People Before Profit blog

Illinois primary yields new challenges. NewsAnalysis.

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:20:00 +0000

CHICAGO — Broad unity is the key challenge facing the anti-ultra-right electoral coalition in the wake of Illinois’ March 21 primary. Victory in two congressional battleground races in suburban Chicago will also require winning independent and moderate Republican voters.

The national spotlight has been on the 6th Congressional District, where Republican Rep. Henry Hyde is retiring. Tammy Duckworth, a political moderate and disabled Iraq war veteran, narrowly defeated Christine Cegelis, an independent, strongly antiwar candidate, in the Democratic primary. A third candidate, Lindy Scott, siphoned off many votes from Cegelis.

Duckworth had the backing in the Democratic Party establishment, the Illinois AFL-CIO and Citizen Action. She will oppose ultra-right Republican state Sen. Peter Roskam. She has a big job of winning over the many disappointed progressive, independent and peace activists who made up Cegelis’ army of volunteers.

Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean in the 8th CD faces a difficult race against right-wing Republican millionaire David McSweeney. Bean, a conservative Democrat, alienated many in labor and the progressive community with her stands on CAFTA, HR 4437, the Patriot Act and cuts to social programs. But, despite these key votes, Bean has a 75 percent voter rating from ProgressivePunch.

The wild card in the race could be the independent campaign of Bill Scheurer, running as a pro-union, antiwar, anti-abortion candidate and supported by the Teamsters and UAW.

Elsewhere, antiwar Democratic congressional candidates will challenge Republican incumbents, including Dan Seals, an African American in the 11th CD opposing Rep. Mark Kirk; “Fighting Dem” John Laesch opposing Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert; and downstate, David Gill against Rep. Tim Johnson. In addition, progressive Democratic Rep. Lane Evans announced his retirement March 28, creating an open seat that must be defended.

A coalition of the African American and Latino communities and labor was decisive in narrowly winning the Democratic nomination for Cook County Board president for the incumbent, John Stroger Jr. Stroger, who suffered a debilitating stroke just days before the primary, defeated Forrest Claypool. Both were establishment candidates, but Stroger, an African American, had gained wide support for his defense of the county hospital system and his opposition to privatization. As the head of the Park District, Claypool had carried out layoffs and privatization of county jobs.

The influence of racism also became a factor in the race. Unfortunately, many liberal and progressive North Side and suburban voters were swayed by Claypool’s “reform” credentials.

In the race for Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, environmentalist Debra Shore became the first public gay candidate to be elected to the countywide body. Alderman Ricardo Munoz was elected to the Democratic Party state committee by advocating an end to the Iraq war and redirecting resources to rebuild the cities.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich faces a serious challenge from moderate Republican State Treasurer Judy Barr Topinka and her extreme right-wing running mate State’s Attorney Joe Birkett.

Blagojevich has faced many criticisms of his policies, but recently called for increasing the minimum wage, has maintained a moratorium on the state’s death penalty, supported the right of health care workers to unionize, and initiated a health care program for uninsured children.

But Blagojevich may have to contend with an independent candidacy of state Sen. James Meeks, executive vice president of the National Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and pastor at Salem Baptist Church, the largest African American church in Chicago. Meeks is tapping anger and frustration over the deepening crisis facing the African American community and growing inequalities in funding, including in education.

Young Communists offer hope for rising generation

Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:27:00 +0000

If you are a young person under the age of 30 you probably know more about the elimination and under-funding of social services and programs for youth than your parents’ generation ever did.

Vocational education, which once offered job training and preparation, has been defunded or eliminated. Pell grants, which at one time allowed working-class youth a way to pay for college, are nonexistent. Comprehensive sex education and access to birth control and reproductive health services have been replaced with abstinence-only programs and elimination of funding for women’s health clinics that provide abortions. Affirmative action programs, which were fought for to challenge institutionalized inequality and open opportunities for people of color and women, have been watered down or terminated. After-school programs, extracurricular activities and community centers that once provided recreational and cultural space for youth are being shut down.

