Life in Central America

Jockeys can now have advertising on their britches

A group of jockeys filed and won a federal lawsuit allowing them to have corporate advertising on their racing pants. They told the court this was a First Amendment issue, their right to free speech. Of course this freedom could earn them $30,000 each.

There are some limitations:

1. They cannot advertise gambling (at a racetrack?)
   
2. A jockey’s advertising cannot conflict with the track’s own sponsors (what about free speech?)
   
3. The advertising cannot be inappropriate (perhaps a label saying, “Ride me.”)
   

Thanks to the Hightower Lowdown for this little jewel.

Lebanese are hooked on cell phones

From the NY Times

Lebanon is a nation of cellphone addicts. No place is too public, seemingly no activity too private to interrupt with a cellphone conversation.

In virtually any Arab capital, the person in a restaurant or airplane lounge bellowing into a cellphone far too loudly will almost invariably speak with a Lebanese accent.

Lebanese rarely hesitate to answer their phones even in the middle of movies.

They answer during funerals.

"It is an epidemic that has gone wild, no person is immune," said Hassan Hammoud, a professor of sociology at the Lebanese American University. "It comes from the fact that the Lebanese are very image conscious, and that it is a consumer society."

There are something over 800,000 cellphone numbers, meaning that about 24 percent of Lebanese own one. Of those, about a third constitute heavy users, Mr. Berro said. He pointed out that roughly the same percentage of Lebanese use the Internet and circulate through Beirut's expensive restaurants, where ringing cellphones sometimes seem to overwhelm the Muzak as background noise.

In a word, the affluent. And there is no way they are going to give up their cell phones; high prices mean nothing to them.
-----
Ticos are addicted too, even tho most of them don't have as much money. But they too use it as a status symbol, to show people in public places that they have important conversations to take care of - and to show off their money. They make 3 million calls a month, which is a lot for such a small country.

Eyeball jewelery

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Body piercing and tattoos make way -- the latest fashion trend to hit the Netherlands is eyeball jewellery. [note the British spelling]

Dutch eye surgeons have implanted tiny pieces of jewellery called "JewelEye" in the mucous membrane of the eyes of six women and one man in cosmetic surgery pioneered by an ophthalmic surgery research and development institute in Rotterdam.

The procedure involves inserting a 3.5 mm (0.13 inch) wide piece of specially developed jewellery -- the range includes a glittering half-moon or heart -- into the eye's mucous membrane under local anaesthetic at a cost of 500 to 1,000 euros (270 to 540 pounds).

"In my view it is a little more subtle than (body) piercing. It is a bit of a fun thing and a very personal thing for people," said Gerrit Melles, director of the Netherlands Institute for Innovative Ocular Surgery (www.NIIOC.nl).

Naming babies after products

The Scranton, Pennsylvania Tribune reports on a new trend: parents naming their babies after products. A recent study of four million babies born in 2000 revealed that boy's names included Chevy, Camry, Courviosier, Dodge, Darvon, and Ronrico.

Girls were named Armani, Nautica, Cateras (a Cadillac), and Cartier.

Ayman al-Zawahiri

From the New Yorker Magazine: THE MAN BEHIND BIN LADEN How an Egyptian doctor became a master of terror.

We talk a lot about terrorists, without knowing who we are taking about. This is not a good thing. We need to know the enemy.

The real enemy, it seems to me, is religious fundamentalism - the Islamic variety, or the Christian variety, or even the Jewish variety. (The Christian conservatives and the Jewish conservatives are now allies, the Islamic conservatives have got that right.)

However, Islamic terrorism is the most immediate threat, as everyone will agree. But the US military, or any military, cannot cope with the passionate religiousity of the insurgents. The Bush Administration is experiencing the type of military/political/religious standoff experienced by the Crusaders.

Hopefully, we can become more enlightened than the Crusaders were. And this article in The New Yorker is a good introduction to this unpleasant subject. It's an introduction to the different kind of world we would rather not know about, but have to know about if we are going to survive.
------
In 1950, the year before Ayman al-Zawahiri was born, Sayyid Qutb, a well-known literary critic in Cairo, returned home after spending two years at Colorado State College of Education, in Greeley. In Colorado, however, Qutb encountered a postwar America unlike the one he had found in books and seen in Hollywood films. "It is astonishing to realize, despite his advanced education and his perfectionism, how primitive the American really is in his views on life," Qutb wrote upon his return to Egypt. "His behavior reminds us of the era of the caveman. He is primitive in the way he lusts after power, ignoring ideals and manners and principles."

