People Before Profit blog

New NLRB chief sees a future where workers rights top the agenda

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:46:00 +0000

For years, as a member of the National labor Relations Board, she spoke out against the Bush-appointed majority on that board. For years she felt frustration over how, in ruling after ruling, that board interpreted key parts of the National Labor relations Act in ways that hurt workers. Now, after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, she has become the chairman of that board.

Wilma Liebman says she looks forward to a future where workers’ rights, and how to insure them, are once again at the top of the national agenda.

The NLRB was created under the National labor Relations Act, itself a key part of FDR’s New Deal. The original purpose of the act was to help build the foundations for mass prosperity by reigning in the out-of-control business practices that had caused the Great Depression in the first place. Other legal building blocks in the New Deal were the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established minimum wage and overtime pay guidelines, and the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which regulated public utilities. The Republicans eventually saw to it that the public utility controls were eliminated.

Unlike those other New Deal laws, however the National Labor Relations Act had, and still has, only small penalties for labor law breakers. The Employee Free Choice Act would sharply increase those fines and it would give the NLRB more power to get court orders against labor law breakers.

Employee free choice would allow workers to choose, either by majority sign-up or by election, whether they want union representation. Under the National Labor relations Act, the company makes that choice. Many companies that choose an election, which is run by Liebmans’s board, break the law during the campaign by harassing and even firing union supporters and by forcing workers to attend mandatory anti-union propaganda sessions

Liebman told Press Associates, the union news service, last week that, although she cannot take an official position for or against the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor relations Act is outmoded because “it is 70 years old and was written for an industrial era when workers toiled on the assembly line and often stayed with the same firm for years – not like now. I would hop any changes made take into account changes in the work[place and in the economy. The point of my dissents” to GOP-majority NLRB rulings in the past few years is that the board ignored realities.”

Antiquated labor law in only one part of the difficult job Liebman faces. She, a Democrat, is one of only two members of what is supposed to be a fiver-member board. The other is Republican Peter Schaumber. Although Obama designated her to chair the board, he has not yet filled the remaining seats. He must, by law, appoint a bipartisan board, with the majority party getting three seats and the minority party two.

Liebman hopes and is actually confident, she says, that labor law and workers’ rights will be back in the public eye. She says the coming fight over the Employee Free Choice Act is only part of the reason. She says the state of the economy and the realization in Washington that we need regulation of business to curb its excesses are also contributing factors.

“The stars are quite aligned, especially with a Democratic president and Congress and the economic crisis. We’re back in the mode of considering government regulation – and the role of unions and labor law in building of the middle class.”

There has been a severe decline in the board’s union representation caseload – a 47 percent drop – since Liebman became a member in 1997.

Liebman says this is, in part, due to the fact that unions have been frustrated by the NLRB election process, especially the rampant labor-law-breaking it allows. It is why, she says, they have turned to signing majority signup agreements with companies. “They’re skeptical about board outcomes, delays and remedies.”

Liebman is alerting everyone to what she sees as a serious shortcoming in the way the board operates. Her board, like a court, can rule only on what comes before it. Other federal regulatory agencies, not similarly restricted, can initiate investigations.

This, of course, means that some of the most anti-worker rulings of the old Bush majority board will stand until a case comes to the board challenging them. Those include a ruling that nurses, and potentially millions of other workers, are supervisors – a decision that Liebman opposed.

John Wojcik (jwojcik @pww.org) is labor editor at People's Weekly World. PAI contributed to this story.

Obama to order the beginning of the end of U.S. war in Iraq

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:49:00 +0000

United For Peace and Justice statement on Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan

President Obama is scheduled to announce a plan today to pull all combat troops out of Iraq by 19 months from his inauguration -- August 2010 -- three months later than his campaign promise of a 16-month pullout. During his speech before Congress on Tuesday night, Obama said that he would be announcing 'a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war.'

President Obama is largely keeping to his campaign promises, and that is a good thing. We are hopeful that we now have a president who wants to act on the will of the people who elected him. Taking steps to end the war in Iraq is a reflection of the anti-war consensus among the people of this country -- a consensus that the peace movement, led by United For Peace and Justice, helped build. Numerous commentators note that Obama's early promise to 'end the war' played a huge part in generating early public support for his campaign.

The country and the world need a plan to fulfill the clear and unequivocal goal of a complete withdrawal of all troops, pulling out of all the 150,000 U.S. paid foreign mercenaries and contractors, closing all the bases, and ending efforts to control Iraqi oil.

With the announcement of the 19-month withdrawal plan, there are still critical ambiguities and unanswered questions that need to be addressed. The human and the economic costs in Iraq continue to mount at a time of a global economic crisis. The security and economic needs of both the Iraqis and U.S. peoples cannot be met while the war and occupation continues.

A 'partial withdrawal' will leave behind as many as 50,000 to 70,000 U.S. troops. 'It will require a significant number of troops to train the Iraqi military, conduct targeted counterterrorism operations and protect American personnel and assets,' according to General Ray Odierno, U.S. commander in Iraq. Other officials speak of the plan to leave behind 'intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft.'

Some units may be re-labeled, so those currently counted as combat troops would remain in Iraq but be 're-missioned,' their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis. That is not an end to the occupation. In fact, it could lead to U.S. troops being in Iraq indefinitely.

The 'status of forces agreement' agreement (SOFA) with Iraq -- signed by a reluctant and defeated White House in the last days of the Bush administration -- calls for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011. President Obama's announcement may reflect a similar timetable as well. But sources from within the Pentagon point to the fact that the status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and estimates are that between 30,000 and 50,000 will remain in Iraq beyond 2011.

The SOFA agreement calls for all combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities by this summer; and by the end of 2011, for all U.S. forces to be out of Iraq and all the U.S. bases to be turned over to Iraq.

For several years now, the Congress has repeatedly said no to leaving U.S. bases behind. We need to know what the timetable is for turning the bases over to the Iraqis.

The agreement is filled with big loopholes; the biggest is that both sides can suggest changes. The Iraqi government -- from its beginnings, dependent on and accountable to the U.S. -- is certainly different now. It has created a significant domestic power base. However, is it strong enough to refuse a quiet U.S. 'request' for amending the agreement to push back or eliminate the ostensibly final deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops?

Alongside of the unanswered questions on troop withdrawals and U.S. bases, how will the presence of U.S. military contractors be ended? Although President Obama is the commander in chief, the oil companies and powerful contractors, whose CEOs and stockholders have made billions in war profits on Iraq contracts, remain a powerful pressure on the administration and Congress. While it is good that President Obama has promised transparency in the contracting process, our country also needs a commitment to bring home all the mercenaries and contractors.

Almost three more years of occupation is way too long. Having a date-specific to withdraw troops is a positive step in the right direction. But a 19-month partial withdrawal is not enough. Our movement has always been clear and we remain committed to this point: all of the troops must be brought home now! We are also deeply troubled by and opposed to the decision to send more troops into the senseless war in Afghanistan. The peace movement must once again press forward for a complete end to the occupation of Iraq, leaving no troops and no bases behind. The peace movement's job is to mobilize, to pressure, to continue to educate and advocate, and to agitate for a real end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On March 19 and 20, the sixth anniversary of the war, local antiwar activities will take place in communities throughout the country. On April 4, we will march on Wall Street in New York City. We will lift up the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, on this year's anniversary of his historic Beyond Vietnam speech to say that 'Beyond War: A New Economy is Possible'.

The gender card

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:43:00 +0000

Once again, we see that there are no boundaries when it comes to making outrageously sexist remarks with impunity. The latest example can be found in a nationally televised interview involving former Republican Congressman Dick Armey.

But first, some perspective. Remember the primary campaign? 'How do we beat the bitch?' was the question asked of Senator McCain, when Hillary Clinton seemed to be the Democratic front-runner. His response did not even hint at the notion that the question itself was inappropriate.

And, of course, now we are subjected to ongoing commentary about Katie Couric's new hairstyle and speculation about Nancy Pelosi's plastic surgery. All fair game, we are told, because they are public figures. It's just that we don't seem to read all that much about which male politicians touch up their hair and tighten their eyes, nor do we read about what President Obama wears compared to, say, the First Lady. Yet, if women raise concerns about the unfairness of such superficial coverage of leading female figures, we are admonished to stop playing the 'gender card.'

But recently, Dick Armey brought sexist discourse to a new level, even for Washington. The former Congressman set about belittling Joan Walsh, Editor-in Chief of Salon.Com, on national television. The interview, which took place on Chris Matthew's Hardball, should become mandatory viewing for anyone interested in studying how women are treated in the media.

The topic of the segment wandered between the benefits of tax cuts as part of a stimulus package and Rush Limbaugh's latest bombastic remarks about Barack Obama. The result was television at its most painful. And it was business as usual as far as the media is concerned.

Watch Dick belittle Joan whenever she tried to get a word in edgewise. See Dick smirk at her every word. Hear Dick say, 'Give it a rest' multiple times, as though that is a legitimate response to Joan's efforts to talk about the economic issues facing our country. And then gasp as Dick delivers the ultimate zinger: 'I'm so damn glad you can never be my wife because I surely wouldn't have to listen to that prattle from you every day.' He continued on, barely pausing to catch a breath, even as we held ours. Watch Chris Matthews do nothing.

Now try to find some major media figure - anyone - who called this out as an example of sexist treatment. You may be searching for a while. Howard Kurtz offered a pointed mention on Reliable Sources. Beyond that, the airwaves have not exactly been filled with journalists expressing outrage at this patently offensive behavior.

