Archive for July, 2017

India’s democracy has completely been funded by invisible money, says Arun Jaitley – The Hindu


The Hindu
India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money, says Arun Jaitley
The Hindu
For 70 years, India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money elected representatives, governments, political parties, Parliaments and I must say that the Election Commission completely failed in checking it, Mr Jaitley said ...
Arun Jaitley says for 70 years invisible money funded Indian democracy, slams politicians for taking benami routeFinancial Express
For 70 years, Indian democracy was funded by 'invisible money': Arun JaitleyOneindia

all 41 news articles »

Read the original:
India's democracy has completely been funded by invisible money, says Arun Jaitley - The Hindu

Dark money threatens democracy – NMPolitics.net

COMMENTARY:The bright spot in the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision was the upholding of transparency. The ruling opened the floodgates for the uber-wealthy to grab greater control of our local, state and national elections but it also made clear that you have a right to know theyre doing it.

Heath Haussamen

Bringing political spending into the light enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages, the Citizens United decision states. In a ruling on another case that year, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.

And yet, New Mexico has struggled for years to come up with laws or regulations to combat dark money. Parts of our Campaign Reporting Act were ruled unconstitutional years ago, and policymakers have failed to fix it.

The Legislature finally sent a bill to Gov. Susana Martinez this year that would have required independent groups that spend more than $1,000 during a campaign to disclose their funding. She vetoed it.

Now Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver is trying to enact a new rule to supplement the states reporting law. Groups that spend more than $1,000 in an election cycle would have to report all donors who gave more than $200.

Several right-leaning groups are fighting the proposal. Some left-leaning groups that have fought against or been lukewarm about increased disclosure in the past have been largely silent about the proposal from Toulouse Oliver, a Democrat.

Common Cause New Mexico, which voluntary discloses donor and spending information, has been lobbying hard for the secretary of states new rule.

Given that parts of the states reporting law are unconstitutional, the secretary of state is likely to rely on case law and enforce her proposal regardless of whether its enacted as a rule, an assistant attorney general said during a public hearing this week.

Toulouse Olivers proposal is an important step. Id rather disclosure be protected in state law so it cant be easily undone by a future secretary of state who doesnt favor transparency. But a rule is better than nothing.

And it wont solve the problem of dark money. It would require disclosure when spending is expressly related to a race or issue on the ballot. But it wouldnt touch the massive spending by nonprofits on issue advocacy and criticism of government officials that shapes public opinion outside of an election season.

You should get to know, for example, whos funding billboards and other mediacriticizingU.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, a Republican, that a coalition of left-leaning groups has spread across southern New Mexico. You should get to know when a wealthy individual from the left or right funds an attack on your public officials.

Dark money has spread like a cancer throughout our system. Those of us who engage in the public debate politicians, candidates, nonprofit and other activist groups, journalists should be transparent about how our work is funded. We should, in Scalias words, have the civic courage to stand up in public.

Courts have largely upheld donor privacy for spending that isnt explicitly election-related, and thats unfortunate. The degree of transparency Im seeking may not ever happen.

But its needed to combat the United States oligarchical trajectory, to preserve our ability to participate in and influence the direction of our society.

Heath Haussamenis NMPolitics.nets editor and publisher. Agree with his opinion? Disagree? We welcome your views. Learn about submitting your own commentaryhere.

Original post:
Dark money threatens democracy - NMPolitics.net

Romania: Art exhibit at ex-prison show horrors of communism – ABC News

An art exhibition went on display Friday at a former Romanian prison where communists tortured and killed political prisoners in a gruesome re-education program.

The collection of 11 sculptures at the Pitesti Prison, southern Romania, aims to remind visitors about the horrors that took place there from 1949 to 1951.

The 3.5 meter-tall (11.5-feet) grey, polystyrene figures depict detainees who were tortured and humiliated to force them to become communists.

Several thousand prisoners who had fallen foul of the communist regime underwent what was known as "The Pitesti Experiment." Prisoners were forced to stare at lightbulbs, eat feces, given electric shocks and head butt each other. They were also encouraged to inform on each other and torture fellow inmates. About 100 died from mistreatment.

Alexandru Bogdanovici, who was imprisoned because he'd been a member of the fascist Iron Guard, was co-opted to re-educate fellow prisoners. But the prison commander later considered him disloyal and he was beaten, denied water and eventually died.

For the exhibit, artist Catalin Badarau sculpted contorted, anonymous figures which lie in hallways or in former prison cells. One figure stands awkwardly on his head, others have their hands tied behind their backs or are covering their faces.

Badarau says the oversized figures, of a mottled grey color which is similar to the prison walls and floors "show the fragility of human beings."

