Thursday, December 6, 2012

The National Memo » Crippling Strike At LA Ports Ends; Deal Reached

The National Memo » Crippling Strike At LA Ports Ends; Deal Reached:

ng Strike At LA Ports Ends; Deal Reached

December 5th, 2012 9:04 amAssociated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Clerical workers and longshoremen at the nation’s largest port complex will return to work Wednesday, eight days after they walked out in a crippling strike that prevented shippers from delivering billions of dollars in cargo across the country.
“I’m really pleased to tell all of you that my 10,000 longshore workers in the ports of LA and Long Beach are going to start moving cargo on these ships,” said Ray Familathe, vice president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. “We’re going to get cargo moved throughout the supply chain and the country and get everybody those that they’re looking for in those stores.”
Negotiators reached a tentative agreement to end the strike late Tuesday, less than two hours after federal mediators arrived from Washington, D.C. No details about the terms of the deal were released, though a statement from the workers’ union said it had won new protections preventing jobs from being outsourced.
Days of negotiations that included all-night bargaining sessions suddenly went from a stalemate to big leaps of progress by Tuesday. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the sides were already prepared to take a vote when the mediators arrived.
At issue during the lengthy negotiations was the union’s contention that terminal operators wanted to outsource future clerical jobs out of state and overseas — an allegation the shippers denied.
Shippers said they wanted the flexibility not to fill jobs that were no longer needed as clerks quit or retired. They said they promised the current clerks lifetime employment.
The strike began Nov. 27, when 450 members of the union’s local clerical workers unit walked off their jobs. The clerks had been working without a contract for more than two years.
The walkout quickly closed 10 of the ports’ 14 terminals when some 10,000 dockworkers, members of the clerks’ sister union, refused to cross picket lines.
Even though the deal was reached soon after their arrival, the federal mediators said they had little to do with the solution.
“In the final analysis, it worked. The parties reached their own agreement, said George Cohen, director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. “There is no question in my mind that collective bargaining is the best example of industrial democracy in action.”
During the strike, both sides said salaries, vacation, pensions and other benefits were not a major issue.
The clerks, who make an average base salary of $87,000 a year, have some of the best-paying blue-collar jobs in the nation. When vacation, pension and other benefits are factored in, the employers said, their annual compensation package reached $165,000 a year.
“We know we’re blessed,” one of the strikers, Trinnie Thompson, said during the walkout. “We’re very thankful for our jobs. We just want to keep them.”
Union leaders said if future jobs were not kept at the ports, the result would be another section of the U.S. economy taking a serious economic hit so that huge corporations could increase their profit margins by exploiting people in other states and countries who would be forced to work for less.
Combined, the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports handle about 44 percent of all cargo that arrives in the U.S. by sea. About $1 billion a day in merchandise, including cars from Japan and computers from China, flow past its docks.
Shuttering 10 of the ports’ 14 terminals kept about $760 million a day in cargo from being delivered, according to port officials. The cargo stacked up on the docks and in adjacent rail yards or, in many cases, remained on arriving ships. Some of those ships were diverted to other ports along the West Coast.
After the deal was reached, the ports’ management said they were “delighted that the terminals will be operating again, that the cargo will be flowing.”
The clerks handle such tasks as filing invoices and billing notices, arranging dock visits by customs inspectors, and ensuring that cargo moves off the dock quickly and gets where it’s supposed to go. The $1 billion a day in cargo that moves through the busy port terminals is loaded on trucks and trains that take it to warehouses and distribution centers across the country.
Villaraigosa, who had been calling for the two sides to reach a deal for days, said he was pleased by the resolution.
“I think it’s appropriate to say ‘mission accomplished,’” he said.
___
AP writer Andrew Dalton contributed to this report.

'via Blog this'

Former FCC Commissioner: Big Media Dumbs Down Democracy

Former FCC Commissioner: Big Media Dumbs Down Democracy:


Former FCC Commissioner: Big Media Dumbs Down Democracy



Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps discusses the upcoming FCC vote to relax media consolidation laws with Bill Moyers. (photo credit: Dale Robbins)
This week, we’re focusing on the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to relax the rules that prevent one company from owning radio stations, television stations and newspapers all in the same city — a move activists say would hurt diversity and be a boon for the Rupert Murdochs of the world.
It’s déjà vu for Michael Copps, who served on the commission from 2001-2011 and was acting chairman from January to June 2009 — a tenure marked by his concern for diversity and opposition to media consolidation. Copps is now the senior advisor for media and democracy reform at Common Cause. He stopped by our office Monday to share his concerns about the FCC’s latest proposal.
Bill Moyers: After all the conversations we’ve had over the years, why are we still talking about media concentration today?

