People Before Profit blog

Major voting rights victory in Alabama

Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:18:00 +0000

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — On Aug. 23, in a major voting rights victory, an Alabama judge ruled that state and local election officials have improperly disfranchised eligible voters in violation of the state Constitution.

The court in Gooden v. Worley ordered the Alabama Secretary of State and Jefferson County Registrar to immediately “cease and desist in refusing voter registration” to individuals on the basis of a felony conviction.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) and Alabama attorney Edward Still filed Gooden v. Worley to challenge the unlawful denial of the right to vote to eligible voters with felony convictions — Alabama law only barred people whose felony convictions involved “moral turpitude,” which the statute did not define.

The Alabama Secretary of State, however, had effectively expanded the reach of the law by instructing voter registrars to refuse registration to all people with felony convictions.

“The court’s ruling recognizes that the fundamental right to vote ‘for which so many fought and died’ cannot turn upon the subjective whim of state and local officials,” said LDF assistant counsel Ryan Paul Haygood. “This victory strengthens the integrity of Alabama’s democratic processes.”

It was not until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that plaintiff Richard Gooden, like thousands of other African Americans, was permitted to register to vote. Until that time, Alabama relentlessly and systematically pursued efforts to deny voting and office holding to Blacks. Gooden was registered to vote from the mid-1960s until 2000, when he was convicted of felony DUI (driving while intoxicated), and informed by the State of Alabama that his voting rights were revoked.

The court concluded that the status quo prior to the ruling required “guesswork about what ‘moral turpitude’ actually means, all in violation of every citizen’s right to due process” and that “only the Legislature has the constitutional power to decide which crimes involve moral turpitude.”

“Given the fundamental nature of the right at stake … [and] until such time that there is a statute on the books specifying which crimes may properly serve as a basis of disenfranchisement, no defendant may take any action to interfere with a citizen’s registration because of any criminal conviction.”

The Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, state field director of the Alabama Alliance to Restore the Vote, praised the Court’s decision: “The court’s ruling protects the voting rights of the most vulnerable among us, particularly when those voting rights should not have been lost in the first place.”

Vigil, lawsuits challenge N.J. towns anti-immigrant law

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:11:00 +0000

Nearly 500 people gathered in front of the Riverside, N.J., town hall, for a prayer vigil Aug. 20, to voice their opposition to an ordinance that prohibits hiring and housing undocumented immigrants.

Under the city ordinance, the “Illegal Immigration Relief Act,” passed in July, employers who hire undocumented workers and landlords who rent to them will be fined up to $1,000 per violation and face possible cancellation of their licenses.

The vigil was organized by the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders. The Rev. Miguel Rivera, a Methodist minister who is president of the coalition, called the Riverside law “racist,” saying it was equivalent to flying the Confederate flag. “We pray that God will touch the hearts of township officials,” said Rivera.

Across the street, a counter-demonstration of similar size cheered as a Confederate flag with the motto “The South will rise again” was displayed on a pickup truck. The counter-demonstrators shouted, “Go home! Go home!” The immigrant rights supporters replied, “We are home!”

Tension has been growing in the town since Congress began debating immigration reform measures, some of them highly punitive. Riverside, located in western New Jersey not far from the Philadelphia-Camden metropolitan area, had a population of 8,000 in the 2000 Census. Mayor Charles Hilton Jr. says the town has 1,500 to 3,500 undocumented immigrants, most of them Brazilians. He justified the town anti-immigrant ordinance by saying, “They are overcrowding our schools, increasing crime and causing a financial burden because they do not pay taxes.”

However published statistics disprove the mayor’s conclusions. Crime has not increased nor has the increased number of students overcrowded classrooms. The town’s economy has actually improved because of the immigrant population.

Before the Illegal Immigration Relief Act was passed, many people spoke out against it at a town meeting of more than 700 residents. Renaldo Empke, a Brazilian who moved to Riverside two years ago, said, “The problem is discrimination. Riverside has historically been a town of immigrants. What is the problem? We can all work together to find solutions to any problem.”

David Verduin, representing the Coalition of Business Owners and Landlords, said the passage of the ordinance was a low point in Riverside’s history. “I haven’t seen hatred in faces like I did at that meeting of the small group that was pushing for the ordinance,” he said. “It was like Selma, Alabama, when people marched over the bridge.” Verduin said his group will hire a lawyer to fight the ordinance.

Franco Ordonez, a restaurant owner for four years, said, “Everyone in Riverside knows that immigrants revitalized this town. In 2000, Riverside, a former mill town, was nearly bankrupt with “For Sale” and “For Rent” signs everywhere. Immigrants brought back the economy. But since the ordinance passed, people are so fearful they won’t go anywhere. Business on this street is down 60 percent. We need to live in peace and look after our neighbors.”

On Aug. 15 the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders asked a federal court to overturn the ordinance. The coalition also filed a $10 million lawsuit against Riverside citing the irreparable harm the ordinance has caused residents. Many immigrant families have fled Riverside in the middle of the night fearing persecution or prosecution. Some were evicted without notice and had to leave their furniture and other belongings. “The harassment has been awful,” said one immigrant. People shout slurs at me on the street. My children were born here and I have legal working papers.”

The coalition’s lawyer, William Sanchez, said he sees the Riverside case as a test case. Regulating immigration is a federal government responsibility, and cities and municipalities cannot establish immigration policies, he said.

Lawsuit seeks overturn of Hazleton, Pa., anti-immigrant law

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:05:00 +0000

Civil liberties groups filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Hazleton, Pa., on Aug. 15, challenging a city ordinance that makes it illegal to sell goods or services, rent to, hire or help undocumented immigrants. The ordinance’s “English only” section declares “English the official language of the city,” making the use of any other language for city business illegal.

