Our Time PressThe Local Paper with the Global View

End-of-event “goody bags” are usually filled with items reflecting the nature of the hosting organization and those given out by the 36th Council District Education Task Force were no exception.  The prize was a loose-leaf notebook developed by the Bedford-Stuyvesant and Crown Heights School Teams and area community- based organizations.  It was a demonstration of the work involved in producing change and how synergy can be achieved between schools and community-based organizations when there is facilitation from organized and committed members of the community.
Convened by Councilman Albert Vann in May of 2002, the task force was charged to “help improve neighborhood public schools through strong parental and community involvement,” and the notebook is a record of works-in-progress of how that is done and continues to be improved upon.
It will no doubt be used by this gathering of educators, service providers and parents/guardians who work, many on their own time, to enable young people to have a fuller life.
The idea was to have parents, teachers and administrators identify the services that local schools needed and match them with existing community-based organizations that have expertise in those areas.  These service providers exist differently in each school, depending upon the emphasis and the needs that the school community, identifies.  These services exist as the Family Empowerment Center, a structure which need not be physical that interfaces between the school and the existing community services.

The most graphic example of collaboration between an educational facility and a community organization is that of the Bedford Academy and the Bedford YMCA.  Ms. Pamela Tate-McMollen, a parent coordinator at the academy, said they were brought together by former superintendent Lester Young, Jr., and held in place at the corner of Bedford and Madison Avenues through the efforts of Principal George Leonard and YMCA Executive Director John Rappaport.
Ms. Tate told a story indicative of how a tone of a school is set from the top down and how visionaries enable things to come true.   She said the neighborhood first perceived the academy students as “nerdy” and there to be taken advantage of.  “They tried in the beginning, until Mr. Leonard hit the streets and dealt with the top thug.  Now if they approach a child they say ‘don’t mess with that child.  That child goes to Bedford Academy.  Give it back.  Give what you took back.  Mr. Leonard will come after you.'”
John Rappaport spoke of the collaborative nature of the relationship developing between the Y and the academy and thanked Dr. Young for his “vision and perseverance to make it happen,” and bringing the academy to fruition.
Councilman Al Vann ceded his time to Dr. Young to speak about the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program (www.gmsp.org), a program for young people of color only.  Dr. Young said there is no SAT requirement but that “they do look at the grade point average which must be a minimum of 3.3 on a four-point scale.”  And a student who achieves this average taking the harder subject courses is rated better than a student with a higher average but a record of easy courses.  Also, the student must be “Pell-eligible,” have a nomination letter and a letter of reference.
“Of the applications we’ve received, 70% were female, 30% were male.  There’s something wrong with that,” said superintendent Young.  “When the application pool is 70/30 here’s what happens: 80% of the scholarships went to female students.  We have to get to our young men and encourage them to file these applications….This is an opportunity that we should not pass up.”
What was most interesting about the 80% figure, and which emphasizes its importance, is that it was better than the 90% of women to men present in the room from a population of educators, service providers and parents.
Rene Turner-Gregory, chair of the Education Committee of the Brownstoners of Bedford-Stuyvesant, Inc., urged the assembled school leaders to “reach out to these CBO’s”, saying.,  “The fact that they are here is certification of their desire to help you.”
And the notebook was certification of the work that has been done and the work that needs to be done.
David Mark Greaves

ice Athletic League Kicks Off Summer Playstreet Program Serving Brooklyn Communities
The Police Athletic League (PAL) launches its 2006 Summer Program in Brooklyn on Monday, July 10th: Hundreds of PAL youngsters play traditional sidewalk games, develop their creativity through arts and crafts, choose books from a mobile reading library and make new friends throughout the summer.
PAL’s Summer Playstreet Program closes off streets and utilizes other public areas, such as playgrounds and parks, throughout New York City to provide children with safe, supervised places to enjoy outdoor summer activities.
PAL is operating in over 210 neighborhoods this summer, including 130 play site programs, 13 day camps, sports locations and child care programs. Forty of these play sites are located in housing developments, funded by the New York City Housing Authority. PAL summer programs serve over 25,000 children each summer.
Play sites are full-day programs, open Monday through Friday. PAL’s summer program also includes baseball and softball leagues for boys and girls, baseball rookie leagues, part-time police precinct programs, and a youth employment program that has helped students find jobs.
Some Brooklyn Playsites:
Lefferts Park (Empire Blvd. Bet. New York and Nostrand Aves.)
P.S. 275/Osburn Blyd. @ Thatford and Hegeman
Ocean Hill Apartments 30 Mother Gaston Blvd.
East NY City Line @ 710 Euclid Avenue, bet. Dumont & Blake Aves.
