ICE Raids the Strawberry Days Festival in Glenwood Springs, Two Fathers Detained While Waiting for Kids at the Bouncy Castle.
Father’s Day Festival Raid by Local Law Enforcement and ICE Chills Relations with Latino/a and Immigrant Communities; Hurts Business and Safety. Glenwood Springs, CO — The Strawberry Days Festival in Glenwood Springs is usually remembered as a treasured summer family event. This year, some children will also remember it as the day their family was ripped apart by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As the Alvarez family was waiting for their children to come out of the Bouncy Castle, they were approached by a couple of Garfield County Sheriffs deputies who led the men away behind the carnival rides. While there, 2 plainclothes ICE agents approached, checked, and detained both men. Brothers Cesar and Julio Alvarez were then taken to an ICE van in the back of the fair, while their 4 children waited with their aunt and mother. Lorenza Alvarez, Julio’s 7-months pregnant, US born wife, came looking for her husband and her brother-in-law and was treated poorly by agents as she explained that Cesar was the only caretaker of twin 11-year-old girls. Following an extended conversation, Cesar was released but Julio was taken away for processing at an ICE detention center in Glenwood Springs. The stress was almost too much for the pregnant Mrs. Alvarez, and she had to be taken to Valley View Hospital for emergency care. Teaming up with the Garfield County Sheriff’s Department, undercover ICE agents conducted this dragnet operation at a family fair on Father’s Day, in violation of their own operating regulations — which call on them to “refrain from conducting enforcement actions or investigative activities at or near sensitive community locations, such as schools, places of worship... and venues generally where children and their families may be present.” “This operation has revealed the Glenwood Springs ICE office to be a rogue agency operating outside of clear ICE directives to not conduct operations in “sensitive locations.” said Brendan Greene, Rocky Mountain Coordinator for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition,“ The fact that ICE and local police went after dads at the carnival on Father’s Day has been spreading throughout the immigrant community. This has the potential to negatively impact the success of Strawberry Days for years to come; not to mention erode what little trust remains between the immigrant community and the Garfield Co. Sheriff’s office.” Adds Greene, “The local ICE office and the Garfield Co. Sheriff, by irresponsibly targeting the city’s flagship summer event, has hurt not only the City of Glenwood Springs, but also any other town in the Valley that is hoping to have a successful festival this summer. They should be ashamed of themselves for hurting the Valley’s businesses in this way.” Local Spanish language DJ, Axel Contreras, heard about ICE’s presence at the carnival and went to investigate. “I have lived in the Valley and attended Strawberry Days for 20 years…in all of my years here, even when there were terrible storms, I have never seen Strawberry Days as empty as it was on Sunday after word had spread in the community that ICE was conducting an operation.” This type of enforcement operation is often extremely disruptive to small towns like Glenwood Springs, where the Latino/a community has grown to become a major supporter of the Festival over the last decade. CIRC has been receiving complaints from the immigrant community about how the Garfield County Sheriffs Departments has been closely collaborating with, and in the case of last weekend’s raids at the carnival, taking the lead in ICE enforcement operations. “I can’t think of a better way to ruin community policing than having local law enforcement troll for undocumented workers at community events like Strawberry Days.” said attorney Ted Hess, who is representing one of the detained men, “ This unholy alliance of ICE and local cops destroys trust between the community and the police.”Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Breaking news from Bonn on climate negotiations: Bolivia & Tuvalu
independent journalistSpecial to Climate Connections from Tina Gerhardt,
Bolivia has taken a firm stance at the opening of the UN climate negotiations in Bonn today, stating that it opposed the Cancún Agreement in Mexico and refuses to negotiate it now in Bonn until its concerns, particularly vis-a-vis the fundamental issue of REDD, are addressed. Discussions will resume this afternoon, taking up this topic.Tuvalu - calls bluff on lack of transparency in Mx in "facilitator groups" that made decisions- calls attention to conflict of interests and "material" motivations for decision-making on REDD- demands transparency and that Annex I and Annex II party representatives be consulted- demands representation of the interests of indigenous groupsRequests the chair of the SBSTA reassure Bolivia in expressed concerns.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
California Assembly Approves Domestic Workers Bill of Rights
A big week for progressive legislations:
“Today’s vote was a historic step forward for the rights of domestic workers in California. For decades domestic work has been excluded from both state and federal labor laws and worker exploitation in this industry has remained invisible and unmonitored. AB 889 will end that by establishing the same basic protections under the law that many of us take for granted,” said Ammiano.