The lawsuit, filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania on behalf of 11 Hazleton residents and business owners and four organizations, asks the courts to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, and seeks financial compensation for the plaintiffs.

The groups offered to drop the suit if the Hazleton city council would revoke the ordinance and agree that it would pass no other ordinances based on a person’s immigration status. The city council did neither of these at its Aug. 15 meeting.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Scranton, Pa., says the ordinance illegally “infringes on the federal government’s authority over immigration.” It notes that under the ordinance “some immigrants whose status may be unresolved are deemed to be ‘illegal aliens’ in Hazleton,” even though these immigrants are “lawfully in this country under federal law.”

The suit further says that business owners would have to have proof of a person’s immigration status to avoid acting illegally or otherwise would have to avoid doing business with immigrants and even U.S.-born people. This would contradict federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Further, the suit says, businesses might have to use “improper gauges such as color of skin and foreign accents.”

The complaint highlights a number of problems that the ordinance could cause for U.S. citizens, legal residents and undocumented immigrants who are not subject to deportation because they are normalizing their immigrant status.

Two plaintiffs in the suit, Pedro Lozano and Humberto Hernández, say they have lost tenants because of the ordinance. They also say they have no way of knowing “how to determine whether an individual is an ‘illegal alien’” under the ordinance. Because of this, they could unknowingly rent to someone in violation of the ordinance and thus be fined and lose their business licenses for five years. Other plaintiffs say they have lost business due to the “inhospitable climate” in Hazleton.

Hazleton Mayor Louis Barletta admits that business has declined in the city, but attributes that to undocumented immigrants leaving. Hazleton, formerly a coal and textile town, has enjoyed an economic resurgence in the last five years with the arrival of new immigrants who have set up businesses there.

A number of the plaintiffs are in the process of obtaining legal immigration status but would fall under the ordinance’s “illegal aliens” definition. Two other plaintiffs, both from Italy, are legal residents but have lost their “green cards,” making it impossible to prove their status until new ones are issued.

The plaintiffs also include a legal permanent resident high school student from the Dominican Republic and a U.S. citizen born in Puerto Rico, who cannot obtain city services because they are not fluent in English.

The suit emphasizes that in Pennsylvania, “public services historically have been available in their native languages to speakers of German, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, Italian, Hungarian and a variety of other languages.” It cites an 1837 law that “required school instruction in both German and English.”

Hazleton Mayor Barletta, who introduced the ordinance, “speaks Italian at home,” according to a former Hazleton resident.

Barletta introduced the ordinance after a number of incidents involving immigrants, both undocumented and legal residents. Yet he admits to having no evidence of increased crime because of undocumented immigration. According to the State Police, arrests in Hazleton actually dropped by 13 percent from 2000 to 2005.

BOOKREVIEW: Failed States

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:19:00 +0000

Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy By Noam Chomsky Henry Holt and Co. Metropolitan Books Hardcover, 320 pages, $24.00

A “failed state” is a condition of state dilapidation, when a state no longer functions properly because of government corruption and lawlessness, which jeopardizes the general populace and causes democracy to go awry. Chomsky says the United States currently fits this category.

Chomsky argues that practices like “democracy promotion,” militarism, violations of international law, and promotion of juntas and coups d’état around the world are slowly discombobulating the foundation of America, while causing third world nations to implode. He considers the U.S. and its partner governments “failed states” because of these practices.

Many pundits limit the concept of a “failed state” to places like Haiti, “the prototypical failed state.” The question that many never ask is why states like Haiti fail. Chomsky cites Woodrow Wilson’s 1915 invasion of Haiti, which “dissolved the National Assembly” after it refused to ratify a U.S.-drafted constitution that gave U.S. corporations rights to purchase Haitian land. Thousands of Haitians were killed while virtual slavery was introduced. In 1990, Haiti had its first democratic election, which Jean-Bertrand Aristide won. That’s when a U.S. terror campaign commenced, with the result being the eventual ouster of Aristide, leaving the country in chaos. Presently Iraq is facing a similar crisis.

Chomsky also discusses the battle over George W. Bush’s trampling on the Geneva Conventions. He quotes international law professor Jordan Paust saying, “Not since the Nazi era have so many lawyers been so clearly involved in international crimes concerning the treatment and interrogation of persons detained during war.”

Many Americans wonder, “Why are we detaining prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Egypt instead of United States?” Chomsky answers, “The Bush administration selected Guantanamo because legalistic chicanery could portray it as exempt from domestic or international law.” Otherwise the Bush neo-cons would face criminal prosecution under Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution for torturing detainees.

Other examples of the U.S. disregarding international law cited by Chomsky include the indefinite detention of Haitian refugees in the Krome Detention Center in Miami, in violation of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the U.S.-backed Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, in violation of UN Resolution 242 and the Fourth Geneva Convention. Another is its disregard for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The bottom line is that the U.S. is estranging itself from the rest of the world with these practices.

Chomsky also concludes that the U.S. is a “failed state” because public opinion isn’t taken into account. The government ignores majority opinion favoring universal health care, ending the war in Iraq, and endorsing the Kyoto protocols. The point is, when government doesn’t serve the public’s interest, then it’s a failed government.

“Failed States” is significant for anyone who wants an in-depth analysis of world events and “the assault on democracy.” The mainstream media is hardly covering this. Chomsky does a great service by exposing the truth. “Failed States” is one of the most important books of the year.