To “solve” the lack of educational and employment opportunities for youth, Bush and his Republican allies in Congress cut another $14 billion from student loan programs, then offer youth up to $20,000 to sign up for the military. The Bush administration’s answer for the young generation as it faces staggering credit card debt and increasing unemployment? Buy, buy, buy and buy some more!

This cynical, callous disregard for young people has led many to get involved and fight back. From campaigns to kick military recruiters out of our schools to lobbying against the disastrous budget reconciliation which cut billions in programs for youth, young people are taking a more active role in the political scene.

On campuses around the country students are kicking out Taco Bell, Coca-Cola and other corporations that benefit from the often violent exploitation of working people.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, young people reacted to the Bush administration’s inept and racist response by organizing their own fundraising drives and work brigades.

And this year, as in 2004, young people will be forming their own voter education and registration drives to mobilize against Bush’s soul-mates in Congress.

As the movement of young people who reject the extreme right policies of the Bush administration grows, so too will the search for an alternative to capitalism. Capitalism offers no solutions to the problems of racism, sexism, exploitation and war that our generation faces. The fact that we, young Communists, have the drive and creative energy to imagine another world is a powerful inspiration for a generation that has grown up during the rise of the ultra-right.

As more young people begin to look for alternatives to capitalism, the need for a strong and vibrant Young Communist League will become more crucial. No other youth organization out there combines radical politics, a long history of youth organizing and a unifying approach to struggle like the YCL does. The YCL is the natural home of young people who want to talk about building unity, beating back the ultra-right and winning socialism!

From May 27-29, the YCL will hold its 8th National Convention in New York City to discuss our strategy for defeating the ultra-right. This is the time when the YCL evaluates its work over the last four years, assesses our organization as a whole, and elects our new leadership.

This year we will be discussing our draft YCL Action Plan, which maps out how we will build the YCL and participate in the broader youth and student movement in the coming period. We know that the YCL alone is not going to defeat the ultra-right — our entire generation has an interest in seeing Bush and company go down. The convention is a space where we invite friends and allies to come see what the YCL is about and how we work.

The YCL National Convention is not like any other youth conference. At our convention we will talk about what it’s going to take to fight back against the vicious attacks on our generation. Interactive workshops, panel discussions and cultural activities will give delegates and guests the information, skills and energy necessary to return to our schools and communities and deepen our involvement in the youth and student movement. This year’s convention will provide a place for an estimated 300 delegates and guests to share art, music and politics that reflect the mood and struggles of the young generation.

Bush and his team have proven to be much more dangerous for our generation than many could have predicted. From the Iraq war to his efforts to privatize Social Security, he has shown little concern for our lives today or our hopes for the future. The YCL offers young people the opportunity to fight to improve our today and ensure our tomorrow. Now more than ever we need a strong Young Communist League! Join us!

Jessica Marshall (jessie@yclusa.org) is national coordinator of the Young Communist League. To learn more about the YCL and its upcoming convention, visit www.yclusa.org/convention.

EDITORIAL: Tell Senate: Uphold immigrant rights!

Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:16:00 +0000

It’s a recurring theme in American history: The mass media plays up the demagogy of reactionaries who use ignorance and prejudice to blame immigrants for major social ills. Reactionary politicians who rely on disunity to achieve their goals use the resulting hysteria to push through repressive measures. This makes the immigrants more vulnerable. Businesses exploit them for superprofits and to lower the living standards of the general populace. Then the demagogues blame the victims again and so it goes.

The Bush administration and right-wing Republican congressional leaders with their media and corporate allies are making this game a key part of their agenda in this critical election year. Last Nov. 27 President Bush called for congressional action to control immigration problems. Several days later House Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) introduced the viciously repressive HR 4437 that criminalizes the undocumented. With White House support, it was railroaded through the House in mid-December.

Immigrant rights, civil liberties, religious and labor groups fought valiantly to stop the HR 4437 blitz, as over 200 groups rallied in opposition. The battle is now in the Senate. With more time a mass movement has developed, with immigrant communities in the lead, calling for comprehensive immigration reform including legalization with a clear path to citizenship for undocumented and future immigrant workers, full labor and social rights, family unification and due process protections.

