Well, I never overlooked what Obama did do and didn't do. From my point of
view, he betrayed all of us who voted for him. He especially betrayed African
Americans. And when he was awarded the Peace Prize, any value and prestige
that, that prize may have had, was gone forever. And now that I've read as
much as I have about FDR, I wouldn't want to have lunch with either one of
them. Perhaps lunch with Eleanor Roosevelt would be an interesting experience.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 8:32 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The US "War on Terror" Has Created at Least 37
Million Refugees
And unfortunately, Black trumped all. We went easier on Obama because he was
under heavy attack for being Black. We overlooked, or forgave, his actions. I
recall that after four years I declared Obama to be our Black Bill Clinton.
"The two best Republicans ever elected by the Democrats". Still, of all the
presidents in my lifetime, Obama would be second to FDR on my, Love To Have
Lunch With list.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/20/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd say that when Carter was elected, there were already changes in
the social welfare state model. New York City was having financial
difficulties.
Our city university colleges were no longer free. Inflation was
raging. I'd add that although we didn't realize it when we voted for
him, Obama was right of center politically and economically. That
became evident in the appointments he made and the actions he took.
From the very start, he was acting cooperatively with Republicans on
economic matters. People don't remember this, but he was even talking about
privatizing social security.
The reason that there was such a backlash against him and that
Republicans put up such opposition to everything he said and did, was that he
is black.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2020 11:17 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: The US "War on Terror" Has Created at
Least
37 Million Refugees
And of course, any attempt to use the word Socialist drags out all the
baggage that our Ruling Class has carefully planted for generations.
There has been an ongoing struggle between "The People" and "The First
Class People". even long before corporations were declared "Citizens"
by the Supreme Court. Remember the East India Tea Company?
At least since FDR became president, we have been closer to a
socialist democratic government. But since Ronald Reagan, and
especially since Donald Trump, we've moved closer to a Corporate
Model. We had one small window of opportunity when Obama first
entered office. But Obama was well funded by some of the same
corporate dollars that also backed the Republican candidates, and
besides, Obama foolishly believed that he could compromise with the
conservatives in congress. Meanwhile the conservative Corporate
champions mounted an attack upon Obama that has lasted right through Donald
Trumps "administration".
Anyway, my point is that words are deliberately miss defined by all
political sides. Labels are the friend of the intellectually lazy.
Finally, we are still as much a "socialist government" as we are a
corporate one. And regardless of the cat calls, I remain firm that we
are a far better nation if we put People before Profits. Caring for
our peoples needs will make us a strong nation, while tending to
maximizing Profit will suck the marrow from our nation's bones.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/20/20, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For Andy, let me clarify that in this article, when the author uses
the word, "socialists", understand that he means Social Democrats.
Miriam
The US "War on Terror" Has Created at Least 37 Million Refugees By
Daniel Bessner, Jacobin
18 September 20
A new study finds that America's "war on terror" has displaced at
least 37 million people around the globe. The US left has a
responsibility to push an internationalism that aids the victims of
American imperialism - and acts in solidarity with workers no matter
their country of origin.
Last week, Brown University's Costs of War Project released a report
that revealed a startling statistic: since George W. Bush's
initiation of the "Global War on Terror," "at least 37 million people
have fled their homes [as the result of] the eight most violent wars the U.S.
military has launched or participated in."
The interventions in Afghanistan have resulted in 5.3 million
displaced people; Pakistan, 3.7 million; Iraq, 9.2 million; Libya,
1.2 million; Syria,
7.1 million; Yemen, 4.4 million; Somalia, 4.2 million; and the
Philippines,
1.7 million. These numbers are "more than those displaced by any
other war or disaster since at least the start of the twentieth
century with the sole exception of World War II."
The 37 million figure is a conservative estimate - the total number
might be as high as 59 million, if not higher, since no estimation
has accounted for the number of Africans driven from their homes due
to US military interventions on the continent. These numbers also say
nothing of the human toll wrought by displacement. Edward Said, the
late Palestinian literary theorist who spent most of his life living
outside his homeland, spoke for many when he described exile as
"terrible to experience."
It [exile] is the unhealable rift forced between a human being and a
native place, between the self and its true home: its essential
sadness can never be surmounted. And while it is true that literature
and history contain heroic, romantic, glorious, even triumphant
episodes in an exile's life, these are no more than efforts meant to
overcome the crippling sorrow of estrangement. The achievements of
exile are permanently undermined by the loss of something left behind
forever.
While many of those deracinated by the United States will no doubt
come together to build new lives in new places, many will also remain
in "permanent exile," to borrow a phrase from the intellectual
historian Martin Jay, forever disconnected from, but attached to,
their native land.
Unsurprisingly, the United States has done little to aid those it has
separated from their homes; since fiscal year 2002, the government
has only allowed in about 950,000 refugees. Put another way, in
absolute numbers, the United States has welcomed just 2.5 percent of
the 37 million people it has displaced through its military
misadventures - a pathetic amount, especially for an incredibly
wealthy nation that has chosen to govern the world and which is
therefore responsible for its state.
What is to be done?
One of the most exciting elements of Bernie Sanders's run for
president was how he centered non-Americans. According to Sanders's
campaign, his administration intended not only to aid people in the
United States, but also to "change the terms of the global economy to
lift up workers everywhere."
This humanist message, which recognizes all people as worthy of
respect and dignity regardless of where they were born, must remain
central to any left-wing project, and must be explicitly connected to
the disasters wrought by US imperialism. Americans have a
responsibility to those whose lives our government so carelessly
destroyed. With the climate crisis escalating, we should also expect
a sharp increase in refugees fleeing the Global South.
Here, too, we have an enormous responsibility.
In the wake of Sanders's failed bid for the Democratic Party's
nomination, it looks like the social-democratic left will remain on
the sidelines of national governance for the foreseeable future. But
this doesn't mean we can't take inspiration from previous generations
of radicals who used their time outside government to develop,
articulate, and promote novel programs and policies ready to be
implemented when they finally achieved power. For today's left, a
humane and just refugee policy must be one of those.
What would that look like? Perhaps it would involve offering blanket
amnesty to anyone displaced as the result of US behavior, capaciously
defined.
Perhaps it would involve resettling refugees in the United States,
creating jobs programs for the millions of Americans who have lost
their employment in the long decades of deindustrialization. Or most
ambitiously, perhaps it would mean dismantling the US empire
entirely, the cause of so much despair.
Regardless of the details, US-based socialists cannot limit our
vision and plans to the United States itself. Since 2001, the United
States has launched a series of wars that have shattered the lives of
people the world over. We have a responsibility to these people -
both because our government caused their suffering and because we, as
socialists, must act in solidarity with working people everywhere.
