Nancy Meza habla del trabajo de Lucha Urbana en Los Ángeles

Estudiantes, no soldados:
Nancy Meza habla del trabajo de Lucha Urbana en Los Ángeles

http://www.war-times.org/articles/WT_studentsnotsoldiersESP.htm


Inner City Struggle (ICS, Lucha Urbana) es una organización comunitaria que trabaja en asuntos de justicia educativa y económica en las comunidades de Boyle Heights, El Sereno, y el Este de Los Angeles. (visite: http://innercitystruggle.org). Nancy Meza es organizadora de jóvenes con ICS en la Escuela Secundaria Roosevelt, y trabaja en el grupo de jóvenes de ICS, Estudiantes Unidos (United Students). Lleva cuatro años trabajando con la organización y actualmente es estudiante en una universidad comunitaria.

War Times/Tiempo de Guerras conversó con Nancy sobre las presiones económicas que enfrentan los jóvenes de la clase trabajadora, en comunidades inmigrantes de Los Angeles, y cómo esas presiones están vinculadas al reclutamiento militar.

Nancy Meza: ICS trabaja en comunidades pobres. En la mayoría de los hogares, el ingreso total es menos de $22,000 al año. Estas comunidades también tienen las “peores” escuelas: escuelas que carecen de fondos adecuados y están hacinados, en las cuales un gran porcentaje de alumnos no terminan su último año, ni se gradúan.

En Boyle Heights y el Este de LA el 90% de la población es mexicana o latina, El Sereno es un poco más diverso. El Sereno tiene más latinos que son de cuarta o quinta generación y Boyle Heights tiene más inmigrantes latinos de primera o segunda generación.
War Times/Tiempo de Guerras: ¿Que dicen sobre la guerra los jóvenes con los que trabajas?

Muchos de los jóvenes con los cuales trabajamos están en contra de la guerra. Sienten que es una guerra injusta. Están en contra por la forma que los afecta a ellos. Ven como los fondos para la educación han bajado, que hay más esfuerzos de reclutamiento militar en los colegios. En vez de ser reclutados para ir a la universidad para tener un futuro, la mayoría de los estudiantes están siendo encaminados hacia las fuerzas armadas.

United Students realiza cada año una semana de acción sobre universidades y justicia educativa. Uno de los talleres este año se llamó “Estudiantes, no Soldados”, y les preguntamos a los jóvenes sobre la guerra. La mayoría de ellos dijeron, “Oh, es simplemente la guerrita de Bush”. Estos fueron estudiantes normales que conscientemente están en contra de la guerra.
¿Usted tiene amigos o parientes que han pensado seriamente en inscribirse?

Uno de mis amigos se inscribió inmediatamente después del 11 de septiembre. Era muy buen estudiante, competía en deportes, tomaba clases avanzadas. Entonces él decía, “mis notas son buenas pero no son excelentes. Entonces, aunque entre a la universidad, no voy a poder pagarla”.

Mis otros amigos que han pensado en inscribirse no se graduaron de la secundaria. Entonces, ellos dicen, “no puedo conseguir in buen trabajo, lo único que puedo hacer es trabajar en McDonalds ganando el salario mínimo. Entonces, por qué no me meto mejor a las fuerzas armadas y recibo capacitación laboral”. Se les está encaminando en esa dirección porque no pueden conseguir un buen trabajo, porque estudiaron en escuelas públicas que no los preparaban para empleos en el Siglo 21, ni para asistir a la universidad. [Nota del editor: recientemente el Ejército aumentó en un 25% el número de personas que no terminan la secundaria que están dispuestos a aceptar como reclutas]. Aunque se gradúen de la secundaria, no pueden pasar los exámenes para recibir trabajos con un sueldo del cual se puede vivir.

Mi amigo que se inscribió en el servicio asistió a Garfield High, que tiene alrededor de 5 mil estudiantes, y sólo un consejero universitario. Quizás sí hubiera recursos para ayudarle a pagar la universidad, pero ya que hay un solo consejero, la mayoría de los estudiantes no están enterados sobre los recursos que existen. Las únicas personas que están entregando información en estas escuelas son los reclutadores de las fuerzas armadas. A la hora del almuerzo o en las clases uno no puede encontrar reclutadores de universidades o consejeros explicando cómo entrar a las universidades o cómo conseguir apoyo financiero. Pero uno sí puede ver a por lo menos dos reclutadores durante la hora del almuerzo, todas las semanas. Así que mi amigo simplemente no contaba con la información sobre las posibilidades de ayudar a pagar la universidad.
¿Cuantos estudiantes abandonan los estudios en los colegios donde trabaja ICS?

Estas escuelas tienen una taza da abandono del 68%, de manera que menos del 40% se gradúan.

Por ejemplo, Roosevelt High School es la escuela más hacinada en el país. Hay unos 5,200 estudiantes en un local construido para 2,500. Tiene mucho que ver con el financiamiento. Las escuelas tienen el sistema de rotación porque están tan repletas. Los estudiantes estudian dos meses luego tienen vacaciones por dos meses, y regresan otros dos meses. No hay suficientes escritorios en las aulas, ni libros para la cantidad de estudiantes que hay. Con suerte hay 32 o 34 estudiantes por cada maestro, pero la mayoría de las clases tienen 40 alumnos. No es un ambiente positivo para el aprendizaje.