Qutb returned to Egypt a radically changed man. In what he saw as the spiritual wasteland of America, he re-created himself as a militant Muslim, and he came back to Egypt with the vision of an Islam that would throw off the vulgar influences of the West. Islamic society had to be purified, and the only mechanism powerful enough to cleanse it was the ancient and bloody instrument of jihad.

Stories about Sayyid Qutb's suffering in prison have formed a kind of Passion play for Islamic fundamentalists. Qutb had a high fever when he was arrested, but the state-security officers handcuffed him and took him to prison. He fainted several times on the way. For several hours, he was kept in a cell with vicious dogs, and then, during long periods of interrogation, he was beaten. His trial was overseen by three judges, one of whom was a future President of Egypt, Anwar al-Sadat. In the courtroom, Qutb ripped off his shirt to display the marks of torture. The judges sentenced him to life in prison but, when Qutb's health deteriorated further, reduced that to fifteen years. He suffered chronic bouts of angina, and it is likely that he contracted tuberculosis in the prison hospital.

One line of thinking proposes that America's tragedy on September 11th was born in the prisons of Egypt. Human-rights advocates in Cairo argue that torture created an appetite for revenge, first in Sayyid Qutb and later in his acolytes, including Ayman al-Zawahiri. The main target of their wrath was the secular Egyptian government, but a powerful current of anger was directed toward the West, which they saw as an enabling force behind the repressive regime. They held the West responsible for corrupting and humiliating Islamic society. Indeed, the theme of humiliation, which is the essence of torture, is important to understanding the Islamists' rage against the West. Egypt's prisons became a factory for producing militants whose need for retribution—they called it "justice"—was all-consuming.

Qutb begins, "Mankind today is on the brink of a precipice. Humanity is threatened not only by nuclear annihilation but by the absence of values. The West has lost its vitality, and Marxism has failed. At this crucial and bewildering juncture, the turn of Islam and the Muslim community has arrived."The Muslim community has long ago vanished from existence," he contends. "It is crushed under the weight of those false laws and customs which are not even remotely related to Islamic teachings."

Qutb was hanged by Nasser on August 29, 1966. Ayman al-Zawahiri was then 15 years old.
---
The traumatic experiences suffered by Zawahiri during his three years in prison transformed him from a relative moderate in the Islamist underground into a violent extremist. Video footage that was shot during the opening day of the trial, December 4, 1982, shows the three hundred defendants, illuminated by the lights of TV cameras, chanting, praying, and calling out desperately to family members. Finally, the camera settles on Zawahiri, who stands apart from the chaos with a look of solemn, focussed intensity. Thirty-one years old, he is wearing a white robe and has a gray scarf thrown over his shoulder.

At a signal, the other prisoners fall silent, and Zawahiri cries out, "Now we want to speak to the whole world! Who are we? Who are we? Why they bring us here, and what we want to say? About the first question, we are Muslims! We are Muslims who believe in their religion! We are Muslims who believe in their religion, both in ideology and practice, and hence we tried our best to establish an Islamic state and an Islamic society!"

The other defendants chant, in Arabic, "There is no god but God!"

Zawahiri continues, in a fiercely repetitive cadence, "We are not sorry, we are not sorry for what we have done for our religion, and we have sacrificed, and we stand ready to make more sacrifices!"

The others shout, "There is no god but God!"

Zawahiri continues,"We are here—the real Islamic front and the real Islamic opposition against Zionism, Communism, and imperialism!" He pauses, then: "And now, as an answer to the second question, Why did they bring us here? They bring us here for two reasons! First, they are trying to abolish the outstanding Islamic movement . . . and, secondly, to complete the conspiracy of evacuating the area in preparation for the Zionist infiltration."

The others cry out, "We will not sacrifice the blood of the Muslims for the Americans and the Jews!"