Stroud Park @ Park Place bet. Washington and Classon Aves.
Rewald Salgada Park @ Madison and Patchen
Bed-Stuy Rehabs @ 701 Willoughby Ave. bet. Throop & Marcus Garvey Blvd.
Ingersoll Houses 120 Navy Walk @ Tillary & Park Aves.
Emerson Playground @ Emerson Place bet. Myrtle and Willoughby Aves.
Star Spangled Playground @ Franklin Ave. Between Dekalb and Willoughby.

There are many incongruities surrounding the arrest of seven men from the impoverished Liberty City neighborhood of Miami on charges of conspiracy to “wage war on the United States” that suggests it, like so many previous “terrorist plots” announced by the Bush administration, is a government-inspired provocation mounted for reactionary political ends.
None of the claims made by the government and repeated uncritically by the media concerning the arrest of these young working-class men can be accepted as good coin. Both the flimsiness of the criminal indictment and the lurid headlines surrounding it mark this event as an escalation in the anti-democratic conspiracies of the Bush administration.
There is every indication that this latest purported terrorist threat, described by some media outlets as “even bigger than September 11 was manufactured by the FBI, which used an undercover agent posing as a terrorist mastermind to entrap those targeted for arrest.
While the Justice Department declared that the arrests had foiled a plot to blow up the tallest building in the US, the Sears Tower in Chicago, authorities in that city assured its residents that there had never been any threat to the structure.
The four-count indictment presented by the Justice Department in a Miami federal court on Friday contains not a single indication of an overt criminal act or even the means to carry one out. The brief 11-page document consists almost entirely of alleged statements made by the
defendants to the FBI informant, referred to in quotes throughout the indictment as “the al Qaeda representative.”
The government chose to consummate its entrapment plan by unleashing dozens of combat-equipped federal agents, dressed in olive drab fatigues and carrying automatic weapons, on the predominantly African-American Liberty City neighborhood, one of the poorest in the country. Liberty City was the scene of riots that broke out in 1980 after the acquittal of white police officers for the beating death of a black motorist.
On Thursday, the government’s paramilitary squads confronted residents with pictures of the accused, demanding to know their whereabouts. The seven defendants are representative of the impoverished working- class population of Miami, including Haitian immigrants.
It appears they were targeted by the FBI because they had formed a religious group, calling themselves the “Seas of David”, which reportedly incorporated elements of Christianity and Islam. One of their crimes, according to the FBI’s deputy director, John Pistole, was that the Seas of David “did not believe the United States government had legal authority over them.”
According to some residents of the neighborhood, the group lived together in the warehouse that was raided by the FBI, using it for religious worship and as a base of operations for a construction business.
Elements of the federal indictment are so self-incriminating as to border on the ludicrous. Among the charges are that the defendants “swore an oath of loyalty to al Qaeda.” Who administered this oath? The al Qaeda representative,. AKA, the paid informant of the FBI.
Aside from this “loyalty oath” solicited by the FBI, only one of the seven defendants is accused of any overt act, outside of driving the FBI informant to meetings.
The only action with which this one individual is charged all else is words, is taking pictures of the FBI headquarters in Miami. Who supplied the camera? The “al Qaeda representative,   i.e., the FBI agent provocateur.
The indictment further charges two of the accused with driving “with the al Qaeda representative” to a store in Dade County, Florida to purchase a memory chip for a digital camera to be used for taking reconnaissance photographs of the FBI building. The document does not say who paid for the chip, but there is hardly room for doubt.
In one of the more curious sections of the indictment, one of the accused, Narseal Batiste, is accused of asking the FBI informant to provide various items for his group, including footwear, for which he provided a “list of shoe sizes.” Apparently the FBI delivered the shoes.
Pistole, the FBI deputy director, admitted that the supposed plots to blow up buildings had been more aspirational than operational. In the raids carried out by the FBI squads, no weapons and no explosive substances were found.
“We preempted their plot,” declared Pistole. But the indictment and the facts of the case indicate that the alleged plot would never have existed had the government not planned and instigated it in the first place.
At a Washington press conference, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that the alleged plot had posed no actual danger. He claimed this was because the authorities had intervened .in its earliest stages.
So “early” was the preemption that officials associated with the supposed targets of the plot dismissed the government’s indictment.
Barbara Carley, the managing director of the Sears Tower, told the press, “Federal and local authorities continue to tell us they’ve never found evidence of a credible terrorism threat against Sears Tower that’s ever gone beyond just talk.”
Her remarks were echoed by Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline, who said, “There never was any credible threat to the Sears Tower at all.”
In his press conference, Attorney General Gonzales asserted that the Miami group represented a “new brand of terrorism” created by “the convergence of globalization and technology.”