Los estudiantes que se gradúan de estas escuelas secundarias no se reciben con los requisitos necesarios para ir a la universidad. Así que la mayoría se pone a trabajar en restaurantes de comida rápida o en la construcción con sus padres, cualquier trabajo que pueden conseguir sin tener que tomar exámenes. Una amiga, que es muy inteligente, recibía notas de A y B, pero no tomó cursos avanzados o de honores. Tomaba clases normales. Después de graduarse, solicitó un trabajo como tutora en la escuela media donde ella estudiaba antes. No pudo conseguir el trabajo porque no pudo aprobar el examen, que incluía Algebra II. Ella no estudió Alegbra II porque no era un requisito para la secundaria, sólo para las universidades.

Estos problemas ya tienen décadas. La verdad es que ha mejorado un poco últimamente. Ahora uno puede encontrar estudiantes que se graduaron del sistema público de secundarias que regresan a las comunidades como maestros, consejeros y tutores. Ellos son los que realmente están ayudando a los estudiantes y alentándolos. Pero, una taza de abandono del 68% sigue siendo atroz.
En muchas comunidades de color, existe la tradición del servicio militar. Estoy hablando de las comunidades latinas de segunda y tercera generación, la comunidad afro-americana, filipina y de Samoa. En su experiencia, ¿creen éstos que las fuerzas armadas son menos racistas que el resto de la sociedad?

No creo que las consideren menos racista, pero sí es una forma de calzar en la sociedad. Esto lo vimos en los años sesenta, cuando los afro-americanos eran reclutados para las fuerzas armadas, aunque en la vida civil eran segregados y no tenían derechos. Creo que ellos veían a las fuerzas armadas como una puerta de entrada a la sociedad. Creo que lo mismo está ocurriendo con estas comunidades, porque no calzan en la demografía de la sociedad actual, simplemente por su cultura y su situación económica. Entonces, vienen los militares y es como decir, “Sea americano, únase a las fuerzas armadas. Si usted se inscribe, estará luchando por su país”. La gente se inscribe en las fuerzas armadas porque es una forma de sentirse aceptado por la sociedad.

En la escuela, los maestros no te enseñan sobre tu cultura. Y la mayoría de la gente que vive en pobreza, les cuesta mucho. Para ellos, ser pobre es algo vergonzante. La mayoría de estas personas trabajan dos y tres trabajos sólo para sobrevivir, y siguen siendo pobres. Creo que muchos se unen a las fuerzas armadas como una forma de ser considerados integrantes productivos de la sociedad. También, para las comunidades inmigrantes es muy difícil ahora conseguir papeles, y es muy caro. Muchos consideran a las fuerzas armadas como una forma de conseguir la ciudadanía o una forma más fácil de legalizarse en el país.
Asistí a una conferencia en octubre sobre el contra-reclutamiento y me di cuenta que aunque uno se inscribe en las fuerzas armadas, no le garantizan la ciudadanía. Solamente aceleran el proceso al permitirlo a uno hacer la solicitud de inmediato en vez de esperar cinco años.

Es igual con el dinero para estudiar. Sólo el 50% de los veteranos reciben esos beneficios. Los militares hacen mucha propaganda con los estudiantes, los llaman cada dos años, hay comerciales por televisión, y hay mucha presencia militares en las escuelas. Los estudiantes tienen la idea que los militares le van a ofrecer muchas cosas. Una cosa que hemos hecho es pedir a los estudiantes que analicen de manera crítica a las fuerzas armadas. Sabe, se gasta tanto dinero en las fuerzas armadas que se debilita la educación, la vivienda, y la salud. De un dólar [de gastos del gobierno], cincuenta centavos se gastan en las fuerzas armadas, sólo cuatro o cinco centavos son gastados en la educación, dos en la salud. Gastamos tanto en las fuerzas armadas que no hay dinero para programas sociales, entonces uno se mete a las fuerzas armadas porque ellos prometen todos los programas que uno no recibe como ciudadano normal.
Y vemos esto en los programas de JROTC. ¿Cómo es JROTC?

Yo lo he visto en las escuelas medias, pero se llamaba Cadets. [Nota del Editor: El programa Naval Sea Cadets (Cadetes Marinos) es para jóvenes entre 11 y 17 años. Es afiliado a la Liga Naval de EEUU (U.S. Navy League), un grupo ciudadano que apoya a los servicios militares marítimos]. Hasta los alumnos en sexto grado se les entrena para inscribirse en las fuerzas armadas, para ser soldaditos. En la secundaria, uno lo ve más; JROTC tiene sus propios edificios e instalaciones en nuestro distrito escolar. En Roosevelt High School tiene un recinto subterráneo para la práctica de tiros.

A principios de cada año, ya que nuestras escuelas están tan hacinadas, no hay cupo para que todos tomen clases de educación física. Entonces, llegan los reclutadores de JROTC a las aulas de educación física y les dicen a los alumnos, “en vez de ir a educación física, ustedes se pueden unir a JROTC y será honorable, se considera como una actividad extra-curricular, y se ve bien en sus solicitudes para universidades”. Hacen un reclutamiento masivo. No hay otros clubes que llegan a los estudiantes para decir, “únase a nosotros y se prepara para la universidad”. Sólo lo hace JROTC.