Nor is it fair to dismiss the crude comments as simply the hyperbole of a former politician. Mr. Armey was, in fact, a recent leader of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives (you know, the same one who once referred to Congressman Barney Frank as 'Barney Fag').

Dick Armey now works at one of the largest law firms in the world. It is a good guess that women lawyers work at that firm as well. Do they get the same belittling treatment? Are they even on his radar screen as people who can contribute in meaningful ways to the work at the firm? Or does he have a policy where, if women attorneys speak up or otherwise assert an opinion different from his, they are relegated to the fictitious Wives' Club, where imaginary women's voices are heard prattling in the distance?

It is time to stop the silence which greets words that cause damage. Women must be able to move past the stage of being the 'good sport,' sitting quietly with fake smiles, holding back direct responses to words that are meant to demean.

This is not about playing a gender card, for that presupposes there is a game involved. This is not a game. This is about understanding the use of language - words and body language alike - as a tool which can be used to hold people back. It is also about holding people accountable for the content and tone of their discourse.

And please do not bother sending forth admonitions to 'lighten up.' Even women with terrific senses of humor have a right to be angry. If no one else is willing to name the behavior, women must then be the ones to step forward and do so.

We owe it to ourselves and each other to challenge words and behaviors that are used to diminish others. Hopefully, Congressman Armey's wife explained this to him when he got home from the interview.

Lauren Stiller Rikleen, Esq., is the executive director of the Bowditch Institute for Women's Success, a partner at Bowditch & Dewey, LLP, and the author of Ending the Gauntlet: Removing Barriers to Women's Success in the Law.

Rally: Stop closing schools, education is a right

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:09:00 +0000

CHICAGO – It’s the worst feeling, said Paula Bullard, mother of five, when you have to tell your children that their school is closing. Bullard’s children go to South Chicago elementary in the South Shore neighborhood. Their school is one of 16 public schools the Chicago Board of Education has recently decided to close, consolidate or revamp next fall.

“My oldest started crying because he won’t be able to graduate with friends he just made,” said Bullard. “I told him not to worry because mommy and daddy are going to fight to keep their school open,” she said.

Bullard was joined by hundreds of parents, teachers, students and community groups who demonstrated in front of the Board of Education building Feb. 25 in downtown Chicago. Protestors led a march chanting with signs in hand speaking out against the boards decision which they say will displace students and teachers, throw communities in turmoil, put hundreds out of work and undermine public education.

Faia Wilson has two young children who attend South Chicago. “My feelings were hurt. It’s like somebody has just died in our family. My kids school not only helps me as a parent but it helps our entire family and our community,” she said.

South Chicago like many others is slated for closure due to low-enrollment, according to school officials.

“We have good teachers and smaller classrooms work because our students do better when they’re given more attention,” said Wilson.

District officials contend 12 of the schools slated for closure are due to low enrollment while four others, they say, are academically failing and will go into a turn-around program, meaning teachers and staff will have to reapply for their jobs.

But just days prior to the board’s recent decision, the district removed six schools from the closing or revamping list. It was the mobilization of outraged parents, teachers, students, labor leaders and community groups that formed rapid-response coalitions which spoke out against the measure at public hearings and downtown protests in massive numbers.

Edna Otero has been teaching the first grade for 28 years and is an active member with the Chicago Teachers Union. She was at the rally to support her fellow teachers who are against school closings and Mayor Daley’s Renaissance 2010 plan. Critics charge the plan is part of a long-term privatization scheme of public education that targets low-income communities where populations are decreasing due to the destruction of public housing and skyrocketing rents.

“Our kids are being told that they are not good enough and every time I hear that a school is closing I feel like I’m personally being slapped in the face,” said Otero. It’s hard enough that teachers have to work with students and families who are under-privileged and it’s not right that now they are losing the one place where they feel safe, said Otero. “It’s demoralizing to everyone.”

Otero said that there are 20 pupils per classroom in the suburbs whereas there are 30 or more in Chicago schools. “And they say when that number goes down here it’s under-enrollment,” said Otero. Our kids deserve equal treatment, quality education and the highest attention and smaller classrooms benefit everyone, she said. “Get involved and go to your neighborhood school and find out what’s going on and how you can help,” said Otero. “Parents, teachers, students and communities have to work together in order to save our public schools because education is a right.”

Jackson Potter is a history teacher, an active union member and leader with the Caucus of Rank-and-file Educators. “Members of the Board of Education are cowards who can care less about the people they are impacting,” he said. “They are not closing schools because they are failing. They’re getting rid of them because they’re for sale,” added Potter. “These are business people, members of corporate boards who care more about profits and privatization than improving public education and human lives.”

Potter and rally supporters are urging people to get involved by calling their state representatives telling them to support House Bill 363 introduced by State Rep. Cynthia Soto (4th District) that would place a moratorium on school closings, phase-outs, turnarounds and consolidations. The legislation has the support of more than 20 state lawmakers and recently made it out of committee with a 20-0 vote and would require a team of experts to assemble and review cases of shutdowns and develop criteria for evaluating proposals made by school officials. The move will help facilitate a citywide plan that is expected to include a fair, democratic process with community input and oversight.

For Kristen Snyder, a college student, the mayor should be focusing on how to better fund public education and not the Olympics. Chicago is a leading contender for the 2016 games. “It’s really sad that we’re investing resources into choosing the Olympics years from now rather than investing in our much needed public schools today. What’s going to happen to low-income students who can’t afford private schools,” she asked. Closing schools, firing good teachers and displacing students is not the answer, said Snyder.

Speaking about the six schools that were saved from closing by high levels of community and parent mobilization, Potter said, “These groups were the bastions of the movement and their voice and their presence scared the board.”

Many supporters at the rally including Jesse Sharky, a social studies teacher at Senn high school were happy that the board decided to spare six schools. “We’re very excited about this, because it shows that when communities come together and are united in protest, it really works,” he said.

Equal rights at the Oscars

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:32:00 +0000

“You commie, homo-loving sons of guns,” Sean Penn told the Feb. 22 Academy Awards audience upon accepting the best actor award for his portrayal of slain San Francisco supervisor and gay rights leader Harvey Milk in the movie “Milk.”

Referring to hostile picketers outside, Penn said, “For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight, I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage [California’s Proposition 8] to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren’s eyes if they continue that way of support. We’ve got to have equal rights for everyone.”

Above, Penn stands with fellow award winners Kate Winslet (best actress) and Penelope Cruz (best supporting actress).

Suggestions to read for Women's History Month

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:13:00 +0000

History, mysteries, novels, even vampires — some recommendations from our readers and staff.

“In the Time of the Butterflies,” by Julia Alvarez

A fictionalized biography of the Mirabel sisters and their struggle for freedom against the Dominican Republic’s dictator Raphael Trujillo. A harrowing tale, yet full of beauty, courage and inspiration.

“The Handmaid’s Tale,” by Margaret Atwood

This book is hauntingly and relentlessly depressing — but one comes to appreciate it for its allegorical significance in describing a fascistic sexist dystopia with many shadows of today’s religious ultra-right.

“Women, Race and Class,” by Angela Davis

An important book that continues to be relevant today.

“Let Their Spirits Dance,” by Stella Pope Duarte

A novel presenting the impact of the death of a Chicano youth in the Vietnam War on his family from a sister’s point of view. It captures great snapshots of barrio, working class family life in Phoenix from the 1950s to the ’90s, with a docudrama-like chapter on the 1970 National Chicano Moratorium.

“Finding Nouf,” by Zoe Ferraris

A woman born into the repressive Saudi Arabian culture is found dead in the desert. As the characters go about finding out how she died, the book shows what women face in a culture where they are required to wear burkas in public, and in their own way struggling for independence.

“Out to Work: A History of Wage Earning Women in the United States,” by Alice Kessler Harris

A valuable general history.

“The Southern Vampire Mysteries,” by Charlaine Harris

The Sookie Stackhouse series (now a show called “True Blood” on HBO). Fiction/fantasy written from a woman’s first-person point of view.

“Their Eyes Were Watching God,” by Zora Neale Hurston

The story of a woman who is raised by her grandmother after her parents disappear and who goes through three marriages in the 1930s in Florida. Despite the situations the main character faced, it shows how she was determined to get through it.

“Labor of Love: Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work and the Family from Slavery to the Present,” by Jacqueline Jones

The title pretty much explains what this excellent book is about.

“The Heretic’s Daughter,” by Kathleen Kent.

The author, whose ancestor was killed in the Salem witch trials in the 17th century, describes what life was like for women and how the hysteria came about through the eyes of her relative.

“The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency,” by Alexander McCall Smith.

A series set in Botswana describing the life of Precious Ramotswe after her father dies and she gets rid of an abusive husband. Each book has its own story with the characters continuing from novel to novel. It’s a fun read.

“Reading Lolita in Tehran,” by Azar Nafisi.

A memoir by an Iranian English literature teacher just before, during and after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Difficult at times to confront the political realities of the day.

“Packinghouse Daughter: A Memoir,” by Cheri Register

A girl growing up blue-collar and union during a bitter strike in a company town. A wonderful book about how a young woman learns what it means to be working class.