Former FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. (Photo credit: Robin Holland)
Michael Copps: Because media concentration is still very much a reality today. If you opened up the papers last week, you’ll see Rupert Murdoch is maybe thinking about buying the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune. Every time you have one of these consolidation transactions, they look around for all of these wonderful economies and efficiencies that they’re supposed to harvest from becoming big conglomerates. The first thing they think is, “How do we impress Wall Street now? Where do we cut?” And the first place they cut is the newsroom. We’ve had, across this country, hundreds of newsrooms shuttered, thousands of reporters who are walking the streets in search of a job, rather than walking the beats in search of stories. And the consequence of that is, I think, a dramatically dumbed down civic dialogue that is probably — and I don’t think I’m exaggerating — insufficient to sustain self-government as we would like to have it.
There’s this wonderful story about Bill Paley, who I never knew, but —
Moyers: — founder and chairman of the board of CBS –
Copps: Right. Getting his news folks together back in the ’50s or ’60s, whenever it was, and saying, “I want you folks to go out and get the news. And don’t worry where the money’s coming from. I got Jack Benny. He’ll provide the money and you go get the news.” Can you imagine any of the current CEOs of the media companies here, Les Moonves or anybody like that, telling their news people, “You just go and get the news and don’t worry where the money’s coming from”?
Moyers: The argument we hear in rebuttal is “Well look, we don’t have to worry about monopoly today, we don’t have to worry about cartels today, because we have the Internet, which is the most democratic source of opinion, expression and free speech that’s available to us. You and Moyers are outdated because of your concerns about broadcasting and newspapers and all of this.”
Copps: I don’t buy that argument at all. The Internet has the potential for all of that. The Internet has the potential for a new town square of democracy, paved with broadband bricks. But it’s very, very far from being the reality. The reality is — and you don’t have to really look too closely — throughout history, we’ve seen every means of communication go down this road toward more and more consolidation. Wouldn’t it be a tragedy if you took this potential of this open and dynamic technology, capable of addressing just about every problem that the country has — no problem that we have doesn’t have a broadband component to its solution somewhere along the line — and let the biggest invention since the printing press probably as communication goes, morph into a cable-ized Internet? That’s what I think is happening. Most of the news generated on the Internet, is still coming from the newspaper newsroom, or the TV newsroom. It’s just there’s so damn much less of it because of the consolidation that we’ve been through, because of the downsizing, and because of a government that has been absent without leave from its public interest responsibilities for many, many years — a better part of a generation now.
Moyers: You came to the commission advocating more ownership, more diversity, more participation by minorities and women — where does that stand now? Have they made gains?
Copps: It stands pretty much where it stood when the new commissioner came through the door in 2009. We have pending before the commission dozens and dozens of recommendations to incentivize minority and female ownership. It can’t right now be truly a race-conscious policy — I hope it will be some day — because we don’t have the legal justification, and that’s due to the FCC’s not doing its homework. But they have something called overcoming disadvantage, sort of like the University of Texas and all that, where you can take into consideration a number criteria, and one of those would be minority status.
I wrote a piece on Benton’s blog that came out today, and I go back and quote from Barack Obama in previous years. This is Barack Obama at an FCC hearing, he submitted this statement, 2007, September 20th: “I believe that the nation’s media ownership rules remain necessary and are critical to the public interest. We should be doing much more to encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and establish greater clarity in public interest obligations of broadcasters occupying the nation’s spectrum.” Seven months later, in February, he and Dick Durbin wrote the commission: “The broadcast ownership rules directly implicate core American values such as diversity, localism, representation and a competitive marketplace of ideas.” And listen to this: “I object”— this is Obama, as candidate, October 22, 2007: “I object to the agency moving forward to allow greater consolidation in the media market without first fully understanding how that would limit opportunities for minority, small business and women-owned firms.”
