PRO LIFE POLITICIANS

Congress fails to extend free lunch waivers, putting meals for 10 million students at risk

ktangalakislippert@insider.com (Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert) - 

© Tetra Images/Getty ImagesTetra Images/Getty Images

A free school lunch program passed at the onset of the pandemic is set to expire June 30.

 
It provides free lunch to all US students but is not included in the latest spending bill.

 
One single mom told the Guardian she would skip meals herself to feed her kids without the program.

A free lunch program passed at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic is set to expire June 30 and Congress has not included it in its latest spending bill, putting meals for 10 million students at risk.

"I think we're going to see in real time the summer hunger crisis grow, and that's going to give us a preview of what's going to happen next school year," Jillien Meier, director of food access advocacy group No Kid Hungry, told The Guardian.

The latest funding bill included $29 billion of nutrition programs for children but cut the $11 billion free lunch program that provided waivers to schools to reimburse costs of providing free lunches to all students and removed the family application process to receive free meals.

The program was initially passed in March 2020 at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and was extended in June and October 2020 and once again in April 2021.

The immediate impacts of the cuts will be felt by families who have relied on the program to ensure their kids are fed. In the US, 22 million students get free or reduced lunch during the school year — a number that has only increased since the pandemic, according to the USDA.

Without the extended programs, "I would take the blow, like not eating myself just to make sure my kids had enough to eat," A single mom of two told The Guardian. "No child should have to be hungry in school or anywhere else."

I’m Pro-Second Amendment. But if the Libs Want to Get Rid of It, Here’s What They’d Have to Do.

Mary Katharine Ham
Fri, June 3, 2022


Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty/Library of Congress

Gun-control advocates in the United States are experiencing quite a bit of Canada envy, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced this week that he will be banning import, sales, and transfers of handguns. He also announced legislation to require citizens to turn over their “military-style assault weapons” in a mandatory buy-back program. As of now, there is no legal definition of “military-style assault weapon,” so Canadians with guns will presumably be alerted when they become criminals on a TBD basis.

This is in addition to the banning of 1,500 rifle models in the wake of a 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia, were 22 people were killed. It’s part of an “ever-expanding” list of prohibited models maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The proposed legislation also includes tighter red-flag restrictions, provisions for confiscation and disabling of banned guns, and a blanket restriction of magazines to only five rounds.

Why can’t we enact Canada’s wish list of restrictions in the U.S.?—our gun control activists wonder.

Well, it’s not the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been seriously weakened, is floundering in corruption accusations, and has filed for bankruptcy in the past two years. But it was also never the primary strength of gun-owners’ side of the argument. That strength lies in the Second Amendment, which whatever you think of its protections of Americans’ right to a firearm, is a hard fact with which activists must contend.

If the goal is to significantly curtail the number of guns—or even slow its growth, which is the purported goal of many activists—they must deal with the Constitution. No matter how “commonsense” you might consider some gun regulations, they have to pass constitutional muster to become a reality.

Take for instance a California law banning sales of semiautomatic rifles to adults under the age of 21. The San-Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that particular regulation to be unconstitutional. A three-judge panel in May ruled 2-1 that the Constitution “protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them,” though it upheld a requirement that adults under 21 acquire hunting licenses to purchase said guns.

It is the Second Amendment, and the majority of Americans’ agreement with its protections, that foil most efforts at gun control. And yet, there has never been a sustained effort to amend the Constitution to eliminate this impediment to gun control.

There should be.

But don’t get me wrong. I love the Second Amendment’s protections, and like many law-abiding citizens of the U.S., cherish the right it enshrines for my family to have a means to protect itself. I don’t wish it gone anymore than I do the First Amendment—another protection our neighbors to the North are without.

But dealing with the facts of the Constitution, doing the hard work to convince Americans of the error of its text, and dealing honestly with gun owners about the left’s desires on this subject would be better than what we’re doing now.

I am unabashedly on the other side of this issue from liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, yet I agree with him on this part of the equation. He advocates for the repeal of the Second Amendment and replacement with the Twenty-Eighth, which he proposes would allow for a National Guard, highly restrictive private gun ownership, and a new right to freedom from gun violence.