“This legislation helps us to bring a critical workforce out of the shadows and into the light of day. Domestic workers must be assured the rights and protections that all California workers deserve,” said V. Manuel Pérez, chair of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy.
The Assembly vote follows last year’s successful passage of a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in New York. Domestic workers have historically been exempted from laws governing the rights afforded to other workers -decent wages, a safe and healthy workplace health, workers compensation and other labor protections. Domestic workers are among the most isolated and vulnerable workforce in the state. The unique nature of their work requires protections to prevent abuse and mistreatment from occurring behind closed doors, out of the public eye. This bill provides domestic workers with industry-specific protections to use kitchen facilities and cook their own food, and creates standards for sleep, sick days, living wage increases, and paid vacations.
this, the TRUST Act and the CA DREAM Act are on their way ...
---------- Forwarded message ---------
California Assembly Approves Domestic Workers Bill of Rights
Assembly approves sensible, clear guidelines for domestic workers and employers
Bill will improve quality of care for families
Bill will improve quality of care for families
SACRAMENTO
- The California Assembly approved AB 889 today, the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, sponsored by Assemblymembers Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) and V.M. Pérez (D-Coachella) passed. The bill now heads to the Senate for approval. Co-sponsored by Assemblymembers Allen (D- Sonoma), Cedillo (D- LA), Ma (D- San Francisco), Monning (D- Carmel) and Senator De Léon , the bill would improve the quality of care for children, families and seniors by expanding basic labor protections for household workers and setting industry-wide standards. While current exclusions for domestic workers are confusing and leave well-meaning employers vulnerable to liability, the standards AB 889 provides will create clarity and strengthen an industry which is vital to many Californians.
“Today’s vote was a historic step forward for the rights of domestic workers in California. For decades domestic work has been excluded from both state and federal labor laws and worker exploitation in this industry has remained invisible and unmonitored. AB 889 will end that by establishing the same basic protections under the law that many of us take for granted,” said Ammiano.
“This legislation helps us to bring a critical workforce out of the shadows and into the light of day. Domestic workers must be assured the rights and protections that all California workers deserve,” said V. Manuel Pérez, chair of the Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the Economy.
The Assembly vote follows last year’s successful passage of a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in New York. Domestic workers have historically been exempted from laws governing the rights afforded to other workers -decent wages, a safe and healthy workplace health, workers compensation and other labor protections. Domestic workers are among the most isolated and vulnerable workforce in the state. The unique nature of their work requires protections to prevent abuse and mistreatment from occurring behind closed doors, out of the public eye. This bill provides domestic workers with industry-specific protections to use kitchen facilities and cook their own food, and creates standards for sleep, sick days, living wage increases, and paid vacations.
"Pues esa victoria significa que vamos poco poco en el camino de luchando para ganar estos derechos que no han sido reconocidos en este trabajo digno," said Maria Reyes of Mujeres Unidas y Activas. "This victory signifies that we're moving step by step on the path to victory to win rights that have never been recognized in this dignified work." "The Bill of Rights creates helpful guidelines for employers of domestic workers. Employers have a vested self-interest in this campaign- by working to support the Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, we are investing in building communication and trust with workers who support some of the most intimate parts of our lives, providing home care to people with disabilities and elders, or caring for our children and our homes." Jessica Lehman, employer of a personal attendant in her home and a member of Hand in Hand: Domestic Employer Association.
