nycabron@yahoo.com For those who believe that the last battle have not been lost.

 
El periodista de la revista Univercity en Nueva York, publico en su ultima edicion un articulo donde acusaba al mundo de arrogancia frente a la posicion norteamericana (Who's arrogant? Univercity Magazine, September 2003). Habia tantas ideas que me parecian erroneas que decidi escribirle un mail donde hacia ver mi posicion como un ciudadano X que creee que la propaganda del gobierno de EEUU de anti-americanismo y su principio de generalizacion esta muy errada.
Me parece que su carta de respuesta, si bien demuestra una ideologia inamovible sobre ciertas ideas que no comparto, es interesante. Ademas el periodista se dio el tiempo de escribirme una larga contestacion que le debe haber tomado buen tiempo escribir y creo que vale la pena leeerla. Me atreveria a decir que es un resumen de conceptos basicos compartidos por los que apoyan y creen en el gobierno republicano ahora en el poder, su papel a nivel internacional y los intereses en la Guerra con Irak.

----

Joe:
With all respect (and excuse if I make mistakes,
English is not my native language) I understand your
position but I don’t agree.

You’re talking about arrogance and telling the people
that the world is arrogant and not George W Bush, not Americans.

Joe, it’s true that a lot of people don’t like
America, but most of the people respect what America
have done: for the sciences, the human
rights and more.

And even the people who don’t like, or hate the United States
(perhaps because they never have lived here in New
York) probably less than 1% are the ones who wanted to blow up this
country, kill americans and all that shit.

Foreigners and press editorial all over the world
are trying to tell Americans: people don’t hate America
because of its freedom or
their way of life.That's a lie. They hate America
because of horrible things that Americans did abroad. There
are a lot of murders, executions, coups d’etats,
explotation of people, because of the capitalism that
America have exported to the world within the last
century.

I, myself, believe that capitalism (with all its imperfections) is the best of all
the economic sistems that the world knows.
But in some countries in its name, Americans
companies and national citizens using the name of the
United States have abused a lot and comitted so many
injustices, that was unavoidable to rise hate, and
rage.

But even though, terrorism is another phenomenon.

Terrorism against America, and any kind of terrorism,
only spreads in the brains of ill people, and the way
to fight it it’s not with weapons and more violence.
It’s with strategy, with intelligence.

It’s true that most of the friends that US has is
because of its power and its money. But that’s how the
capitalism works. “ Money talks” , that’s the principle
that the United States thought to the world:If you have money
but you share it with me, you’re my friend
(And I don’t care if you’re exploting my
neighborhoods or killing your foes, it’s not my
problem. Give me money, I’ll be with you.) THAT's
CAPITALISM. And no complaints, that idea worked well
for most of the countries. So far.

But, please USA: don’t show up too much, try to keep a low-profile,
We, people of the world, like to feel--that we’re economic equals
We like the idea that my country has the same
oportunities to become a powerful and
wealthy country. Even if we know that we don't.

Most of people in the world HATE
VIOLENCE and HATE ABUSE and HATE INJUSTICE.

That’ why the people
understood America after 9/11,
supported president Bush against Afganistan,
even if they didn’t like the war, they understood the
reasons. The world hates terrorism, abuse, the
killing of innocents. And the reasons to go for the
Taliban looked like as clear reasons:
“You’ ve kill my people, I’ll destroy you” .

But, after that war, the world discovered that there
was a brand new Monster in America. A country that said stuff
like “You’re with me or against me” and that started
to menace a lot of other small countries and governments
that had nothing to do directly with the terrorist
attacks of September 11th.

A powerful nation drove by people who: don’t respect
the UN resolutions, don’t respect the influence and
power of other nations, don’t respect
international law, don’t respect the
environment...

All these issues and more, that’s what people started
to look at. And, also, the case wasn’t as clear
as the case in Afghanistan.

The world claimed “Hey United States, we understand you, but stop this shit,
we have international laws, we have United Nations. Wait a little bit.”