— Michael Turman

Ending the occupation, the 2006 elections, and tactics

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:45:00 +0000

The pressure for troop withdrawal is growing, so much so that earlier this summer Democrats introduced two resolutions in the Senate. One, authored by Senator Kerry, envisions a short exit strategy and a role for the international community. The other, which has the support of nearly 40 Democratic senators and may be re-introduced this fall, calls for troop withdrawal beginning this winter, but the flaw is that it leaves the process open-ended, which is precisely what Bush does.

Nevertheless, the fact that a majority of Senate Democrats are supporting this resolution constitutes an important shift in their approach to the Iraq occupation. Much work by the peace majority still needs to be done, but the playing field is far more favorable for organizing a congressional majority in favor of ending the occupation than it was even a few months ago.

We should welcome these changes, even though they don’t go far enough. Communists and other left-minded people should not only give space to people to change their positions on the occupation; we should also applaud such changes when they go in a progressive direction, even if they are not identical to our positions.

Of course, we don’t support an open-ended occupation, no matter which party proposes it. And, needless to say, we don’t support a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq, which is obviously the Bush administration’s plan.

A long-term U.S. presence is not a force for a democratic, stable and peaceful Iraq.

Most Iraqis gave up long ago any thought that the U.S. military is a liberating force. The occupation breeds popular resentment. It adds to the turmoil. It strengthens the political positions of the most reactionary forces in Iraq, like former Saddam Hussein/Baathist elements and Islamic militias. And it isn’t — and this becomes increasingly clearer every day — preventing the slide of the country into civil war and chaos.

The occupation gives the Bush administration the ability to exploit and exacerbate sectarian divisions in this battered country, with an eye to establishing a regime that caters to U.S. corporate/geopolitical interests and allows a permanent U.S. military presence there.

Thus, an end to the occupation would not only remove the Bush administration from the driver’s seat in Iraq, where it now sits. It would also open up possibilities for more progressive political dynamics in Iraq and in the rest of the world.

Inside Iraq, the pressure on various political forces would inescapably be in the direction of a cessation of violence, and of national unity. Not everyone in Iraq would be happy with this, for sure, but no one could ignore it altogether either. Once the U.S. announces that it is leaving, Iraqi political forces that have used the occupation to legitimize their killing of innocent civilians, fomenting of inter-ethnic and religious strife, and wrecking of the economy and infrastructure would find themselves on the defensive — unless, of course, the sectarian conflict, which is growing bloodier and bloodier each week, has reached a point of no return.

Outside Iraq, an announcement that the occupation is coming to a close would give the world community and the United Nations the opportunity to contribute positively to the stabilization, democratization and reconstruction of Iraq.

While there are no guarantees that withdrawal of U.S. troops would shift the country from civil war to civil harmony, democratic development, and economic and social reconstruction, it is the only course of action that has any chance of yielding something positive.

Some in the U.S. peace movement and the left, however, are against any kind of exit strategy that isn’t “immediate.” While this position may be correct in the abstract, it is too inflexible as a political approach. There is no good reason to counterpose a more advanced political demand — in this case, immediate withdrawal — to other demands of progressive and center forces that are positive but not as far-reaching. In fact, the most advanced demands of the progressive and center forces — not the demands of the left — are the basis for building the broadest possible mass unity and a congressional majority to end the occupation.

The main choice is not between immediate pullout and phased withdrawal. Rather the choice is between a concrete phased exit strategy and permanent occupation. Those are the main parameters of the debate in Congress and the nation.

If you don’t live in Iraq or the U.S., you don’t have to pay too much attention to the tactics of struggle. It is enough to say “U.S. out of Iraq now” and leave it at that.

If, however, you live here (or in Iraq), it isn’t quite that simple. You can’t stand aloof from the discussion of other alternatives besides immediate pullout — some of which may stand a much better chance of capturing congressional and public support than “out now.”

When millions of Americans and growing numbers of members of Congress are looking for a way to extricate us from Iraq, political realism and tactical flexibility should dictate that left and progressive-minded people rally support for the best of the alternative exit strategies. Otherwise, our voice will have little effect in the public square, legislative halls and election arena.

Of the ways to influence this debate, none is more important than the November elections. Bush, Rove and gang are turning the fall elections into a referendum on the war and occupation. If they keep control of Congress, they will take it as a mandate to continue the occupation for the next two years. If, on the other hand, the Democrats regain control of the Congress, it will be interpreted as an unambiguous and massive repudiation of Bush’s strategy of occupation and a signal to the new Congress that the removal of U.S. troops must be at the top of their legislative agenda.

Though elections are still a ways away, I can’t imagine that White House policymakers are sitting comfortably. For their tactic of turning U.S. occupation of Iraq into the pivotal issue in the fall elections appears to be backfiring. Why? Because it rested on the expectation that the situation in Iraq would stabilize this summer and fall. But so far this isn’t happening. Indeed, all hell is breaking loose there — more chaos, more sectarian violence, more deaths.

Thus, Republicans could easily lose control of the Senate and House, as voters register their opposition to the Iraq occupation by turning them out of office.

Were this to happen, it would be a body blow to the policy of preemptive war and occupation. Bush would be completely on the defensive as far as the occupation of Iraq is concerned (and everything else, for that matter).

On the other hand, the anti-occupation bloc in Congress would be immeasurably strengthened. Based on the mandate of the election results, this bloc could press for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops.

As for those who have been sitting on the fence, the pressure on them would be to climb off and join the fight for an expeditious end to the occupation.

Finally, not only would congressional Republicans be the minority in Congress and thus unable to set the legislative agenda, but their case for occupation and permanent military presence in Iraq would be discredited.