|
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
UPDATE: EJ lawsuit vs. CA carbon trading + Chiapas REDD scheme
http://climate-connections.org/2011/05/23/new-ruling-puts-california%E2%80%99s-cap-and-trade-on-permanent-hold/ New Ruling Puts California’s Cap and Trade on Permanent Hold
Implications Unclear for Chiapas REDD Program
- by Jeff Conant San Francisco, May 23 – San Francisco’s Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) announced today that it received the judge’s writ in its lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board (CARB); the writ gives the green light to most of the policies advanced under AB32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, but puts a permanent hold on cap and trade. “Judge Ernest Goldsmith of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled that CARB violated CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) when, among other things, it failed to properly consider alternatives to a ‘cap and trade’ program in its Scoping Plan to implement AB 32,” CRPE’s statement says. “The Court’s Writ, issued Friday, enjoins, or stops, all implementation and actions in furtherance of cap and trade until CARB completes a lawfully adequate CEQA review.” CRPE’s Brent Newell, the lead council on the case, called this “the best possible outcome we could have hoped for. The Judge essentially gave us the writ exactly as we submitted it.” “[CARB] are enjoined now from doing anything on cap and trade,” Newell told me, in a mood that can only be described as giddy, immediately after receiving the news on Friday. The ruling, Newell said, “allows the good parts of AB32 to go forward.” Beyond its now defunct cap and trade provision, AB32 contains sixty-eight other regulations, from motor vehicle fuel standards to renewable energy mandates, aimed at reducing California’s greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. While cap and trade failed in Congress last year, and the European carbon market has shown itself to be ineffective at actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the California Air Resources Board chose in 2008 to make cap and trade – which CRPE has called “a Wall Street trading scheme” – the center piece of the state’s plan to confront global warming, rather than requiring major greenhouse gas sources like refineries, power plants, and factories to reduce their emissions. Bill Gallegos, Executive Director of Communities for a Better Environment, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said, “We are encouraged that the Judge is now requiring CARB to take a hard and honest look at cap and trade. We have even more evidence now that cap and trade does not work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the European Union, emissions have increased by 3% in the past year under their program, and we also know that cap and trade has the worst impact on health in low income communities and communities of color.” CARB must now look at alternatives to cap and trade; according to Newell, CRPE’s position is to push for direct regulations, to cut emissions directly at the source. A major question hanging in the air upon announcement of the ruling is, what does this mean for California’s agreement with Chiapas, Mexico and Acre, Brazil? Last November, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with both foreign states to begin advancing direct carbon trading mechanisms predicated on the emerging, and highly embattled, forest carbon scheme known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), and, in its more comprehensive incarnation which includes protections for biodiversity and accounting of carbon sequestration in soils, as REDD +. Since late March, when the program in Chiapas began to come under intense scrutiny by local community-based organizations and international environmental and indigenous rights advocates, the governor of Chiapas, Juan Sabines, has grown increasingly vocal in his promotion of the program. The governor has made several highly-publicized visits to communities in the Lacandon Jungle to hand out funds associated with REDD+, but until last week it was unclear where the money was coming from, given that the deal with California was still in the pipeline. It is unknown whether his administration is aware of the lawsuit, which has now effectively put an end to the promise of funds from California in the foreseeable future. In a May 17 article in Mexican daily La Jornada, Sabines elaborated on the REDD+ program: “We made an agreement with California, the most polluting state in the world. The objective of the polluting governments is to clean their consciences by paying for carbon credits under REDD+.” Sabines told La Jornada that a forest inventory is being prepared with the participation of the environmental organization Conservation International, and that inhabitants of the jungle will be trained to participate in this inventory, to define “how many trees there are and how many tons of Greenhouse Gases they can capture.” The Lacandon jungle, along with the Amazon, are the areas of the Americas that capture the most Greenhouse gases; therefore, said Sabines, “the international resources will go directly to the communities.” In February of this year – three months after signing the MOU with Schwarzenegger – Governor Sabines began distributing payments of 2000 pesos a month to members of the Lacandon Community (as reported here). The payments, Governor Sabines said at the time, were “to allow the completion of the forest inventory so that [members of the Lacandon Community] can access federal and international funds, as well as complement these funds with projects such as agricultural conversion outside the Reserve with species such as oil palm and rubber.” “You conserve the earth, and I pay you to conserve it,” Sabines told the recipients of the first REDD + payments. “I don’t buy the land; I commit you to conserving it.” La Jornada reported last week, that “the 2000 pesos a month [per land-owner within the designated Lacandon Community] come from a tax on vehicle registration, because, as of yet, California is not able to put up the money.” “Our goal,” Governor Sabines told La Jornada, “is that the entirety of the surface of Chiapas will enter into the market for carbon credits and methane credits, beginning through agreements with polluting sub-national states, like California.” Last Friday’s writ on AB32, however, prevents any such agreement from going forward. What this means for the Chiapas state government and its plans to put the entirety of its forests into sub-national carbon markets remains to be seen. With no money forthcoming from California, it is unclear how, and whether, the governor of Chiapas will be able to continue paying the Lacandon Community. Late on Friday afternoon, as Newell celebrated CRPE’s court victory in his San Francisco office before heading home to spend the weekend relaxing with his family, I asked him what it was about cap and trade that persuaded him to take on the crusade. “Poor people are getting screwed on both sides of the transaction,” he said. “Only the polluters are benefitting. It’s just [expletive deleted] wrong.” # # #
Implications Unclear for Chiapas REDD Program
- by Jeff Conant San Francisco, May 23 – San Francisco’s Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) announced today that it received the judge’s writ in its lawsuit against the California Air Resources Board (CARB); the writ gives the green light to most of the policies advanced under AB32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, but puts a permanent hold on cap and trade. “Judge Ernest Goldsmith of the San Francisco Superior Court ruled that CARB violated CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) when, among other things, it failed to properly consider alternatives to a ‘cap and trade’ program in its Scoping Plan to implement AB 32,” CRPE’s statement says. “The Court’s Writ, issued Friday, enjoins, or stops, all implementation and actions in furtherance of cap and trade until CARB completes a lawfully adequate CEQA review.” CRPE’s Brent Newell, the lead council on the case, called this “the best possible outcome we could have hoped for. The Judge essentially gave us the writ exactly as we submitted it.” “[CARB] are enjoined now from doing anything on cap and trade,” Newell told me, in a mood that can only be described as giddy, immediately after receiving the news on Friday. The ruling, Newell said, “allows the good parts of AB32 to go forward.” Beyond its now defunct cap and trade provision, AB32 contains sixty-eight other regulations, from motor vehicle fuel standards to renewable energy mandates, aimed at reducing California’s greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. While cap and trade failed in Congress last year, and the European carbon market has shown itself to be ineffective at actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the California Air Resources Board chose in 2008 to make cap and trade – which CRPE has called “a Wall Street trading scheme” – the center piece of the state’s plan to confront global warming, rather than requiring major greenhouse gas sources like refineries, power plants, and factories to reduce their emissions. Bill Gallegos, Executive Director of Communities for a Better Environment, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said, “We are encouraged that the Judge is now requiring CARB to take a hard and honest look at cap and trade. We have even more evidence now that cap and trade does not work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the European Union, emissions have increased by 3% in the past year under their program, and we also know that cap and trade has the worst impact on health in low income communities and communities of color.” CARB must now look at alternatives to cap and trade; according to Newell, CRPE’s position is to push for direct regulations, to cut emissions directly at the source. A major question hanging in the air upon announcement of the ruling is, what does this mean for California’s agreement with Chiapas, Mexico and Acre, Brazil? Last November, then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with both foreign states to begin advancing direct carbon trading mechanisms predicated on the emerging, and highly embattled, forest carbon scheme known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), and, in its more comprehensive incarnation which includes protections for biodiversity and accounting of carbon sequestration in soils, as REDD +. Since late March, when the program in Chiapas began to come under intense scrutiny by local community-based organizations and international environmental and indigenous rights advocates, the governor of Chiapas, Juan Sabines, has grown increasingly vocal in his promotion of the program. The governor has made several highly-publicized visits to communities in the Lacandon Jungle to hand out funds