No. America dind’t want to wait. Seemed as Bush didn’t
have time to waste. As if Bush had found the PERFECT
EXCUSE to kick Saddam's ass out of Iraq.
And worse. The people behind him, looked so anxious to
start the fight that, well... something stinks there

THAT’S WHY PEOPLE DIDN’T LIKE THE WAR , THAT’s WHY
MOST OF THE WORLD HATED THE IDEA OF AMERICA IN IRAQ.

I’m talking about normal people, not politicized,
because -of course-, there are a lot of radical leftists, and crazy
stupids that hate Bush because he represents the right
and they hate him ONLY for that. (There are a lot of
reasons to dislike him, but that’s another point).

Normal people around the world hated the way the
Bush administration was lying. They hated the way
wealthy and powerful people around Bush
were showing suddenly compassion and love
for the people of Irak, trying to hide their real
motivations.

O.K. They hate Saddam, And that was true hate, understandable hate. Saddam should have been hated more. The world should
have been more united to protest and defend the human rights in Iraq. United to hate Saddam Hussein regime and his disrespect for the Iraqi people.

But you have to convince the world and unite the world around you.
And probably, America could have convinced the world
using another strategy. Using more intelligence, less arrogance.

But Bush pushed the war and a lot of
people suspected that that was because of the economy,
to distract Americans of what was happening within the
USA.

Well, I don’t know if I give you more stuff to think
about. I’m not leftist, I don’t hate capitalism, I
like this city, and I love the values of the American
constitution and respect all the achievements that
the United States has reached for the wellbeing of he world.

I think that most of the world respect that.
But to understand why there are so many persons angry
with the Americans you have to believe me:to the eyes of the world, this Administration acts with arrogance or--perhaps,
changing that word--: Acts in a very clumsy way.

Maybe, showing more respect for other countries,
giving other reasons and other arguments, America
could have convinced the world to go for Saddam and
kick his ass together.

It’s a mistake believe that France and Germany
disagree with Bush only becaue of their interests in the oil and the
money that Saddam owed them. Even if their presidents would have
go with Bush, the Germans and French would have
go to the streets and protested anyway.

The world is not arrogant. The world hate arrogance.
The world used to love a lot of good things that the United States have, but the world don’t like the way the United Stated are solving its problems and those of other countries. And that's it.

THE ANSWER:

ulises
Thank you for writing. I understand that many people love America and
it's
ideals and that not everyone who was against this war or doesn't like
George W Bush is a leftist moron. I never intended for my article to
make
fun of people like you in anyway. My point was that after 9/11 the way
Bush and many Americans saw the world changed. The United States and
it's
allies had ignored a problem that was growing for two decades. That
problem was radical Islamic terrorisim. The question of what caused
this
anger can be debated until the cows come home so that will be left out
of
this e-mail.

History has shown that the terrorists who commited these acts believed
that the United States was weak and that the more attacks that were
commited the more America would cut and run in fear. The 1990's helped
fuel their theory to the max. Al-Qaeda bombed the WTC in 1993, America
did
nothing to retaliate. Al-Qaeda operatives were caught before they could
bomb the Statue of Liberty and the New Jersey tunnel, the United States
did nothing in response. In 1998 two US embassies in Africa were bombed
by
Al-Qaeda, Clinton launched several cruise missles into Afghanistan as a
response that did little to no damage and convinced Osama Bin Laden
that
the US would never fight back in any efficient kind of way because they
were to weak and lacked commitment. In 2000 Al-Qaeda bombed the USS
Cole,
the US did nothing. Al-Qaeda was caught attempting to blow up the Space
Needle in Seattle in 2000, once again the American response was
nothing.
In 1993 17 American troops were killed in Somalia and the instant
reaction
from the American government was to bring the troops home before the
job
was done. This showed Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden that as soon as the going
got
tough for Americans they would run away with their tail inbetween their
legs. Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and other radical terrorists around
the
globe had become convinced that if they hit the United States hard
enough,
it would collapse on itself. If the American government responded to
any
of these attacks in any kind of half assed way or didn't look like they
would cut and run whenever things started to get bad at least once in
this
time span things would be a lot better now. We didn't do any of it and
we
learned our lesson the hard way on 9/11.