The Kate Shugak series, by Dana Stabenow (“A Cold Day for Murder,” “A Fatal Thaw,” “Dead in the Water,” “A Cold-Blooded Business” and a dozen other titles)

These mysteries, set in a 20-million-acre Alaskan wilderness known affectionately as “The Park,” are a refreshing antidote to Sarah Palin. Their main character is the tough, smart, short Kate Shugak, an Aleut woman (with Russian and other roots) who lives alone (with her half-husky, half-wolf dog, Mutt) and solves crimes in which the criminals often have some connection to corporate corruption or private exploitation of Alaska’s resources. A touch of the mystical, the powerful beauty of nature, plus some good-sense politics make these really good reads.

“Women Strike for Peace: Traditional Motherhood and Radical Politics in the 1960s,” by Amy Swerdlow

A historical account of this groundbreaking women’s movement by a founding member of WSP. It tells the story of a significant chapter in American politics and the emerging movement for women’s equality.

“Winter Wheat,” by Margaret Walker

Originally published in 1944, this beautiful novel is the story of a young woman coming of age in Montana’s harsh wheat country. It depicts her struggle to find her way as an independent woman and come to terms with her parents, and gives a sense of what that struggle was like for women growing up in that period, out on the plains.

“Class Action, The Story of Lois Jenson and the Landmark Case That Changed Sexual Harassment Law,” by Clara Bingham and Laura Leedy Gansler

This gripping page-turner is the true story of a group of women iron ore workers in Minnesota’s Iron Range who overcame intimidation and fear to challenge sexual harassment on the job. Their case, Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines, was the first sexual harassment class action in the U.S. It permanently changed the legal landscape as well as the lives of the women who fought the 25-year battle. One of the women was the niece of legendary Minnesotan and Communist Party USA leader Gus Hall. This book was the basis of the movie “North Country,” which was good, but the book is better!

Some recommendations for young people:

For girls 7-12 years old: the American Girl Collection, by various authors. The books in this series offer fictional stories of the lives of girls during a variety of historically significant epochs. For example:

“Meet Josefina,” by Valerie Tripp tells the story of a girl growing up in Santa Fe in 1824.

Several for young people 10 and over:

“100 Women Who Shaped World History,” by Gail Meyer Rolka

Short introductions to 100 women who have shaped history in positive and negative ways. Examples include Eleanor Roosevelt, Amelia Earhart, Helen Keller and many others.

“Girls Think of Everything — Stories of Ingenious Inventions by Women,” by Catherine Thimmesh, illustrated by Melissa Sweet.

Full of interesting stories of women (and girls!) who have invented many things we use today.

“We Were There, Too! Young People in U.S. History,” by Phillip Hoose

Gives insight into how young people have helped shape the history of our country. Many of the stories are about girls and young women.

— Teresa Albano, Elaine Lantz, Norman Markowitz, Elena Mora, Rosalio Muñoz, Matt Parker, Rosemarie Rieger, Susan Webb, Carl Wood

Charles Darwin at 200: Solidarity is the best survival strategy

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:41:00 +0000

The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, Feb. 12, brought back memories of a college course I took in which the topic was “social Darwinism,” a philosophy that exalted dog-eat-dog greed in the name of “survival of the fittest.”

Social Darwinism, we learned in that class, provided a figleaf of “scientific truth” and morality to an era in which 8-year-old boys and girls were forced to toil in the mines and mills while the factory owners were at play on their golf links. Millions of workers slaved 12- to 14-hour days at starvation wages. Measures to alleviate this brutal exploitation were denounced as contrary to the laws of both God and Darwin and, it was alleged, would contribute to a weakening of the human species.

Among the assigned readings in that course was a book by biologist George Gaylord Simpson, “The Meaning of Evolution,” that demolished social Darwinism as a monstrous fraud.

Simpson showed that along with competition, cooperation is an equally important factor in evolution in determining whether a species survives. Indeed, he argued, many species have evolved strategies to reduce competition within their cohort to improve chances of survival. We see evidence of that survival strategy in the human species in the varied social structures that emerged over the ages: family, tribe, trade unions, political parties, grassroots organizations, representative governments. These structures serve as a force for democratic self-rule and a bulwark against barbarism, against the forces of annihilation that pose the gravest risk to human survival.

Years later, a friend introduced to me the writings of Peter Kropotkin, the Russian prince, a founder of anarchism, who rebelled against his aristocratic upbringing and devoted his life to science and revolution. Kropotkin read Darwin’s “Origin of Species” and was immensely impressed. Sent on a czarist expedition to Siberia, he spent months searching for evidence to buttress Darwin’s notion of competition as the driving force in nature. But everywhere he looked, he found something else: cooperation. He studied the behavior of ants, honeybees, birds, wild horses and wolves, and concluded that “mutual aid” was the key to their survival.

Returning from Siberia, Kropotkin continued his studies, applying this concept of “mutual aid” to human society. He found proof of cooperation and solidarity in every epoch of human evolution. He focused, for example, on the role of guilds in medieval towns, formed by skilled artisans to defend their mutual interests. These guilds, he argued, were central to the very existence of these towns.

Kropotkin condensed his observations in a book, “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution,” which served as a basis for his theory that the state corrupts and negates the natural inclination of humanity to cooperate. Kropotkin’s gentle book extolling human solidarity provides an antidote to those who reduce anarchism to a crude caricature, “bomb throwers” intent on “smashing the state.”

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels also greeted Darwin’s theory of evolution. In a letter to German Communist Ferdinand Lassalle dated Jan. 16, 1861, Marx wrote, “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history.” But Marx and Engels also debunked social Darwinism. Engels wrote, “The whole Darwinian theory of the ‘struggle for life’ is simply the transference from society to organic nature of the [Thomas] Hobbes theory of ‘Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes [the war of each against all] and of the bourgeois theory of economic competition as well as the Malthusian theory of population.”

Indeed, Darwin, a shy person who sought to avoid controversy, had borrowed the phrase “survival of the fittest” from Herbert Spencer, who together with T.H. Huxley contrived social Darwinism to justify exploitation, wars of aggression and racist oppression by British imperialism.

The class structure that dominates modern society is driven by both mutual aid and struggle. The working class is bound together by mutual dependence and solidarity in its struggle against the capitalist class enemy. But Mark and Engels saw this bitter struggle as a temporary stage, not a permanent condition. Workers have the audacity and the hope — to borrow a phrase — for a day when the system of wage exploitation and racist oppression will be abolished and mutual aid is the normative condition of human existence.

Meanwhile, social Darwinism is alive and well. It was present when well-fed Republican politicians sat on their hands during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech the night of Feb. 24. They made their disapproval obvious when Obama hailed passage of SCHIP extending health insurance to13 million more uninsured children. They sat in grim silence when he said his economic recovery package extends jobless benefits and health care coverage for millions of unemployed workers. But they stood and applauded when he called for taxpayer rescue of the banks.

Among the “fittest” species are those that utilize strategies of mutual assistance and solidarity. For humankind, that leads naturally to the idea that all races and nationalities are equal, that “an injury to one is an injury to all.” For millions of working people caught in the deepening economic crisis, it leads to the idea of socialism, a system that upholds the truth that we are all in the same boat together. It is a system that puts human need above profits, that places the means of production in public hands and opens the way for a government “of, by and for the people.”

----- Tim Wheeler (greenerpastures21212@yahoo.com) is national political correspondent for the People’s Weekly World.

Computer crashed by earthworm

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:34:00 +0000

YEOVIL, England, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A British man said the worm that caused his computer to crash turned out not to be a form of computer virus but an actual 5-inch earthworm.

Mark Taylor, 45, of Yeovil, England, said repairmen told him that the worm had crawled into his laptop through an air vent and coiled itself around a cooling fan, causing the computer to overheat and break down, The Daily Telegraph reported Tuesday.

Taylor said the worm itself had been 'cooked' by the overheated computer.

He said the creature was likely taken into his home by his two cats, which have a taste for worms.

'The worm was obviously looking for a hiding place and must have crawled in through the air vent to get away from the cats,' Taylor told The Daily Telegraph. 'I couldn't help thinking that people get computer worms all the time, but not real life ones.'

Obama delivers bold speech to Congress

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:03:00 +0000

As prepared for delivery. Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery

Address to Joint Session of Congress

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009

Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the First Lady of the United States:

I’ve come here tonight not only to address the distinguished men and women in this great chamber, but to speak frankly and directly to the men and women who sent us here.

I know that for many Americans watching right now, the state of our economy is a concern that rises above all others. And rightly so. If you haven’t been personally affected by this recession, you probably know someone who has – a friend; a neighbor; a member of your family. You don’t need to hear another list of statistics to know that our economy is in crisis, because you live it every day. It’s the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It’s the job you thought you’d retire from but now have lost; the business you built your dreams upon that’s now hanging by a thread; the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope. The impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere.

But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this:

We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth. Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more.

Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that for too long, we have not always met these responsibilities – as a government or as a people. I say this not to lay blame or look backwards, but because it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank. We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before. The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform. Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for. And though all these challenges went unsolved, we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before.

In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.

Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like to talk to you about tonight.

It’s an agenda that begins with jobs.

As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law.

Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.

Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Health care professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make.

Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut – a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1st.

Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college. And Americans who have lost their jobs in this recession will be able to receive extended unemployment benefits and continued health care coverage to help them weather this storm.

I know there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work. I understand that skepticism. Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending. And with a plan of this scale comes enormous responsibility to get it right.

That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe. I have told each member of my Cabinet as well as mayors and governors across the country that they will be held accountable by me and the American people for every dollar they spend. I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud. And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent.

So the recovery plan we passed is the first step in getting our economy back on track. But it is just the first step. Because even if we manage this plan flawlessly, there will be no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis that has severely weakened our financial system.