“For those who believe it will be impossible to do this,” Moore offers stats on gun ownership. “We are not a country of gun nuts. 77 percent of all Americans do NOT own a gun! If three-quarters of the country has decided they have no need for a gun, three-quarters of the country may also decide they have no need for an archaic amendment that allows retired accountants to own 47 assault weapons. LET’S ORGANIZE THE 77 percent!”

Go for it. The coalition of Americans that would have to be convinced grows larger and more diverse by the day. Surely, some of the energy of Brady, Everytown, One Pulse, Guns Down, and other gun control groups can be put toward a long-term project of this kind.

Moore is not the only prominent person to suggest such a change. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1991 if he had his druthers, there’d be no Second Amendment at all.

None other than Justice John Paul Stevens, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms, declared amending the Constitution would be the “simple” way to “weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”

He’s a bit breezy on the matter for my tastes. The process would be simple but by no means easy. The Constitution is quite straightforward about how to change the Constitution, but it takes a lot.

An amendment may be sent for ratification by 38 states after it has either been deemed necessary by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress or a national convention called by the legislatures of 34 states.

Some would dismiss this as an impossibility, but again, I’m in improbable agreement with Moore. I think believing this could never happen is a cop-out. Yes, Americans love their guns. They also love alcohol and we banned that via a constitutional amendment for quite a few miserable years.

Even if you’re the kind of activist who believes the problem isn’t the Constitution, but the interpretation thereof, the remedy is the same. Once more—I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with Elie Mystal, who wrote in The Nation, “If Republicans tell us it’s the Second Amendment that stands in the way of reasonable gun reform, then it’s the Second Amendment that we should be coming for.”

Amendments frequently travel unlikely paths. The most recent amendment to the Constitution took 200 years to ratify, and the push to get it over the finish line in 1992 can be traced to a sophomore at the University of Texas, who got a C on the term paper suggesting the amendment was still pending.

It’s a refrain of pro-Second Amendment types like myself to tell gun-control activists, “Come and take it.” The original Greek phrase, “Molon labe” was said to have been uttered by the Spartan leader Leonidas in response to Xerxes’ request that they surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae.

In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers set up a significant barrier between the federal government and the people’s arms. Without dealing with that very hard fact, most gun-control efforts will be, to borrow from another Greek story, Sisyphean.

CANCEL NUCLEAR WEAPONS

US Navy, Electric Boat, lawmakers and workers celebrate start of construction of Columbia-class submarine, a ‘critical piece of the U.S. nuclear deterrence’

Stephen Singer, Hartford Courant
Sat, June 4, 2022, 

Members of Congress, U.S. Navy brass and submarine manufacturing workers on Saturday celebrated the start of construction on the U.S. Navy’s next-generation Columbia-class nuclear ballistic submarine.

General Dynamics Electric Boat, the Connecticut- and Rhode Island-based manufacturer, organized a symbolic keel-laying ceremony, reminiscent of early shipbuilding when the central timber, the backbone of a ship, was put in place, marking the start of construction. The future USS District of Columbia was the focus of the gathering at Electric Boat’s Quonset Point, R.I., shipyard.

The Columbia is a top priority of the Navy’s and represents a “critical piece of the U.S. nuclear deterrence and national security strategy,” said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2, and chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee. It will replace 14 Ohio-class submarines due to begin to retire from service in 2027 following a more than 40-year run.

The District of Columbia is the first ship in the new class of ballistic missile submarines being built for the U.S. Navy by Electric Boat.

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington, D.C.’s representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, reminded the audience that Washington, D.C., does not have voting representation in the House and no senators represent the district’s more than 700,000 residents.

She said she was informed by the Navy in 2016 the Columbia would recognize residents of the District of Columbia “with this great honor and in particular our service members and veterans who have fought in every American war since our nation’s founding, all without voting representation in Congress.”

“It is fitting that it recognizes the jurisdiction that will become the 51st state of the United States of America,” Norton said to applause.

She later signed her initials that were welded onto a ceremonial plate.

U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the Quonset Point and Groton shipyards have grown over the past 30 years into “massive complexes.” A 200,000 square foot assembly building is going up at the Groton shipyard as part of an $850 million expansion to accommodate a significant increase in construction related to the Columbia and Virginia-class submarines.