This wasn't the only lesson Bush learned that day. He also learned that
this threat and these actions are the new threat against mankind in the
21st century. Every once in awhile there are times in which the human
race
is at a crossroads. Does it move forward and progress bringing freedom,
prospierty, advances, and hope for the future or does it go backwards
bringing dictatorships, oppression, hate, and hopelessness? As silly as
this sounds as you would obviously think the human race would always
choose the former this hasn't been the case. Just in the last 80 years
the
entire human race has had this choice twice. In the mid 1900's the
choice
of dictatorships, oppression, hate, and hopelessness was brought in the
form of Fascism. Not only was it brought in this form many people
weren't
allowed to choose which path they wanted to take, the leaders and
followers of Fascism made the choice for them. Just sitting back and
allowing it to grow and become worse was obviously not an option for
the
United States which represented human progress going forward. Even
though
Japan was the country to launch a sneak attack on us at Pearl Harbor
Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) commited millions of troops at the cost of
billions of dollars to stop the spread and destruction of Fascism in
Europe. Yes, Hitler did declare war on us after Pearl Harbor but is
that
reason enough to spend billions and risk the lives of hundreds of
thousands of you're soldiers for? Obviously looking back at history it
was
but at the time many people didn't agree. Many history books don't
teach
this but there were hundreds of protests during WW2 against action in
Europe. Many people claimed that Hitler never attacked us and had
nothing
to do with Pearl Harbor and that fighting him was pointless and only a
ruse by FDR to jumpstart the US economy. FDR knew at the time that this
was a threat against the human race that had to be elminiated. It had
to
be fought at that time or else things would be worse in the future and
that leaving it unchecked would have horrible consequences for the
futre.
When Harry Truman took over after FDR died he also knew what had to be
done. Not only did he have to finish the job of defeating the forces of
Fascism with military force he also had to bring Democracy and
capitalism
which was human progress to those parts of the world to help destroy
the
ideolgy and breeding ground of Fascism forever. After defeating Germany
and Japan Truman spent TRILLIONS rebuilding each country. Not only did
he
rebuild them he restructered them entirely. He helped built systems of
Democracy, freedom, and progress in all the countries the US occupied
at
the time. Many advisors at the time said that attempting to do this to
Japan would be pointless. They argued that Japan had a long history of
military aggression and it's strict culture would never accept any kind
of
form of Democracy. Truman disagreed and said that any culture and any
kind
of people can and will handle Democracy and freedom and that Japan
would
as well. Truman continued the rebuilding of Japan and made them a
strong
ally. Now 60 years later Japan is the second richest country in the
world
with it's culture and products spread across the globe. FDR and
Truman's
forsight and vision saved the human race at this cross roads and
reduced
the ideology of Fascism to pathetic levels for years to come. The
rebuilding and democrarization also helped in the second cross roads
and
threat of the 20th century.

The second threat of human progress going backwards and freedom being
taken away came in the form of Communism. Truman did spend trillions
rebuilding Western Europe and Japan to destroy Fascism but he also did
it
to defend against Communism. While the United States spent time and
money
rebulding the countries they invaded during World War 2 the USSR simply
set up puppet governments in the countries they invaded and occupied
them
for several decades. While this threat was growing the United States
could
not engage it in any direct way as both sides had nuclear weapons and
any
war would mean the end of the world. Even though no actual war broke
out
the United States did fight to stop the spread of Communism but did it
this time in very foolish ways as they felt more direct action could
trigger World War 3. All the things you listed that the United States
did
in the latter part of the 20th century with murders, coup's, and
military
interventions that everyone loves to complain about were not done
because
they were greedy and wanted to steal resources, they did it to stop the
spread of Communism and halt the Soviet Union's progress in attempting
to
take over the world. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed old
government documents have been uncovered which confirmed what the US
government had thought throughout the entire Cold War, the USSR wanted
to
control the world through the spreading of Communism. Every country
that
the US did the things you listed during that time period were countries
in
which the USSR was trying to spread Communism to. Granted the US did a
bad
job in most of the cases as instead of spending the time and money to
build a strong democractic ally they simply left and caused more chaos
to
continue. Still, most of those countries are now democratic, are moving
towards economic prospierty, and all avoided the horrors of Communism
because of those interventions. It's not some kind of coincidence that
the
Soviet Union collapsed so soon after it became a super power, it was
the
constant struggle the United States gave it for 45 years. FDR and
Truman
both had incredible forsight and knew extreme measures had to be taken
to
fight off these threats to the human race and that doing nothing was
the
worst thing they could have done.