Moyers: But, to the contrary, we hear these reports that the man President Obama put on the commission as the chairman is considering further relaxation of the rules prohibiting concentration. How do you explain that?
Copps: Well, first of all, they definitely are considering it. Nobody has seen the document yet except the commissioners, but in point of fact, they are going to liberalize — that’s the wrong term — they’re going to loosen the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership [rules] and loosen the constraints on radio and TV stations owning each other.
How do you explain that? I don’t know if it’s a question of less interest than there should be in the media issues, because people maybe deem them to be an older issue, and let’s talk about new media and wireless and spectrum and all of that. And all of that is important, but here’s my take. You know, you really have to get people away from this idea of thinking old media versus new media. We have in this country one media ecosystem, and it is partly composed of traditional media — newspapers, radio, television, cable. It’s partly composed of new media — broadband and the Internet. And it’s going to stay that way, for years yet. I mean there’ll be evolution, but we’re going to have both of these things to contend with. And neither one of them is operating, at either extreme, where they should. The traditional media is a shell of its former self, as I talked about before, really as hollowed out as Midwestern steel mill, a rust belt steel mill. But the new media — there’s wonderful entrepreneurship and experimentation taking place in the new media, but there’s no business plan to support expensive investigative journalism. How does a little website run by one or two people, how does somebody say, “Well, you take off six or eight months and go dig out this story in the state capital, would you please?” Or, “Go look at this insurance company and how it’s operating,” or the city council. You don’t get that anymore. You just wonder how many stories are going untold, how many of the powerful are being held completely unaccountable for what they did.
So the new media, for all the good things it has done — and it has done a lot of cool things, with the instant pictures and instant stories and the Arab Spring and all that stuff, but it hasn’t replaced what we’ve lost in traditional media, from the standpoint of serious and sustained investigative accountability, hold-the-powerful-accountable journalism. Until we address both parts of that equation, we will not have a media system that is worthy of the government.
You can go back to the beginnings of our country and find the founding fathers were vitally interested in our news and information ecosystem, or infrastructure, whatever they called it. So important that they subsidized postal roads, subsidized post offices. They said “Let all the newspapers in the country get out. We’ve got this daring new experiment in self-government. We don’t know if it can work or not. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but the only way it will work is if citizens have information so they can vote and be a part of self-government.” Fast forward to the beginning of the broadcast era. I think that was the same kind of mentality then. We’ve got this public resource here. It can help the news and information infrastructure, so if we’re going to license broadcasters to use this spectrum, we can expect them to serve the public interest in return. I think broadcasters took that seriously for a while, until they discovered, 20 or 30 years later, that the FCC wasn’t really serious about it in the first place. Now that’s all gone, from inattention, and also from the fact that FCC, beginning in the late ’70s and coming up with a vengeance after Ronald Reagan, eviscerated all the public interest guidelines that we used to have.
Moyers: On this particular decision now under consideration, the relaxation of some rules prohibiting further concentration, what can ordinary people do?
Copps: Well, they can get involved. It can become a grassroots movement. I spent 40 years in Washington, working on policy with the belief that you can do some good things from the top down, and I still believe that. But the real systemic reforms and the substantive reforms in this country, from abolition to women’s rights and civil rights, and labor rights and all that, came from the bottom up. And I think there’s enough frustration out there that it’s possible to build on that right now.