What these words mean is anyone’s guess. There is no indication that those charged, who were living in a warehouse in the poorest city in America, had access to any technology, and their supposed contact to the wider world was an informer planted by the FBI. The suggestion that the seven men were a “home-grown” terrorist group inspired by contact with Al Qaeda elements over the Internet is supported neither by evidence nor the charges contained in the government’s own indictment.
R. Alexander Acosta, the United States attorney in South Florida, told the media that the defendants had “lived in the United States for most of their lives, but developed a hatred of America.” This is presented as though it constituted evidence of a crime.
It is hardly surprising for someone living in Liberty City to hate the poverty and oppression that prevails there, or for Haitian immigrants to despise the imprisonment and repression that Washington metes out to those attempting to escape the brutal conditions imposed by US imperialism upon their homeland.
What is highly noteworthy is that the federal government decided to intervene in this situation to concoct a phony al Qaeda connection and trumped-up “terror plot.”
What is the government’s motive in manufacturing such a plot? Whose interests are served? Under conditions in which the majority of the American people have turned against the Iraq war and support the withdrawal of American troops, the Bush administration is desperately attempting to once again link its neo-colonial venture in Iraq with a supposed “global war on terror” waged to defend the American people against another 9/11.
To sustain such a fiction, fresh evidence of terrorist threats is periodically required. And it has been forthcoming on a regular basis. Every several months, another “conspiracy” is unveiled, invariably involving an FBI informant and hapless individuals ensnared in a plot orchestrated by the government.
Until now, these “sting” operations have been targeted at Muslim immigrants. Last month, for example, Pakistani immigrant Shahawar Siraj in New York City was found guilty of plotting to blow up the Herald Square subway station in a “plot” that the evidence indicated was based entirely on suggestions from an FBI informant.
The FBI agent provocateur taunted the defendant with photographs of Abu Ghraib torture victims and demanded to know how, as a Muslim, he could fail to take action.
Similarly, in Albany, New York two years ago, the FBI recruited a Pakistani immigrant, promising him leniency on minor fraud charges, to ensnare two other immigrants in a fictitious scheme to help a nonexistent person buy a weapon for a fake terrorist plot.
These provocations and conspiracies are symptomatic of a government that is both ruthless and desperate. Confronting a population that is increasingly hostile to its political agenda of reaction at home and war abroad, it is driven to manufacture an endless series of terrorist threats aimed at disorienting and intimidating public opinion.

Since declaring his candidacy for the 11th Congressional District last year, David Yassky has been called an opportunistic, racial carpetbagger by the Black political establishment. His critics have accused Yassky of trying to benefit from Machiavellian politics: if his three Black opponents split the Black vote, the white candidate can conquer with the support of  white voters. Even the district’s current representative, Major Owens, is calling for high-ranking Democrats like Hillary Clinton, to convince Yassky to drop out of the race. Owens and others fear that the district, which was created to empower people of color in Congress, will be usurped. Yassky stresses, “I trust the voters to make a wise decision about who is going to represent them most effectively. And I’m just working as hard as I can to get my message of experience and ideas to every voter in every part of this district.” The city councilman has told just about every media outlet that race is of little importance in this election. But many of Yassky’s actions starkly contrast with his sentiment.
Less than a month ago, the candidate had a page in the “issue” section of his campaign Web site entitled, “Defending Israel” that undeniably pandered to the Jewish voting contingent. The page, which has since been taken down, discussed his intentions to support the Palestinian Antiterror Act and supply state-funded nurses to every Yeshiva. Granted, tailored political rhetoric is a standard campaign strategy, but considering the history of Crown Heights, which in part lies in the CD-11, the ploy was in bad form.
There are other flashing yellow lights that call attention to Yassky’s campaign. Last year, the councilman had plan to run for Brooklyn district attorney, which would have pit him against two other white candidates, but dropped out to pursue his current bid for Congress. Furthermore, Yassky, who once lived three blocks outside of the district, only recently moved into the area. This begs the question: Is the candidate purely driven by the ambition to gain political power by any means necessary?
“I know this district well, I represent a very big part of it right now as councilman ” says Yassky. “I understand the needs of this district. I understand how Washington is shortchanging this district right now and I understand what we need to do to get Washington to serve this district better.”
The 42- year-old contender believes that his track record in the city council, six-year stint as a congressional aide for Chuck Schumer and “progressive” platform will convince voters that he is the most qualified candidate. Since being elected to the council in 2001, Yassky has sponsored several pieces of legislation. He championed the Affordable Housing Zoning Initiative, which requires developers of luxury apartments to finance moderately priced housing. He also brought forth the Gun Industry Responsibility Act, which sought to hold “reckless” gun dealers liable for the sale of guns that were involved in a crime in New York. Though the bill was shut down in Congress, it gained Yassky quite a bit of attention. Yet one of Yassky’s CD-11 opponents, Chris Owens, questions his record.