The prisoners pull off their shoes and raise their robes to expose the marks of torture. Zawahiri talks about the torture that took place in the "dirty Egyptian jails . . . where we suffered the severest inhuman treatment. There they kicked us, they beat us, they whipped us with electric cables, they shocked us with electricity! They shocked us with electricity! And they used the wild dogs! And they used the wild dogs! And they hung us over the edges of the doors"—here he bends over to demonstrate—"with our hands tied at the back! They arrested the wives, the mothers, the fathers, the sisters, and the sons!"

The defendants chant, "The army of Muhammad will return, and we will defeat the Jews!"
------
These short excerpts will give you a feel for the context of the struggle we are in, whether we like it or not.

This is a much longer article, and could serve as the text for a college-level course, or a high-school course, if our educational system were more sophisticated. Since we cannot rely on this, we will have to educate ourselves.

Talking to our children about Jesus – from Rabbi Block

Thanks to Mark Rosen for this link

Given the controversy that has surrounded the forthcoming release of Mel Gibson’s film, “The Passion of the Christ,” and the possibility that our children may have questions, or even be accused of being a “Christ-killer,” the following information may prove helpful. It is not usable, as written, for every age group, but it contains some basics that every Jew should know.

Q: Who was Jesus?
A: A Jew who lived and died in the land of Israel (Palestine) in the first century CE (nearly 2000 years ago) when the land was under Roman rule.

Q: What is meant by “Jesus Christ?”
A: “Christ” is Greek for “messiah,” a Hebrew word meaning “anointed one,” someone specially selected and appointed by God. A small group of followers believed that Jesus was the messiah whose coming, some believed, was predicted in the Jewish bible. Because “Jesus Christ” is a term that means one believes Jesus was the messiah, Jews do not use that term.

Q: Did the Jews of Jesus’ time accept him as the Jewish messiah?
A: Only a small handful. Almost no Jews accepted Jesus as the Jewish messiah then or since.

Q: Why not?
A: According to Jewish tradition, the messiah was to accomplish certain tasks:
Overthrowing Roman rule in Palestine and restoring Jewish sovereignty under a king descended from King David; bringing about peace and justice throughout the world, both among people and in nature; gathering in all Jews everywhere to the land of Israel; and the resurrection (rebirth) of all Jews who had died or, at least, the righteous among them. These, too, would be gathered into the land of Israel. Jesus lived and died without any of these things happening.

Q: What do Jews believe about Jesus?
A: That he was born, lived, and died a Jew. That he was a good, admirable person, respected as a teacher and role model, but not the messiah or “the son of God” in any way different from other human beings. Judaism teaches that all people are children of God.

Q: Who killed Jesus?
A: Jesus was executed by the Roman authorities upon the order of the Roman procurator (ruler) of Palestine, Pontius Pilate. The method of execution, crucifixion, was used exclusively by the Romans.

Q: Why would the Romans have wanted to kill Jesus?
A: Because he claimed to be, or his followers claimed him to be, the Jewish messiah, whose first goal would be overthrowing Roman rule. While Jews would have regarded that as a religious achievement, the Romans would have seen it as a political crime. The Romans routinely executed anyone who might have been a potential threat to their rule.

Q: Did Jews have anything to do with Jesus’ death?
A: We cannot know for sure. The New Testament (the Christian bible) contains different versions of “the Passion,” the events of the last days of Jesus’ life. These accounts contain accusations that specific Jews, such as the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas, “Jewish authorities,” “the [Jewish] mob, or “the Jews” had some degree of involvement in Jesus’ condemnation. All the gospels agree, however, that the Romans, not the Jews, killed Jesus.

Q: Are the anti-Jewish accusations true?
A: Modern bible scholars, both Christian and Jewish, believe that some of these accusations are exaggerated and others are simply false. While the New Testament portrays Pontius Pilate as weak, afraid of a Jewish mob, and wanting to find Jesus innocent, Roman historical accounts from that period show that he was a brutal tyrant, certainly not one who was intimidated by Jews. Also, Jewish officials of the time, such as the high priest, were Roman appointees, not the chosen representatives of the Jewish community.