I want to speak plainly and candidly about this issue tonight, because every American should know that it directly affects you and your family’s well-being. You should also know that the money you’ve deposited in banks across the country is safe; your insurance is secure; and you can rely on the continued operation of our financial system. That is not the source of concern.

The concern is that if we do not re-start lending in this country, our recovery will be choked off before it even begins.

You see, the flow of credit is the lifeblood of our economy. The ability to get a loan is how you finance the purchase of everything from a home to a car to a college education; how stores stock their shelves, farms buy equipment, and businesses make payroll.

But credit has stopped flowing the way it should. Too many bad loans from the housing crisis have made their way onto the books of too many banks. With so much debt and so little confidence, these banks are now fearful of lending out any more money to households, to businesses, or to each other. When there is no lending, families can’t afford to buy homes or cars. So businesses are forced to make layoffs. Our economy suffers even more, and credit dries up even further.

That is why this administration is moving swiftly and aggressively to break this destructive cycle, restore confidence, and re-start lending.

We will do so in several ways. First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.

Second, we have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and re-finance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values – Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who re-finances today can save nearly $2000 per year on their mortgage.

Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.

I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions. But such an approach won’t solve the problem. And our goal is to quicken the day when we re-start lending to the American people and American business and end this crisis once and for all.

I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.

Still, this plan will require significant resources from the federal government – and yes, probably more than we’ve already set aside. But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade. That would be worse for our deficit, worse for business, worse for you, and worse for the next generation. And I refuse to let that happen.

I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and results that followed. So were the American taxpayers. So was I.

So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions. I promise you – I get it.

But I also know that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment. My job – our job – is to solve the problem. Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility. I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can’t pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can’t get a mortgage.

That’s what this is about. It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people. Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home. And then some company will hire workers to build it. And then those workers will have money to spend, and if they can get a loan too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business. Investors will return to the market, and American families will see their retirement secured once more. Slowly, but surely, confidence will return, and our economy will recover.

So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse.

The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate steps we’re taking to revive our economy in the short-term. But the only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world. The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil and the high cost of health care; the schools that aren’t preparing our children and the mountain of debt they stand to inherit. That is our responsibility.

In the next few days, I will submit a budget to Congress. So often, we have come to view these documents as simply numbers on a page or laundry lists of programs. I see this document differently. I see it as a vision for America – as a blueprint for our future.

My budget does not attempt to solve every problem or address every issue. It reflects the stark reality of what we’ve inherited – a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession.

Given these realities, everyone in this chamber – Democrats and Republicans – will have to sacrifice some worthy priorities for which there are no dollars. And that includes me.

But that does not mean we can afford to ignore our long-term challenges. I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity.

For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.

In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.

We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal. Now we must be that nation again. That is why, even as it cuts back on the programs we don’t need, the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education.

It begins with energy.

We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.

Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders – and I know you don’t either. It is time for America to lead again.

Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years. We have also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history – an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in medicine, science, and technology.

We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills.

But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

As for our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink. We should not, and will not, protect them from their own bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it. Scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward.

For that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.

This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds. By the end of the year, it could cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes. In the last eight years, premiums have grown four times faster than wages. And in each of these years, one million more Americans have lost their health insurance. It is one of the major reasons why small businesses close their doors and corporations ship jobs overseas. And it’s one of the largest and fastest-growing parts of our budget.

Given these facts, we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold.

Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last thirty days than we have in the last decade. When it was days old, this Congress passed a law to provide and protect health insurance for eleven million American children whose parents work full-time. Our recovery plan will invest in electronic health records and new technology that will reduce errors, bring down costs, ensure privacy, and save lives. It will launch a new effort to conquer a disease that has touched the life of nearly every American by seeking a cure for cancer in our time. And it makes the largest investment ever in preventive care, because that is one of the best ways to keep our people healthy and our costs under control.

This budget builds on these reforms. It includes an historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform – a down-payment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American. It’s a commitment that’s paid for in part by efficiencies in our system that are long overdue. And it’s a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in the years to come.

Now, there will be many different opinions and ideas about how to achieve reform, and that is why I’m bringing together businesses and workers, doctors and health care providers, Democrats and Republicans to begin work on this issue next week.

I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.

The third challenge we must address is the urgent need to expand the promise of education in America.

In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity – it is a pre-requisite.

Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish.

This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education – from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.

Already, we have made an historic investment in education through the economic recovery plan. We have dramatically expanded early childhood education and will continue to improve its quality, because we know that the most formative learning comes in those first years of life. We have made college affordable for nearly seven million more students. And we have provided the resources necessary to prevent painful cuts and teacher layoffs that would set back our children’s progress.

But we know that our schools don’t just need more resources. They need more reform. That is why this budget creates new incentives for teacher performance; pathways for advancement, and rewards for success. We’ll invest in innovative programs that are already helping schools meet high standards and close achievement gaps. And we will expand our commitment to charter schools.

It is our responsibility as lawmakers and educators to make this system work. But it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in it. And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country – and this country needs and values the talents of every American. That is why we will provide the support necessary for you to complete college and meet a new goal: by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.

I know that the price of tuition is higher than ever, which is why if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education. And to encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Senator Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country – Senator Edward Kennedy.

These education policies will open the doors of opportunity for our children. But it is up to us to ensure they walk through them. In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father who will attend those parent/teacher conferences, or help with homework after dinner, or turn off the TV, put away the video games, and read to their child. I speak to you not just as a President, but as a father when I say that responsibility for our children’s education must begin at home.

There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down.

I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.

Yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office. My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we’re starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.

In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.

In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut – that’s right, a tax cut – for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way.

To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.

Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.

We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war.

And with our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism. Because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half a world away.

As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy. To each and every one of them, and to the families who bear the quiet burden of their absence, Americans are united in sending one message: we honor your service, we are inspired by your sacrifice, and you have our unyielding support. To relieve the strain on our forces, my budget increases the number of our soldiers and Marines. And to keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health care and benefits that they have earned.

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend – because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. That is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists – because living our values doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture.

In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We cannot shun the negotiating table, nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand.

To seek progress toward a secure and lasting peace between Israel and her neighbors, we have appointed an envoy to sustain our effort. To meet the challenges of the 21st century – from terrorism to nuclear proliferation; from pandemic disease to cyber threats to crushing poverty – we will strengthen old alliances, forge new ones, and use all elements of our national power.

And to respond to an economic crisis that is global in scope, we are working with the nations of the G-20 to restore confidence in our financial system, avoid the possibility of escalating protectionism, and spur demand for American goods in markets across the globe. For the world depends on us to have a strong economy, just as our economy depends on the strength of the world’s.

As we stand at this crossroads of history, the eyes of all people in all nations are once again upon us – watching to see what we do with this moment; waiting for us to lead.

Those of us gathered here tonight have been called to govern in extraordinary times. It is a tremendous burden, but also a great privilege – one that has been entrusted to few generations of Americans. For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill.

I know that it is easy to lose sight of this truth – to become cynical and doubtful; consumed with the petty and the trivial.

But in my life, I have also learned that hope is found in unlikely places; that inspiration often comes not from those with the most power or celebrity, but from the dreams and aspirations of Americans who are anything but ordinary.

I think about Leonard Abess, the bank president from Miami who reportedly cashed out of his company, took a $60 million bonus, and gave it out to all 399 people who worked for him, plus another 72 who used to work for him. He didn’t tell anyone, but when the local newspaper found out, he simply said, ”I knew some of these people since I was 7 years old. I didn’t feel right getting the money myself.”

I think about Greensburg, Kansas, a town that was completely destroyed by a tornado, but is being rebuilt by its residents as a global example of how clean energy can power an entire community – how it can bring jobs and businesses to a place where piles of bricks and rubble once lay. “The tragedy was terrible,” said one of the men who helped them rebuild. “But the folks here know that it also provided an incredible opportunity.”

And I think about Ty’Sheoma Bethea, the young girl from that school I visited in Dillon, South Carolina – a place where the ceilings leak, the paint peels off the walls, and they have to stop teaching six times a day because the train barrels by their classroom. She has been told that her school is hopeless, but the other day after class she went to the public library and typed up a letter to the people sitting in this room. She even asked her principal for the money to buy a stamp. The letter asks us for help, and says, “We are just students trying to become lawyers, doctors, congressmen like yourself and one day president, so we can make a change to not just the state of South Carolina but also the world. We are not quitters.”

We are not quitters.

These words and these stories tell us something about the spirit of the people who sent us here. They tell us that even in the most trying times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres; a willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity.

Their resolve must be our inspiration. Their concerns must be our cause. And we must show them and all our people that we are equal to the task before us.

I know that we haven’t agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground.

And if we do – if we come together and lift this nation from the depths of this crisis; if we put our people back to work and restart the engine of our prosperity; if we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, “something worthy to be remembered.” Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Murdoch's apology over 'chimp' cartoon follows 100,000 letters, planned confrontation at residence

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:27:00 +0000

The national civil rights organization ColorOfChange.org said today that it had coordinated with NYPD to conduct a public confrontation outside Rupert Murdoch's residence over his lack of action regarding The New York Post's controversial 'chimp' cartoon. The group had also communicated with the building staff at his current residence on 5th Ave.

More than 110,000 ColorOfChange.org members have sent emails to The Post's publisher that were also addressed to Murdoch. The emails demanded a genuine apology and the firing of the editor who approved the cartoon. The group's plan was to confront Murdoch with paper versions of the emails it had collected since Thursday.