Y, porque las escuelas están tan topadas de gente, no hay espacio en las otras clases, y a los alumnos se les mete a JROTC sólo para llenar espacios en su programación de clases.

En JROTC uno aprende a usar armas y a marchar. La mayoría de los estudiantes en JROTC vienen de comunidades pobres. Son estudiantes cuyo primer idioma no es inglés, estudiantes que no están encaminados a la universidad. A estos estudiantes se les entrena a inscribirse en las fuerzas armadas al salir de la secundaria. La mayoría de los estudiantes de JROTC se inscriben en las fuerzas armadas al salir de la secundaria. [Nota del Editor: Los contra-reclutadores argumentan que JROTC realmente constituye un desgaste para los recursos de las escuelas, y enseña una versión sesgada de la historia de Estados Unidos].
Me dice Jorge Mariscal de Project YANO que cada vez hay más latinas que se inscriben.

Las fuerzas armadas están reclutando a las latinas, han cambiado su mensaje para tener como blanco a las latinas. El mensaje es, que si uno es latina, unirse a las fuerzas armadas es un acto feminista. Uno va a pelear al lado de sus hermanos; a uno se le da el poder que ahora tiene el hombre.
La posibilidad de independencia económica entrega un sentido de poder a la gente. ¿Se está cerrando ese camino para las mujeres de color, y las está encaminando a ver a las fuerzas armadas como una opción feminista?

Esa es la impresión que quiere dar las fuerzas armadas. Pero dicen lo mismo sobre los hombres que no pueden conseguir un trabajo ni pagar la universidad. Creo que es más el mensaje de las fuerzas armadas, y las mujeres lo están percibiendo y piensan, “Bueno, debe ser la verdad”.
ICS trabaja con otros grupos en Los Angeles que se enfocan en el trabajo de contra-reclutamiento, como la Coalición contra el Militarismo en Nuestras Escuelas (CAMS, Coalition against Militarism in Our Schools)?

Sí. Cada vez que nos enteramos de que los reclutadores militares iban a llegar al colegio nosotros realizábamos contra-reclutamiento un día antes. Entregamos folletos sobre la realidad de la guerra, la realidad de las fuerzas armadas, y lo que uno debe pensar antes de unirse a las fuerzas armadas. Era genial, porque antes de que llegaran los reclutadores a la escuela, los alumnos ya estaban conscientes sobre los mitos y las realidades de inscribirse en las fuerzas armadas. Entonces, al día siguiente llegaban los reclutadores para tratar de persuadir a los estudiantes que van a recibir dinero par la universidad, y los estudiantes decían, “Según este papel que recibimos ayer, sólo el 50% de los veteranos reciben ese beneficio”.

Es lo mismo que hicimos con Estudiantes, no Soldados. Es un taller que se realizó en 45 aulas en cada escuela secundaria. Le explicamos a los estudiantes cuanto dinero se gasta en las fuerzas armadas, y porque los estudiantes se están inscribiendo. Le explicamos los hechos y las realidades, para que ellos tuviesen más información antes de tomar su decisión. Muchos estudiantes en esos talleres se cambiaron de opinión. Antes decían, “Oh, queremos inscribirnos en las fuerzas armadas,” y luego decían, “Voy a la universidad para tratar de conseguir un buen trabajo”.

- Lynn Koh

Close to Slavery

Close to Slavery
Guestworker Programs in the United States

In his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush called for legislation creating a "legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis." Doing so, the president said, would mean "they won't have to try to sneak in." Such a program has been central to Bush's past immigration reform proposals. Similarly, recent congressional proposals have included provisions that would bring potentially millions of new "guest" workers to the United States.

What Bush did not say was that the United States already has a guestworker program for unskilled laborers — one that is largely hidden from view because the workers are typically socially and geographically isolated. Before we expand this system in the name of immigration reform, we should carefully examine how it operates.

Under the current system, called the H-2 program, employers brought about 121,000 guestworkers into the United States in 2005 — approximately 32,000 for agricultural work and another 89,000 for jobs in forestry, seafood processing, landscaping, construction and other non-agricultural industries.

These workers, though, are not treated like "guests." Rather, they are systematically exploited and abused. Unlike U.S. citizens, guestworkers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor market — the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who "import" them. If guestworkers complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other retaliation.

Federal law and U.S. Department of Labor regulations provide some basic protections to H-2 guestworkers — but they exist mainly on paper. Government enforcement of their rights is almost non-existent. Private attorneys typically won't take up their cause.

Bound to a single employer and without access to legal resources, guestworkers are:

* routinely cheated out of wages;

* forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs;

* held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents;

* forced to live in squalid conditions; and,

* denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel recently put it this way: "This guestworker program's the closest thing I've ever seen to slavery."

Congressman Rangel's conclusion is not mere hyperbole — and not the first time such a comparison has been made. Former Department of Labor official Lee G. Williams described the old "bracero" program — the guestworker program that brought thousands of Mexican nationals to work in the United States during and after World War II — as a system of "legalized slavery." In practice, there is little difference between the bracero program and the current H-2 guestworker program.