Electric Boat can’t hire fast enough. It said in January it plans to hire more than 3,000 workers this year, a 20% increase over 2021 as U.S. military strategy faces rising threats in the North Atlantic from Russia and the South Pacific from China.

At 560 feet and displacing 20,810 tons, the District of Columbia will be the largest submarine ever built by the U.S., Electric Boat said. Its reactor will not require refueling during the lifetime of planned service, maximizing its time on deployment. In addition to the missiles the District of Columbia will carry, it will be armed with Mk 48 torpedoes and feature superior acoustic performance and state-of-the-art sensors to make it the most capable and quiet submarine ever built, according to Electric Boat.

The Navy’s fiscal year 2023 budget estimates the total cost of a 12-ship class of Columbia at $112.7 billion, according to an April report by the Congressional Research Service.

The research agency identified several risks, including a a delay in designing and building the lead Columbia-class boat that could jeopardize the Navy’s ability to have it ready for its first scheduled patrol in 2031, cost increases that could have an impact on funding of other Navy programs and potential supplier challenges related to building Columbia-class and Virginia-class submarines at the same time.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Gina Haspel Observed Waterboarding at CIA Black Site, Psychologist Testifies


CIA nominee Gina Haspel is seated for a confirmation hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, May 9, 2018 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)


Carol Rosenberg and Julian E. Barnes
Sat, June 4, 2022, 

WASHINGTON — During Gina Haspel’s confirmation hearing to become director of the CIA in 2018, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked her if she had overseen the interrogations of a Saudi prisoner, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, which included the use of a waterboard.

Haspel declined to answer, saying it was part of her classified career.

While there has been reporting about her oversight of a CIA black site in Thailand where al-Nashiri was waterboarded, and where Haspel wrote or authorized memos about his torture, the precise details of her work as the chief of base, the CIA officer who oversaw the prison, have been shrouded in official secrecy.

But testimony at a hearing last month in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, included a revelation about the former CIA director’s long and secretive career. James E. Mitchell, a psychologist who helped develop the agency’s interrogation program, testified that the chief of base at the time, whom he referred to as Z9A in accordance with court rules, watched while he and a teammate subjected al-Nashiri to “enhanced interrogation” that included waterboarding at the black site.

Z9A is the code name used in court for Haspel.

The CIA has never acknowledged Haspel’s work at the black site, and the use of the code name represented the court’s acceptance of an agency policy of not acknowledging state secrets — even those that have already been spilled. Former officials long ago revealed that she ran the black site in Thailand from October 2002 until December 2002, during the time al-Nashiri was being tortured, which Mitchell described in his testimony.

Guantánamo Bay is one of the few places where America is still wrestling with the legacy of torture in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Torture has loomed over the pretrial phase of the death penalty cases for years and is likely to continue to do so as hearings resume over the summer.

Defense teams have been asking military judges to exclude certain evidence from the war crimes trials of accused al-Qaida operatives as tainted by not just torture but also cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In May, that meant revisiting what happened nearly 20 years ago at the secret prison in Thailand.

Mitchell described how in late 2002, he and another CIA contract psychologist, John Bruce Jessen, waterboarded al-Nashiri, who is accused of orchestrating the bombing of the Navy destroyer USS Cole in 2000. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed in the attack.

During three separate sessions, Mitchell held a cloth over the man’s face and adjusted it to direct the water as Jessen poured.

Mitchell testified that al-Nashiri was so small that they thought he might slide out of his Velcro restraints during portions of the waterboarding. To let al-Nashiri breathe between pours, interrogators pivoted him 90 degrees, from lying on his back to a standing position, still strapped to a gurney.

The interrogation team shifted to other “coercive techniques,” including forcing the prisoner to spend time in a small confinement box. Mitchell said he had a “general memory of what was done” — the detainee, who was nude and sometimes hooded, was probably slapped and had the back of his head slammed into a burlap-covered wall — but testified that he did not have a “blow-by-blow recollection of any of that stuff.”