Q: Why would the authors of the New Testament want to put blame on Jews if they did not deserve it?
A: In the first and second centuries CE, when these accounts were written, Christians were trying to win the favor of Roman authorities. To do this, they needed to show two things: that Christians had only peaceable intentions toward Rome, unlike the Jews of Palestine who had revolted twice against Rome; and that Jesus, whom they revered as “Christ,” was not a criminal, as his crucifixion would suggest, but an innocent man who was executed due to Jewish pressure, not Roman justice.

Q: If the Romans killed Jesus, why do some people accuse Jews of being “Christ-killers?”
A: People who say such things are ignorant and cruel. They are repeating lies that others have taught them. These lies come from earlier centuries when Christians were taught to hate Jews because they refused to accept Jesus as Christ. The Catholic Church and other Christian groups have apologized for this terrible history. They have made great efforts to teach others that Judaism is to be respected and that, whatever happened 2000 years ago, Jews today are not to be blamed for Jesus’ death.

Q: What’s the matter with Gibson’s film?
A: According to Christian and Jewish scholars who have seen it in private screenings, the film portrays Jewish characters as evil, sinister, and violent people, often dressed in black, some with the stereotypical “hooked nose.” In its portrayal of Jews and in its extreme violence, the film goes far beyond what is found in the New Testament and bases itself on “visions” and other sources that lack credibility.

While Christians have every right to make films about the life and death of Jesus, and Jews should be extremely respectful of Christian affirmations of their faith, those who make such films cannot responsibly ignore the history of Passion plays and presentations, which have led to hatred, persecution, and violence against Jews. Unfortunately, Gibson has shown little awareness of or sensitivity to this awful history.

Q: What should I do if a Christian friend sends me material that praises the film and denies that it is anti-Semitic?
A: You may wish to share one or more of the materials that I have sent out, including essays by Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish scholars, expressing their concerns or the letter signed by myself and two prominent local Christian clergy.

Interview with an assassin

I read this article in the NACLA journal (North American Congress on Latin America). I wanted to share it with you. It's long, but I think it's a worthwile read - a glimpse into a world of violence.

This may cause all you secure Americans realize that the rest of the world is not so secure. It's not so easy to hire assassins in the US, but it is easy elsewhere. Their principal clients are other family members, and in her case, jealous wives.
---------
The following interview was conducted by photojournalist Jason P. Howe in July 2003 in southern Colombia. The interviewee, who we have named Lorena, requested that her exact location and true identity not be revealed. Lorena, 23, lives with her four-year-old daughter in Colombia’s Amazon region. She has been a member of the right-wing paramilitary group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), for two and a half years. The AUC control the town where she lives and several villages in the area. Most of the region’s other towns and villages have been controlled by the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) for decades.

Paramilitaries moved south into Lorena’s region in the late 1990s, intent on seizing rebel-controlled territory—particularly valuable coca-producing areas. By the end of 2001, after perpetrating several massacres, paramilitaries established a prominent presence in numerous towns throughout the region. The U.S.-backed Colombian Army colluded with the paramilitaries during this offensive.

Also in 2001, there was a change in paramilitary tactics. Instead of large-scale massacres, they began selectively assassinating people whose names appeared on death lists, often provided by rebel deserters or military intelligence. AUC leader Carlos Castaño devised this new strategy to avoid the negative publicity generated by massacres. It was with this tactical shift that Lorena went from being a paramilitary soldier to an assassin.

Meanwhile, local peasants and townsfolk continue to live their lives amid the violence. And turning to the only viable economic opportunity in the region—coca growing—has further drawn the rural population of southern Colombia into the conflict. Local residents caught in the crossfire have few options: endure the violence, flee the violence or join the violence.

In a region where respect is only afforded at gunpoint, the rebels and paramilitaries swell their ranks with youths, like Lorena, eager to support and empower themselves. Many of these young people have lived their entire lives in the midst of a conflict whose principal victim has been the civilian population. Lorena is a tragic and extreme example of how the systemic violence perpetrated by the guerrillas, the paramilitaries and the Colombian Army adversely affects Colombia’s rural youth.

Lorena checks her handgun as her daughter and nieces play on the bed. (Jason P. Howe)

How many years have you been with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)?

Two and a half years. I have known the AUC since they arrived in this area, but I have only worked with them for two and a half years.

What are the AUC fighting for?