The H-2 guestworker system also can be viewed as a modern-day system of indentured servitude. But unlike European indentured servants of old, today's guestworkers have no prospect of becoming U.S. citizens. When their work visas expire, they must leave the United States. They are, in effect, the disposable workers of the U.S. economy.

This report is based on interviews with thousands of guestworkers, a review of the research on guestworker programs, scores of legal cases and the experiences of legal experts from around the country. The abuses described here are too common to blame on a few "bad apple" employers. They are the foreseeable outcomes of a system that treats foreign workers as commodities to be imported as needed without affording them adequate legal safeguards or the protections of the free market.

The H-2 guestworker program is inherently abusive and should not be expanded in the name of immigration reform. If the current program is allowed to continue at all, it should be completely overhauled. Recommendations for doing so appear at the end of this report.

Wabanaki Confederacy Goes to UN

Wabanaki Confederacy goes global
© Indian Country Today July 04, 2008. All Rights Reserved
Posted: July 04, 2008
by: Gale Courey Toensing / Indian Country Today

INDIAN ISLAND, Maine - At the end of a weeklong Wabanaki Confederacy conference, the Wabanaki Council of Chiefs passed a historic resolution calling on United Nations nongovernmental organizations, the Human Rights Council and the Organization of American States to intercede on the tribes' behalf against incursions on tribal sovereignty by states and courts.

The chiefs and tribal members from the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet, Micmac and Abenaki tribes from both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border, representatives from the Assembly of First Nations, the Narragansett Indian Tribe, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and other nations attended the conference on Indian Island June 21 - 29.

The resolution was adopted unanimously. It states that the Council of Chiefs ''accept[s] the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as their governmental foundation in the relationship with Canada and the United States,'' and notes that those governments' refusals to adopt the declaration casts doubts on their future ability to engage in government-to-government relations with the tribes.

The Penobscot Indian Nation hosted the conference just two months after severing its relationship with the state of Maine, following a legislative session that crushed all initiatives to improved tribal life. But even before the session, state and court decisions had virtually erased the tribes' sovereignty.

Penobscot Chief Kirk Francis sat down with Indian Country Today just after the resolution passed for a conversation about the conference and recent events.

Kirk Francis: The conference was good. We were expecting more people, but in the end we got a lot of representatives and I think people are starting to realize there's a lot of commonality among the tribes.

Indian Country Today: Was the main theme solidarity and the tribes beginning to work collectively?

Francis: Yes. What we heard during the week and at some of our talking circles and ceremonies is the tribes realize that without getting together as tribal people, the mountain we're trying to climb for economic development, education, social services and all the issues that face us presents the same obstacles to all of us, so how do we pool our resources so each tribe doesn't have to break trail trying to get the same results?

We talked mostly about sovereignty, self-governance, and how to get our voice heard so people understand that these things are happening, they are important, and the tribes are kind of fed up with it. We thought this U.N. NGO resolution was a way to take a collective and global approach into an arena that has a powerful voice and would speak and advocate on behalf of the tribes. More than 70 chiefs weighed in on the U.N. resolution.

ICT: It was remarkable to hear [the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer] say that the state passed ''guidelines'' regarding the implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, as if they have any authority to do so.

Francis: That's what we're facing. Whether it's how we distribute our services, our education, land use, the environment or repatriation, the state has its hands in every aspect of tribal life and we're just tired of it, so we decided to move away from that and we've made some great strides in doing that.

ICT: But the state has no authority to decide that ''cultural affiliation'' applies to remains going back only 1,000 years.

Francis: Our ancestors have the right to be buried with the same beliefs they grew up with. We have a responsibility as tribal leaders to bring them home and give them proper burial, and for the state to put definitions like how many years we can claim our ancestors and talk about them like they're just objects of history is really disturbing.

ICT: I wonder how they would respond if a tribal nation wanted to keep their ancestors; but that's the core of the problem, isn't it? The people who came here left their ancestors. They don't have the same kind of respect or sense of responsibility.

Francis: And that's what creates a lot of the friction, I think. Sometimes I get the impression that some people in the state government - mostly the executive branch - think you're just using this Indian thing as some kind of excuse to get what you want. I honestly believe there's a mindset out there that thinks we're not really Indians. That we don't really practice these things or have these beliefs. They think, ''Oh, they just talk about their ancestors, and their future and their elders, to try to get slot machines or gain some kind of control they shouldn't have.''

ICT: Did you do anything formal to sever the state relationship?

Francis: A few weeks ago, we had a visit here for the first time ever from the state Department of Environmental Protection. They wanted to inspect our underground tanks. We immediately drafted a letter to the governor asking him to tell all departments that they're not to be on tribal territory without following protocols. I got a call from the governor's attorney who said they have legal responsibility and enforcement rights whether they have permission or not.

ICT: What about severing financial relations?

Francis: We've got almost all our programs out of state funding.

ICT: How much money does the state provide?

Francis: A little over $2,000 a year in general assistance, close to $40,000 for the child care program, and a $60,000 grant for health services. Then there's the school, which combines tribal funds from the BIA, but it puts us in a spot where we can't really pull away from that because of the other tribes involved unless they choose to do the same thing.

Back in 1978 - '79, the council voted to move the decision-making authority for the school to the school board, so we don't really see that as a governmental function in terms of this separation right now. That's around $1.5 million in a year. The state accounts for about 17 percent of education money, so that's an area we'll have to figure out a way to move forward on, hopefully, with some of our economic development things.