In short, the political dynamics between proponents of occupation and supporters of withdrawal would change qualitatively in favor of the latter.

Thus, the stakes in the outcome of this election are high — so high, in fact, that I would argue that the best way for the American people to register their opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy is to deliver a stinging blow to Republican hopes of retaining control of the Congress in November.

Sam Webb (swebb@cpusa.org) is national chairman of the Communist Party USA. This article is based on remarks to the CPUSA’s National Committee meeting in June.

Katrina and the ballot box

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:30:00 +0000

Despite President Bush’s slick rhetoric and smooth promises, New Orleans remains stricken one year after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city. Block after block of the Lower Ninth Ward are empty of residents, the houses engulfed by mud, without electricity or running water. Where are the billions approved by Congress to rebuild the city and the Gulf Coast?

Part of the problem is a cynical plan to use the crisis to transform “the Big Easy” from a city of half a million famed for its multiracial, multicultural diversity into a far smaller, far wealthier majority-white metropolis.

Malik Rahim, founder of Common Ground Collective, a New Orleans grassroots community group, told the World, “We’re going to have to see a marked increase in affordable housing to bring back teachers and city workers who make the wheels of any society turn.”

Interviewed during the Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle, Rahim said New Orleans “has been inundated by disaster capitalism that sees this as a time to further their exploitation.”

FEMA was “paying Halliburton $175 per square foot for blue tarps,” he said. “The subcontractors who installed the tarps got $2 per square foot. That’s $173 per square foot in profits for Halliburton.”

Rahim reports that the people are fighting hard to restore their city. Meanwhile, the House Republican leadership is blocking HR 4197, a bill introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus to provide billions of dollars in direct assistance to the people of New Orleans. But the same GOP leadership rams through tens of billions for the Iraq war anytime Bush asks for it. The price tag for the Bush-Cheney Iraq disaster soon will exceed $500 billion. That’s half a trillion dollars desperately needed to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

The administration and Congress spent billions on “homeland security.” Hurricane Katrina proved that all that pork was wasted. We are less secure than ever. The incompetence, the bungled indifference to human suffering, of the White House and Republican Congress is exposed for all to see. This is an election year. We need a Katrina-sized vote Nov. 7 to turn the Republican right from office.

Calif. heat wave kills 141, mainly poor

Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:59:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California heat wave last month killed more people than either the Northridge earthquake of 1994, the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 or the wildfires of 2003.

On July 29, the record two-week heat wave came to an end, but not before it had caused the deaths of 141 people, mainly poor, elderly, disabled or homeless, across the state.

In Sacramento, which had a record 11 consecutive days of triple-digit heat, with temperatures going as high as 115 degrees Fahrenheit, four men were found dead in “single residency only” hotel rooms near the State Capitol. These tiny rooms, just a step above homelessness, lacked air conditioning and even an air-conditioned lobby where the residents could cool down.

Eight other Sacramentans, all elderly people who lived alone, also died because of the heat.

Inland California is always hot during the summer. Temperatures over 100 degrees are common during July, but the thermometer usually goes down when the sun does, giving overnight respite from the heat.

But in this heat wave, which some are theorizing has a connection to global warming, the nights stayed as hot as 80 degrees, and daytime readings were as much as 10 degrees above normal.

In Chicago, where a heat wave killed hundreds of elderly in 1995, the city has a registry of people living alone and an automated call system during hot weather. Those who do not respond get personal visits. In Fresno, Calif., police took water to the places where homeless people camp.

But the city and county of Sacramento do not have an emergency plan for heat crises. Though authorities finally opened free “cooling centers” at air-conditioned public libraries, community centers and the State Fair site at Cal Expo, it was only towards the end of the hot spell, according to Garren Batcher, co-director of Friendship Park run by Loaves and Fishes, a nonprofit group that provides meals and services for homeless people just outside of Sacramento’s downtown.

Cooling center staff were surprised that so few people came to use them. Not enough publicity and insufficient public transportation could be the reasons that few poor people braved the sizzling sidewalks to travel to an air-conditioned site.

Homeless people haven’t any money to ride on the light rail trains that could bring them to a center, Batcher said.

“Our government, from the governor to the mayor, did nothing to assist homeless people,” said Batcher. “We were even instructed by the police not to send homeless people to the closest cooling center at 7th and K,” a downtown intersection.

Loaves and Fishes provided ice and water to people who came to Friendship Park, but the facility is all outdoors, so there was no way to keep it cool, he said.

“It’s time for the mayor [Heather Fargo] of Sacramento to take responsibility for all the citizens, not just those who have homes, vote and pay taxes,” Batcher said.

Progressive for Congress comes under fire

Fri, 11 Aug 2006 05:15:00 +0000

MINNEAPOLIS — If Keith Ellison is elected in November to represent Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, he will bring to the U.S. House of Representatives a fresh progressive voice in tradition of Paul Wellstone. He will also be the first African American congressman from Minnesota and the first Muslim in the U.S. Congress.

This seat, long considered safe by Democrats, is in a district that normally delivers some 75 percent of the vote to the Democratic ticket. Retiring Rep. Martin Sabo (D) held the seat for 28 years.

Ellison is a well-known civil rights attorney and an established progressive leader in the Minnesota House of Representatives. He received the Democratic Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party’s endorsement at the district convention in May, enjoys strong support from organized labor, and has been endorsed by the state AFL-CIO.

So why is this congressional race suddenly a hot topic on the state, and even national, level? Ellison faces fierce opposition not only from Republicans, but from several Democrats in the primary election Sept. 12.