It was previously known that by the time al-Nashiri was waterboarded in late 2002, Haspel had taken over as the chief of base at the secret prison in Thailand. It has also been reported that she drafted cables relating what happened to al-Nashiri and what was learned during his interrogations and debriefings.

But Mitchell’s testimony went further. He testified that the chief of base observed the sessions, although she did not participate in them.

The law firm that employs Haspel, King & Spalding LLP, declined to comment and referred questions to the CIA, which also declined to comment.

Mitchell never mentioned the person by name. Instead, because she was in a clandestine role at the time, he was required to refer to the chief of base as Z9A, or, as one lawyer sounded it out, “Zulu Nine Alpha.”

The codes are part of the choreography of the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, where the court has a mute button to protect against inadvertent disclosures of classified information and prosecutors work with the CIA to keep official secrets out of the public record.

Prosecutors in the death penalty cases, working with members of the intelligence community, assigned alphanumeric codes to most CIA staff members who worked at the black sites. Nations where the CIA had prisons are referred to by numbers. For Mitchell’s hearing, prosecutors provided him with a secret list of names and alphanumerics — a key of sorts that lawyers in court called “a crosswalk.”

For example, Mitchell referred to the agency’s chief interrogator in 2002, who died not long after he oversaw some of al-Nashiri’s harshest interrogations, as NX2.

And although Haspel’s role as chief of base at the black site in Thailand is widely known, it is still considered a state secret.

The judge, Col. Lanny J. Acosta Jr., agreed to allow Mitchell to testify because the CIA had destroyed videotapes that defense lawyers argue showed the psychologists torturing and interrogating al-Nashiri and another prisoner at the black site in Thailand. Defense lawyers said that deprived them of potential evidence, including something they might have wanted to show a military jury deciding whether to impose a death penalty.

The disclosure that the CIA had destroyed the tapes — most of them showing Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee taken into custody and known to be tortured by the CIA after the Sept. 11 attacks — prompted the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the black site program.

Haspel has acknowledged her role in the destruction of those tapes as a chief of staff to the operations chief, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. At her confirmation hearing, she said, “I would also make clear that I did not appear on the tapes.”

Observers at the site in Thailand watched waterboarding and other interrogations via a closed-circuit video feed to a separate room. At one point, the CIA sent some staff members to the black site to watch the waterboarding of Zubaydah. But, Mitchell testified, Haspel was not among them.

The Senate Intelligence Committee study of the CIA program, only a part of which is public, said that interrogators wanted to stop using “enhanced interrogation techniques” on al-Nashiri because he was answering direct questions, but they were overruled by headquarters.

Al-Nashiri would also be tortured later, after Mitchell had taken him to a different CIA black site. Another interrogator revved a drill next to the naked detainee’s hooded head, apparently to try to get him to divulge al-Qaida plots. At another black site in 2004, the CIA infused a dietary supplement into his rectum for refusing to eat. His Navy lawyer has called the procedure rape.

At her confirmation hearing, Haspel pledged not to set up any similar interrogation programs.

© 2022 The New York Times Company

Putin has awakened a 'dark nationalism he is more and more dependent on,' says Russian political analyst

Matthew Loh
Fri, June 3, 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin is less afraid of anti-war protests than he is of a growing pro-war movement, wrote political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya.

Contributor/Getty Images

Vladimir Putin has started a nationalist movement that may backfire, said a political analyst.

Tatiana Stanovaya wrote that such nationalism could force Putin to be more aggressive policywise.

Stanovaya also outlined several assumptions by the West about Putin that she sought to debunk.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has "awakened a dark nationalism" within Russia that he has become increasingly dependent on, said a Russian political scholar and analyst.

"The truth is that Putin is more afraid of pro-war protests and has to take into account the eagerness of many Russians to see the destruction of what they call Ukrainian Nazis," wrote Tatiana Stanovaya — the founder of the political analysis firm R.Politik and a nonresident scholar of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — in an essay for Foreign Policy published on Wednesday.

Since the start of the Ukraine war, Putin has baselessly claimed that Russia's invasion is aimed at the "demilitarization and de-Nazification" of the country.

"This is extremely important: Putin has awakened a dark nationalism he is more and more dependent on," Stanovaya wrote, per the outlet.