'via Blog this'

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Through all the tears for Bal Thackeray - Indian Express

Through all the tears for Bal Thackeray - Indian Express:

Through all the tears for Bal Thackeray


  
Employment Rights Lawyers  www.hoyerlaw.comWrongful Termination and Wage Cases  Free ConsultationAds by Google

Dear Justice (Markandey) Katju, as a former judge of the highest court in the country and as a defender of free expression in your current capacity as chairperson, Press Council of India, you are understandably outraged by the criminal conduct of the Maharashtra police in arresting two women from Palghar in Thane district last week for having “dared” to express their disapproval on Facebook of the bandh enforced by sainiks following Bal Thackeray’s “unacceptable” demise. You have shot off a strong letter to Maharashtra’s chief minister, Prithviraj Chavan, demanding suspension and arrest of the policemen who buckled under threats of the Sena’s musclemen. You have said that if he failed to act, you will conclude that as CM, he is unable to run the state.
Since it’s unlikely that the CM will come clean on the subject, I am making bold to respond as his self-appointed spokesperson for this moment: Respected sir, you are perhaps unaware of the decades-old power-sharing parampara of Maharashtra. Anyone from the state can tell you that it has long been the political arrangement in the state to encourage the Shiv Sena to run a parallel government. Since its inception the Sena’s thokshahi (“constructive violence”, sainiks on the rampage) has been an integral component of Congress’s lokshahi (democratic governance).
But maybe you are right, Justice Katju. Now that a million tears have been shed, it’s time perhaps to spare a thought for our ailing democracy and shed a tear for the “idea of India” too. Perhaps we should be outraged not only by last week’s criminal conduct of a few policemen in Palghar, but our collective complicity for so long.
In less than a month, Mumbaikars will recall how Bombay’s Muslims were “taught a lesson” 20 years ago under the benign gaze of the then Congress government of Maharashtra and the watchful eyes of the then defence minister Sharad Pawar. As in the case of the massacre of innocent Sikhs in 1984, there has been no punishment worth the mention for the perpetrators and the masterminds of the mass crimes committed during December 1992- January 1993.
By draping the deceased in the national flag and extending full state honours during the last journey of the former Sena chief, the ruling Congress-NCP alliance has chosen to dishonour and desecrate that sacred document that we, the people of India, gifted ourselves over 60 years ago. Next month, as Mumbai commemorates the ravaging of cosmopolitan Bombay 20 years ago, the question is sure to be asked: Does the national flag bear no relation to the rule of law principle enshrined in the Constitution?
In the midst of the January 1993 carnage, a leading national daily had published a lead editorial stating the obvious: it’s a “pogrom” whose target were the city’s Muslims. Shocked by the scale and intensity of the violence and police complicity, a group of prominent Bombayites led a delegation to the then chief minister, Sudhakarrao Naik, to demand Thackeray’s arrest. “If I do that Bombay will burn,” pleaded the CM. “But sir, Bombay is already burning!” the delegation members exclaimed, to no avail.
Several days later, the highly respected late judge of the Bombay High Court, Justice Bakhtawar Lentin, told the then prime minister, Narasimha Rao, during his inspection tour of the metropolis: “Sir, in the last few days the streets of Bombay have resembled the streets of Nazi Germany”. As the sole outcome of media reports and citizens’ outrage, Naik was replaced by Sharad Pawar as chief minister.
Justice B.N. Srikrishna, then a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court, was appointed to probe into the causes behind and the role of different actors in the violence that claimed over a thousand lives and Muslim property worth hundreds of crores. In its report released in 1998, the Srikrishna Commission concluded: “There is no doubt that the Shiv Sena and Shiv Sainiks took the lead in organising attacks on Muslims and their properties under the guidance of several leaders of the Shiv Sena from the level of Shakha Pramukh to the Shiv Sena Pramukh Bal Thackeray who, like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims.”
It should come as no surprise to you, Justice Katju, to learn that having buried the recommendations of Justice Srikrishna long ago, the Congress-NCP government has now sent out a clear message to Uddhav and Raj Thackeray: follow Balasaheb! Politicians apart, perhaps this is also an appropriate moment for your brother judges to introspect.
And what can one say of the refusal of the Bombay High Court in 1994, and the Supreme Court subsequently, to entertain a petition seeking directions to the Maharashtra government to prosecute Thackeray for numerous “hate-Muslims” editorials published in the Saamna as a build-up to the pogrom of 1992-93?
“Hindutva is the Maoism of the Indian elite,” wrote a political commentator three years ago. Prominent representatives of this elite were present at Shivaji Park last Sunday shedding copious tears in homage to the departed “Hinduhriday Samrat” (emperor of Hindu hearts). It’s your turn to cry, beloved country.
The writer, general secretary of Muslims for Secular Democracy, is co-editor, ‘Communalism Combat’

'via Blog this'

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ

A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist - Speakeasy - WSJ:

'via Blog this'

Sunday, November 25, 2012

FOCUS: Damn Right, George Bush Should Face Criminal Proceedings

FOCUS: Damn Right, George Bush Should Face Criminal Proceedings:

Damn Right, George Bush Should Face Criminal Proceedings

By Katherine Gallagher, Guardian UK
19 November 12

Though signatory to the convention against torture, Canada neglected to investigate George Bush. Will the UN now act?