Immediately after Ellison’s endorsement at the DFL convention, four candidates announced that they would run against him in the primary, an unusual event in this overwhelmingly Democratic district. Negative press began with extensive attention devoted to charges ranging from trivial to slanderous.

Stories purporting to expose Ellison’s past, from student organizations to parking tickets, have continued the onslaught. The Minneapolis Star Tribune published several stories suggesting that Ellison’s law student political activism at the University of Minnesota in the 1980s was somehow discreditable.

Most serious have been allegations that Ellison had supported Louis Farrakhan and advocated a separate nation for African Americans. Ellison, backed by longtime associates, insists that he never joined the Nation of Islam or supported Black separatism. Ellison only met Farrakhan once when the latter came to Minneapolis to speak, he said. At that event, according to many, Ellison publicly rebuked the anti-Semitism in Farrakhan’s remarks. The media has inadequately covered these refutations.

Peace and justice activists have been volunteering in increasing numbers in the Ellison campaign to refocus attention on Ellison’s program. Ellison calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a universal, single-payer health care system, protection and extension of civil rights to all, including gays and lesbians, and responsible stewardship of the environment.

In the Minnesota House, Ellison supported legislation to raise the minimum wage. He has spoken at peace rallies in the Twin Cities area. He pledged to fight all attempts to erode the Voting Rights Act. He founded the Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota.

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, peace activist and professor of peace studies at St. Thomas University, campaigned for DFL Party endorsement on a peace platform. At the district convention, he threw his support to Ellison. In a recent letter to peace and justice advocates, Nelson-Pallmeyer wrote, “When peace and justice communities help elect Keith Ellison, we will reconnect Washington to grassroots politics and strengthen our voices in the U.S. Congress.”

Coulter crap: Dont ignore it, expose it

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:31:00 +0000

BOOK REVIEW Godless: The Church of Liberalism By Ann Coulter Crown Forum 2006, Hardcover, 320 pages

Why would Ann Coulter dedicate the last one-third of her latest book to attacking science? More specifically, why would this right-wing ideologue focus on bashing evolution?

“Godless” is a good preview of what candidates with a peace, health, environmental and women’s rights focus will face in the fall elections. If a candidate supports the teaching of evolution in science classes and opposes teaching intelligent design or opposes teaching both, they will be charged with the godless label. The fact that a Republican judge ruled in December 2005 against teaching intelligent design, as it was just another facade to introduce religion into public schools, meant nothing to Coulter and her ilk. Why? The Bushites know winning on the issues will be difficult so they are putting their focus on emotion.

Eighty-three percent of the people in the U.S. hold religious views with 45 percent adhering to biblical creationism. This is one of the reasons intelligent design — the idea that cells and molecules are too complex to have naturally evolved — got a foothold here and not in other parts of the world.

While Coulter promotes intelligent design, she crudely resurrects the lie that there is no proof of evolution in the fossil record. She claims there are no fossils showing one species changing into another species. It is as if scientists now have to find what would be tantamount to a fossilized digital movie revealing one species morphing into another species. This is the old creationist trick of putting forward an un-testable idea and saying, “Show me.”

Why would backward thinking ideologues invest this much ink in what might be labeled an academic exercise? Because they know if they can confuse people around causes and effects and not connecting the dots, they can focus them away from the real issues of the election campaigns, e.g. war, immigration and health care, and rile people up emotionally to vote against their real interests.

Thus once led on an anti-science path, people can be led to ignore the data around climate change and see Katrina-like storms as acts of the supernatural. They can be led to oppose the science around stem cell research and abortion.

Arguments around whether Coulter really believes this anti-evolution, anti-science nonsense are immaterial. This Cornell and University of Michigan graduate knows she can serve her class by dividing believers and nonbelievers. Congressman Rangel (D-N.Y.) calls her a cartoon character. That may be. The point is her book is being widely promoted. I had to get on a wait list from a library to read it. Don’t ignore it. Expose it.

Asian American actors career was forged by struggle

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:24:00 +0000

Mako, the Japan-born actor who used his Oscar nomination for the 1966 film “The Sand Pebbles” to push for better roles for Asian American actors, died July 21. He was 72.

Mako, whose birth name was Makoto Iwamatsu, was born in Kobe, Japan, in 1933. He moved to the U.S. when he was 15 to join his parents who had emigrated earlier. After his service in the U.S. military, he embarked upon a career in film and theater.

Mako was a familiar face in film, theater and television. His TV roles included appearances on “I Spy,” “MASH,” and “Walker, Texas Ranger.”

On Broadway, his multiple roles as reciter, shogun, emperor and an American businessman in Stephen Sondheim’s 1976 musical “Pacific Overtures” earned him a Tony Award nomination for best actor in a musical.

He co-founded East West Players, the nation’s first Asian American theater company in 1965. As its artistic director, Mako staged, among other plays, classics such as Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night” and Chekhov’s “Three Sisters.”

“What many people say is, ‘If it wasn’t for Mako, there wouldn’t have been Asian American theater,”’ Tim Dang, artistic director of East West Players, said. “He is revered as sort of the godfather of Asian American theater.”

In the 1950s and well beyond, there were few roles for Asian actors on the American stage or screen. Those parts that existed were often demeaning. Typically written in pidgin English, they portrayed stock figures like houseboys, “coolies” (a deragotory term for Asian unskilled laborers), laundrymen and white slavers.

George Takei, who played Sulu in “Star Trek,” credited Mako’s acting abilities for making the most of a limited role.