She added, per Foreign Policy, that the Russian public's growing penchant for nationalism could eventually prompt Putin to escalate matters and become even more "hawkish and resolute."

"Whatever happens to Putin, the world will have to deal with this public aggression and anti-West, anti-liberal convictions that make Russia problematic for the West," she wrote, per the outlet.

The West's belief that Putin is worried about anti-war sentiment is one of several misguided assumptions about the Russian leader that Stanovaya sought to correct in her piece.

Per Foreign Policy, Stanovaya also wrote that the West is incorrect to assume that Putin has been purging his inner circle and senior officials for their failures in the war in Ukraine. She added that rumors of Putin's top officers being arrested have not come from verified sources and that she viewed such speculation with "extreme skepticism."

"Putin is likely upset and disappointed with his staff, but it's not his style to purge his inner circle unless serious crimes have been committed," Stanovaya wrote, per the outlet.

Regarding Putin's view of Russia's progress in the war, she wrote, per Foreign Policy: "In Putin's eyes, he is not losing this war. In fact, he likely believes he is winning — and he is happy to wait until Ukraine concedes that Russia is here forever."

DEMOCRACY NOW!

“Doubling Down”: How Minneapolis Elites Worked to Stop Police Reform After George Floyd’s Murder

This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.DONATE

GUESTS Robin Wonsley
longtime activist and Minneapolis’s first Black democratic socialist city councilmember.

LINKS Robin Wonsley Worlobah on Twitter

Wednesday marked two years since George Floyd was murdered by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, setting off worldwide protests against police violence. But has anything in Minneapolis changed? We spoke with longtime local activist Robin Wonsley Worlobah, who is also now Minneapolis’s first Black democratic socialist city councilmember. Wonsley Worlobah says the mayor has “not enacted any meaningful and effective oversight over one of the most dysfunctional, racist and violent policing departments in the country right now.” She says a big-business, pro-police coalition worked with politicians to build a multimillion-dollar campaign against the Black Lives Matter movement, successfully preventing any changes to the city’s police budget and public safety system. “If there was a way to go backwards, we’ve done it.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

This week marks two years since George Floyd was murdered by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. His death spurred a global movement for racial justice and intensified the push for police accountability and abolition. On Wednesday, the city of Minneapolis renamed the intersection where he was killed as George Perry Floyd Square. On the same day, members of Floyd’s family attended a White House ceremony where President Biden signed an executive order directing federal agencies to revise use-of-force policies, banning tactics like chokeholds and restricting practices like no-knock warrants, while establishing a national database of police misconduct. Biden’s executive order came as a reform bill, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, remains stalled in the Senate amidst Republican opposition.

On Wednesday, Juan González and I spoke with Robin Wonsley Worlobah. She’s a longtime activist in Minneapolis. Earlier this year, she became Minneapolis’s first Black democratic socialist city councilmember. She was part of a coalition successfully blocking the relocation of the 3rd Precinct police station, where Chauvin was based — which still sits vacant today. I began by asking Robin Wonsley where she was when she heard about George Floyd’s murder Memorial Day weekend in 2020.


ROBIN WONSLEY WORLOBAH: I was like many — you know, many residents at the time. I was, I believe, running errands when I first heard word of it, and then I had, you know, community members share the historic footage of Floyd be pinned against the ground, with Derek Chauvin, officer Derek Chauvin’s knee, you know, forcefully placed upon Floyd’s neck. That image, in itself, forced me to pull over, and I just remember being in a deep paralysis and shaking and crying.


And, you know, as you noted in my intro, I’ve been a organizer in Minneapolis. And unfortunately, a lot of my organizing work has revolved around police-related murders of Black people, from Jamar Clark to Philando Castile. And, you know, I was there with Philando Castile watching as St. Anthony and their officers washed the blood off the sidewalk, or the street, and now here I am watching George Floyd be killed, like millions of others around the world, and, of course, just was forced into a pause of, you know, all the things that have transpired that led to that moment, the failure of our leadership to really address the deep inequities that have been documented, here in Minneapolis specifically, for a number of years, especially around policing, and how, if we had better leadership, willing to exercise even the bare minimum of political will and political courage, especially with our police federation, with our officers, how we would not have had to endure the collective trauma of watching George Floyd be lynched, and then, basically, afterwards seeing our city burn nearly down because of this collective oppression. You know, Martin Luther King says, you know, the riots are the sounds of the oppressed.