ne thing brings together these four men - Hassan bin Attash, Sami el-Hajj, Muhammed Khan Tumani and Murat Kurnaz: they are all survivors of the systematic torture program the Bush administration authorized and carried out in locations including Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo, and numerous prisons and CIA "black sites" around the world. Between them, they have been beaten, hung from walls or ceilings, deprived of sleep, food and water, and subjected to freezing temperatures and other forms of torture and abuse while held in US custody.
None was charged with a crime. Two were detained while still minors. And one of them remains at Guantánamo.
This week, in a complaint filed with the United Nations committee against torture, they are asking one question: how can the man responsible for ordering these heinous crimes, openly enter a country that has pledged to prosecute all torturers regardless of their position and not face legal action?
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) filed the complaint on the men's behalf. The country in question is Canada, visited last year by former US President George W Bush during a paid speaking engagement in Surrey, British Columbia.
Bush's visit drew hundreds in protest, calling for his arrest, and it also provided bin Attash, el-Hajj, Tumani and Kurnaz the opportunity to call on the Canadian government to uphold its legal obligation under the UN convention against torture, and conduct a criminal investigation against Bush while he was on Canadian soil.
To this end, the four men, submitted a 69-page draft indictment (pdf) that CCR and CCIJ had presented to Canada's attorney general ahead of Bush's arrival in support of their private prosecution. The submission included thousands of pages of evidence against Bush, consisting of extensive reports and investigations conducted by multiple US agencies and the UN. The evidence is overwhelming - not to mention the fact that Bush has admitted, even, boasted of his crimes, saying "damn right" when asked if it was permissible to waterboard a detainee, a recognized act of torture.
Canada should have investigated these crimes. The responsibility to do so is embedded in its domestic criminal code that explicitly authorizes the government to prosecute torture occurring outside Canadian borders. There is no reason it cannot apply to former heads of state, and indeed, the convention has been found to apply to such figures including Hissène Habré and Augusto Pinochet. A criminal investigation into the allegations was the lawful thing to do. It was also what Canada had agreed to do when it pledged its support to end impunity for torture by ratifying the convention.
But Canada looked the other way. Not only did federal Attorney General Robert Nicholson refuse to investigate Bush, but the attorney general of British Columbia swiftly intervened to shut down a private criminal prosecution (pdf) submitted to a provincial court in his jurisdiction the morning of Bush's visit.
Thanks to the Obama administration's call to look only "forward" - even in the face of torture that demands a proper reckoning - and a court system in the US that has readily closed its doors to torture survivors, the crimes of the Bush era are effectively beyond the reach of justice in the US. But the immunity - the impunity - granted to these criminals here should not follow them into other countries, particularly those that are signatories to international laws and treaties against torture.
If the UN convention against torture is to have any hope of fulfilling its mission of preventing torture, the committee must send countries like Canada a clear message: it is their legal obligation to ensure there is no safe haven for torturers; and any action to the contrary makes these states effectively complicit in furthering impunity for some of the worst crimes of the past decade.
These four survivors are asking the UN to enforce its own convention, nothing more and nothing less. They call upon the UN, unlike Canada, to unequivocally reject a worldview in which the powerful are exempt from rules, treaties and prohibitions against senseless acts of barbarity. Will the UN now hear their call?


'via Blog this'

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Mira Nair: I’d eat onions before kissing Shashi Tharoor - Times Of India

Mira Nair: I’d eat onions before kissing Shashi Tharoor - Times Of India:

Mira Nair: I’d eat onions before kissing Shashi Tharoor

Priya Gupta, TNN Sep 4, 2012, 12.00AM IST
(Mira Nair More Pics)
Mira Nair, 54, one of Hollywood's most interesting directors, was born in Bhubaneswar and remains an Oriya at heart who to this date covets an ORG number plate. We met her when she was in Mumbai for the post-production of her latest film The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Nair was staying at Shaukat and Kaifi Azmi's old Juhu home, and claimed to be inspired by its creative energies.
Over an hour-long conversation with TOI, she spoke about the role of her radical mother-in-law in her life, her reasons for directing Namesake over Harry Potter 4, and why she will never surrender into the imperial hands of Hollywood.
Let's talk about your journey from Bhubaneswar to Hollywood...
I was born in Rourkela and lived in Bhubaneswar until I was 18 years old. While both my brothers went to Mayo College, I attended a convent in Bhubaneswar but secretly yearned to go elsewhere. From there I went to Loreto, Shimla and then to Miranda House in Delhi. There, I got seriously involved with theatre where Barry John became a big influence. In all the plays I always got to play the boy's mother while my friend Lillete Dubey got to play the sexy girl. I must mention here that I used to eat onions before my love scenes with Shashi Tharoorbecause he was so pompous. I also remember playing Cleopatra where I had six slaves in langotis. Today, all those slaves are famous boys including Amitav Ghosh. From Miranda, I went to Harvard. It was the first time I was going abroad. I wanted to find out if art could change the world in any way. At Harvard, since there was hardly any theatre, I stumbled into documentary film-making. That's how my journey into films started.
How did The Namesake happen?
I was deep into directing Vanity Fair when I lost my mother- in-law all of a sudden due to medical malpractice in New York. That was the first time I faced the finality of loss and buried a parent in a country that was not her home. My husband is a Kathiawadi Gujarati and an Ugandan Asian. He is a third generation East African-Asian. It was in that extreme state of melancholy that I read Jhumpa Lahiri's Namesake which was also about the loss of a parent. I felt as if I had a sister in the world who understood my loss. Not surprisingly, Jhumpa and I are like sisters today. I became consumed with the idea of making this but even as I was toying with it, I got a call from Warner asking me to direct Harry Potter 4. Now, my son was obsessed with Harry Potter and I thought I should do this for him. I returned home that day and told my son that I had been offered Harry Potter 4, but I was just a one month away from shooting The Namesake. He looked at me and said, 'Mama any good director can makeHarry Potter but only you can make Namesake'. With that simple sentence he liberated me from making a film that I thought I had to make for him.
You are an independent woman and there are not those many these days who speak so highly of their mothers-in- law. What was so special about yours?
She was an extraordinary, radical and non-judgmental woman. Let me give you an example of how she was. Now my husband Mahmood and I are agnostics but my in-laws were proper namazis. So I had directed Kamasutra. And one day, a religious leader ran into my mother-in-law in Kampala and said to her, 'Maine toh TV mein dekha tha aap ki... And she completed the sentence for him and said, 'haan haan meri daughter-in-law ka hi hai Kamastutra'."
She was a great cook. She would labour for three hours over a meal and I would just make the salad... and when everyone would be drooling over her meal, she would say, 'Mira ka salad khane ke laik hai...' She was not a flatterer but she made me feel so special. I was able to raise my son while doing films only because I had this caravan of my in-laws and my mother who would come with me wherever I was shooting and look after my son with me even as my husband would come and go.
Given your lives, is it difficult to make a marriage work?
Ours was a slap bang love marriage. He is a legendary political science teacher, thinker and an incredibly attractive man. After Salaam Bombay, while I was researching my second film, a dear friend found a book written by Mahmood on the subject of Asian expulsion from Uganda. I read the book and wanted to interview him for it. It was a coincidence that when he was visiting his sister in London, his sister recommended that he see Salaam Bombay. So, when I wrote to him asking for time to meet him for my book, he promptly wrote back. My friend Sooni Taraporevala and I went to meet him. For both Mahmood and I, it was love at first sight. Even after 22 years of marriage we remain each other's best friend.

'via Blog this'

Sunday, October 21, 2012

JD (U) to propagate Bihar model of development in Gujarat poll

JD (U) to propagate Bihar model of development in Gujarat poll:

JD (U) to propagate Bihar model of development in Gujarat poll

Posted on: 22 Oct 2012, 10:31 AM
ShareThis
Bihar model to be spread in Gujarat poll
Bihar model to be spread in Gujarat poll
Patna: While BJP was busy dispelling the notion that Bihar party leaders were barred in Gujarat during assembly polls there, its ally JD(U) has decided to line up Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, ministers and Parliamentarians from Patna to propagate "Bihar model of development" in the elections in the western state.

"JD(U) will shortly finalise the list of candidates in Gujarat assembly elections after which the party will line up its senior leaders including national President Sharad Yadav, Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, state ministers and Parliamentarians to propagate Bihar model of development to voters of Gujarat," its General Secretary and incharge of elections there K C Tyagi told reporters.

He said over telephone that the party would in all likelihood contest 30 seats in the 180-member Gujarat assembly as it had done in the last polls there. The party has no tie-up with its NDA ally BJP there. It had managed one seat in Gujarat last time.

JD(U) and BJP are running coalition government in Bihar under Nitish Kumar for the last seven years.

Tyagi said party's Gujarat unit was preparing a chargesheet against Narendra Modi government which would be highlighted during the campaign.

In view of the strong reaction of Nitish Kumar against his Gujarat counterpart over the 2002 riots, Modi had been kept out of Bihar in the 2010 assembly elections as well as in 2005.

Recently Kumar made it clear to BJP National President Nitin Gadkari that Modi should not be made Prime Ministerial candidate in the event of NDA victory in 2014 polls.
(Agencies)

'via Blog this'

I Unleashed My Freak! | Alternet

I Unleashed My Freak! | Alternet:

comments_image 15 COMMENTS

I Unleashed My Freak!

A conservative journalist sets out to explore the sexual fringe in this country -- and is most surprised by herself.
 