This reality hit Bush hard that September morning. He knew that this
threat had gone along unchecked for years. He knew that the US not
doing
anything to help curb it was only helping it by doing nothing. He knew
this was once again a crossroads for mankind. He knew extreme measures
like FDR and Truman took had to be taken to stop this threat now
instead
of letting it continue. He knew he was now the one to do it. Many
countries agreed with Bush right after the attacks as well. Bush was
correct in saying you are either with us or with the terrorists. As
much
as I don't think things are either or in this life some things are. In
this case you are either on the side that is fighting this threat and
trying to once again make sure human freedom and progress wins or
you're
not. If you're not that means you are doing nothing and doing nothing
does
nothing but help the terrorists. Most things in life aren't simple, but
this one is. Almost all of Europe which realized they could be victums
as
well agreed with Bush and signed on for this long struggle, the
struggle
for mankind.

As time went on Bush realized this threat to mankind was actually more
dangerous then the recent fights against Fascism and Communism. While
Fascists and Communists wanted to rule the world they also knew that
they
couldn't go all out against the United States as they also had a
country
to protect. While radical Islamic fundamentlists want to rule the world
they understand that they can't so instead they want the complete and
total destruction of their enemies, which is us. In a world in which
nuclear weapons or biological weapons can be found and used by almost
anyone their threat could be very real. Now rouge nations can make such
weapons which is a giagantic problem if you think about it. Bush put
two
and two together and realized Saddam Hussien hiding and making weapons
of
mass destruction in the middle of the area in which most of the
terrorists
come from was a serious threat. The world had ignored what Saddam
Hussien
was doing for the past 12 years and Bush realized it was a huge mistake
to
do so. It was the UN's job to make sure Saddam disarmed and was in no
position to make more WMD's but they had failed and failed miserably.
Ever
since the Korean War the UN has proved itself to be stagnant,
ineffective,
and prone to corruption. Bush put faith in the UN anyway and went their
to
show them the threat Saddam was and showed that 12 years of sanctions,
threats, and negotiations had done nothing to stop Saddam from defying
the
world. The UN's response was pretty much a big yawn. Bush then turned
to
his allies who said they would be with him until the end for help and
got
hatred as a response. Allies are obviously allowed to disagree with
policy
and actions but France, Germany, and Russia did more then simply
disagree.
Since they all had oil or billions of dollars of illegal weapons
contracts
with Saddam they did everything in their power to stop Bush from
stopping
this threat himself. As they were undercutting us to keep their rich
contracts with Saddam Hussien in check they proclaimed that they were
doing it in the name of "peace" and that they were trying to stop
American
"bullying". Then they starting acting like they've done so much to help
on
the war on terror and help fight for the future of mankind when in
reality
they have done almost nothing while the United States has done most of
the
work. Then they claimed Bush was "rushing" to war and that inspectors
needed "more time" as if the last 12 years of trying to disarm Saddam
peacefully didn't happen. How is it rushing if it's been 12 years? Like
you said, they were only doing it for the money but tried to make
themselves look good to everyone else while doing it. All this and they
said it was Bush and America that were being arrogant.

My article was to show how this is complete nonsense. Due to the
reporting
of many mainstream media outlets the mentality that America was the
arrogant one is becoming more and more accepted, like it's some kind of
fact. I don't mind that people think this way but I feel everyone needs
to
hear at least both sides of the story before they make up their minds.
Based on my expeirence it seems people who think this way havn't heard
both sides of the story. My article was to show that, not to be rude or
to
make fun of people.