You know, I just think there was so much that could have happened, that activists and residents had been organizing around clear demands, public safety demands, for a number of years that could have prevented that. And just the unknown of what was actually going to come in the wake of everything that transpired here in Minneapolis after George Floyd, and now being in this position of power and saying, two years later, we have not made much progress. Actually, if there was a way to go backwards, we’ve done it.


And that’s disheartening to say in this current moment where we’re honoring such a historic moment, in not only U.S. history but global history. As you noted, his murder sparked a national movement, one of the largest civil rights movements in U.S. history, and that will go on to prompt actions and protest in more than 50 countries around the world. And to be able to sit here as an elected official who ran, you know, in the wake of organizing for justice for George Floyd, being tear-gassed by our police in the midst of all that, and now have to see our leadership continue to fail to rise to the occasion to prevent another Black person from being murdered, another working-class person from being murdered — we have failed to rise to that occasion, even two years later, and it just makes you think: What does it take to get justice for Black lives at this point?


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask you — in the wake of those protests after George Floyd’s murder, there did seem to be some attempts by political leaders, not only in Minneapolis but around the country, to institute some changes. There was a reduction of the police department budget initially in Minneapolis. But as often happens with these protests, the system figures out a way to basically let the movement spend its energy and then seizes back its power. I’m wondering how that happened, specifically in Minneapolis. How did the movement backwards occur?


ROBIN WONSLEY WORLOBAH: I think, for one, I do want to note, there was never a reduction in police funding. There has been, you know, years of efforts from residents to say, “Let’s transition dollars from MPD into other, you know, holistic social services that actually deals with the root causes of crime.” And, you know, there have been very small investments into that work. But as we stand right now, of today, two years later, the police budget for the Minneapolis Police Department still stands close to $200 million.


And as you mentioned, the movement backwards, we really saw — in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the uprising, we saw this, you know, broad movement rallied around the demand to defund the police. You know, there was efforts by that coalition of organizations, Black-led organizations, to try to even put something on the ballot that would have allowed us to basically dismantle the police department as it currently stands and create a new Department of Public Safety, that would have, you know, not replicated many of the racist and violent components of policing as it currently stands.


And we had an unelected body, the Charter Commission. And we’ve seen this play out throughout all levels of government. You know, when we tried to pass 15 federally, we had a parliamentarian commission come in and say no. So we always have these unelected bodies that are able to assert themselves and block the changes that working-class people are demanding. We had that with the Charter Commission. They delayed that, and then that forced our movements to have to look into putting a charter amendment forward for the following year, which was our election year.


And what we saw was the status quo of Minneapolis fight tooth and nail to keep any transformative change around public safety from coming into fruition. And when I say “fight tooth and nail,” some of the things that they did was build a broad coalition of some of our most big business — powerful big business actors. We’re talking about the Chambers of Commerce, the downtown council. They formed these PACs where they pulled millions of dollars together to do, you know, repeated media blitzes, saying that, you know, this demand will get rid of police, it will defund the police. And also, we were seeing somewhat of a rise in community violence at the time, and they were leveraging, you know, the justifiable pain and trauma that many of our working-class Black residents were experiencing, you know, as it related to that community violence, and saying, “Look, you can’t have transformative change and be able to keep, like, your community safe. So you have to pick. So, either you’re going to keep the cops, to keep the bullets from flying, from keeping babies from dying, or you’re going to have like a new model of public safety. And that’s too risky. So let’s just keep the cops as they are.”


So, we had this whole powerful coalition. That was tied into an election year. So you had a number of candidates who were tying themselves to this anti-public safety amendment, you know, pro-policing agenda. Our current mayor was also at the helm of a lot of that and basically saying, “We don’t need to make any major changes. All we need to do is trust that our current police chief” — at that time, a well-respected Black man, you know, from St. Paul and Minneapolis. “We just need to trust him to carry out the reforms necessary to rein in the racist and terrorizing dynamics of MPD that led to George Floyd’s murder. Let’s just trust him to do that. Don’t trust these crazy activists.” And they were able to run a successful multimillion-dollar campaign, a fear campaign, to squash any type of efforts to make meaningful change around public safety.


