate over the market-centered economic model established by military dictator Augusto Pinochet in the 1980s. With deregulated business and privatized public services and natural resources, the system helped make Chile a haven for foreign investors and one of the richest countries in South America.

But it has also generated the highest rate of inequality in the OECD group of developed nations and untenable living costs for poorer Chileans, with six in ten households earning too little to cover monthly expenses, according to the National Statistics Institute. Starting in October 2019, hundreds of thousands of people participated in months of anti-government protests—a so-called “social explosion”—which culminated in a national vote in 2020 to rewrite the Pinochet-era constitution.

If elected, Boric, who has spent the past seven years as a congressman arguing for the ideals expressed in the social explosion, promises to kill off the old model for good. A Boric-led leftwing coalition would hike taxes on major industries, ramp up public spending to overhaul services, and scrap the private pension system that has underpinned Chile’s capital markets. “If Chile was the cradle of neoliberalism, it will also be its grave,” he told a rally in July after winning the primary for leftist bloc Approve Dignity.

Riot police vehicles spray tear gaz at demonstrators during a protest against Chile's government in Santiago, Chile, November 4, 2019.Jeremias Gonzalez—NurPhoto/Getty Images

For Boric’s supporters it’s a long-awaited chance to transform a country that has never worked for a majority of its citizens. For his critics, it’s a radical overreaction that will destroy the foundation of Chile’s wealth and stability.

To deliver his vision, though, Boric would have to defeat another insurgent, José Antonio Kast, 51. A far-right former congressman with ties to the Pinochet regime, Kast has surged in the polls over the past six months. His hardline conservative stances on police brutality, indigenous rights and immigration have earned him comparisons to Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro.

Recent polls put Kast on 26.5% of the vote, only marginally ahead of Boric’s 25%. Though pollsters warn that the recent social upheaval has made it exceedingly difficult to predict voter behavior, the candidates of the center-right ruling party and traditional center-left appear to be languishing in a distant fourth and third place.

The most likely outcome is that Boric and Kast pass to a second round vote in late December, presenting Chile with its starkest choice in decades, says Kenneth Bunker, a political analyst for Chilean media. “These candidates are much more extreme than what we’re used to and that’s opening up topics that we thought were closed in Chile,” he says. “If they pass to the second round, it’s going to be an absolute earthquake for the political system”
Who is Gabriel Boric?

Boric grew up in Magallanes, the southernmost region of Chile. He started in student activism in high school and in 2011, while studying law at the University of Chile, he was elected leader of its student union. That year, college students began a massive organized protest against low public funding and inequity in Chile’s education system, which Boric argued “treats our rights like consumer goods.” Marches and university occupations forced the government into negotiations that eventually yielded sweeping educational reforms.

Student leader Gabriel Boric delivers a speech during a protest to demand Chilean President Sebastian Pinera's government to improve public education quality in Santiago, on August 28, 2012

.Claudio Santana—AFP/Getty Images

In 2013, Boric was elected to congress for Magallanes as an independent. He has since cycled through membership of several “new left” parties—most recently Social Convergence—set up to challenge Chile’s longstanding center-left and far left blocs. Boric argues that the centrists, who have had previous stints in power, were not ambitious enough to tackle the country’s deep rooted inequality. Parts of the far-left, meanwhile, have unnerved voters by expressing support for authoritarian leftist regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Boric has embraced positions, such as making currently privately-held water rights a public or common resource, which previous leftist governments in Chile have shied away from. But he cuts a relatively moderate figure, often stressing the importance of dialogue with opponents and becoming one of the most vocal supporters of a November 2019 pact between political parties to end the violence in the streets. Boric’s campaign has focused on grassroots political participation, holding town halls to discuss policy before producing a manifesto of 13,000 proposals,

Bunker says younger Chileans appreciate Boric’s “brutal honesty”: he has for several years spoken openly about suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder and spending time in a psychiatric hospital, breaking a taboo around mental health in Chile. “He represents a younger, more modern, progressive voter, which makes people feel that he’s in synchronicity with the times,” Bunker says.
Chile at a crossroads

Kast offers a very different social and cultural vision for Chile, one aligned with the deeply conservative forces that have ruled in the past. Kast spent most of his political career in a rightwing party founded in the 1980’s that strongly supported the Pinochet regime, despite its murder and torture of tens of thousands of civilians. When Kast first ran for president in 2017—then achieving only marginal support—he claimed that if the dictator were still alive, “he would vote for me.”