Most actors played such parts and “did what they were told to do: giggle here, shuffle over there, bow and go out,” Takei said. “He was one of the early truly trained actors who was able to take stock roles, roles seen many times before, and make an individual a live and vibrant character.”

Such a role was Po-han, a Chinese laborer Mako played in “Sand Pebbles.” Most reviewers hailed the performance, saying it transcended the role’s stereotypical confines.

“Of course, we’ve been fighting against stereotypes from Day 1 at East West,” Mako said in a 1986 interview with the Los Angeles Times. “That’s the reason we formed: to combat that, and to show we are capable of more than just fulfilling the stereotypes — waiter, laundryman, gardener, martial artist, villain.”

“Unless our story is told to [other] people, it’s hard for them to understand where we are,” Mako said.

In 1981, he devoted the entire season to plays pertaining to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II to coincide with the start of a national discussion on internment reparations.

Despite the progress Asian actors made during his lifetime, Mako remained adamant that many barriers still existed. As he explained in an interview with the Los Angeles Times in 1992:

“I go into a young film director’s office these days and he says, ‘Hey man, I know who you are. I grew up watching “McHale’s Navy.” ’ And I think, ‘Oh boy, here we go again.’ ”

Required watching: How DeLay stole Congress

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:04:00 +0000

MovieREVIEW

The Big Buy: Tom DeLay’s Stolen Congress

Produced, directed and edited by Mark Birnbaum and Jim Schermbeck

Brave New Films, 2006

Available on DVD

Featuring Tom DeLay grinning like a Cheshire cat throughout the film, “The Big Buy: Tom DeLay’s Stolen Congress” chronicles the shenanigans of “the poster boy of corruption.” The most startling part is a 1994 interview in which DeLay lays out his grand plans: “There was a real revolution in this country. We are now in charge. I would like to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, HUD, seriously pare down the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA. The National Endowment for the Arts – we ought to zero them out. The National Endowment for the Humanities – we ought to zero them out. We will do a lot of that. Looking forward to it. [Big grin at this point.] By the time we finish this poker game, there may not be a federal government left, which would suit me just fine.”

One has to wonder why DeLay’s very honest commentary has passed under the radar of public consciousness until now. Bravo to “The Big Buy” for bringing it to our attention! It’s an eye-opener and should not be missed.

The film tells the story of the notorious redistricting plan in Texas and how it was engineered by DeLay. It names many of the corporations who contributed heavily to DeLay’s PACs including Westar, Williams Energy, Cracker Barrel, Sears Roebuck, El Paso Energy and Bacardi among others.

It features interviews with Texas progressives such as Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, and state Reps. Lon Burnam and Garnet Coleman. (Burnam and Coleman were among the “killer Ds” who bravely but unsuccessfully tried to block DeLay’s redistricting plan by going to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum in the Texas Legislature.) The interviews with Ronnie Earle, the Travis County District Attorney who challenged the legality of DeLay’s wheelings and dealings, resulting in an indictment of DeLay and his henchmen, are extraordinary.

Earle says, “Mussolini said that fascism should more properly be called corporatism since it represents the merger of state and corporate power. The great danger here is that that merger of the power of the state, power of government and power of the corporation…will be the death knell of democracy…Outlaws operate on their particular frequencies. For some, it’s a gun and a mask at a convenience store. For others, it’s a pen.”

Earle says elections have to be regulated so that they are not dominated by the rich and powerful. He also bemoans that both Democrats and Republicans go to the corporations with their hat in their hand and demand “almost like protection money.”

Earle describes how DeLay’s henchmen blatantly manipulated the elections using massive amounts of money “to take over the electoral politics of the state,” and concludes “They’re going to take it to a state near you next if they get away with it here.”

phill2@houston.rr.com

Disability rights and the civil rights revolution

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:54:00 +0000

Those of us who come from the first wave of disability rights advocates began our struggle within the civil rights movement of the 1960s. We learned an important lesson from that movement as to how a minority of citizens could change the way a society views the rights of all the people.

In the southern states African Americans lived mostly separated lives from the white majority, forced into second-class citizenship as a direct result of the post-Reconstruction period of reaction that entrenched white supremacy. Racism existed in the northern states as well but was never publicly acknowledged.

Even as the Lincoln Memorial was dedicated in 1922, old Jim Crow ruled the day. Those African Americans who stood up for their rights, such as Malcolm X’s father and many others, often found themselves hanging as “bitter fruit” on the nearest tree or lamppost. Only a mass civil rights movement actively demanding equality, equal opportunity and jobs advanced African Americans to equal citizenship under the law.

The years of civil rights struggle taught the first wave of disability rights advocates that if we wanted to live barrier-free we needed to carry out the same struggle for equality. We had to follow the path cleared by the civil rights movement and demand that people with disabilities be treated fairly and no differently than any other citizen — as human beings we should not be limited from participating within the mainstream of life, and should have the same opportunities as able-bodied citizens.

The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the establishment of affirmative action within the workplace and schools, inspired people with disabilities. The federal government, by these laws, was forced to develop policies to uproot institutional racism in the North and Jim Crow in the South, ending segregation in public schools, prohibiting job discrimination and offering real job opportunities. It was forced to exercise its power through the National Guard and the courts to enforce the new policies of desegregation in the workplace, the classroom and housing, because of the mass people’s movement.

The civil rights movement was a nonviolent revolution. The progressive transformation that it brought about influenced not only the disability rights movement but many other social movements of the 1970s and ’80s. It was a model for how mass demonstrations and civil disobedience could put pressure on the federal government to change its policies.