But what I want to know is, while they were successful on November 2nd in defeating the public safety amendment and getting a pro-police majority on City Council, what has happened since is that whole thing has fallen apart. Their whole fear campaign, fear-based campaign promises have fallen apart. A month after we got elected, Chief Arradondo, the chief who was going to save the entire police department, retired. In February, Minneapolis residents watched another police killing of a young man by the name of Amir Locke while he was sleeping in an apartment at 6:30 a.m. Mind you, the officers involved in shooting that young man while he was sleeping have not been charged, and charges will not be brought forward to those officers, and they will likely come back on the force to police our communities.


We also have had a release of a damning human rights report from our State Department, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, which has basically said — you know, confirmed Minneapolis Police Department is entrenched in racist, misogynistic and violent practices, that MPD leadership, as well as city leadership — we’re talking about our current mayor, who’s been there for five years, many of my fellow councilmembers, who have been there for a number of years. This report names that all of those leaders were aware of these human right violations that were taking place in our department, and did nothing. So, we’ve had that report come out.


And we’ve had our current mayor even resist talks — has made public declarations to walk away from all conversations with our state Human Rights Department around entering into a consent decree. We still have a mayor that is championing resistance to any type of reform. We’ve passed a police contract that has further emboldened our officers, given them incentives, monetary incentives, with no level of accountability in which they are being forced to be beholden to by our current leadership.


So, we’ve seen, again, just regression and regression, after communities have continued to rise up and say we must do better. We need a new Department of Public Safety. We need to address the fact that Mayor Frey and many of our council leadership, you have not — and MPD leadership — you have not enacted any meaningful and effective oversight over one of the most dysfunctional, racist and violent policing departments in the country right now. And you, in turn, to those residents are still resisting every effort from councilmembers like myself who ran on a platform for public safety beyond policing. You’re resisting any efforts from community members, even state departments, to create any meaningful reforms. So, we’re just seeing a full doubling down on basically protecting MPD policing as it currently stands.

AMY GOODMAN: Robin Wonsley is a democratic socialist member of the Minneapolis City Council.

 

2 Years Since George Floyd's Murder, Is Your Company Still Awake?

Words are a start, but they're not enough. Now is the time to measure your company's progress.

BY MILAGROS PHILLIPS, AUTHOR, "CRACKING THE HEALER'S CODE"@RACELITERACY

A makeshift memorial to George Floyd near the spot where he died while in custody of the Minneapolis police.

 Getty Images

When George Floyd was murdered by Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis, on May 25, 2020, the world woke up to the reality of Black people in America. The U.S. and the world were traumatized by his murder and were haunted by his last words, "I can't breathe!" His murder prompted protests around the world. It woke the world to inequalities and inequities in ways nothing else had done up to that point.

In the shock of the horror, companies committed to equity with renewed vigor. What did your company pledge to do differently? How well have you done with that pledge? How have your employees faired? Are you still awake? When it comes to racial equity, how much has your company changed?

Did George Floyd's death bring about a change of mind or a change of heart? The difference is that a change of mind can be temporary, as the mind wanders back to its familiar patterns and comforts. A change of heart, on the other hand, has lasting power. A change of heart helps us create life-altering, work-altering experiences by recognizing and amending the mistakes of the past. A change of heart generates new attitudes, develops new policies, and maintains the improvements made.

I remember co-presenting a seminar for members of Congress at which one of the participants, a seasoned politician, stood up to say, "I had no idea how some of the laws we had made were hurting African-American families." At that moment, he announced that he wanted to create a committee to look into changing some of those laws. He invited members of both sides of the aisle. He called each member by name and asked them to join him in this endeavor.

A change of heart doesn't require legislation. On the contrary, when there's a change of heart, people are compelled to do the right thing. Indeed, a kind of haunting assails people of good conscience when they don't do what they know to be correct.

So, in the aftermath of Floyd's murder, did you have a change of mind or a change of heart? You will know by whether you made the changes you committed to and or whether you have reverted to your previous self. A change of heart keeps us awake and vigilant to our thoughts, words, and behavior.