ICT: So apart from the school, the state contributes a little more than $100,000 to the tribe.

Francis: Right. Our budget is in the upper teens [millions], so the state contribution is a very small part of what we do here.

ICT: But the state takes $50,000 from your bingo business. [The tribe has operated a non-mechanical high-stakes bingo game for almost three decades. A bill to add 100 slot machines to the operation was shot down by the governor during the last session.] Why do you have to pay the state $50,000 for Class II gaming? That sounds like a shakedown.

Francis: It is. We tried to get it waived. We operate eight weekends a year. Some quarters have only one bingo weekend and we have to pay the state $12,000. We put $1.8 million a year into the local economy, but all that just gets overlooked. Not only do we not get any gaming improvements by being able to use the same tools that are used 11 miles from us [at a non-Indian casino in Bangor called Hollywood Slots that has just expanded to 1,500 slots], but we continue to have to pay this fee to the state while that business hammers us.

ICT: How are your Class II plans moving? [The tribe has plans to introduce Class II gaming machines.]

Francis: We've set up a gaming commission. We have bylaws. We have a licensing procedure to put in place. We have comprehensive land-use regulations that meet or exceed state standards in every area. We're also starting to work on our own license plates and registration and we're working with the Department of Trust Responsibilities to come up with a tribal passport. So we're working in a lot of different directions and our members and council are so supportive.

We've already been threatened with physical enforcement. We went to them and told them what we're going to do. They said, ''Well, you know, people will be going to jail. There'll be state police there.'' What we said at our general meeting is we're not going to worry about that. We're just going to worry about what we do in here, and do it responsibility, and we'll be fine.

The Deadly Fallout from Gang Injunctions

You Can't Fight Gang Warfare with Gang Warfare!
The Deadly Fallout from Gang Injunctions

By LUIS RODRIGUEZ

As expected, and despite opposition from a number of community leaders, a gang injunction against the San Fer gang has been imposed by the courts on a nine-and-a-half square mile area of the Northeast San Fernando Valley, encompassing most of Sylmar, a northwest portion of Pacoima and all of San Fernando City (most of the rest of Pacoima has already been under a gang injunction for years against the Pacoima Flats, Projects Boys, and other Pacoima gangs).

This is reportedly the largest gang injunction area in Los Angeles

Already, young Latino men I know -- not in gangs -- have been stopped, arrested, and in one case almost photographed (to be part of a statewide gang data base). This last case was stopped when the young man's parents became involved and demanded their son not be photographed or placed on this data base. Finding that this young man had no gang ties, he was eventually released.

As I predicted, many youth not in San Fer, but also alleged San Fer members not involved in crimes, will be harassed and even arrested. Our juvenile facilities, jails and prisons are teeming with youth who shouldn't be there -- a gang injunction makes illegal what is otherwise legal activity: association, using a cell phone, or having tattoos. Now alleged gang members will find themselves going to jail for things that are not criminal.

If you make more laws, you make more lawless.

My work, and the work of many gang intervention workers, is to keep these young people out of the criminal justice system. Our work now has become twice as hard as these injunctions -- and other laws down the pike like the Runner Initiative slated for vote in November -- end up placing poor and often neglected youth behind bars faster and longer.

It's easy now to end up in jail -- it's harder to find treatment, help, jobs, schooling, viable alternatives to street life.

The sad thing was that at the Sylmar Neighborhood Council's Town Hall Meeting where I was on a panel opposing the proposed gang injunction, the majority of the people in attendance seemed to be older white residents. This community is mostly Latino with many recent immigrants. Sylmar High School is 95 percent Latino. Yet this community was hardly represented although it's their kids that will be most affected. There didn't seem to be any Spanish-language meetings or even translations considered to include them. Most of the whites in the audience appeared to be for the gang injunction (not all since I talked to some who opposed the injunction, and, of course, there were a number of Latinos for the injunction).

Still the racist nature of these laws is a thick as the smog in LA.

We need to keep our kids out of the juvenile lockups, jails and prisons. The way to do this is to provide jobs, training, meaningful education, creative/artistic opportunities, spiritual connections, and real caring community. Instead gang injunctions under the guise of "safety" fill our communities, even one like where I live, the so-called Huntington Estates, a nice, quiet, tree-lined section of San Fernando that is now under the San Fer gang injunction.

Once gang injunctions were allowed, they spread and even well-off mostly non-gang communities are included.

The city has promised prevention and intervention programs for youth. These are few and minimal (and the biggest chuck, about $30 million, must be decided by voters in November) while the police get billions of dollars. We've become a closed and scared society.

I know we can turn these youth around. I know we can get most of them out of the line of fire. I know we can find more meaningful and healthy alternatives to gangs. But these ideas, programs, and strategies are discarded for the ones that should be of last resort, like a gang injunction.

Just like we go to war and spend close to $10 billion a day in Iraq and Afghanistan to "stop terror" (creating more terror and better-organized "terrorists" in the process), we are going to war with our youth--usually the poorest, most pushed out, and in this case, mostly immigrant Latino youth.