More than anything, the fight here is for money and that comes from coca. The group with the most money and people will be the strongest. The AUC is financed by coca and so is the FARC. As a result, there is fighting to take over towns and to control the people and the money. There is lots of combat and many deaths. That’s the motive—coca and money.

Why are you working with the AUC and not the FARC?

I don’t know. I feel that I like the AUC and the FARC live mainly in the jungle, although there are a lot of women on the side of the FARC. But the life of the guerrillas is more difficult. It’s more difficult because they cannot come to the villages; they have to stay in the mountains. The army and the AUC are always after them.

So if the FARC were stronger and the life was easier, would you fight for them?

If it could be vice versa? I don’t know. The people have never liked the guerrillas because of the extortion.

Are the paramilitaries fighting against the government?

Against the government? No. The AUC and the army are both fighting against the FARC. They say they fight each other and they have had some encounters, but only when troops are lost. But usually we coordinate with them because we have the same cause.

Do the AUC receive any information or help from the army?

Yes. Depending on where we are fighting, we receive assistance. They send helicopters, but only sometimes.

How did you first make contact with the AUC?

They arrived in numbers on the river. At first, people were scared because they thought the paramilitaries had arrived to kill whomever. But then I made friends with some of the guys. They spoke very well, treated people well and were very proud. Then I became a friend of the commander. They needed collaboration from the people in the villages, so I told them who were guerrillas and who weren’t and other things. So when I met the AUC, I left my studies to join them. I entered their training school.

The [Colombian] army’s school?

No, the AUC schools are run by people who have left or are retired from the army. It’s tough training, like in the army, and if you don’t pass the training you are killed. The first thing you learn is how to handle 7.62 and 5.56 mm weapons.

Why did you join the AUC?

I simply joined to see if I had the capacity to kill someone. More than anything else, that’s why I joined the AUC. I also wanted to learn how they lived. Living and sleeping in the jungle away from home…. Sometimes you have a great time… and people respect you when you are in camouflage and have your rifle. Whereas, when you are here [as a civilian] there is no respect. But in the jungle, they respect you for what you have on. They are afraid of you because they know if they raise their voice at you or do something you don’t like, you may shoot them, kill them or something like that.

Do you think fear is the same as respect?

For the civilians? Yes. They have fear and at the same time they have respect, because we are in control. Everybody is distinguished by their rank. We have commanders, financiers and patrollers.

In some other societies people are respected for being kind or generous, but here people respect you because you have a bigger gun. Do you think that is sad?

Well yes, because they know that if they offend the person with the gun they can be killed. Because [the paramilitaries] don’t care about killing a person, it doesn’t bother them. They don’t feel the pain of others. They just want respect. Yes, it’s always sad. How can it not be sad? There’s pain. But you are yourself or nobody, and you want respect.

Assassinated teacher is viewed for the last time

Have you been in combat?

Yes, I was in combat twice. Once when [the FARC] killed 28 of my companions including a woman and another time when they killed 15. After that I took a break. Now I am working with the urban militia.

How was your first time in combat?

I was nervous, but my companions gave me a lot of support. They told me we have to press forward, that we have to kill them or they will kill us. It’s my life or theirs. We have to defend ourselves. That’s what we learned during the three months of training school. They trained us very well.

Was your second time in combat much easier?

Sure, the second time it was very easy, I was not scared or nervous. With time, you know how to move. Only, you don’t know where the first shot is coming from. Once you are in position it’s O.K., you are not nervous, you’re just shooting ahead.

And now you work for the AUC in what way?

Right now, I don’t really get involved. I just collaborate. I am from here and if I leave the organization, [the AUC] will kill me. I have to speak with the bosses and they use me sometimes when they need to kill someone or investigate people or take people from the village.

How many people are killed in this town?

Right now there aren’t many deaths, an average of three or four a day. But when there are many killings, it’s like five or seven.

How many people have you killed?

In total, I have killed 23 people with my own hands.

How did you feel when you killed the first person?

When I killed the first person, I was afraid, I was scared. I killed the first person just to see if I could. But there is an obligation to kill. If you don’t, they kill you. That’s why the first was very hard, because the person I killed was kneeling down begging not to be killed. The person was crying, saying, “Don’t kill me. I have children.” That’s why it was difficult and sad. If you don’t kill that person, someone else from the AUC will come to kill you. So in that case, you must kill to not be killed. After the killing you keep trembling. You can’t eat or talk to anyone. I was at home, but I kept imagining the person begging not to be killed. I shut myself inside, but with time I forgot everything. The superiors always say, “Don’t worry, that was just the first time. When you kill the second one, it will all be O.K.” But you keep trembling.