It's important to remember that only a few George Floyd-type murders make the news. Indeed, had it not been for a teenage girl, who bravely posted what she had seen on social media, we might not have known the truth about what happened to Floyd.

What pledge did your company make after May 2020? How much more committed to your DEI initiative is your organization? What changes have you made since then? What's left to be done now? How are you and your employees remaining racially sober? On the first Monday of every month, organizations committed to racial sobriety gather to learn, share stories, and consider best practices at a race-literacy lunch and learn. It is a way to train their employees on a new topic every month and keep the equity conversation live.

George Floyd has passed on to the ancestral realm, but those of us who are here are responsible for our personal and collective transformation. So, what has your organization done, and what are you doing today to change our collective tomorrow?

Alaa is now in the third month of his hunger strike

On April 2, 2022, and after years of unlawful imprisonment, mistreatment, and torture, Egyptian activist, blogger, and software developer Alaa Abd El-Fattah shaved his head and started a hunger strike on the first day of Ramadan. A few days later, on April 11, Alaa’s family announced that he had become a British citizen through his mother.

Three months into the hunger strike, the life and fate of Alaa are at stake. His health is rapidly and significantly deteriorating and he ​​faces the risk of death unless the United Kingdom Foreign Office immediately intervenes for his protection and acts now to save his life.

While Alaa was recently transferred to the new Wadi el-Natrun prison complex where he “slept on a mattress for the first time in years” and received books and writing materials, he has yet to receive a UK consular visit, is still denied the ability to communicate with his UK lawyers, and is still asking for a judge to investigate the complaints he and his family have filed over his unjust detention.

A central figure in technology and political activism in his country since the early 2000s, and a global voice during the Arab uprisings, Egyptian authorities have attempted to silence Alaa through unlawful imprisonment for most of the last 10 years.

Alaa has faced all manner of torture and inhumane treatment, and his friends and family have been subject to harassment, intimidation, and even detainment themselves. His most recent sentencing does not account for the more than two years Alaa has already spent in prison awaiting trial, confined to a small cell inside Cairo’s infamous Tora maximum security prison without a clock, books, or exercise, and only allowed out of his cell for court appearances and visitations. Alaa’s sentence ends on January 3, 2027.

Join us is calling on Egypt to #FreeAlaa, along with the thousands of other human rights defenders wrongfully TAKE ACTION

WHAT YOU CAN DO

◈ Spread Alaa’s message ◈

Egyptian authorities have attempted to force Alaa into silence, but together we can ensure his voice is heard. You can support the work to #FreeAlaa by writing to your MP, purchasing his new book, “You Have Not Yet Been Defeated,” watching and sharing the virtual book reading, and using #FreeAlaa on social media to engage in conversation around Alaa’s vision.

ALAA’S STORY

CAMPAIGN UPDATES

ALAA IS NOW A BRITISH CITIZEN, WRITE TO YOUR MP AND CALL FOR HIS RELEASE!

Join Access Now and our partners around the world in calling on Egypt’s leaders to immediately and unconditionally #FreeAlaa, along with the thousands of other detained activists and human rights defenders targeted for exercising their fundamental rights.

• TWEET TO #FREEALAA

Bolivian artist paints Indigenous woman like the Mona Lisa
CGTN

Bolivian artist Claudia Callizaya has a unique take on portraiture, and her newest creation outfits a woman with a similar steady gaze as the famous Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci, with a traditional bowler hat worn by Bolivia’s cholitas - Indigenous Aymara and Quechua women.

The woman featured in Callizaya’s portrait is a local indigenous woman featured in a woven Andean shawl.

The artist says “I painted the Mona Lisa, with earrings, a Cholita hat, and a blanket. And finally now I’m painting her ‘aguayo’. Dressing the Mona Lisa like an Andean woman, like a woman from the highlands, she represents women from all over the world.”

Why ditching Canada’s constitutional monarchy is nearly impossible

 

CBC News: The National

Andrew Chang explores the challenging process for Canada to sever its ties with the British monarchy and the implications it would have on Indigenous communities across the country.

#Canada #Monarchy #BritishMonarchy