Photo Credit: Karuka/ Shutterstock.com
 
 
 
 
You wouldn’t expect to find Suzy Spencer — a mostly celibate, middle-aged Southern Baptist with a self-described “terror of touch” — on Craigslist’s “casual encounters.” But for a year, the true crime writer and New York Times bestselling author took to the site, along with Adult Friend Finder, to interview kinky strangers about their most intimate moments for the book“Secret Sex Lives: A Year on the Fringes of American Sexuality.”
Spencer, who felt sexually “dead inside,” figured her detachment made her just the person to write a sober, unbiased assessment of American sexuality — but her journalistic remove quickly dissolved. She found herself flattered by her subjects’ come-ons, titillated by dirty photos they had sent her and, by the end of the book, becoming more participant than observer. (Spoiler alert: The final chapter features her surprising sexual encounter with a swinger couple.)
Although Spencer fondly refers to her interview subjects as “my sex freaks,” it’s her personal journey that really shows just what lovable freaks we all are — whether it’s our taste for leather or our fear of intimacy. She shares detailed stories from her sources about everything from heterosexual male fantasies about gay sex to a BDSM session with a bullwhip that left 9-inch gashes — but there is one common thread: loneliness. Everyone just wants to be loved, accepted and understood — and they’re terrified that they won’t be if others find out the truth about them.
I spoke to Spencer by phone from her home in Austin, Texas, about religious guilt, seeing God during sex, finally admitting to her mom that she isn’t a middle-aged virgin and why people should read her book before getting married.
You start the book off by writing about your “terror of touch.” You hated to be tickled or even hugged as a child. You state flat-out that you don’t know whether this arose from abuse in your past, of which you have no memory, or whether you had simply been around so many people who has been molested that you “absorbed” their feelings. Have you come to any greater clarity about this terror through writing the book?
Unfortunately, no. I wish I had. That would have been a wonderful ending, but the honest truth is I haven’t. I guess I’ve come to a peace that I’ll never know, and that’s OK.
How does someone with a “terror of touch” end up writing a book that requires her to spend a year on the “fringes of American sexuality”?
I dunno, stupidity? I feel like writers have to do what scares them, to be challenged. To some degree I’ve gotten a little bit better at touch but it depends on who it’s coming from. I’m probably jumping ahead in the conversation a little bit, but the book forced me to talk to my mother about my sex life.
Dare I ask how that conversation went?
It was very difficult, and I actually did it in two parts because it was so difficult. The first time, and I know this is going to sound so stupid coming from someone my age, it’s almost unbelievable, but the first conversation was telling my mother, “I’m not a virgin.” She was so upset that she was dysfunctional for the next two or three days. It was also rather humorous because she said, “You mean you’ve had relationships?” And I said, “No, I haven’t had relationships, I’ve had relations.” She goes, “How can you have relations without relationships? With men or with women?” Then my sister said, “With both?” And I went, “Yes, that one.”
And then I had to tell her about the ending of the book.
Yes, can we talk about the ending of the book?
I prefer not to, but, you know, you’re going to do what you want!
Well, do you feel uncomfortable with what happened in the ending?
I feel uncomfortable with my family reading it and with my neighbors reading it. I don’t want the people in my neighborhood to know this.
Beyond just the public revelation of it, how do you feel about what actually happened?
I still have mixed emotions about it, because, yes, it was so great to know that I wasn’t dead inside, to know that I have that ability [to be turned on] and it opened me up to other things that I don’t want to go into. To know that I have the capacity to not be dead inside, because I thought I would be dead inside for eternity. And I know I can resurrect that side of me.
Why were you able to access that part of yourself at that particular point?
I guess to have someone say, “You’re so beautiful, you’re so sexy,” it was sort of like a balm for all these hurts and embarrassments or shames I’ve been carrying all these years. Because I always think of myself as the ultimate geek, nerd and unattractive, and to have someone think I’m attractive it was just like, “Whoa!”
It sounds like in general some of the sexual attention from your male subjects felt really good — you admit to being flattered when they ask for your photo — and that you were conflicted about that.
Yeah, because a journalist is supposed to stay arm’s length away. I also thought I was immune to all that.
Right. You really thought of yourself as coming to this project as the perfect impartial judge, because you felt so very removed and sort of irrelevant to the conversation, right?
Exactly. I’ve had so many people say, “Oh Suzy, you really knew you were going to have sex.” No, I didn’t. It was a complete shock. Even when I think back to it now, I’m still in shock. If I had been drinking that night, OK. But I had been drinking water and Diet Coke.