I will be working with other community groups to track the effects of this injunction, which has no end date nor any exit plan for those caught under its net. Hopefully we can find a way to defeat this injunction, but also for other cities to learn not go to this way. In other communities where gang injunctions have been approved, gangs don't die or stop. They actually get squeezed out at so that we see them in other parts of the county, state, country, and even other countries (LA-based gangs have now become a big problem throughout the US, in Mexico, Central America, and even far-flung places like Cambodia and Armenia). Also these so-called gang members get better organized -- in juvenile lockup and prisons they go through "GANG 101" training. They return back to their communities, or even other communities, better organized, armed, and deadly.

You can't stop gang warfare with gang warfare.

We keep making the same mistakes and falling for the same traps. Even a local newspaper in San Fernando declared that a judge "puts halt to violent gang activity with injunction." This is simply a lie. Gang injunctions don't stop violent gang activity--they just spread it around.

I'll keep my readers posted from time to time on the outcomes from this gang injunction. One telling sign tonight--a police helicopter shining their lights a couple of streets from my house. Oh, yes, LA pioneered the "Ghetto Bird." But this part of San Fernando has had little or no crime for decades. Now, as part of the gang injunction "safety" zone, we're being treated like any other poor ghetto or barrio community (which shouldn't happen there neither).
Like I said, once you let this monster in, it keeps growing.

Luis Rodriguez is a co-founder of Rock A Mole Productions and a contributing editor at Rock & Rap Confidential . He is the author of several books, including Always Running: Mi Vida Loca--Gang Days in LA, The Republic of East LA and the novel Music of the Mill published by Rayo/Harper Collins. For more information about his cultural center in LA, visit tiachucha.com. For more on his writing and activism, visit his blog: http://luisjrodriguez.com/blog/

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Posted on July 9, 2008, Printed on July 10, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/90829/

The full scale of Bush's assault on our civil liberties may not be known until years after he's left office.

At the moment, all we can do is get glimpses here or there of what's going on.

And the latest one to come to my attention is the dispatching of police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and utility workers as so-called "terrorism liaison officers," according to a report by Bruce Finley in the Denver Post.

They are entrusted with hunting for "suspicious activity," and then they report their findings, which end up in secret government databases.

What constitutes "suspicious activity," of course, is in the eye of the beholder. But a draft Justice Department memo on the subject says that such things as "taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value" or "making notes" could constitute suspicious activity, Finley wrote.

The states where this is going on include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.

Dozens more are planning to do so, Finley reports.

Colorado alone has 181 Terrorism Liaison Officers, and some of them are from the private sector, such as Xcel Energy.

Mark Silverstein of the Colorado ACLU told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! that this reminds him of the old TIPS program, which "caused so much controversy that Congress eventually shut it down. But it is reemerging in other forms." Silverstein warns that there will be thousands and thousands of "completely innocent people going about completely innocent and legal activities" who are going to end up in a government database.

On the web, I found a description for a Terrorism Liaison Officer Position in the East Bay.

Reporting to the Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the city of Oakland, these officers "would in effect function as ad hoc members" of the East Bay Terrorism Early Warning Group, which consists of local police officers and firefighters.

The "suggested duties" of these Terrorism Liaison Officers include: "source person for internal or external inquiry," and "collecting, reporting retrieving and sharing of materials related to terrorism. Such materials might include ... books journals, periodicals, and videotapes."

Terrorism Liaison Officers would be situated not only in agencies dealing with the harbor, the airports, and the railroads, but also "University/Campus."

And the private sector would be involved, too. "The program would eventually be expanded to include Health Care personnel and representatives from private, critical infrastructure entities, with communication systems specifically tailored to their needs."

In this regard, Terrorism Liaison Officers resemble InfraGard members. (See "The FBI Deputizes Business".) This FBI-private sector liaison group now consists of more than 26,000 members, who have their own secure channels of communication and are shielded, as much as possible, from scrutiny.

Terrorism Liaison Officers connect up with so-called "Fusion Centers": intelligence sharing among public safety agencies as well as the private sector. The Department of Justice has come up with "Fusion Center Guidelines" that discuss the role of private sector participants.

"The private sector can offer fusion centers a variety of resources," it says, including "suspicious incidents and activity information."

It also recommends shielding the private sector. "To aid in sharing this sensitive information, a Non-Disclosure Agreement may be used. The NDA provides private sector entities an additional layer of security, ensuring the security of private sector proprietary information and trade secrets," the document states.

As if that's not enough, the Justice Department document recommends that "fusion centers and their leadership encourage appropriate policymakers to legislate the protection of private sector data provided to fusion centers."

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.
© 2008 The Progressive All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/90829/

La JBG El Camino del Futuro denuncia la incursión militar de 200 soldados

La JBG El Camino del Futuro denuncia la incursión militar de 200 soldados, así como policías y judiciales, en los pueblos zapatistas de Hermenegildo Galeana y San Alejandro, del Caracol de La Garrucha.

CARACOL DE RESISTECIA
HACIA UN NUEVO AMANECER

JUNTA DE BUEN GOBIERNO
EL CAMINO DEL FUTURO
CHIAPAS, MÉXICO
4 DE JUNIO DEL 2008

DENUNCIA.

ACTO DE PROVOCACIÓN

El que suscribe, la Junta de Buen Gobierno El Camino del Futuro.