Before I go I just wanted to say a couple of more things about this
topic.
As much as I like Bush I will agree with you that he did a bad job
before
the war trying to explain why it was needed. If anyone studied the
history
of the sitation with Iraq and Saddam Hussien you would know it was
incredibly scary what he was doing with his weapons. Bush could have
acted
on the past intellegence alone but didn't. He instead tried to include
many new things that were sketchy at best which was incredibly stupid.
Whenever he talked about the WMD programs he overemphazized things that
he
didn't need to and underemphazized certain parts that were incredibly
important. He also never ever explained how ousting Saddam Hussien and
rebuilding Iraq into a prosperous Democracy right smack in the middle
of
the Middle East is the same kind of thing FDR and Truman did and will
have
great effects for the future of this struggle and mankind. While WMD's
were of a great concern to Bush it was also very obvious another reason
he
wanted to invade Iraq was to rebuild it and free the people. Not once
did
he ever mention this before the war which was beyond stupid. I'll never
figure out why he didn't. Of course he's saying that a lot now but no
one
is lisetning to him which is sad. He also never really touched how much
of
a monster Saddam Hussien was and how had his oppresion was in Iraq.
Even
now millions of people in Iraq are still terrified of him and he's been
out of power for 5 months. Bush did do a bad job in some parts before
the
war but the actions of France, Germany, Russia, and millions of people
around the world was by far worse and people just don't want to think
it.
That is why I wrote my article.




posted by ulises at 9:43 AM

 


English-Only: Racism Disguised as a Well-Intended pro American Activism?


Sometime years ago a group of very-proud white native Americans discovered that the only race growing within the borders of this country wasn’t the black race. They discovered that millions of Latin Americans had invaded America. First, they arrived to the crop fields in California working hard for ridiculous wages. They were like the Okies (poor people from Oklahoma that crossed the country looking for jobs in California) as Steinbeck had described in “The Grapes of Wrath”. But, they didn’t stay in the fields. Very soon Latin Americans were invading their cities, their schools, their colleges, their work places and their country.

The wave of Latin American immigrants during the second half of the 20th Century faced the American government who thought that they deserved better opportunities than other waves of immigrants in the past. These governments believed that American citizens still could share the “American Dream” with all the immigrants from these poor countries, who wanted to pursue “freedom and happiness.” Some people within this country even believed that the United States could be a richer and more prosperous country if it could assimilate the Hispanic culture and language, integrating them to the American culture. So, those governments approved laws that helped those immigrants to have better education, better jobs and a better life.

One of the many laws created to help Latin American immigrants was bilingual education. According to the educational theory, if the immigrant children were educated the first years of school using their native language, they should learn English faster, and would reach their goals easier. The children educated within a bilingual education system would be better prepared that those who learned only in English. According to Professor Kerper Mora from San Diego State University: “Bilingualism and bilingual education builds connections between the home and school to enhance learning…Children who read and write in their native language transfer this knowledge to written English…; proficiency in English is vital but is only one factor that supports high levels of academic achievement …”

At the time these theories were being applied and government funding were being directed to bilingual education and non-English programs for Latin American immigrants, some Americans didn’t like the idea of immigrants coming massively to America. They started to view this with very serious fears.

The people who opposed immigration argued that in the past, there were other large waves of immigrants coming to America (Dutch, Irish, Jews, Polish, Japanese, Chinese), and that they had learned English and quickly assimilated to the American society. Furthermore, they argued that these new immigrants from Latin America, who arrived to the United States proud of their language, their culture, their way of life and their values, were not trying to assimilate to America. They were trying to make America assimilate to their culture. While the American government was spending millions of dollars receiving them!

John H. Tanton, a retired ophthalmologist from Michigan, was one of the first to provide “scientific” evidence that these immigrants were a menace to the American way of life. As a member of environmentalist groups “Sierra Club” and “National Audubon Society”, Tanton believed firmly that population control was the only way to stop a hellish future for the United States. According to Tanton and other organizations like NumbersUSA, all the big problems that America will face in the 21st and 22nd Century are related to overpopulation and immigration such as crime, traffic jams, polluted air, water shortages, encroachment on public lands and extinction of plants and animals.

Tanton, who received strong opposition among Sierra Club members when he tried to introduce immigration control in its agenda, knew that his proposal could label him as a racist. He then and created a strategy that allowed him to fight against immigration from different fronts: He was president of Zero Population Growth (1975-1977), organized FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) in 1979, founded and organized U.S. Inc. and U.S. English in 1982, created the anti-immigration quarter journal “The Social Contract” in 1990 and founded the civil association ProEnglish in 1993.