James Rucker, executive director of ColorOfChange.org, responded to Murdoch's apology. 'It took Murdoch and the Post's top editors almost a week to understand why people were upset. Murdoch hasn't said what he'll do stop this from happening again, or address a longstanding pattern of vicious attacks on black leaders at other News Corp outlets like Fox News,' Rucker said.

'There's a culture of insensitivity and willful ignorance around issues of race that can only change through leadership change,' Rucker continued.

'Rupert Murdoch should start by firing Col Allan, and issuing a strong statement that he won't tolerate this kind of behavior at any of media outlets he owns.'

With more than a half million members, ColorOfChange.org is the largest African-American online political organization in the country.

What to read for Women's History Month

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:01:00 +0000

//History, mysteries, novels, even vampires — some recommendations from our readers and staff.//

'In the Time of the Butterflies,' by Julia Alvarez A fictionalized biography of the Mirabel sisters and their struggle for freedom against the Dominican Republic's dictator Raphael Trujillo. A harrowing tale, yet full of beauty, courage and inspiration.

“The Handmaid's Tale,” by Margaret Atwood This book is hauntingly and relentlessly depressing — but one comes to appreciate it for its allegorical significance in describing a fascistic sexist dystopia with many shadows of today's religious ultra-right.

“Women, Race and Class,” by Angela Davis An important book that continues to be relevant today.

“Let Their Spirits Dance,” by Stella Pope Duarte A novel presenting the impact of the death of a Chicano youth in the Vietnam War on his family from a sister’s point of view. It captures great snapshots of barrio, working class family life in Phoenix from the 1950s to the ’90s with a docudrama-like chapter on the 1970 National Chicano Moratorium.

“Finding Nouf,” by Zoe Ferraris A woman born into the repressive Saudi Arabian culture is found dead in the desert. As the characters go about finding out how she died, the book shows what women face in a culture where they are required to wear burkas in public, and in their own way struggling for independence.

“Out to Work: A History of Wage Earning Women in the United States,” by Alice Kessler Harris A valuable general history.

“The Southern Vampire Mysteries,” by Charlaine Harris The Sookie Stackhouse series (now a show called 'True Blood' on HBO). Fiction/fantasy written from a woman's first-person point of view.

“Their Eyes Were Watching God,” by Zora Neale Hurston The story of a woman who is raised by her grandmother after her parents disappear and who goes through three marriages in the 1930s in Florida. Despite the situations the main character faced, it shows how she was determined to get through it.

“Labor of Love: Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work and the Family from Slavery to the Present,” by Jacqueline Jones The title pretty much explains what this excellent book is about.

“The Heretic’s Daughter,” by Kathleen Kent. The author, whose ancestor was killed in the Salem witch trials in the 17th century, describes what life was like for women and how the hysteria came about through the eyes of her relative.

“The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency,” by Alexander McCall Smith. A series set in Botswana describing the life of Precious Ramotswe after her father dies and she gets rid of an abusive husband. Each book has its own story with the characters continuing from novel to novel. It’s a fun read.

“Reading Lolita in Tehran,” by Azar Nafisi. A memoir by an Iranian English literature teacher just before, during and after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Difficult at times to confront the political realities of the day.

“Packinghouse Daughter: A Memoir” by Cherie Register A girl growing up blue-collar and union during a bitter strike in a company town. A wonderful book about how a young woman learns what it means to be working class.

The Kate Shugak series, by Dana Stabenow (“A Cold Day for Murder,” “A Fatal Thaw,” “Dead in the Water,” “A Cold-Blooded Business” and a dozen other titles) These mysteries, set in a 20-million-acre Alaskan wilderness known affectionately as 'The Park,' are a refreshing antidote to Sarah Palin. Their main character is the tough, smart, short Kate Shugak, an Aleut woman (with Russian and other roots) who lives alone (with her half-husky, half-wolf dog Mutt) and solves crimes in which the criminals often have some connection to corporate corruption or private exploitation of Alaska's resources. A touch of the mystical, the powerful beauty of nature, plus some good-sense politics make these really good reads.

“Women Strike for Peace: Traditional Motherhood and Radical Politics in the 1960s,” by Amy Swerdlow A historical account of this groundbreaking women's movement by a founding member of WSP. It tells the story of a significant chapter in American politics and the emerging movement for women’s equality.

“Winter Wheat,” by Margaret Walker Originally published in 1944, this beautiful novel is the story of a young woman coming of age in Montana’s harsh wheat country. It depicts her struggle to find her way as an independent woman and come to terms with her parents, and gives a sense of what that struggle was like for women growing up in that period, out on the plains.

“Class Action, The Story of Lois Jenson and the Landmark Case That Changed Sexual Harassment Law,” by Clara Bingham and Laura Leedy Gansler This gripping page-turner is the true story of a group of women iron ore workers in Minnesota’s Iron Range who overcame intimidation and fear to challenge sexual harassment on the job. Their case, Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines, was the first sexual harassment class action in the U.S. It permanently changed the legal landscape as well as the lives of the women who fought the 25-year battle. One of the women was the niece of legendary Minnesotan and Communist Party USA leader Gus Hall. This book was the basis of the movie “North Star,” which was good, but the book is better!

And some recommendations for young people: For girls 7-12 years old: the American Girl Collection, by various authors. The books in this series offer fictional stories of the lives of girls during a variety of historically significant epochs. For example: “Meet Josefina,” by Valerie Tripp tells the story of a girl growing up in Santa Fe in 1824.

Several for young people 10 and over: “100 Women Who Shaped World History,” by Gail Meyer Rolka Short introductions to 100 women who have shaped history in positive and negative ways. Examples include Eleanor Roosevelt, Amelia Earhart, Helen Keller and many others. “Girls Think of Everything — Stories of Ingenious Inventions by Women,” by Catherine Thimmesh, illustrated by Melissa Sweet. Full of interesting stories of women (and girls!) who have invented many things we use today. “We Were There, Too! Young People in U.S. History,” by Phillip Hoose Gives insight into how young people have helped shape the history of our country. Many of the stories are about girls and young women.

— Teresa Albano, Elaine Lantz, Norman Markowitz, Elena Mora, Rosalio Muñoz, Matt Parker, Rosemarie Rieger, Susan Webb, Carl Wood

US Attorney General visiting Gitmo

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:11:00 +0000

Washington, Feb 23 (Prensa Latina) US Attorney General Eric Holder visited on Monday the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

According to sources from the Justice Department, this is the most important aspect of the Holder's trip, and is part of his effort to determine how the 245 remaining terrorism suspects detained there will be handled.

Holder appointed Matthew Olsen on Friday to lead a work team to arrange with several agencies checking the 245 remaining suspects.

President Barack Obama promised during his electoral campaign to shut it down.

However, after he took office on Jan. 20 he has repeated he wants it shut within a year, but it will require time and study of the cases.

Military Attorney Yvonne Bradley denounced two weeks ago mass tortures against the prisoners in Guantanamo.

Bradley told London paper The Guardian on Feb. 9 that at least 50 prisoners on hunger strike were severely hit, using brutal torture methods.

On the other hand, Reprieve group creator Clive Stafford Smith said in January that the detention center represents a proof of the most criminal abuses against human rights committed during the former administration of George W. Bush.

Feminists urge confirmation of Solis

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:32:00 +0000

The delay is over! The Feminist Majority is excited to announce that the Senate will be voting tomorrow on the nomination of Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor.

Act now to urge the Senate to confirm Hilda Solis tomorrow as President Barack Obama's Secretary of Labor.

The confirmation of Solis, who has been a tireless fighter for women's rights, minority rights and worker's rights, was being unnecessarily held up first by a lone Republican Senator's hold and then by a minor local/state tax dispute on her husband's small business. She has no ownership in this small business and her taxes are in order.

While in Congress, Solis co-chaired the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues in the House of Representatives, promoted domestic violence awareness, ensured health care access for Latinos with HIV/AIDS, and fought for legislation that protects women. As a champion of women's rights, Solis would play a critical role in spearheading the rebuilding of the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau which was constantly attacked and diminished under the Bush administration.

In her eight years as a California state legislature, Solis authored a record 17 anti-domestic violence laws. She led the battle to increase the state's minimum wage and has been vital in the struggle to close the wage gap for women. Her unique experience and understanding of the needs of women, families, minorities, and workers has made her a true fighter for equality.

Hilda Solis has always spoken up for women and has fearlessly taken on uphill battles to improve women's lives.

Please tell your Senator to confirm Solis as Secretary of Labor tomorrow.

Obama, race and the future of U.S. politics

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:54:00 +0000

Barack Obama’s victory is indeed an historic breakthrough for U.S. politics. In a country that enforced a system of legalized racism until just 40 years ago, and that was founded on white supremacy, black slavery and Native genocide, the election of the first black president is cause for jubilation.

The significance of Obama’s victory is accentuated by the fact that not only is he an outstanding individual with liberal politics and a community organizer’s instincts, but he is also leading a potentially historic realignment of U.S. politics.

Such realignment could not come at a better time. Beset by a deep economic crisis, now is the time for progressive structural changes to the international and national socio-economic landscape. But such changes will be impossible without enormous political strength.

Whether President Obama can help orchestrate a turnaround of the economic crisis now facing the country, indeed the world, will be revealed in the coming years. But he has already made a major contribution to changing the pattern of U.S. politics, a pattern that was set by slavery and enabled conservative Republicans to dominate the presidency for the last forty years.