“If Yassky’s record was as wonderful as he would like us to believe, why didn’t he run in the 12th District where he lived and did all of his work? It’s because he would have had to run against an incumbent with money, Nydia Velazquez, and face criticism from constituents that are unhappy with his performance,” says Owens.
Like Owens, many of Yassky’s critics say his work in the council was primarily focused on the needs of his constituents in the more-affluent neighborhoods of Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights. In fact, many of Yassky’s financial contributors, according to the Federal Election Committee, hail from these areas. More importantly, a healthy percentage of Yassky’s backers who have helped him amass a war chest of $800,000, are real estate developers. In light of the candidate’s support for the Atlantic Yards Project, one wonders whether Yassky will play to these developers if elected. “My record of independence in the city council tells people that I’ll be 100% independent once I get to Congress,” Yassky declares.
To Yassky’s credit, he does have a well- thought -out local and national platform, which includes stronger labor laws and environmental protections, more funding for Section 8 programs and Universal health care. Admittedly, Yassky, much like Chris Owens, has one of the most thorough approaches to
issues of policy (at least on his Web site). But his connection to outside interests and his questionable political ambitions leave much to be desired.

“Our nation is heading in the wrong direction and we need fighters to turn it around,” says Chris Owens. “The same people who were on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in 1965, when the Voting Rights Acts was passed, are still at the bottom in 2006. I have the knowledge, experience and
temperament to represent the 11th Congressional District effectively.”
Knowledge. Owens definitely has a healthy grasp of local and national issues, such as education, employment, homeland security and election reform. Temperament. The rather affable candidate was more than willing to give of his time to talk to OTP. Experience. Well,.this may be Owens’ Achilles, heel. Granted, Major Owens’ son has been twice elected to the community school board and served as a special assistant to the city council president, he lacks the legislative experience of his opponents. But Owens contends, “Whoever wins this contest will start as afreshman in the House, at the bottom or near bottom of a 435-member hierarchy. One’s prior history as an elected official will neither help nor hurt you as a new member of Congress.” He continues, “If anything, starting without baggage from previous political lives is a good way to keep an open mind.”
On the other hand, Owens has an advantage over the average freshman rep, a father who has held a seat in the House for more than 20 years. Unlike his opponents, if Owens is elected he will saunter into the Capitol with an established network of his father’s comrades and counsel. The contender, who has worked as his father’s campaign manager for the last 12 years, says he has a clear understanding of the conviction and temperament needed to be in Congress. Proud of his father’s legacy, Owens believes the Major’s time in Congress will help his bid.
But the Brooklyn native is not relying on his name to get him to Washington. A visit to Owens’ Web site makes it clear that he has put great thought into his campaign vision. He is the only candidate who takes a stance on almost every local and national issue, though he doesn’t quite present a substantive solution or strategy for them all.
Owens is particularly outspoken about education and labor. In regards to labor, the self-proclaimed progressive calls for the protection of organized labor, pensions and workers’ rights. Owens, who presently has two children in public school, is against vouchers and supports the equitable distribution of education funds. The candidate is probably best known for his push to impeach the president for unlawfully leading the country into war. If elected, Owens says he will take up the issue in Congress. “If the issue is in anyway viable and certainly if the Democrats take the House back, I will push it to whatever committee I can. I’ll certainly be a voice for it within the Congressional Black Caucus as well,” proclaims Owens.
To date, Owens has raised approximately $200,000; his list of contributors primarily consists of educators and retirees. Owens is seemingly not under the thumb of any major corporate interests, which may attract the racially mixed group of progressives and reformists. Nevertheless, he has not faired well in any of the recent polls, coming in fourth behind Carl Andrews in 1199’s last survey.
Some say that his name recognition is hurting the candidate, as there are many constituents in the 11th who were not pleased with the performance of his father. Some have even said that Owens should be one of the Black contenders to exit the race in order to prevent a possible Yassky upset. But Owens is not budging. “There are 239,000 registered Democrats in the 11th District and out of that number the majority of voters are Black. If we all vote, then we can determine our own destiny. If we choose not to, then we are essentially allowing our destiny to be determined by others,” he says. “We [the Black candidates] represent different things.
The words alone are not the answer; it’s your leadership style. Carl Andrews has an insider leadership style; he is not an outspoken leader. Yvette has repackaged herself as a progressive when she’s basically been quiet on national issues.”