The mass protest has slowed the Republican push for repressive immigration measures. There is movement in the Senate Judiciary Committee for some immigrant-friendly provisions. However, Senate leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has set March 27 as the date for full Senate debate to begin on restrictive measures.

It is urgent for all democratically-minded Americans to act to stop the Republican anti-immigrant game. Contact your senators now. Call on them to oppose repressive immigration measures and support a clear path to citizenship, labor rights, family reunification and due process for all immigrants.

Blocking this divide-and-conquer Republican blitz will build unity to end the right-wing Republican stranglehold on Congress next Nov. 7.

NewsAnalysis: Next steps in transit workers fightback

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:56:00 +0000

Many New Yorkers were inspired by the strike of Transport Workers Union Local 100 against the efforts of the Metropolitan Transit Authority to cut back on workers’ pensions and health care. People understood that the two-tier benefit system being insisted on by the MTA would create mistrust between veterans on the job and new workers, damaging the union’s strength and credibility.

The three-day strike in December resulted in a proposed contract that contained many important gains. However, many transit workers didn’t like the provision that would have instituted a health benefit tax of 1.5 percent on wages and overtime pay. The formula allowed the percentage to increase beyond 1.5 percent if the cost of health benefits rises faster than wages. This is certain to happen if health care costs continue to shoot up as they have in recent years. The 1.5 percent worker contribution would go into the general funds of the MTA.

New York’s Taylor Law outlaws strikes by public employees. In addition to fining the union, the law makes individual strikers liable for stiff fines. After paying the Taylor Law penalties and the 1.5 percent health care tax, transit workers would end up effectively with no pay increase in the first year of their new contract.

Transit workers knew that despite crying poverty due to rising health costs, the Transit Authority actually had a surplus of over $1.5 billion, with more to come from an anticipated federal refund from the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.

As a result, the members of Local 100 narrowly voted “no” on the new contract.

Now both the MTA and the state Public Employee Relations Board are pushing for the dispute to be resolved by binding arbitration. Arbitration would likely result in a worse deal than the contract offer which was voted down, since the arbitration process is tilted sharply against the workers. In the arbitration process, members no longer have the right to vote on the contract.

In a last-ditch effort to prevent an arbitrated settlement, the union’s executive board has called for a second vote on the previously rejected contract offer. If the vote this time is “yes,” it is hoped that public pressure will push the MTA to agree again to the original contract offer. The MTA maintains that it is not legally required to do so.

In the meantime, the MTA is trying to enlist the courts to cripple the future ability of Local 100 to enforce any labor contract. The agency is calling for huge fines on the union and the elimination of its dues checkoff system. Most of the union’s revenues come through dues which pay for the substantial paid staff needed to fight for workers’ rights on a day-to-day basis, at arbitrations, at disciplinary hearings, to oversee safety, and to fight for workers injured on the job. It would be virtually impossible for Local 100, whose members are spread out in hundreds of shops, depots and locker rooms all over the sprawling transit system, to collect dues without checkoff.

Supporters of the transit workers should mobilize for the April 7 court hearings on these penalties. It is urgent that workers and commuters rally at the courthouse to show their solidarity with the union in its fightback.

Several New York City transit workers contributed to this article.

Revolution in Bolivia: a special case

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:09:00 +0000

Evo Morales is Bolivia’s first indigenous head of state in 500 years. The day before his inauguration on Jan. 22, a huge assembly of Bolivia’s indigenous people, who represent two-thirds of the country’s population, ceremonially granted him power.

Morales is also the first Bolivian president to win an absolute majority of the vote, 54 percent.

In a pre-election interview, Morales’ running mate for vice president Álvaro García Linera — a sociologist, author and former political prisoner — outlined constraints operating on a Morales government. The presidency, he suggested, is but one instrument of power. Opposition forces control the Legislature, judiciary, military, bureaucracy and police. The “Evo project,” he predicted, will take 20 or 30 years. Only then might a Bolivian form of “collective socialism” evolve.