Personally, I do sometimes wonder about the “cover” that being a journalist gives me to ask about or see things that maybe I have a personal interest in but am too embarrassed to explore without the excuse of “it’s for work.” Do you ever feel that?
Of course. I knew I was really bad at sex and I thought maybe I could learn. I don’t think even watching porn movies teaches you how to do it. So I thought talking to real human beings, maybe I would learn something. But, yes, there was also the curiosity factor, because for decades people have insisted that I’m lesbian and in denial about it. This was a way, sort of, to feel out the situation. It taught me some things about myself.
Like what?
I definitely have the capability to be bi, which I’m OK with and at peace with at this point. Before, I wasn’t. As the years have gone on, I’ve found out that I’m much more hetero than I expected, too. Talk about the continuum — yeah, I’ve been sliding back and forth on that.
How did your mom react to the book’s ending?
She doesn’t know the full ending, even though I said, “Hey, there’s this couple in [the book], I do have sex.” She’s, like, terrified that I was raped. I told her I wasn’t raped, these are very nice people, it wasn’t like that. But the good news is we each got something we needed: I heard from her for the first time, “I love you no matter what. I’m not going to reject you. I accept you, I love you.” She told me that over and over.
Have you always felt like religion and sex are in conflict?
Oh yes. One time when I was living in L.A. and I was having sex with this guy and I’m lying there looking at the ceiling and over to the right filling up practically the entire ceiling, just like Woody Allen in “New York Stories” with his mother filling up the New York skyline, I’m seeing my mother’s face and she’s so upset and saying, “This is wrong! How can you be doing this?” Then I look over to the left and in a teeny tiny corner of the ceiling there is God going, “It’s OK. I don’t like this, but I understand. It’s OK.” I’m still confused about premarital sex, whether it’s right or wrong, but I know God understands and it’s OK.
You identified loneliness as a common theme among your subjects. How would you describe that loneliness? How did it manifest itself?
Well, to me, it kind of goes back to the Christianity thing and my own family. People have these secret desires that some of them really need to fulfill — for example, the cross-dresser in the book. He talked about how he really needed to cross-dress as a stress reliever — but he is terrified to tell his wife about this. It builds a wall between them, because he has this secret life that he’s hiding. Plus, I think he has some anger and resentment at her that he can’t tell her this. So that’s where the loneliness comes in, because to me the people desperately want the person they most love to know all of them and accept all of them.
You’re so judgmental of yourself when it comes to your own sexual feelings, but you’re pretty accepting of these people who are very much on the sexual fringe. Why are you able to afford that sort of sympathy for them and not for yourself?
I need more years of therapy to find that out [laughs]. I guess maybe I’m trying to do what I want people to do with me. Also, I want people to understand that not all of our Christians are like the ones you see shouting and screaming on TV.
You found that the male BDSMers that you spoke with had been abused by their fathers. But is that representative of the community at large?
I can’t answer that. I know it’s representative of the people I talked with. That’s why I went to psychiatrists and asked them, and like I say in the book, some of them said, “Yes, it’s true” and others said, “It’s definitely not.”
What were you most surprised by in terms of what you found in your interviews?
I wish I could think of something that’s really happy, but the thing that did just blow me away was the loneliness. I just did not expect that. And the other thing that shocked me so was the amount of happily married, madly in love, basically heterosexual men who fantasized about being with men. We’re all taught women have these bisexual fantasies and I did not find that among the women I interviewed, but I found it among the men — all the Texas, good ol’ boy, military men who wanted that.
How did they frame those fantasies?
Most of them wanted a woman directing it, to tell them, “You have to do this.” I loved [one subject's] explanation that the first time he got a blow job from a man it was so great because, one, the guy didn’t have any teeth [laughs], but two, men understand what a man wants. I found that fascinating.
What do you hope that people will take from the book?
When I go out and talk about the book, I sit there and almost shake it like a preacher would a Bible and say, “If you’re talking about getting married, read the book!” Read it with the one you love and talk about it so that if you desperately need to be whipped or to whip someone that it’s not a surprise and that you’re not going out on the side to fill this need that’s imperative. And if you’re in a marriage and you want to talk about it, use the book to talk about it, because that’s where I see the loneliness. These people want to be so accepted and they’re terrified they won’t be. I want to say, “Hey, look at my life with my mom.” She accepted me after all and I didn’t expect that.

Tracy Clark-Flory is a staff writer at Salon. Follow@tracyclarkflory on Twitter.

'via Blog this'