Supporters of Chilean presidential candidate Jose Antonio Kast of the Republican Party hold a flag during the presidential campaign closing rally on November 18, 2021 in Santiago, Chile. Chileans will go to the polls on November 21.Marcelo Hernandez—Getty Images

Kast has promised to restore order to the streets after the protests, which he dubbed an “anti-social explosion” and recent conflicts with indigenous activists. His manifesto offers “unconditional support” for the carabineros, the police force that watchdogs have accused of human rights abuses (Boric wants to reform and “relaunch” the carabineros).

A staunch Catholic, Kast also wants to push to repeal a 2017 law that made abortion legal under a limited set of circumstances, and on the campaign trail, he has suggested the country dig a three meter-deep ditch along its northern border to keep out migrants and refugees from Venezuela.

But some of the campaign’s most intense debates have centered around the economic model. Kast’s brother, Michael, was a minister in the Pinochet regime and one of the so-called Chicago Boys—a group of economists who helped design Chile’s free market formula after studying at the University of Chicago under economist Milton Friedman. Kast has pledged to defend, “resolutely and rigidly” the model, cutting taxes, regulations and public spending, in order to restore economic growth after three years of recession caused by the unrest and COVID-19. Higher public spending during the pandemic has pushed the deficit to 11.5% of GDP this year, slightly lower than the current U.S. deficit of 12.4%.

Boric, meanwhile, wants a transformation. He advocates the cancellation of student debts, an increase in the minimum wage, expansion of public health care and the introduction of new taxes on the wealthy and on the mining companies that have made fortunes out of Chile’s vast copper resources.

Boric’s most controversial proposal, though, is a plan to replace Chile’s private pension system with a state one. Introduced by Pinochet in 1981, the private scheme obliges Chileans to pay 10% of their income into a pension fund managed by a company, freeing up individual savings for investment in local capital markets.

Multilateral organizations like the World Bank have held up the system as an example for emerging economies struggling to afford public pensions. But many Chileans say it has provided only paltry payouts for retirees and six in 10 want it replaced with a public system.

Stability in question

The pension debate in Chile, which helped fuel the 2019 protests, is now the focal point of concern for business leaders and foreign investors about the future direction of the country as a whole. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, congress has voted three times to allow Chileans to take out 10% of their pension to help cope with job losses, which economists say could have a severe long term impact on future retirees.

Boric’s vote in favour of those withdrawals have led some foreign investors to fear a potential populist slant in his economic policy. “The question is whether [increased public spending] will be done in a responsible way,” Alberto Ramos, a Goldman Sachs analyst told the Financial Times. “They are slowly deviating from the macro model that made Chile the poster child of fiscal responsibility.”

Boric’s critics also say the presence of the Communist Party in his electoral bloc, members of which will likely hold a significant minority of seats in a Boric-led coalition, would allow more radical voices into government, with a potential destabilizing effect for one of the most stable countries in Latin America.

But a Kast victory may be even more destabilizing for Chile, argues Claudia Heiss, head of political science at the University of Chile’s Institute of Public Affairs. Kast is hostile to the project that Chile undertook after the 2019 protests to rewrite its constitution. He says that if he doesn’t like the new draft, due to be delivered by an elected assembly next year ahead of a referendum, he would campaign for it to be rejected.

“The political system has already started taking a change in direction with the constitutional process and Kast is in conflict with that process,” Heiss says. “I think a Boric government can help do the reforms people have asked for, and make the institutional, political route viable. Without that route, we might go back to the large shocks that we saw in the social explosion.”

'Burning the metro': Chile election divides voters between protest and order





Polling station ahead of the upcoming presidential election in Santiago

Sat, November 20, 2021
By Gram Slattery

SANTIAGO (Reuters) - For many Chileans, Plaza Baquedano, a broad rotary in central Santiago that for decades served as a center of social protest, has become a powerful symbol of hope.