Was the second time much easier?

The second time is only a bit easier, but as they say here, “If you can kill one, you can kill many more.” You have to lose the fear. Now I am still killing and nothing happens. I feel normal. Before I had an obligation to kill, I was sent to kill. But once I left the organization I was not obligated. I only do the job for money. Now I get paid per job. With them I was paid monthly; it didn’t matter how many I killed. But now when I do a job, I get paid cash. It doesn’t matter what the problem is. When they pay me and tell me to kill, that’s what I do.

So the reality of the situation is that now you kill for cash?

Yes. If someone gives me enough money to kill someone, I do it. Mainly it is women who pay. Why? Because they are jealous that their husband is seeing someone else.

How do you kill?

I use a gun. I take a motorbike and I go to see the target and I shoot them in the head, and then I leave. Sometimes I use a knife, but with a knife it’s more difficult because you need more strength and so you need others to help. So, it is much easier to put a bullet in the head.

How much money do you get paid?

The maximum I get is US$500, but it’s always more than US$300.

Have you killed people you know?

Yes, I’ve known them. More than anything they were friends. But I did it because the people who ordered me to kill had investigated them a lot.

You have killed your friends?

Yes, because in one situation they were going to kill me. They told me to take care because they worked for the other side and had connections with the guerrillas. And so it was my life or theirs. So I asked permission to do it, which [the AUC] gave me. [The AUC] investigated and it came out positive that [my friends] worked for the guerrillas, so I killed them. It was very painful for me [to kill one friend]. I was at the burial and at the vigil. It hurt me to see his mother crying, knowing I was the one guilty of having caused that. That was very painful. But it’s your life and you’re taught in the school: First you, then the others.

If anyone in your family were with the guerrillas, would you kill him or her?

If anyone in my family were with the guerrillas? I don’t know how to answer. But I believe yes, if they had the capacity to kill, even though they are family. You learn that nothing in this life is certain.

So nobody’s life is more important than yours?

My life, my parents, my daughter and close family are very important. But the distant family, like cousins, nieces, if they were on the other side? No, because they would kill me.

What does your family say about your work?

Well, my family, they advise me not to do this. They ask me if I regret what I have done. My mother and father; but more my mother. She gives me a lot of advice because it hurts her that I am like this. But after a while I get annoyed with her and say it is my life and this is the way I am and will be.

Do you think more violence in this country is the solution? For example, do you think your work helps the situation?

I help people, and those people have no more problems with their husbands. And in my case, I am O.K., because I get paid. The situation in Colombia is extreme, and Colombia is one of the most violent countries. I don’t think that this situation will be solved.

If you had the same opportunities again, what would you do? With everything you know now, would you do the same things?

Maybe not. Maybe I don’t want to continue with this life. Maybe I want to put it to one side, but I don’t know. Maybe yes, maybe no. I want to change my life. Right now I’m tired, and it hurts to have killed so many people. Before I was obligated, but now it’s just for money, and the money is everything. But I’d like to get out of here and go somewhere else, have good work and make progress. Because I reached the 11th grade, I can go to the university and carry on studying. I don’t know.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jason P. Howe is a photojournalist who has worked extensively in Colombia. His work is online and can be viewed at www.conflictpics.co.uk.

Wal-Mart in Glendale, Arizona

From the Hightower Lowdown, August, 2003

Kathleen Lewis was stunned to learn in 2001 that her community of Glendale, Arizona was about to be Wal-Martized. It was a sneak attack. A local developer in Glendale, a middle-class suburb of Phoenix, had earlier announced to intention to build a “neighborhood shopping plaza” promising it would be a “visual oasis” of shops and restaurants. Sure, okay, said the city council, and few folks paid any attention, until … KA-BLAM! With the deal sealed, the developer dropped the bomb: the anchor “shop” in the development was to be Wal-Mart. Not a mere store either, but a SuperCenter.

