Myth-Making & Our election year narratives!

- Los candidatos solo quieren nuestros votos para estar dentro del presupuesto

- Porque apoyarlos sin negociar nada a cambio?

- Nuestros votos les daran poder a Obama, McCain, Hukabee o a Hillary, a quien quede

- Quien realmente se preocupara de nuestros problemas?

- Hermanos de organizaciones latinas, si las van a dar, vendanlas bien

- Queremos respuestas, alto a las redadas, no falsas promesas de cambio

- Queremos compromisos, de cara a los problemas!


Les envio este video para que chequen como son tratados nuestros hermanos,
mexicanos, catrachos, salvadorenhos, etc, etc!


Video Redadas en LA

 href="http://www.telemundo52.com/video/15255850/detail.html"




http://www.telemundo52.com/video/15255850/detail.html


********


COLUMN OF THE AMERICAS
FEBRUARY 7, 2007
MACEHUAL: BY ROBERTO "DR. CINTLI" RODRIGUEZ
MYTH-MAKING & OUR ELECTION YEAR NARRATIVES
 
In this election, there should be but one issue on the table: what
will be the relationship between the president and the people and laws
of the United States? Within the context of 2008, this means asking
the contenders: Does the United States – does the U.S. president –
have the right to wage permanent preemptive war against any and all
nations and do the nation's laws apply to the executive branch of
government?

Currently, under the guise of "the war on terror" this administration
has given itself the right to attack, invade and/or occupy any nation
on earth, for any reason. This has resulted in the creation of secret
government – with no checks and balances – and without the consent of
the people.

Rather than the media pressing the candidates on this topic, pundits
and pollsters have transformed themselves into modern soothsayers and
omnipotent cultural interpreters on the meaning of who voted for whom
– by age, race, ethnicity, education, class and gender. As a result,
they've become mythmakers, drawing conclusions about how different
peoples think, what they believe and how they vote – often pitting one
group against another, etc. What has not gone unnoticed is that most
of these pundits have been wrong in their forecasts… and in their
interpretations.

This is happening at a time when this never-ending war has given this
president and all future presidents special "war-time" powers that
have resulted in the loss of Constitutional rights, such as the loss
of privacy; the right to free speech; freedom of assembly; a fair
trial; habeas corpus; the right not to be unlawfully detained or
tortured; the right not to be spied on the right to freely associate
with anyone; and the right to freely travel – without being on secret
government watch lists.

The bedrock principles of this society have been completely upended,
including and especially the precept of innocent until proven guilty –
and yet – the candidates are not being questioned about this. Under
the precept of "you're with us or you're against us," this
administration has created this "us against them" mentality and
environment. All this is predicated on fear, hate & blame. This has
created a scramble to define who is "us" vs. who is "them." So it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that currently, it is
Arabs/Muslims… and Mexicans who are on the outs. These groups are
nowadays not simply seen as "others," but also as "enemies." At best,
they [Mexicans] are seen as subservient populations.

As the political rhetoric is turned up – especially in the fall
election – the "us" category – fanned by hate radio – will shrink to
the point where only right wing white Christians will fit in this
category and only right wing white male Christian candidates will be
viewed as acceptable presidential candidates. (This is why Mitt Romney
will never win the office of the president, even in 2012 – because
Mormons are not part of the "us" category).

Despite this, the mainstream media would rather focus on topics of
pantsuits, likeability, appearances, their hectic schedule, their
vocal chords, their electability, instantaneous polls and the
fundraising prowess of the candidates.

This election should be about the candidates explaining their
positions on the notion of the United States as a "nation of laws"…
and about these politics of dehumanization. It should be about the
future of the nation and the future of humanity. It should be about
their positions on transparent government and about a government with
checks and balances.

Utilizing this lens, virtually all Republican candidates, except Ron
Paul, would be disqualified. McCain, the presumed Republican nominee,
envisions being in Iraq for 100 years, and like his ultranationalist
anti-immigrant brethren from the GOP, the primary campaign has seen
him, Romney and Mike Huckabee shift radically to the right on the
issue of immigration. While Paul is the only Republican who is not a
war-monger, his views on civil rights are suspect and his stand on
immigration is little different than Lou Dobbs.

What about the Democratic contenders?

On top of their views on the legality of the Iraq War and the
so-called "war on terror," they should clearly define their positions
in regards to this administration's assault on the Constitution. They
should explain how they will reverse that assault and how they will
roll back the illegal powers that have been amassed by this
administration. That's how all candidates should be judged; all else
is but a distraction.

(c) Column of the Americas 2008

The writer can be reached at XColumn@gmail.com


***************




Migrants are China's 'factories without smoke' (CNN.com)


In the crowds still stranded by snow at train stations around China 

stand some of the country's most valuable economic assets: migrant workers.

<http://feeds.innovationwatch.com/~r/innovationwatch/webwatch/~3/227924091/migrants_are_chinas_factories_1.html>