However, the development of a mass progressive movement with its own agenda will be critical to consolidating that re-alignment, and to winning systemic change in the years to come.

The color of election 2008

The enormity of Obama’s victory has led to much hyperbole about the end of racism and the advent of a colorblind society. This notion deserves closer examination lest Obama’s victory become an obstacle, rather than an opening, to future racial progress.

Much of the press has focused on celebrating the willingness of many whites to elect a black president. But just how colorblind is the U.S. electorate?

Despite the fact that the Republicans had failed miserably, even on their own terms, and run the country virtually into the ground, whites still voted for McCain by 55 to 43. In stark contrast, blacks voted for Obama by 95 to 4, Latinos went for Obama by 66 to 32 and Asians backed Obama by 61 to 35. (1)

In 2008, the white vote was virtually identical to election 2000 and continued to exert a strong conservative pull on the electorate while the votes of peoples of color and young people of all races headed powerfully in a more progressive direction.

The color lines, in life and politics, are alive and well.

Indeed, peoples of color made the biggest shifts in their voting between 2004 and 2008. It was they who proved decisive in Obama’s victory. Left to white voters, John McCain would have won a landslide twelve-point victory.

African Americans voted for Obama by an astonishing 95 to 4, a fourteen-point swing for the Democrats compared to 2004. (2) Many a pundit has dismissed this result as a knee-jerk racial solidarity vote for Obama. How soon they forget that the majority of black voters favored Hillary Clinton for the many months leading up to the Iowa primary.

Much of the mainstream media declared that Latinos were too racist to vote for Obama. They pointed to the large Latino primary vote for Clinton as “proof.”

Latinos resoundingly put the lie to these cynics by voting for Obama by 66 to 32, a huge sixteen-point swing to the Democrats compared to 2004. Even a 58 percent majority of Cubans in Florida, traditionally solidly Republican, went for Obama.

Latinas led the way toward Obama, casting 68 percent of their votes for him and only 30 percent for McCain. Latino voters under 30 went for Obama by 76 to 24, perhaps indicating the direction of future Latino voting patterns.

Asians swung Democratic by fourteen points over 2004, voting for Obama 61 to 35. The political trajectory of Asian voters has been striking. In 1992, Bill Clinton received only 31 percent of the Asian vote. Since then Asians have steadily moved Democratic, reaching a highpoint this year.

So much for the pundits who believed that Latinos and Asians would never unite behind black leadership. These results amount to a massive progressive motion by peoples of color.

Meanwhile the white vote swung toward Obama and the Democrats by five points compared to 2004. White voters under 30 were the only age group among whites to favor Obama. They voted for him by 54 to 44. All other whites voted for McCain by about 57 to 41.

The most anemic swing was made by white women, who voted for McCain by 53 to 46, moving a mere four points toward the Democrats, This was particularly disappointing in light of their ten point swing to Bush from 2000 to 2004, a change that accounted for Bush’s victory in that year.

White men favored McCain by a bigger margin, 57 to 41, but this represented a sizable nine-point swing to the Democrats compared to 2004 when they voted for Bush overwhelmingly, 62 to 37.

Overall, Obama carried the white vote in only 18 states, mostly in the Northeast and the West Coast.

The changing color of the electorate

From a long-range point of view, the change in the racial composition of the electorate as a whole is perhaps even more important than the recent shifts towards the Democrats. In 1976 whites constituted 90 percent of the vote; in 2000 they still accounted for 81 percent. This year the white share of the vote fell to 74 percent, quite a dramatic change in a short time.

Just as surprising, the main group increasing its share of the electorate is not Latinos, but African Americans. Blacks constituted thirty percent of all new voters in 2004, and an even greater mobilization this year brought them to 13 percent of the overall vote, a thirty percent increase over 2000.

The sheer numbers of Latino and Asian voters have risen significantly over the same period, but their percentage share of the overall vote is virtually unchanged since 2000: nine percent for Latinos and two percent for Asians. (3)

Surprisingly, the percentage of the electorate that is under thirty years of age, regardless of color, also remained stable, at 17-18 percent. However, these voters increased their Democratic vote by 12 points compared to 2004, voting for Obama by 66 to 32. Young voters were also the main corps of Obama field organizers and their energy gave the campaign much of its movement-like quality.

Historic realignment?

The true maverick in the 2008 campaign was not McCain who pursued the same old reactionary Republican Southern Strategy, but Obama whose bold strategy of fighting for the South and the Southwest, indeed all fifty states, ran counter to all previous electoral “common sense.”

His success was both astonishing and history making. He won the southwestern states of Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, and the former Confederate slave states of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, as well as former slave states Maryland and Delaware. The Latino vote was decisive for Obama in Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Colorado.

In all, nine states switched from red to blue from 2004 to 2008: Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, New Hampshire and Iowa. Obama lost Missouri by the narrowest of margins.

The historic nature of these victories is brought into sharp relief by the accompanying maps.

The first is the map of slave versus free states and territories just prior to the Civil War. The other is the electoral map of the 2004 election. Depressingly, they are almost identical: the former slave areas are almost universally Republican and the former free areas, with a couple of exceptions, are Democratic.

Almost 150 years after the abolition of slavery, the political patterns wrought by the “peculiar institution” still shape U.S. politics. Barack Obama’s campaign may mark the beginning of the end of this historic pattern, with tremendous implications for the future of U.S. politics. The main window into this change is the Electoral College.

Electoral College: a pillar of racism

It is not so surprising that slavery set the pattern of U.S. politics if one knows that the Electoral College itself was a product of slavery.

The Founding Fathers, led by slaveholders such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, invented the Electoral College out of thin air to serve their interests.

They codified the notorious idea that slaves were non-humans, and thus deserving of no constitutional or human rights. The one exception to this rule was the stipulation that slaves were to be counted as three-fifths of a person, solely for the purpose of determining how many congressional representatives each state would be allotted. The three-fifths rule vastly increased the slave power in the House of Representatives and therefore the Congress.

The Electoral College, in which each state receives a number of Electors equal to their congressional delegation, was invented as the institutional means to transfer that same pro-slavery congressional allocation to determining the presidency. Slaveholders held the presidency for 50 of the 72 years before Abraham Lincoln, who was elected in 1860, became the first U.S. president to oppose the expansion of slavery. The South, used to wielding political power through the selective enumeration of slaves, promptly seceded.

Since the end of slavery the Electoral College has remained a racist and conservative instrument. It has given the Republicans a running head start to win the presidency ever since reactionary Southerners switched en masse from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in protest of the 1960s civil rights legislation.

As then-Republican strategist Kevin Phillips put it in 1970, “The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are.”

Based on that switch, the Republicans adopted the notorious Southern Strategy that has enabled them to dominate the presidency for the last forty years. The Republicans learned to skillfully fashion a winning combination of the solidly Republican white southern voters with conservative and moderate whites in the Midwest and Southwest, through barely coded racist appeals.

The Southern Strategy has been the glue with which the Republican Party has united powerful corporate capitalists to conservative white workers, farmers, gun aficionados, small business owners and suburban homeowners.

Negating the Southern Black vote

The racial bias embedded in the Electoral College system is the structural basis of the Republican’s Southern Strategy. The winner-take-all Electoral College system ensures, even requires, that about half of all voters of color be marginalized or totally ignored. (4)

About 53 percent of all blacks live in the southern states, and in 2000 and 2004 they voted about 90 percent Democratic. However, in those elections white Republicans out-voted them in every Southern state and every border state except Maryland.

As a result, every single southern Electoral College vote was awarded to Bush. While whites voted 54-42 for Bush nationally in 2000, southern whites gave him over 70 percent of their votes in both 2000 and 2004. They thus completely erased the massive Southern black vote for the Democrats in that region.

The Electoral College result was the same as if blacks, and other Democrats, in the South had not voted at all.

Similarly negated were the votes of millions of Native American and Latino voters who live in overwhelmingly white Republican states like Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma, Utah, the Dakotas, Montana and Texas. Further, the peoples of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam, territories ruled by the U.S., get no Electoral College votes at all. The tyranny of the white, conservative majority prevailed.

Compounding the reactionary and pro-Republican bias of the Electoral College, the system gives as much as three times as much weight to the mainly conservative and white Republicans in the rural states compared to states with large, racially diverse and majority Democratic populations.

For example, Wyoming has a little more than 240,000 voters and has three Electoral College votes: one for every 80,000 or so voters. By comparison large population states like California have about one Electoral College vote for every 220,000 voters.

Thus, the Electoral College system violates the principle of one person, one vote, drastically undermines the impact of the black vote and gives the Republicans a major advantage in presidential contests. Its abolition should be a key part of the progressive agenda.

Final thoughts

Although the political dynamics of each of the nine states that turned from red to blue in 2008 need to be examined closely in their own right, it is likely that a minimum of three or four will move decisively into the Democratic column. A number of others that swung Democratic in 2008 have moved from being solidly red states to battleground states.

The solid Republican South and Southwest may be a thing of the past. In the wake of Obama’s hard-won victories, the Democrats have no excuse for essentially conceding these regions, as they have done for decades.

This will qualitatively shift the Electoral College math. Since 1968 the Electoral College has clearly favored the Republicans and the Democrats had to pull off an upset to win. Indeed, Bill Clinton won only because of the third party candidacy of Ross Perot. In the future, it may be that the Electoral College math will favor the Democrats, and that the Republicans can only win by staging an upset.