Kathleen Lewis considers herself an conservative, a Republican even, and was certainly a supporter of free enterprise. But this wasn’t free enterprise – it was corporate bullying. “One thing I know,” says Kathleen, “is the difference between right and wrong.” Around their kitchen tables, Kathleen and other mad-as-hellers, who had not previously considered themselves to be rebels, organized the Glendale Rebellion.

Kathleen’s local shop, the Headlines Styling and Barbering Service, became the headquarters for their new group, the Glendale Citizens for Responsible Development. And thanks to their grassroots agitation, the city council withdrew its zoning approval for the project, citing the obvious fact that it had been lied to.

“Unfair,” screeched Wal-Mart operatives. And, in a remarkably obtuse bit of irony, the autocratic behemoth demanded something it had already denied the people: democracy. It called for a city-wide referendum on the project, hired a lobbyist to direct its campaign, and proceeded to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into slick ads, a special 5-minute video mailed to 20,000 homes, and other tactics, including the mudslinging denigration of opponents.

Against this show of corporate firepower, the Glendale group had only $8,600 to spend, but it muscled a wealth of people power and democratic determination. As Election Day approached, Wal-Mart got goosey about its chances and rushed to court to demand a postponement. Yes, a postponement of an election that it had set.

Buts the court nixed the ploy, and election was held, the turnout was twice what is usually is … and WalMart was stunned that the tally wasn’t even close – Glendale voted 60 to 40 against being Wal-Martized.

More stunning was that this was the tenth time in three years that coalitions had come together in various Arizona cities and stopped Wal-Mart stores. Arizona!

The kleptocrats have taken over

I stole this directly from the Hightower Lowdown, written by Jim Hightower and Philip Frazer, the August 2003 issue. He likes the word kleptocrat, but in the last century these guys were called plutocrats. It amounts to the same thing: robber barons, but the kleptocrats are more sophisticated, they control the media.

First, he defines kleptocrat: 1. A nation ruled by thieves. 2. A government characterized by the practice of transferring money from the many to the few. 3. A ruling class of moneyed elites that usurps liberty, justice, sovereignty, and other democratic rights from the people. 4. The USA in 2003

The kleptocrats have taken over. Look at America’s leadership today – not just political, but corporate too. Tell me you wouldn’t trade the whole mess of them for one good kindergarten teacher. When looking at them, I can’t help mumbling to myself: 100,000 sperm and you were the fastest?

Yes, they’re in charge! We live in the wealthiest country in history - a country of boundless possibilities, a country committed to democratic ideals, a country with the potential for spectacular human achievement – but we find ourselves ruled (politically, economically, culturally, and ethically) by a confederacy of kleptocrats.

A couple of years ago, Japanese police discovered more than 400 pieces of women’s underwear in the home of Sadao Ushimora, a fellow who was a prominent official in Japan’s finance ministry at the time. Mr. Ushimura proclaimed total innocence of any possible scandal or perversion, explaining: “I picked up all the lingerie on the streets by pure chance.”

We still have our underwear in American, but we’ve been stripped of a garment far more delicate and precious: our democracy. The essence of democracy – our power to control decisions that affect us – has steadily and quietly been pilfered by corporate kleptocrats. They have collected up our democratic powers piece by piece, hoarding them in the privacy of their fiefdoms. These corporate elites (fully abetted by the governmental elites they have elected) now effectively control the decisions that affect We the People - everything from public-spending priorities to environmental degradation, wages to war, what’s on the “news”, to who gets elected.

The Leave No Child Behind Act

I read an article in the New York times recently that supported this act. I queried the other members of my family about it, because all of them are school teachers, or have been. They were all critical of the act, and all the special testing that was killing them. I was especially looking forward to the response from my nephew Stan, who married a special Ed teacher. Here it is, and as you can see, he can hardly restrain himself.
-----------
I'll be answering because this topic tends to make Barbara froth at the mouth. I can stay a little cooler because it's not my professional standards that are under criticism.

The Act may sound good to uninformed laymen, but all it accomplishes is laying the blame for the poor showing of some students on the teachers. I doubt that the politicians who enacted this ridiculous piece of drivel have ever spent an hour in front of the blackboard. Here is their simplistic solution. If a teacher's students don't do well, fire the teacher. Eventually you'll either find the teacher who can work with the students, or you'll run out of teachers.