associated with REDD+, but until last week it was unclear where the money was coming from, given that the deal with California was still in the pipeline. It is unknown whether his administration is aware of the lawsuit, which has now effectively put an end to the promise of funds from California in the foreseeable future. In a May 17 article in Mexican daily La Jornada, Sabines elaborated on the REDD+ program: “We made an agreement with California, the most polluting state in the world. The objective of the polluting governments is to clean their consciences by paying for carbon credits under REDD+.” Sabines told La Jornada that a forest inventory is being prepared with the participation of the environmental organization Conservation International, and that inhabitants of the jungle will be trained to participate in this inventory, to define “how many trees there are and how many tons of Greenhouse Gases they can capture.” The Lacandon jungle, along with the Amazon, are the areas of the Americas that capture the most Greenhouse gases; therefore, said Sabines, “the international resources will go directly to the communities.” In February of this year – three months after signing the MOU with Schwarzenegger – Governor Sabines began distributing payments of 2000 pesos a month to members of the Lacandon Community (as reported here). The payments, Governor Sabines said at the time, were “to allow the completion of the forest inventory so that [members of the Lacandon Community] can access federal and international funds, as well as complement these funds with projects such as agricultural conversion outside the Reserve with species such as oil palm and rubber.” “You conserve the earth, and I pay you to conserve it,” Sabines told the recipients of the first REDD + payments. “I don’t buy the land; I commit you to conserving it.” La Jornada reported last week, that “the 2000 pesos a month [per land-owner within the designated Lacandon Community] come from a tax on vehicle registration, because, as of yet, California is not able to put up the money.” “Our goal,” Governor Sabines told La Jornada, “is that the entirety of the surface of Chiapas will enter into the market for carbon credits and methane credits, beginning through agreements with polluting sub-national states, like California.” Last Friday’s writ on AB32, however, prevents any such agreement from going forward. What this means for the Chiapas state government and its plans to put the entirety of its forests into sub-national carbon markets remains to be seen. With no money forthcoming from California, it is unclear how, and whether, the governor of Chiapas will be able to continue paying the Lacandon Community. Late on Friday afternoon, as Newell celebrated CRPE’s court victory in his San Francisco office before heading home to spend the weekend relaxing with his family, I asked him what it was about cap and trade that persuaded him to take on the crusade. “Poor people are getting screwed on both sides of the transaction,” he said. “Only the polluters are benefitting. It’s just [expletive deleted] wrong.” # # #
Friday, May 20, 2011
Judge issues order staying Cap and Trade only (not whole Scoping Plan)
CLIMATE: Judge stays Calif. cap-and-trade program (05/20/2011)
Debra Kahn, E&E reporter
SAN FRANCISCO -- A California judge today blocked the state's cap-and-trade program until regulators provide sufficient justification for imposing a market-based system for curbing emissions.
The decision by Judge Ernest Goldsmith of San Francisco County Superior Court could upset state plans for starting a cap-and-trade system next January under a landmark law that mandates lowering emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Goldsmith ruled that the state Air Resources Board (ARB) violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not adequately exploring alternatives to cap and trade, like a carbon tax or direct regulation.
The board must set aside its December 2010 decision approving the trading system for emitters over 25,000 metric tons per year, and must cease all rulemaking activities related to cap and trade until it complies with the law, Goldsmith ruled. The trading program was designed to cover 85 percent of the state's industrial emissions by 2020, including emissions from power plants, oil and gas refineries, transportation fuels and other heavy industries.
The plaintiffs -- led by the Association of Irritated Residents and other environmental justice groups -- had alleged that a cap-and-trade system would hurt low-income communities by allowing emitters to avoid local limits on greenhouse gases by buying credits or offsets (E&ENews PM, April 25).
The agency's "functionally equivalent document" that it released in December 2008 to explain its selection of cap and trade was insufficient, the judge ruled.
"ARB committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion when it failed to proceed in a manner require[d] by law by inadequately describing and analyzing project alternatives sufficient for informed decision making and public participation," Goldsmith wrote.
ARB will have 15 months to comply with the order.
Goldsmith ruling didn't go as far as it could have under two proposals submitted by the plaintiffs. One of the plans would have stayed California's entire suite of greenhouse gas reduction policies -- 69 in all, including a low-carbon fuel standard, local development and smart growth guidelines, and emissions reductions from ships and trucks.