Just as important, for the first time in U.S. history the two political parties clearly represent the two broad wings of U.S. politics. At the national level, the southern reactionaries no longer hold the Democratic Party hostage.

This augurs well for the possibility that an Obama presidency may be able to gather the political strength to undertake a major restructuring of the economy in favor of working people and peoples of color in general, and to reorganize our foreign policy in a positive direction.

However, there is still a major political element missing from the political equation: a powerful independent peoples’ movement. In the 1930s the union movement, and especially the newly formed, radical CIO, was key to the New Deal. In the 1960s the civil rights movement was the driving force of the War on Poverty.

Herein lies the principal task of progressives in the coming period: to forge powerful independent, mass movements and organizations that can help shape the Obama coalition in a positive way. Our relative success or failure at this task may determine the future of the U.S. and the world every bit as much as President Obama himself.

Bob Wing is a writer and organizer in South Los Angeles, and former editor of ColorLines magazine and War Times newspaper.

Footnotes 1. Unless otherwise noted all voting figures are drawn from the National Exit Polls for 2000, 2004 and 2008, as reported by CNN.

2. I calculate the “swing” or “change” in the vote in the traditional but rather confusing manner as the change in the vote differential. For example, in 2004 blacks voted Democratic by 88 to 11, a 77 point differential. In 2008, they voted Democratic by 95 to 4, a 91 point differential. The vote differential thus changed from 77 points to 91 points, so I report a 14-point “swing” or “change.”

3. No national exit poll numbers are available about Arab or Native American voters for any year.

4. Only Nebraska and Maine allocate their electoral votes more or less proportionate to the vote rather than on a statewide winner-take-all basis.

Passing EFCA is single most important thing for worker safety

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:44:00 +0000

Reposted from New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health

The first and foremost thing workers can do to protect their safety and health is to join a union. Without a union to protect them, rights to safe and healthful working conditions are a legal abstraction.

This is particularly true with an agency like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration which is understaffed, underfunded and has been politically under attack since its inception. That’s why passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — which will enable us to bring workers into unions, increasing our base and giving our movement greater power — is the single most important thing to be done for worker safety and health.

No one who has lived in New York since 2001 can ignore or dismiss the need for stronger safety and health protection for workers. We have seen too many of our brothers and sisters die, get injured, or become ill as a result of job-related injuries:

Tens of thousands who worked or volunteered in 9/11 rescue, recovery and clean up operations are sick and some have died.

We have witnessed an epidemic of construction worker fatalities from falls from scaffolds and crane collapses.

The crane collapses in the heart of New York City resulted in fatalities both of union members and residents.

The recent deaths of Jdimytai Damour, trampled to death by a crowd at WalMart, and MTA Bus Operator Edwin Thomas, stabbed to death by a passenger, were preventable.

The election of a new administration provides an opportunity to fight for stronger OSHA enforcement, including increased penalties, updated and new standards to protect workers from the chemicals and other hazards which workers face on the job, and increased safety and health training that enables workers to recognize and abate workplace hazards.

And we must take care of unfinished business. We must insure that one of the first acts in the new Congress is to pass legislation which provides medical treatment and compensation to those who are sick now and will become sick in the future as a result of exposure to toxic substances released by the attack on the World Trade Center.

To win, we will need to wage a concerted fight. We will make no forward movement without being organized. While we have high hopes for this new administration, our demands for safer and healthier workplaces will be met with stiff resistance from the business community. Passage of EFCA and increasing our numbers is a first necessary step in the fight for safe and healthful workplaces.

Denis Hughes is president of the New York State AFL-CIO.

So Long, Salamanders

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:20:00 +0000

Reposted from Inter Press Service SAN DIEGO, (Tierramérica) - Mesoamerica's salamanders appear to be joining the global decline in amphibian species, like frogs, adding to the evidence of ecological change around the planet.

'What's happening to salamanders and other amphibians may be a strong lesson for humans,' says lead researcher David Wake, of the University of California at Berkeley.

There are global changes that are altering ecosystems and disease patterns, thus creating new elements of biological pressure, he said.

Wake and his colleagues have discovered that several salamander species have vanished or have become very rare since the 1970s in closely studied areas in western Guatemala and the southern Mexican state of Chiapas. These findings were published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Climate change and disease are likely causing the declines but scientists do not know why, Wake, one of the world's salamander experts, told Tierramérica.

'We don't know what the impacts are on local ecosystems, but they could be significant,' he said.

Two of the most common lungless salamander species that Wake and others studied in the San Marcos region of Guatemala in the 1970s - Pseudoeur brunata and Pseudoeur goebeli - could no longer be found anywhere.

'They were just gone,' said Sean Rovito, a herpetologist at University of California, Berkeley, who did the field research with local experts between 2005 and 2007.

They appear to have gone extinct sometime after 1978, Rovito says.

'Some of the local Guatemalans who helped do the 1970s surveys took us to the same locations, the same tree stumps, and the salamanders just weren't there,' Rovito told Tierramérica.

Researchers combed the flanks of the Tajumulco volcano on the west coast of Guatemala and found signs of two of the three species that were commonest 40 years ago, while there was no trace of the third.

This was a completely unexpected finding: 'We thought the salamanders would be doing okay,' he says.

In addition, several other species were found in far lower numbers than in the past.

In Mexico, the decline was most evident in Cerro San Felipe, a reserve in Oaxaca, among species living around 2,800-3,000 metres above sea level. The commonest species, Pseudoeurycea smithi, has virtually disappeared.

Where once hundreds could be found in a single morning, researchers have only found only one or two in last 10 years.

The problem extends all the way to Mexico City. North of the capital, in the Parque Nacional El Chico, formerly 'a paradise for salamanders,' populations are radically reduced.

Wake noted that species that depend on salamanders, such as a salamander-eating snake, have also declined significantly.

In some areas, the habitat has been significantly altered in the past 30 years by logging or expansion of agricultural areas. However, since the declines were so widespread, affecting protected areas such as Guatemala's Chicabal volcano, that researchers suspect the frog-killing chytrid fungus, climate change or a combination of the both is responsible, he said.

Abrupt and widespread declines in frog populations in the Americas since the 1980s have been blamed on chytrid, a fast-killing fungus that may spread in waves.

But alterations to local climate conditions - drier or warmer - can also affect amphibians, which are often unable to adjust or move fast enough to more suitable climate zones.

Most of the hardest hit salamanders in the survey live in mid to higher elevations, suggesting that the warming climate is pushing them to higher and less hospitable elevations. If the dry season in the cloud forests lasts longer than normal it could be enough to stress salamanders and make them more susceptible to the fungus, Rovito speculates.

Salamanders go largely unnoticed except by curious children. And yet in most forests there is an unseen carpet of salamanders that make up the most biomass - more than birds and mammals combined, says Wake.

'You can't remove something like that without a profound effect on the ecosystem,' said the scientist, who conducted the surveys of prime salamander habitat in Mexico and Guatemala between 1969 and 1978.

Wake recalls finding many thousands of salamanders per hectare in San Marcos and elsewhere in the 1970s. The civil war in Guatemala (1960-1996) forced Wake to end his field studies.

Guatemalan scientist Carlos R. Vasquez-Almaza, of the Museum of Natural History at the University of San Carlos, invited Wake and his colleagues to re-survey the sites studied last in 1978.

Gabriela Parra-Olea, of the Instituto de Biología, Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM), led researchers to re-survey the Mexican sites.

The lungless salamanders (family Plethodontidae) breathe through their skin like frogs and are found from Canada into South America. Although not very well studied in the tropics, 'salamanders are enormously important in forest ecosystems,' Wake says.

For example, they eat a lot of insects. And in areas that lost their frogs, another major insect eater, studies have shown that the creeks became overgrown by algae, he said.

Salamanders are a very diverse group and have been around for 150 million years. 'And here they are, apparently dying out in my lifetime,' says Wake. 'There is definitely something wrong.'

(*This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.)

OPINION: Radical change is required to get out of Japan's minus growth of 12.7%

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:47:00 +0000

(Akahata is published by the Communist Party of Japan) Japan's real GDP growth rate fell at an annual rate of 12.7 percent in the 4th quarter of 2008. Its total exports fell at the sharpest pace on record. Capital investment and personal consumption also declined.

Meanwhile, real U.S. growth has shrunk 3.8 percent. The EU also experienced a minus growth of 5.7 percent. Japan's falling economic growth is far worse than that of the U.S. and the E.U.

An economist said, 'The current policy of boosting the economy by expanding exports at the expense of domestic demand is causing a rapid economic downturn.'

The so-called 'structural reform' policy promoted by the LDP -Komei government has destroyed the foundations of people's livelihoods and deregulated a series of labor laws in conformity with the financial circles' strategy of increasing unstable employment throughout Japan. To further ease the corporate share of public burdens, the government has forced the public to pay an extra 13 trillion yen a year in taxes and to accept cutbacks in social welfare programs.

However, that is not to say that Japan's business circles had confidence in what the 'structural reform' policy would bring about. Several years ago, Okuda Hiroshi, then chairman of the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren) and Toyota Motor Corp, confessed that '(if domestic demand falls), the kind of talk of an 'export-oriented nation' will appear again, but the business world has been doing a lot of thinking about it.'

Although the U.S. financial situation had begun showing ominous signs last summer, Present Chairman of Nippon Keidanren and President of Canon Inc Mitarai Fujio said, 'Continuing with the 'export-oriented nation' path is the only way.'