Would it not make more sense to actually give the schools and teachers the funding they require. We're not only talking paychecks here. Many school systems can't afford up to date textbooks for their students. Some can't even furnish proper amounts of paper. Teachers will actually buy school supplies out of their own pockets and on what they get paid, those pockets aren't all that deep. Tax time is coming up and I'm looking over Barbara's W-2. She has a Master's in Education and 7 years experience and what she makes is appalling. I wouldn't do it for that much. Salaries for this year were frozen because the funding wasn't there. Not that the increase would have been all that astronomical. Missouri is hardly alone in this. The investment we make in our own future is laughable at best. I have seen blue collar workers treated with more respect than teachers get from the school boards and local citizenry.

Let's not forget our politicians, they may be all for better education while campaigning, but then they're cutting budgets when in office. As for Special Ed, Barbara's kids, I can only speak for the situation in Missouri because that's the system I can observe. I would imagine that most states are reasonably similar though. Missouri just made it that much harder to qualify for Special Ed. Yet Barbara has added eight new students to her classroom, with the possibility of four more coming. To qualify requires a significant variation between a child's IQ and their performance on a standardized test. These students are not dumped into special ed, they have a very real disability. Every child's problem is different from the next. That is why they have an IEP, Individual Education Program, which supposedly outlines a student's needs and what can be done for them.

Having seen some of the IEP's from students that move into the district, I have to sometimes wonder if other schools are as on the ball as Barbara is. Time is also an issue with these kids. Barbara can have Kindergartners through sixth graders in her classroom at any given time. Obviously the same lessons can not be given to the whole room. Also IEP's need to be reviewed, aptitude tests need to be given, and the amount of paperwork to be done for each student should drive any ecology fanatic into a spastic fit. She is supposed to have an aide, but Kelly is usually only in the room for 1 to 2 hours. The school steals Kelly for just about every other job, like monitoring the cafeteria. Her salary comes out of the Special Ed budget, but her other jobs are justified by saying that SE kids are in the lunchroom.

Requirements for all these reams of paperwork are also subject to arbitrary changes to suit the Politically Correct stance at the time. e.g. Students were expected to "Improve" in their area of study. Last year, it was announced that it was no longer proper terminology. The new word was "Increase". Barbara had to go through every IEP and change the wording. This meaningless task took more hours than I care to think about. The hours spent unravelling red tape and wading through paperwork suck a great many hours of instruction from the students all this idiocy is supposed to be helping.

There is a lot of turnover in Special Ed classes. The parents of these kids tend toward the lower class and are somewhat nomadic, avoiding monetary problems or problems with the authorities. Records from old schools may be spotty at best, contradictory, or even missing altogether. One of Barbara's set of parents were arrested for running a Meth lab in their basement. To most of these people, education is not a terribly high priority. Many parents won't even admit that their child has a problem. How can a teacher be effective if the parents won't work with them? Many of these kids come totally unprepared for school. Some have never so much as held a pencil or crayon in their hands. Children have come into Kindergarten who have not been potty trained. Some can barely even speak coherently.

With the head start these kids are given is it any wonder that they do so poorly? Every month, Barbara and her fellow SE teacher hold a reading marathon. An hour and a half after school to help the students reading and comprehension. Volunteers, high school students, parents, and myself help the kids read and take tests on the books they just finished. Some of these kids are never going to read at grade level regardless of how hard they or we try. These kids have a very real disability and this article acts as if these problems don't exist. This is the equivalent of telling a child in a wheelchair that he will have to be running with his classmates in gym class by the end of the year.

This approach ignores the real problem. Burying your head in the sand is not an effective way to help the kids in Special education. The politicians may "care" about the poor Peepul, but do you think they have as much concern for the individual students as the teachers who actually work with these kids and help to make something of their lives? No Child Left Behind is going to be about as meaningful as legislating morality. It's Ivory Tower theory at its very worst. It is scapegoating the people we won't give proper support to. It must be nice to be so sure that a simplistic solution can solve a terribly complex problem. How do I feel about this article? I think our author should spend a week or two in a Special Ed classroom before he opens his big mouth again. Then let's see what he has to say.