One of Tanton’s creatures, Pro English, defines itself as:“…dedicated to protecting our nation's unity in the English language…aimed at enacting official English laws, ending bilingual education, opposing mandatory multilingualism and bilingual ballots, and the right of employers to maintain English language workplace rules. Because much of this battle takes place in court, Pro English has become the nation's leading legal advocates for English…”

The Social Contract Press, another of his creatures, offers online printed copies of “The Camp of the Saints”, a novel written by Jean Raspail that is like the Bible for anti-immigration people: “…the 1984 of the late twentieth century…this gripping novel, which envisions the overrunning of European civilization by burgeoning Third World populations.”

Tanton accuses his detractors of exaggerating his role in the recent tendency favoring English-Only laws and anti-immigration legislation. He writes in his article “The Puppeteer Replies” (an answer to the article “The Puppeteer” published in 2002 by the Southern Poverty Law Center): “Most Americans oppose mass immigration not because of any animosity toward immigrants, or because immigrants look different, speak different languages, or practice different religions. They oppose mass immigration because mass immigration is not in their interests. They are guilty of looking out for themselves and their own perceived interests – exactly as the immigrants and their supporters do”

The English-Only movement is a creation of people opposed to immigration, worried about the growth of Latin American population within the United States and the destruction of the perception we have about the American culture as we know it. The English-Only laws won’t stop the wave of illegal immigrants to this country but probably will make more difficult to immigrants to stay.

It’s fair to say also, that some of the most important victories of English-Only were based on the failures of bilingual education programs. According to a Reason magazine reporter, Glen Garvin, these programs: “has become a multi-billion-dollar hog trough that feeds arrogant education bureaucrats and militant Hispanic separatists…” Thanks to flawed policies, today some of the strongest supporters of the abolition of bilingual programs are immigrant parents.

But English-Only aims further than destroy bilingual education as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) makes known on its web page: “Some versions of the proposed English Language Amendment would void almost all state and federal laws that require the government to provide services in languages other than English. The services affected would include: health, education and social welfare services, job training, translation assistance to crime victims and witnesses in court and administrative proceedings; voting assistance and ballots, drivers' licensing exams, and AIDS-prevention education…such laws can also affect private businesses.” ACLU also notifies that several Southern California cities have passed ordinances that restrict or forbid the use of foreign languages on private business signs, that some English-Only advocates have opposed a telephone company's use of multilingual operators and multilingual directories, Federal Communications Commission licensing of Spanish-language radio stations, and bilingual menus at fast food restaurants. That’s a large attack against Latin American culture within the United States!

The states with “English Only” laws now are 16: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia but there are many others considering such laws. Recent polls show that the majority of the American people agree to make English the official language of the United States but an important percentage of the population disagree about giving a law to make it official or ending bilingual programs.

The defendants of English-Only laws argue that Latino and Asian immigrants are not learning English as fast as others previous waves of immigrants, but the last census figures shows that’s not true, that approximately 90 percent of Latinos five years old or older speak English in their households and 98 percent of Latinos surveyed believe that it’s "essential" that their children learn to read and write English.

The development of the English-Only movement is a serious menace to the perception we have about the United States: a country created over the principle of freedom. Thus, declaring English the official language of this country will be a victory for people whose objectives are to end immigrants on. These people are camouflaged as pro-Americans and good citizens when in fact they are a group of racists and defendants of ideals of white supremacy.

According to this investigation, immigrants and Americans should oppose the English-Only movement as a way to preserve their right to be free. They should oppose the idea of making the English the official language of this country for it is a law contrary to the spirit of tolerance proclaimed in the Constitution of the United States.














Works cited
American Civil Liberties Union. English Only. From its inception the United States has been a multilingual nation.Briefing paper. http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbp6.html

Crawford, James. Anatomy of the English-Only Movement.