However, the 'export-oriented nation' argument collapsed easily in the wake of the rapid downturn in the U.S. and the E.U. economies. With such leading companies of Japan's business sector as Canon Inc and Toyota Motor Corp in the lead, Japanese large exporting companies are dismissing temporary and fixed-term contract workers at an accelerated pace and shifting their losses onto sub- or sub-sub contractors. The business world that had forced ordinary people to bear the pain of its failures is putting further burdens on the public.

The government should immediately stop the business community from arrogantly throwing people's livelihoods and the country's economy into a vicious circle. The need is for the government to thoroughly amend the worn-out policy of making money from exports or foreign demand at the expense of the household economy.

74 die in Chinese mining accident

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:46:00 +0000

Original source: A gas explosion ripped through a coal mine in northern China on Sunday, killing at least 74 miners and trapping dozens in the still-burning shaft.

The pre-dawn blast occurred while 436 workers were toiling in the Tunlan Coal Mine in Gujiao, near Taiyuan, the capital of Shanxi province.

More than 300 miners escaped alive, but at least 74 died and 113 have been hospitalised, including 21 in critical condition.

Doctors in the Xishan Hospital of Coal and Electricity in Gujiao reported that most of the rescued miners were suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning.

State Administration of Work Safety chief Luo Lin and State Bureau of Coal Industry head Zhao Tiechui arrived at the accident site on Sunday afternoon.

Provincial Communist Party secretary Zhang Baoshun, who is overseeing the ongoing rescue operation by 80 workers from seven professional rescue teams, called for effective efforts to prevent secondary disasters.

Relatives of the trapped miners reported that they had received mobile phone calls from loved ones who remain trapped in the mine.

The Tunlan mine, which produces five million tons of coking coal a year, is owned by Shanxi Coking Coal Group, China's largest coking coal producer.

Coking coal is used in the manufacture of steel.

China's mines are the world's most dangerous, with more than 3,000 deaths a year in fires, floods and explosions.

Beijing has reduced mine accidents by closing more than 1,000 dangerous small mines last year.

About 3,200 people died in coal mine accidents in 2008, a 15 per cent decline from 2007.

While China's safety record is dismal, the numbers mask great disparities.

Large state-run mines tend to have safety records comparable to those of developed countries, while smaller, privately owned mines have little or no safety equipment and poor training.

Government data shows that almost 80 per cent of China's 16,000 mines are illegal operations, subcontracted by local governments to private contractors who tend to employ poorly trained migrant workers.

Managers at smaller mines often ignore labour laws and safety regulations, cutting corners on health and safety and skimping on equipment in order to maximise profits.

Funding in economic recovery plan should create jobs for unemployed minorities

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:17:00 +0000

Original source: President Obama aims to create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years by spending some of the money in the recently-enacted stimulus plan on modernizing the nation's roads and bridges, investing in public transportation, and making federal office buildings more energy-efficient.

Civil rights advocates hope that the stimulus plan actually puts unemployed Americans, many of whom are Black and Hispanic, to work. Currently, Hispanic and Black unemployment rates – at 9.7 and 12.6 percent respectively – are higher than the rates for other racial and ethnic groups.

To help close that gap, the National Urban League (NUL) has recommended that a portion of money be targeted (PDF) towards job training, job placement and job preparation for disadvantaged workers. NUL also urged the government to ensure minority- and women-owned businesses are in a position to take advantage of federal contract opportunities.

'It would be unconscionable to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money and simply go back to where we were two years ago. We need to do better than that. We need to actually close that gap that can only be explained at the end of the day by the inclusion of race between white and black unemployment rates,' said Ben Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP.

What a recession means for Black America

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:14:00 +0000

Original source: Recessions hurt. And they hurt the poor and socially marginalized populations the most. As we face the prospect of the second recession of the decade and consider the merits of various stimulus packages, it is useful to examine what a recession would mean for black America.

The late 1990s produced a full employment economy and significant absolute and relative economic gains for blacks. This Issue Brief contrasts the benefits of a national full-employment economy with the harm caused by the 2001 recession and the weak job growth that followed.

Black America's permanent recession

In the best of times, many African American communities are forced to tolerate levels of unemployment unseen in most white communities. The 2001 recession pushed the white annual unemployment rate up from a low of 3.5% in 2000 to a high of 5.2% in 2003. During the same period, the black unemployment rate shot up from 7.6% to 10.8%. National recessions take African Americans from a bad situation to a worse one.

In 2007, the black unemployment rate was 8.3%. This figure is still above the pre-recession low and more than twice the white unemployment rate. Goldman Sachs estimates that a new recession would increase the national unemployment rate to 6.4% by 2009.1 For African Americans, the unemployment rate would be expected to rise to 11.0%.2

African Americans lose income relative to whites

The low unemployment rates of the 1990s led to positive gains in the black/white income ratio. In 1995, the median black family earned 60.9% of what the median white family did. By 2000, the ratio had climbed to a record high of 63.5%. The effect of the 2001 recession and the weak economic recovery was to undo all of those gains?and then take away some more. By 2005, the median black household earned only 60.2% of the median white household, 0.7 points lower than it was in 1995. 3

But median family income does not tell the entire story. The 2001 recession and weak recovery hurt the poorest African Americans the most. In 1995, the poorest fifth of black families only earned on average 43.0% of what the poorest fifth of white families earned. Again, the economic growth of the late 1990s was a significant boon. The black/white average income ratio for the poorest fifth increased to 49.9% in 2000. By 2005, it had fallen back to 43.4%. Among blacks, the poorest black families lost the largest share of their income gains from the late 1990s.4

Another recession will likely reduce the median family income for all Americans by about 4%. However, for blacks, the decline would be about 6%, leaving the average African American family $2,400 poorer.5 Again, this loss of income will hurt the poorest fifth of African Americans the most.

Additional social costs

Associated with the strong economy of the 1990s, there were significant declines in the black violent crime rate and the black teen pregnancy rate. Between 1993 and 2001, the black violent crime rate declined by 60%.6 Between 1990 and 2004, the black teen pregnancy rate declined by 46%.7 These improving trends have ended, and it is likely that the worsening economic conditions of African Americans since 2001 have played at least a partial role.

At the community level, criminologists find a correlation between violent crime rates and socioeconomic disadvantage.8 At the national level, too, the black violent crime rate has recently been strongly correlated with black poverty rates.9 Therefore, it is not surprising that the historic crime decline of the 1990s ended with the reversal of economic fortunes that African Americans experienced at the beginning of the 21st century.

Based on a study of five countries including the United States, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reports 'across all of the focus countries, young people growing up in disadvantaged economic, familial and social circumstances are more likely than their better-off peers to engage in risky behavior and have a child during adolescence.'10 Given that socioeconomic disadvantage has increased for African Americans since 2000, it is not entirely surprising that black teen pregnancy rates have started to rise again.

Another recession would likely continue these negative trends. The black violent crime rate and the black teenage pregnancy rate both will likely rise. Once again, the negative effects of these trends will hurt the poorest African Americans most.

What black America needs

Even when the national unemployment picture is good, the black unemployment rate is more than twice that of the white unemployment rate. This means that in what looks like good economic times nationally, most of black America is still experiencing a recession. When white America is in recession, black America is in an economic depression.

Faced with the prospect of another recession, what black America needs is what all of America needs: a stimulus package that will help average Americans and those with the most insecure jobs. The lesson from black America is that the poorest among us are most hurt by recessions. Stimulus proposals based on tax cuts for the wealthy or for business owners are not likely to provide immediate relief to those still hurting from the 2001 recession, much less protect them from the additional damage of a new one.

A better approach would be to boost the economy by 1) providing targeted supports through expanded unemployment insurance and broad-based tax rebates, 2) providing assistance to states to prevent tax increases or spending cuts, and 3) directly stimulating job growth by accelerating funding for infrastructure, particularity for bridge and school repair. (See EPI's Strategy for An Economic Rebound for more details.)

While the discussion above is based on national data about African Americans, it is important to remember that some black communities are better off than average and some are worse off. Also, although the discussion is about African Americans, the findings likely apply to a degree to other poor minority communities and to the poorest white communities, as well. For example, the violent crime decline for whites has also stalled, and the teen pregnancy rate for whites has also increased in the latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics.11

Notes

1. U.S. Economics Analyst, Issue 08/02, January 18, 2008, p. 3.

2. Based on an analysis of historical economic data by Jared Bernstein.

3. Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and Sylvia Allegretto, The State of Working America 2006/2007. An EPI book. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 2006) p.51. http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/

4. Author's analysis of tables F-3 white and F-3 black, 2005 dollars, Historical Income Tables, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ineqtoc.html.

5. Based on an analysis of historical economic data by Jared Bernstein.

6. Author's calculations of violent crime rates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/racetab.htm.

7. Author's calculations of birth rates for 15-19-year-olds from Table 4, Health in the United States, 2006 (Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 2006), p. 135.

8. Marc Mauer, Race to Incarcerate (N.Y.: The New Press, 2006), pp. 177-186.

9. For the years 1976 to 2005, the correlation between the black poverty rate and the black violent crime victimization rate is 0.92. Author's analysis of Census poverty rates for all people and Bureau of Justice Statistics victimization rates.

10. Heather Boonstra, Teen Pregnancy: Trends and Lessons Learned, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, February 2002, Vol. 5, No. 1, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html.

11. See Teen Birth Rate Rises for the First Time in 15 Years, National Center for Health Statistics, December 5, 2007, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/07newsreleases/teenbirth.htm.