Following this example, the disability rights movement demanded the least restrictive environment in public education for students with disabilities. Using the Voting Rights Act as a model, people with disabilities demanded passage of the Help America Vote Act. Among other voter rights and protection measures, HAVA, passed in 2002, provides funds to state and local governments to upgrade their voting machines and to make all polling places accessible to people with disabilities.

The disability rights movement fought and pushed until the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990. It is entirely based on the Civil Rights Act. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is striking down one section after another, indicating that even the passage of progressive laws is not enough as long as the right wing rules the Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House. All of the progress made over the past 50 years is subject to the Bush counter-revolution.

Recent massive cuts in housing, benefits, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid by the right-wing Bush Congress are a direct attack on low-income working people, the frail elderly and people with disabilities. This is why this fall’s election is so important to all these oppressed people. We need to organize an all-people’s movement to throw these reactionaries out of office, take back our government, restore the cuts and restore the laws designed to correct the injustices of the past.

Tom Siblo (tsiblo@hvcbiz.rr.com) is a diability rights activist in Kingston, N.Y.

Clean Energy Initiative gains support

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:04:00 +0000

LOS ANGELES — Using a neighborhood gas station as a backdrop, Democratic candidate for governor Phil Angelides late last month endorsed Proposition 87, the “Clean Energy Initiative,” which will be on the ballot in November.

Angelides said Californians need to eliminate their dependence on oil and petroleum products. He called the current spike in gasoline prices a burden on working families and said something needs to be done now to bring prices under control. For the near future, he added, California needs to find alternative sources of energy to rely on.

“Prop. 87 would not add to the cost of gasoline,” Angelides said.

At its biennial convention here last week, the California Labor Federation added its endorsement to the measure. Prop. 87 “is supported by people fighting to create cleaner air and new jobs for California,” said federation head Art Pulaski. “The opposition is bankrolled by the oil companies who don’t want to pay California their fair share,” he said.

The “Yes on 87” campaign says the Clean Energy Initiative is a $4 billion effort to cut the state’s dependence on oil by 25 percent over the next 10 years. The measure would assess a tax on oil companies for removing oil from the ground in California — something other states are already doing. The money collected from these assessments would be used to fund research and development of alternative energy sources and encourage their use.

The measure is already supported by a number of consumer, public health and environmental groups, including the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Southern California Public Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

While Angelides was sharing his views on energy in downtown Los Angeles, his opponent, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was across town meeting with former President George H.W. Bush, discussing how to exploit California’s offshore oil reserves.

Late last month the Rasmussen poll showed Angelides holding a 2 percent lead over Schwarzenegger despite a negative television ad campaign by Schwarzenegger.

Election reform demanded in Cuyahoga County

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:02:00 +0000

CLEVELAND — At a spirited rally July 28 some 120 union members, retirees and community activists demanded the resignation of Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Director Michael Vu and Deputy Director Gwen Dillingham.

Chanting “Who must go? Vu must go!” the demonstrators were angry at the failure of both Vu and Dillingham to guarantee secure elections in the May primary. The machines used to read the optical scan votes of more than 15,000 absentee voters couldn’t read the ballots accurately, resulting in a hand count that delayed the outcome of the elections for a week.

North Shore Federation of Labor administrator Mike Murphy cited an independent study released last week that squarely blamed the board leadership for the problems and delay.

Chris Nance, representing Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), said, “As regrettable as it may be, we have to say that Vu and Dillingham have demonstrated incompetence in their roles, and that, in the interest of fair and honestly run elections, the two must go.”

The Rev. Tony Minor said the primary elections debacle and the role of the Ohio secretary of state amounted to suppression of the African American vote. “Voter suppression is being done through mismanagement,” he said.

Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell chose not to act when the county election board split in a tie vote over Vu and Dillingham’s ouster last week. Blackwell, a Republican who is also running for governor and who is not particularly popular in Cuyahoga County, said that state law doesn’t allow him to act in “personnel” matters.

Critics say, however, that the integrity of the elections themselves is at stake. They accuse Blackwell of refusing to act to protect the elections for partisan reasons, hoping that disarray and a low voter turnout could help him in the governor’s race.

The big question on everyone’s mind is what will happen in November. At the meeting of the board, Judy Gallo, executive committee member of the Greater Cleveland Voter Coalition, a watchdog nonpartisan group that monitors elections in Cuyahoga County, urged voters not to stay home because of the flawed election process and the board’s past failures. “It is important,” she said, “that the turnout be as big as possible, and that citizens pressure the board to conduct honest and secure elections.”

Election activists and lawyers are gearing up for an “election protection” effort to monitor voters’ experiences and help them at the polls, similar to the 2004 efforts.

New identification requirements will be added for the November election, leading to widespread speculation that much confusion will result. Some seven forms of ID are acceptable, but it is expected that poll workers will have some difficulty properly identifying eligible voters, and could incorrectly turn voters away. Many voters may not realize what they have to bring with them to the polls to prove they are eligible to vote.

Citizen groups are working feverishly to get the word out to the public.

GOPers back Democrat for Congress

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:59:00 +0000

DUBLIN, Calif. — Two lifelong Republicans who challenged incumbent Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) in the June 6 primary made a startling announcement July 26. Standing before a backdrop reading “Republicans for McNerney,” former Rep. Paul “Pete” McCloskey and former candidate Tom Benigno declared they are supporting Democratic nominee Jerry McNerney in the Nov. 7 election.

During the primary campaign in California’s 11th Congressional District, McCloskey said, he “concluded two things: Jerry McNerney is an honest man; Richard Pombo is not.” McCloskey expressed confidence that McNerney “will vote his conscience.”