Garvin, Glenn. Loco, Completamente Loco. The many failures of bilingual education. Reason Magazine. January 1998. http://www.reason.com/9801/fe.garvin.shtml

Kerper Mora, Jill. Comparison of Philosophical Assumptions of English-only L2 Instruction Versus Bilingual Education. San Diego University web page:

www.numbersUSA.com

www.proEnglish.org

www.thesocialContract.com

posted by ulises at 10:53 AM

 
THIS WEEK ON THE MEDIA

The Rolling Stone last edition (920, 4.17.2003) includes an article about five American cartoonists that work criticizing their government. Tom Tomorrow (This Modern World), Aaron McGruder (The Boondocks), Lalo Alacaráz (La Cucaracha), David Rees (Get Your War On) y Ted Rall (Search and Destroy). The five of them, from a critical position and their periodical spots, shout their anger against this government, the politicians, the society, etc.
Tomorrow’s strip is a good example: Starts with Bush saying: “Because the moon some day could break out its orbit and crash against the Earth. I’ve decided to use our “NUKELAR” arsenal to destroy it NOW!” The story follows with Rumsfeld using his persuasion powers to convince the American people –terrorizing them and menacing the press with evidence that only he knows--. In the next frame, two citizens look really scared: “The damn rock could fall down over us ANY MOMENT…The sooner we get rid of it, the happier I’ll be””. In the last frame two citizens are making fun of some liberals without bollocks: “Probably they want us to sit down and wait until the damn rock fall down on us…Those crazy moon lovers.” You can check some of Tom Tomorrow strips on the Village Voice






Lalo Alcaráz lives in L.A. and is one of the best known Latin cartoonists in America. He made a fascinating cartoon book about the history of the Latinos and the fights of the Hispanic people for their rights in this country. La Cucaracha, his comic strip, is published on 65 papers all around the United States. However Alcaráz prefers some media where he can publish independently, curse a little bit more and express himself with total liberty, like this comic web site about the Chicanos : www.pocho.com



The Boondocks is one the best comic strips published in the U.S. (240 papers in all the most important cities). His characters have received a lot of media coverage, especially Huey, a black young man that grows in the white suburbia and always have something to protest about. One of the best examples is the strip he published a couple of days after 9/11 when Huey calls to the telephone number of the CIA to give information about Americans collaborating economically with Al Qaeda “The first one is Reagan. It’s R–E–A–G...."
Check the web site of the www.RollingStone.com





The New Yorker, in its 4.17.03 edition, includes a feature about the fighting of Eliot Spitzer, the New York State Attorney General, against some of the biggest companies in Wall Street. The financial analysts of companies like Merryl Lynch and Morgan Stanley, misused his analysis to favor their employers. At the same time, thousands of the citizens that invested in stocks and believed in the objectivity of those analysts, lost millions of dollars. (some analysts as Jack Grubman from Morgan Stanley Dean Witter made approximately 20 millions per year, including year 2002, at the same time that the companies whose stocks they had recommended went bankrupt.) The Attorney General office reached and agreement and established new rules for the Wall Street monsters that could avoid in the future disasters like the ones that happened when the dot-companies- bubble exploited at the beginning of this century.

In the same edition of the New Yorker, Seymour M. Hersh –the journalist that denounced Richard Perle (the president of the Defense Policy Board who promoted the war to gain millions of dollars in future investments in Saudi Arabia with his own company, --Perle resigned weeks after the article was published ) reveals the controversial political maneuvers of the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and publish the statements of people form the military that do not agree with the way the war have been conducted. The arrogance of Rumsfeld (an ex-wrestling fighter aficionado) to conduct the war with Iraq and the way he have belittled the older military where in the center of the controversy. You can check the web page of the New Yorker




The Atlantic Monthly in its April edition includes an article about the mind of George W. Bush. The journalist and biographer Richard Brookhiser writes it and concludes that, even if the president is more intelligent that what his rivals thought, he could have a serious lack of imagination, a very important factor to consider in a person who conducts a country through a war with unpredictable consequences.
The article studies the development of the character of George W. Bush, his ability to understand and rule organizations-- something he learned at Harvard Business School-- and concludes that the experience as a governor and as a president has developed and improved his natural tendency to act guided by impulses.

The article also analyzes the religiosity of the president and try to understand in which ways this could be a obstacle that he has, and impedes to understand other people without his strong religious beliefs.
For further information visit Atlantic Monthly






posted by ulises at 5:09 PM

 
Bienvenidos a CABRON New York,
posted by ulises at 11:08 PM