

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Marco Amaral (619) 764-8540 marco.amaral6@gmail.com
Tanya Smith (510) 325-6381 tanyagays@yahoo.com
Maricruz Manzanarez (510) 375-0245 balucu@hotmail.com
Horacio Corona (fasting) (559) 789-2381 corona12@berkeley.edu
Katherine Isabel Vega (661) 802-2943 kathyivega@gmail.com
Protestors
are now engaged in civil disobedience at the main administrative
building at UC Berkeley. Police threatened hunger strikers
with arrest early this morning after issuing an order to disperse from
the front lawn facing the California Hall . Students and
workers on hunger strike have occupied the location since last Monday.
There was no physical confrontation as officers removed tents, bottled
water, and sleeping bags.
George Breslauer, Executive Vice-Chancellor and
Provost at UC Berkeley, announced the end of the hunger strike, but
hunger strikers later reconvened on the lawn and ten new students joined
the hunger strike for the day. They join the 17 students who have not
eaten for one week and two UC employees. The UC employees are Maricruz
Manzanares, a custodian and Abel Salas, a gardener, who are members of
AFSCME Local 3299 and who on the sixth day of the hunger strike.
Mananares will speak at a 3:30 p.m. rally today in
front of California Hall. They will talk about the UC
administrators' continued insistence on giving out executive increases
while conducting layoffs and cutting hours for essential front line
workers.
"These cuts have been devastating for low-wage
workers," said Lakesha Harrison, president of AFSCME 3299, "Layoffs and
reduction in hours are only the tip of the iceberg. UC executives are
now proposing massive cuts to our retirement. We may be facing a double
whammy - a depletion of our savings now and a gutting of the income we
were counting on for our future."
A committee representing the student and worker
alliance spoke to the chancellor over teleconference during the weekend.
The students and workers have several demands (full list is
attached below) including that the UC Berkeley administration:
As dozens of graduation ceremonies are slated to begin
on Friday, AFSCME 3299 has called on keynote speakers to cancel
appearances at UC campus graduations. A list of speakers
who have canceled will be released this week. They include current and
former members of the California State Assembly, and a U.S.
Congressperson.
For up-to-date information
on the hunger strike visit our Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=114079228632152
The demands to end the hunger strike are:
1. Publically denounce
Arizona's SB1070 Law and ask President Yudof and other UC Chancellors to
do the same. We urge you to bring this up at tomorrow's
UC system-wide meeting with other Chancellors. Blatantly
racist and xenophobic laws run counter to the values of the UC education
system.
2. Make UC Berkeley a
Sanctuary Campus and provide extensive protection for undocumented
students.
3. Drop all student conduct
charges related to protest actions that occurred during the academic
year 2009-10.
4. Stop cuts to low-wage
workers on campus and stop attacks against union activists; rehire all
AFSCME service workers and UPTE union activists and Cal performances
employees.
5. Suspend the Student code
of conduct and initiate a democratic student-led process to review the
code. Those participating in this process should be charged with
attending particularly to concerns about students' due process rights
and to free speech considerations. If, through this review, it is
determined that a new code can be written in any way that adequately
addresses these concerns, a new code should be written by a democratic,
student-led body. If not, the student code of conduct should be
abolished.
6. Accept responsibility for
the violence and escalation of the confrontation surrounding Wheeler
Hall on November 20th and December 11th 2009 that resulted in injuries
to many students and jeopardized the safety and security of AB540
students. Additionally, commit to using non-violent means of ensuring
safety at student demonstrations in the future.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."