But the judge also could have allowed the market to move forward while requiring ARB to redo an alternatives analysis, as the state requested.
Look for more details in Monday's edition of ClimateWire.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
theory of love
i'm all twisted up about a conversation i had recently and needed to write to think more about the matter.
i think i'm finally articulating that i'm just not really excited about the whole "being in love" frame. it happens. it's exhilarating when it does. but it also is a lot, in my experience, reliant on some types of blinders. i like: love, loving kindness, beloved community, justice as the public practice of love, revolutionary, unconditional love, liberatory love, respect, dignity, as some other kinds of love, as practice and as concepts. i like the kind of love that comes from knowing and seeing clearly another person or organizations strengths and faults and inconsistencies and contradictions and accepting that's how they are and deciding to continue to be in love and struggle and relationship with them anyway. and i'm interested in happiness, connection, inspiration, cooperation, mutually supportive and respecting relationships that may become interdependent without becoming co-dependent, over time, "in love" and even romantic love in the U.S. popular cultural context, without having been excavated and reclaimed, hold lots of patriarchal and hetero and colonial/imperial relationship structures and expectations, including when between two queer women of color. and i think fundamentally i'm not interested in that project or that practice. and this love i'm writing about can be between friends, lovers, comrades, colleagues, students and teachers, familial relationships, neighbors, and even, occasionally, strangers. do you have a theory of love?* * * * *"Your task is not to seek love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it." -- Rumi
i think i'm finally articulating that i'm just not really excited about the whole "being in love" frame. it happens. it's exhilarating when it does. but it also is a lot, in my experience, reliant on some types of blinders. i like: love, loving kindness, beloved community, justice as the public practice of love, revolutionary, unconditional love, liberatory love, respect, dignity, as some other kinds of love, as practice and as concepts. i like the kind of love that comes from knowing and seeing clearly another person or organizations strengths and faults and inconsistencies and contradictions and accepting that's how they are and deciding to continue to be in love and struggle and relationship with them anyway. and i'm interested in happiness, connection, inspiration, cooperation, mutually supportive and respecting relationships that may become interdependent without becoming co-dependent, over time, "in love" and even romantic love in the U.S. popular cultural context, without having been excavated and reclaimed, hold lots of patriarchal and hetero and colonial/imperial relationship structures and expectations, including when between two queer women of color. and i think fundamentally i'm not interested in that project or that practice. and this love i'm writing about can be between friends, lovers, comrades, colleagues, students and teachers, familial relationships, neighbors, and even, occasionally, strangers. do you have a theory of love?* * * * *
james baldwin / nothing personal
"If a society permits one portion of its citizenry to be menaced or destroyed, then, very soon, no one in that society is safe. The forces thus released in the people can never be held in check, but run their devouring course, destroying the very foundations which it was imagined they would save.
But we are unbelievably ignorant concerning what goes on in our country--to say nothing of what goes on in the rest of the world--and appear to have become too timid to question what we are told. Our failure to trust one another deeply enough to be able to talk to one another has become so great that people with these questions in their hearts do not speak them; our opulence is so pervasive that people who are afraid to lose whatever they think they have persuade themselves of the truth of a lie, and help disseminate it; and God help the innocent here, that man or womn who simply wants to love, and be loved. Unless this would-be lover is able to replace his or her backbone with a steel rod, he or she is doomed. This is no place for love. I know that I am now expected to make a bow in the direction of those millions of unremarked, happy marriages all over America, but I am unable honestly to do so because I find nothing whatever in our moral and social climate--and I am now thinking particularly of the state of our children--to bear witness to their existence. I suspect that when we refer to these happy and so marvelously invisible people, we are simply being nostalgic concerning the happy, simple, God-fearing life which we imagine ourselves once to have lived. In any case, wherever love is found, it unfailingly makes itself felt in the individual, the personal authority of the individual. Judged by this standard, we are a loveless nation. The best that can be said is that some of us are struggling. And what we are struggling against is that death in the heart which leads not only to the shedding of blood, but which reduces human beings to corpses while they live."
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/05/portion-of-nothing-personal-by-james.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)