Often called a “maverick” Republican, McCloskey represented the San Francisco peninsula area in Congress for 15 years from 1967-82. He co-founded Earth Day, helped write the Endangered Species Act, and opposed President Richard Nixon for the 1972 Republican nomination on an anti-Vietnam War platform.

The 11th CD extends from the Central Valley into the San Francisco Bay Area.

During the primary campaign, McCloskey sharply criticized Pombo’s close association with disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as Pombo’s efforts to undo environmental regulations, including the Endangered Species Act.

Saying he has reluctantly concluded the Republican Party will remain corrupted by money and its desire to retain a majority in Congress, McCloskey announced he would work for a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. “And if they are corrupted by that power as the Republicans have been, we’ll turn them out, too,” he warned.

“I’m not campaigning for all Democrats,” McCloskey added, saying he backs Republican Congressman Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger because of their environmental policies.

Benigno called Pombo wrong for wanting to sell parklands, drill offshore and drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He added that the GOP is supposed to be about “ethics, honesty and responsibility” but “it’s not that — it’s changed.”

McCloskey drew nearly 32 percent of Republican votes in the primary, while Benigno tallied 5.7 percent.

A beaming Jerry McNerney thanked the two for their endorsements.

“Now we have a choice,” he told the audience. “Do we want more of Richard Pombo protecting Big Oil, or do you want to join me and start down a path that will lead to energy independence and clean air? Do we want to continue to send Pombo to Washington to cut shady deals that make him and his powerful friends richer, or do we want to restore honesty, integrity and accountability to Congress?”

McNerney said his priorities include improving the health care system, protecting Social Security and veterans’ benefits, working toward clean and affordable energy and fighting corruption in Washington. A nationally recognized wind power expert, McNerney said he envisions making the 11th CD “the Silicon Valley of new energy technology.”

Asked about Iraq, McNerney called the current situation “very impossible,” and pledged to work with Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and others “to find a plan that makes sense, gives the Iraqis the best chance for a secure country, and allows our troops to withdraw from that occupation as soon as possible.”

Huge oil profits linked to economic slowdown

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:43:00 +0000

WASHINGTON — Exxon Mobil reported $10.4 billion in second quarter profits July 27, the second highest quarterly profits for any publicly traded company in U.S. history. Shell profits jumped 40 percent to $7.32 billion in the second quarter while BP profits soared 30 percent to $7.3 billion. Houston-based Conoco Phillips reported $5.18 billion, 65 percent higher than the first quarter.

The enormous profit orgy touched off angry charges from environmental and consumer groups that Big Oil profiteering is driving millions of low-income families deeper in poverty and pushing the economy toward a recession.

Judy Dugan, research director of the California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said, “These windfall profits come directly from the pockets of motorists nationwide who are struggling to pay more than $3 for a gallon of regular gasoline.”

Dugan’s group points to an analysis by JP Morgan that oil companies are reaping $19.10 for each 42 gallon barrel of crude oil they refine, up 60 percent over the same period last year. They are making record profits while deliberately refining less gasoline than a year ago.

Dugan accused Big Oil of “profiting once from the sale of crude oil at record prices and again from refining profits of 44 cents per gallon of gasoline.” She called it “pure greed and the real explanation for outrageous prices at the pump.”

She added, “It’s not Mideast unrest, shortfalls in Nigerian output or any other of the industry’s so-called reasons for gasoline prices that remain 72 cents higher than they were in January.”

If these all-time record profits continue, Big Oil’s earnings in 2006 will eclipse last year’s record $36 billion in combined profits.

The reports on oil company earnings came the same day that the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that economic growth slowed to 2.5 percent in the second quarter from 5.6 percent in the first quarter. “Belt tightening” by consumers was blamed for the sharp slowdown.

Josh Bevins, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute, said skyrocketing fuel costs are contributing to the slowdown. “Lots of things are dragging on the economy, but fuel prices are part of the story,” Bevins told the World. “Higher oil company profits suck purchasing power out of the economy by transferring money from household income to the oil companies. People are mostly fixed in how much fuel they use to get to work or go shopping. When the price of gasoline rises, they have to suck it up and that means less spending for other goods and services.”

The problem is aggravated by stagnating worker income, he said.

“Over the past two years, real wages adjusted for inflation have been falling,” he said. “One way to help reverse the slowdown is to increase purchasing power. It would also help if the rest of the world started increasing their imports from the U.S. That’s a wish. We don’t have much control over making that happen. But we can increase the minimum wage not only for macro-economic reasons but also as a matter of equity.”

The minimum wage has not been increased in seven years.

Shawnee Hoover, campaign director for “Exxpose Exxon,” a project initiated by U.S. Public Interest Research Group, assailed the House and Senate for lavishing new multibillion-dollar giveaways on Exxon Mobil and other oil corporations. The Senate was preparing to vote on a bill to expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico as she spoke. “Members of our coalition are on the Hill right now telling Congress to stop these handouts to Big Oil. That is exactly what this offshore drilling legislation is: a handout. No matter how much we drill, it’s not going to decrease gas prices because the problem is our dependence on oil. Unless we attack the problem on the demand side, we’re not going to alleviate the pressure on the price side.”

She denounced Exxon Mobil for bankrolling “a whole entourage of right-wing think tanks” to the tune of $19 million, to inject “uncertainty in the minds of the public on the issue of global warming.” Yet more and more people see the reality of global warming, she said, and grassroots demands for curbing greenhouse emissions is rising. “Our planet cannot sustain the steadily increased burning of oil, gas and coal. Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest and most profitable oil company, has a responsibility to invest in renewable energy.”