"They were strong people when they went into prison but they came out physical wrecks," he told The Associated Press. "But conversely, they became spiritual giants."

Among the detainees that survived Pitesti are Romanian Orthodox priest Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa who spent 21 years as a political prisoner and Corneliu Coposu, an anti-communist politician and well-known dissident who died in 1995.

An estimated 500,000 people, members of the pre-communist intellectual and political elite, were locked up in political prisons until a general amnesty was declared in 1964.

Similar art exhibitions will be held this year in other cities that housed political prisons or had anti-communist revolts, sponsored by the Nasui Collection & Gallery and a government institute tasked with investigating crimes of the communist era.

Badarau said his sculptures challenge people to ask themselves: "What would I have done? Would I have become a victim or a torturer, or both?"

Read the original post:
Romania: Art exhibit at ex-prison show horrors of communism - ABC News

Svetlana Alexievich: ‘After communism we thought everything would … – The Guardian

Power and insight Svetlana Alexievich. Photograph: Reuters

In conversations with Svetlana Alexievich, it quickly becomes apparent that she is more comfortable listening than she is talking. Thats hardly surprising: the Belarusian writer has spent decades in listening mode. Alexievich, now 69, put in thousands of hours with her tape recorder across the lands of the former Soviet Union, collecting and collating stories from ordinary people. She wove those tales into elegant books of such power and insight, that in 2015 she received the Nobel prize for literature.

In todays Russia, Alexievichs work is a Rorschach test for political beliefs: among the beleaguered, liberal opposition, she is frequently seen as the conscience of the nation, a uniquely incisive commentator on the disappointments and complexities of the post-Soviet condition. Mainstream opinion sees her as a turncoat whose books degrade Russia and Russians.

When I meet her in a cosy basement caf in her home city of Minsk, the entrance nestled in an amphitheatre of imposing, late-Soviet apartment blocks, she has just returned from a book tour of South Korea, and is about to embark on a trip to Moscow. Its tiring to have the attention on yourself; I want to closet myself away and start writing properly again, she says, looking visibly wearied by the travel and spotlight. Alexievich reluctantly agreed to deliver a talk about a book she wrote more than three decades ago, The Unwomanly Face of War, which has been republished in a new English translation this month. It was written in the early 1980s, and for many years she could not find a publisher, but during the soul-searching of the late-Soviet perestroika period, it tapped into the zeitgeist of reflection and critical thinking, and was published in a print run of 2m, briefly turning Alexievich into a household name. Later, the merciless flashlight Alexievich shone on to the Soviet war experience became less welcome in Russia. Since the Nobel win, her work has found a new international audience, giving her a second stint of fame 30 years after the first.

The original inspiration for the book was an article Alexievich read in the local Minsk press during the 1970s, about a retirement party for the accountant at a local car factory, a decorated sniper who had killed 75 Germans during the war. After that first interview, she began to seek out female war veterans across the Soviet Union. A million Soviet women served at the front, but they were absent from the official war narrative. Before this book, the only female character in our war literature was the nurse who improved the life of some heroic lieutenant, she says. But these women were steeped in the filth of war as deeply as the men.

It took a long time, Alexievich concedes, to get the women to stop speaking in rehearsed platitudes. Many were embarrassed about the reality of their war memories. They would say, OK, well tell you, but you have to write it differently, more heroically. After a frank interview with a woman who served as the medical assistant to a tank battalion, Alexievich recounts, she sent the transcript as promised and received a package through the post in response, full of newspaper clippings about wartime feats and most of the interview text crossed out in pen. More than once afterward I met with these two truths that live in the same human being, Alexievich writes. Ones own truth, driven underground, and the common one, filled with the spirit of the time.

The book touches on topics that were taboo during the Soviet period and have once again been excised from Putins Russia: the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, by which Stalin and Hitler carved up Europe, the executions of deserters and the psychological effects of war for years to come. Her subjects recall sweaty nightmares, grinding teeth, short tempers and an inability to see forests without thinking of twisted bodies in shallow graves.

In modern Russia, Putin has turned the war victory into a national building block of almost religious significance, and questioning the black-and-white history of glorious victory is considered heresy. This makes the testimony of the women in Alexievichs book, most of whom are now dead, feel all the more important today. There is no lack of heroism in the book; the feats and the bravery and the enormous burden that fell on the shoulders of these women shine from every page. But she does not erase the horror from the story, either. In the end, the book is a far more powerful testament to the extraordinary price paid by the Soviet people to defeat Nazi Germany than the sight of intercontinental missiles rolling across Red Square on 9 May, or the endless bombastic war films shown on Russian television.