For two years, city residents have regularly gathered here https://graphics.reuters.com/CHILE-PROTESTS/0100B32527X/index.html to protest pensions that are too low, public transit fees that are too high and, more generally, an old-guard political class that just does not get it.

The statue of a nineteenth-century general that sat at the plaza's center has been removed https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chile-protests-idUSKBN2B3255, and its plinth is now covered in left-wing political literature.

Most credit the protests - known collectively as the "estallido social" or "social outbreak" - for bringing about an ongoing rewrite of the nation's Pinochet-era constitution

 https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/chile-begins-down-uncertain-road-writing-new-constitution-2021-05-17. The "estallido" has also helped propel the candidacy of 35-year-old leftist Gabriel Boric, a relative newcomer who has become a serious contender in this Sunday's presidential election https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/former-protest-leader-boric-seeks-bury-chiles-neoliberal-past-2021-11-17

But not everyone is so enthralled.

Among the detractors is Ramon Zambrano, a doorman at a nearby apartment building.

"You can protest, but peacefully. They're making a mess, burning cars, burning the metro. What are they doing?" he asks, while pointing out the damage done to the now graffiti-covered building where he works.

In a sense, the situation around Plaza Baquedano represents the central paradox of the election here. While Chile's Left gained significant traction via dozens of massive marches that began in 2019, two years of sometimes-violent protests have made many voters wary.

That - combined with a widespread perception among Chileans that crime is on the rise - has created an opportunity for the Right to gain ground by hammering home a law-and-order message.

While Boric, who rose to fame heading student protests in 2011, had been leading for most of 2021, José Antonio Kast, an ultra-right-wing former congressman who draws comparisons to Donald Trump and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/chiles-bolsonaro-hard-right-kast-rises-with-frank-talk-crime-focus-2021-11-16, has risen in the polls dramatically in recent weeks.

Most recent polls show Kast drawing the largest vote share on Sunday. A Nov. 6 survey by consultancy Activa Research has Kast narrowly winning a likely runoff https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/chile-conservative-kast-maintains-lead-final-pre-election-opinion-polls-2021-11-06 in December.

BURNED OUT

For Kenneth Bunker, director of political consultancy Tresquintos, a particularly violent round of protests in late October helped boost the Right.

A series https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chile-mapuche-conflict-idUSKCN25230C of recent confrontations https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/freight-train-derailed-burned-southern-chile-amid-indigenous-conflict-2021-11-02 in the southern Araucania and Bio Bio provinces - where police and separatist indigenous groups have long feuded - has also played into Kast's hands.

"I think there is a very important part of the country that's tired, they don't want any more of this," said Gonzalo Cordero, a political consultant and columnist for the national La Tercera newspaper.

Boric's supporters point out that almost 80% of Chileans, many fed up with the nation's ultra-free-market economic model, voted last year to rewrite the nation's constitution https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/freight-train-derailed-burned-southern-chile-amid-indigenous-conflict-2021-11-02

 A conservative like Kast would do little to quell discontent, they argue.

"I think that if Kast is elected, there will be an 'estallido 2.0'," said Pedro Muñoz, an elected member of the body re-writing Chile's constitution.

Still, the Kast campaign is leaning in to the law-and-order message, as are his supporters.

At his campaign's closing event on Thursday night, he pledged repeatedly to crack down on crime. The strongest applause came when he spoke in favor of police officers, many of whom have been accused by the public and prosecutors of using violence against protestors.

Several supporters insisted without evidence in interviews that the "estallido" was the product of foreign provocateurs, such as the Venezuelan or Cuban governments.

Banners in favor of Trump were common, as were anti-crime banners such as "Orden con Kast," or "Order with Kast."

Boric, for his part, is leaning in, too. While for Kast's supporters the protests are a symptom of decline and disorder, for Boric, they are a sign the previous order was not worth saving.

"We're going to do our politics from the streets," Boric said at his own campaign event on Thursday night.

(Reporting by Gram Slattery; Additional reporting by Fabian Cambero and Natalia A. Ramos Miranda; Editing by Daniel Wallis)