Al pueblo de México y al mundo, a los compañeros y compañeras de la otra campaña de México y del mundo, a los medios de comunicación nacional e internacional, a los defensores de los derechos humanos, a los organismos no gubernametal honestos:

Por medio de la presente, la Junta de Buen Gobierno El Camino del Futuro, Chiapas, México, denuncia:

1. Columna de convoy militar y seguridad pública y policía municipal y PGR, a las 9 de la mañana, hora sur oriental, 2 carros grandes de soldado y 3 carros chicos de soldado y 2 carros de seguridad pública, 2 carros de policía municipal y una tanqueta y un carro de PGR.

2. Un total de alrededor de 200 provocadores.

3. Antes de entrar en el pueblo de Garrucha, sede del Caracol, a 30 metros de la orilla del pueblo, se paran 3 convoy y bajan del carro 4 soldados, como queriendo flanquear al pueblo de Garrucha, aprovechando de nuestro camino del trabajadero colectivo de milpa, reacciona el pueblo para rechazarlo y empiezan a organizarse, al instante los soldados suben de su carro y siguen su camino, mientras los otros que están adelante está intimidando a la población tomando películas y fotografiando, y así mientras están esperando los que están provocando.

4. Llegando en la otra posición de los soldados de Patiwitz, se incorpora otro convoy militar con rumbo a donde fueron a provocar nuevamente.

5. Llegan a la ranchería de Rancho Alegre, conocido como Chapuyil.

6. Se bajan todos en sus carros y agarran rumbo al pueblo de Hermenegildo Galeana, donde todos y todas son bases de apoyo zapatistas, acusando que en ese pueblo tienen sembradillos de mariguanas.

7. Toda la zona zapatista de Garrucha y sus autoridades autónomos somos testigos que no existe plantíos, sólo hay zapatistas y hay trabajadero de milpa y platanar, y están dispuestas y dispuestos a luchar por libertad, justicia y democracia. Rechazar cualquier provocación.

8. Como 100 soldado y 10 seguridad pública y 4 judicial se disponen a ir a enfrentar al pueblo de Galeana, todos los represores se pintan la cara para confundirse y no sean reconocidos dentro del monte, caminan unos tramos del camino y se meten al monte y así van avanzando rumbo al pueblo.

9. Es guiado por una persona llamado Feliciano Román Ruiz y es conocido que es policía municipal de Ocosingo el quien lleva a la columna de federales.

10. El pueblo de Galeana, hombres, mujeres, niñas y niños, se organizan para rechazarlos dispuestos y dispuestas a lo que salga.

11. En el medio del camino se encuentran y comienza el alboroto, llenos de coraje, las zapatistas mujeres y hombres, niños, niñas, diciéndoles a los soldados que regresen, y diciéndoles que no los necesitan aquí, queremos libertad, justicia y democracia, no soldados.

12. Los soldados responden: venimos aquí porque sabemos que hay marihuana y vamos a pasar a huevos, y es ahí donde el pueblo sacan sus machetes, palos, piedras, resorteras, hondas y todo lo que haya en el alcance de la mano y empieza el rechazo.

13. Los soldados dicen: esta vez no vamos a pasar, pero regresamos en 15 días y eso sí a huevos vamos a pasar.

14. Toman otro rumbo para bajar en otro poblado llamado San Alejandro, pueblo zapatista bases de apoyo, ahí estaban esperando 9 carros con 50 soldados y 10 policías municipales.

15. Donde bajaron los soldados, dejaron pisoteado el sembradillo de maíz, que es único alimento del pueblo para vivir.

16. Mientras, en el poblado zapatista de San Alejandro 60 represores provocadores se posicionaron como para estar dispuesto al enfrentamiento.

17. Reacciona el pueblo y toman lo que encuentran a la mano y rechazan a la fuerza federal.

18. En esta provocación participaron soldados de Toniná y soldados de Patiwitz y soldados de San Quintín.

19. Pueblo de México y al mundo queremos decirles que no será tan tarde habrá enfrentamiento y eso si es provocado por Calderón y Juan Sabines y Carlos Leonel Solórzano, presidente municipal de Ocosingo. Mandando a sus perros de represores de cualquier corporación.
No somos narcotraficantes, somos lo que ya saben hermanos y hermanas de México y del mundo.
Está claro que vienen por nosotros los y las zapatistas, y vienen los 3 niveles de malos gobiernos encima de nosotros, y nosotros estamos dispuestos de resistir y si es necesario cumplir nuestro lema, que es: vivir por la patria o morir por la libertad.

20. Pueblo de México y el mundo, ustedes saben que nuestra lucha está dirigida en la lucha política y pacífica, como dice nuestra Sexta Declaración de la Selva Lacandona, lucha política y pacífica, conocido como OTRA CAMPAÑA y vean por dónde viene la provocación de la violencia.

21. Compañeras y compañeros de la otra campaña de México y de otros países, pedimos que estén atentos, porque los soldados dijeron que en 15 días vendrán nuevamente, no queremos guerra, queremos paz y con justicia y dignidad. No nos queda de otra, defender, rechazar y resistir porque nos vienen a buscar para enfrentarnos, por eso nos está buscando a nosotros, los pueblos zapatistas bases de apoyo.

22. Sólo nos queda decirles que vean por dónde viene esta provocación. Ahí los estamos informando si es que nos da tiempo.