After The Unwomanly Face of War, Alexievich wrote books that dealt with the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl and the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, two tragedies that accompanied the death throes of the Soviet Union, both of them simultaneously causes and symptoms of its impending collapse.

More recently, she published the doorstop-sized Second-Hand Time, which reads as a requiem for the Soviet era. It chronicles the shock and the existential void that characterised the 1990s after the Soviet Union disintegrated, and helps explain the appeal of Putins promises to bring pride back to a wounded, post-imperial nation.

Nobody thought the Soviet Union would collapse, it was a shock for everyone, she says. Everyone had to adapt to a new and painful reality as the rules, behavioural codes and everyday language of the Soviet experience dissolved almost overnight. Taken together, Alexievichs books remain perhaps the single most impressive document of the late Soviet Union and its aftermath. Alexievich became a harsh critic of Alexander Lukashenko, the authoritarian president of newly independent Belarus. She left the country as a protest, and spent 11 years living in exile in various European countries, returning only a few years ago. When youre on the barricades, all you can see is a target, not a human, which is what a writer should see. From the point of view of art, the butcher and the victim are equal as people. You need to see the people.

Lukashenko has made it clear he is no fan of Alexievichs work, and while the Nobel prize has given her some security, her books have not been published in Belarus, and she is de facto banned from making public appearances. As a writer of Ukrainian and Belarusian heritage, but who writes essentially about the whole post-Soviet space, she is confused about modern Russia. She is unsure whether to say we or they when she speaks about Russians. Where she is more certain is in her opinions of Putin and the current political climate. We thought wed leave communism behind and everything would turn out fine. But it turns out you cant leave this and become free, because these people dont understand what freedom is.

She has repeatedly criticised the Russian annexation of Crimea and intervention in east Ukraine, which has led to a falling-out with many Russian friends, she says. She never quite knows how conversations will go when she visits Moscow. She recalls a recent visit when she entered the apartment of an old acquaintance: I had just walked in the door and taken my coat off, when she sits me down and says, Svetochka, so that everything is clear, let me just say that Crimea isnt ours. Its like a password! Thank God, I told her.

During her trip to Moscow, she gives a talk at Gogol Centre, an edgy theatre space known for its outspoken director and controversial productions. The lecture is rambling and in places barely coherent, but receives multiple rounds of applause from an audience eager to display their liberalism and disdain for Putins militarism. The questions are mainly gushing odes to her work.

Shortly after, she grants an interview to a Russian news agency. This time, the questions are rude and provocative, and a flustered Alexievich appears to suggest she understands the motivations of the murderers of a pro-Russian journalist in Kiev, and appears uneasy and unsure of herself. The Russian-language internet explodes with debates over the scandal.

She has two new projects she wants to finish: one about love, which will look at 100 relationships from the perspective of the man and the woman involved, and a second book about the process of ageing. It is something she has been thinking about, as she approaches her 70th birthday.

In youth, we dont think much about it and then suddenly all these questions arrive, she says. After a little more than an hour of discussion, her already quiet voice has become almost inaudible, and she seems tired and distracted. What was the point of life, why did all of that happen?

Not wanting to outstay my welcome any further, I turn off my recorder and thank her for the interview, assuming she will make a speedy beeline for the exit. Excellent, she says, immediately brightening. Shall we have some lunch? Surprised, I stay, and we talk for another hour. Now its mainly her asking the questions: about my views on Russia but also Donald Trump, the European far right and the Queen. Ever the listener, Alexievich is much more at ease asking the questions than answering them.

See the original post here:
Svetlana Alexievich: 'After communism we thought everything would ... - The Guardian

Liberals oppose Nazis, jihad, communism – Eureka Times Standard

It might come as a shock to Susan Stamper Brown (Trumps Warsaw speech truly inspiring, Times-Standard, July 13, Page A4) that not only are liberals opposed to oppressive communism and the slaughter of Jews by the Nazis, but we are also opposed to jihad. We are also for freedom, our country and probably more in favor of family, because we view family to include LGBT parents and children as well as single parents and families extended through divorce and remarriage. When it comes to God I and many liberals do differ. The God in the constitution is a specific one, Natures God. For thousands of years all over the planet every nation, every tribe had different deities they worshipped. Susan thinks I and every American should believe that just one god is the real deity and although that deity created the whole universe, it only spoke to a handful of people in the Middle East long, long ago. And if we dont believe in her deity we must be deep into lunacy. Susan was very impressed with Trumps speech and for that she need not thank the president but rather his speechwriter. Now if someone could teach the Donald to read his speeches a little faster and a lot more convincingly, but there may not be enough time. Sad.

Larry DePuy, Eureka

Advertisement

More here:
Liberals oppose Nazis, jihad, communism - Eureka Times Standard