Es todo nuestras palabras

A T E N T A M E NT E

La Junta de Buen Gobierno

Elena Gordillo Clara Claribel Pérez López

Freddy Rodríguez López Rolando Ruiz Hernández

The Global Seed Police

Monsanto and GM Food
The Global Seed Police

By BINOY KAMPMARK

The latest documentary by French journalist Marie-Monique Robin, The World According to Monsanto, a production of the national Film Board of Canada, can be viewed as a grand recapitulation of familiar, venal themes in corporate indifference.

Monsanto is the bugbear of indigenous markets, rural communities and the developing world. It promotes itself as having the salvaging force of the Second Coming, when its behaviour is closer to that the carcinogenic herbicide producer ‘U-North’ in Michael Clayton.

But how is this second coming initiated? Firstly, through a scientific frame of reference that is panoptic: numerous food groups, for instance, are tested with BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) genes, including mustard, rice, okra, and eggplant. These are then patented. Take Nap Hal, a wheat strain used in making chapatti, which suffered that fate in 2004. Then comes the re-education programme.

Farmers are cudgelled into accepting Monsanto’s world. They must roll over and accept this revolution, or so goes the line from seed warriors and proselytisers of genetically modified (GM) food. Take one of its defenders, the prominent Australian scientist Sir Gustav Nossal, who recently chaired a review by the Victorian state government on a moratorium on GM canola: ‘Monsanto believes that GM technology offers the hope of doubled crop yields per hectare of arable land. A hungry world needs such research’ (23 June). Nossal does, as do most of the defenders of Monsanto, see the issue in narrow, scientific terms: GM food is good, can be easily made to feed the hungry, and should be encouraged.

Whatever scientific merit (if any) may be attached to GM food, the behaviour of Monsanto the corporate bully, is quite another thing. Their operatives, when they are not distributing the ubiquitous pesticide Roundup, function like apostolic disseminators of a creed. That creed, to use an Indian term of reference, is the second Green Revolution. (The first Green Revolution was launched in India 40 years ago.) Some of them go far in US public life – take one of its past employees in the pesticide and agriculture division, current justice of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas.

This rhetoric of salvation, argues Indian eco-activist and physicist Vandana Shiva, has little to do with ‘food security’ and everything to do with ‘returns to Monsanto’s profits’. The real aim here is patenting, and the corporate giant is in the business of biopiracy, targeting local markets and industries to gain an unassailable market share.

Their methods vary, though they are consistent. Rural areas prove a favourite target. Key areas are peppered with surveillance teams, photographers and informants, gathering data for the less than genteel giant. According to a report in the Nation (11 May 2000), they were happy to convince Alabama farmer Jeremiah Smith, a resident of Anniston, to part with his hogs for $10 a piece accompanied with a bottle of Log Cabin whiskey. Smith sold. That was in 1970. In the meantime, a local creek was being systematically poisoned by polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste.

Then came Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri, a shop owner in a farm community north of Kansas City. Rinehart in 2002 was accused by a nameless, threatening character with legal proceedings: the owner of the country store Square Deal had apparently planted G.M. soybeans in violation of the company’s patent (Vanity Fair, May 2008). The seed police were bristling.

Occasionally, Monsanto’s tactics can startle. Churches may be on its list of purchases – that is, it will pay money for holy land if it has to conceal the presence of PCB. A memo from a Monsanto committee studying PCBs in 1969 acknowledged that it had a problem with the substance, one that needed to be extinguished to prevent adverse publicity. Such is the way of Monsanto, first a feted saviour, then a grand cover-up artist.

And it runs roughshod over local traditions. This is acutely so in developing countries, where its rural patterns of intimidation and deception in America act as a blueprint for global delinquency. ‘Let the Harvest Begin’ ran an advertisement in various developing countries. We will feed your starving poor, and we will give incentives under contract, as long as you undertake, for instance, not to save seed for re-plantings.

If you don’t accept the offer, we will go ahead and do it anyway, as happened to Indian farmer Bassanna Hunsole of Karnataka, who became the unwitting accomplice to the growing of illegal crops on his land in 1998. Those crops were the ‘bollgard’ cotton variety, an inferior, weevil-invested alternative that was given freely to Hunsole to grow.

In November 1998, the leader of the Karnataka State Farmers Association (KRRS), arrived at a Monsanto test site in Sindhanoor and ran amok. That site belonged to Hunsole. The protesters turned to agricultural pyromania, the site of the first Monsanto ‘cremation’. Genetically modified cotton plants were torn up and burned. Operation Cremate Monsanto had begun.

The company, however, battles on with a burgeoning wallet and a growing cadre of fans and supporters in complicit governments. The US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Teaching, Research, Service, and Commercial Linkages (July 2005) between President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Sigh was met with delight by the global seed police. After all, this agreement was designed to bolster the first Green revolution launched in the 1950s.

Local communities, led by such eco warriors as Shiva and the pyromaniacal exploits of the KRRS, form a vanguard of growing protest. A rural revolution may be stirring. But the seed police will not rest, and will continue to employ bribery (whiskey anyone?), threats (legal proceedings) and biopiracy (patents) to preserve their agribusiness fiefdom. They will, of course, do so with, as Robin’s sarcastic film suggests, ‘your best interests at heart’.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com.