Morales has sought cabinet and military leaders who are free of foreign influences. He renounced 57 percent of his presidential pay, making possible a 7 percent hike in teachers’ salaries. His government has dealt with flooding and landslides affecting 60 percent of the country, secured debt cancellation from Japan and Spain amounting to $200 million, and obtained financial backing for highways to Chile and Brazil.

At the same time, beginning with the acceptance of a congratulatory telephone call from President Bush on inauguration day, Morales has avoided confrontations with Washington. On Feb. 13, leaders of the coca growers’ union demanded the departure of U.S. narcotics agents. In retaliation, U.S. officials refused to issue a visa to a prominent Morales ally, Sen. Leonida Zurita. Morales backed the U.S. position, with his vice president noting, “We are working hard [for] an appropriate relationship” with the U.S.

The Morales government is cooperating with U.S. efforts to block cocaine distribution, although it supports farmers’ rights to grow coca for ritual and medicinal purposes. It continues to accept U.S. oversight of the Bolivian Air Force unit associated with the nation’s police.

Morales has taken pains to express support for private property in conversations with landowners and natural gas operatives embroiled in separatist agitation in the states of Santa Cruz and Tarija. He reminded them of investment opportunities in nearby iron and magnesium mining operations, and has agreed to a national vote on autonomy in the two regions.

The specter of a military takeover is omnipresent, given Bolivia’s history of 180 coups since 1825. The military is reportedly divided. Part of it identifies with the popular movement, while another part opposes it. Some worry about separatists teaming up with U.S. troops nearby in Paraguay. They reportedly resent U.S. plans to pare down its $150 million annual aid for Bolivian military projects, after the Bolivian government joined 12 other Latin American nations in refusing to exempt U.S. personnel from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

Responding to its populist base, the new government has announced plans for a July 2 vote for delegates to a Constituent Assembly set to convene Aug. 6. Control and distribution of oil and natural gas resources will be on the agenda, as well as democratization of elections and women’s role in politics. Observers speculate that the Morales forces are holding off on major change until the Constituent Assembly is under way. The government is working toward full indigenous representation at the assembly.

Morales also faces challenges from the left. Morales’ own political party lagged behind other groups in setting the stage for his victory. Before the elections, the leader of the Confederation of Bolivian Workers called for a “Bolivian Hugo Chávez” to lead the struggle. The union has generally withheld support for the new government. In February, Morales responded to left critics: “If I am not advancing enough, then push me.”

Hugo Blanco, the charismatic Peruvian peasant leader of 40 years ago, attended Morales’ inauguration. He recently highlighted special characteristics of Bolivia’s struggles. Much more is involved there than overturning a government, he suggested. It involves “refounding” a nation. Indigenous peoples missed out on the nation’s first founding, and now their turn is approaching, and that of the entire population.

Immigrant rights actions impact Senate debate

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:12:00 +0000

Months of growing grassroots pressure for immigrants’ rights and against proposed harsh repressive measures are beginning to open new avenues of struggle for a fair and humane approach to immigration reform.

While Chicago’s March 10 outpouring of hundreds of thousands — the largest to date — moved the struggle to a higher level, it was preceded by many actions around the country, and more are planned for coming days.

Meanwhile, matters are coming to a head in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee continued its work on March 15-16. Its starting point, Sen. Arlen Specter’s (R-Pa.) “chairman’s mark,” a legislative draft, greatly resembled the harshly repressive Sensenbrenner bill, HR 4437, in that it lacked an effective path to legalization and citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now in the U.S.

Specter’s draft also incorporated many of Sensenbrenner’s concepts to criminalize the undocumented and those who help them, while limiting due process for immigrants appealing government decisions about their cases. Specter’s proposal also includes an open-ended guest worker program lacking adequate labor protections.

Committee Democrats are working to make the legislation less harsh. At press time, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who spoke at the Chicago rally, was fighting to eliminate “criminalization” language while Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) got at least a few Republicans to consider a legalization-to-permanent-residency program.

However, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on March 17 introduced a bill including all the repressive features of HR 4437 with no legalization path or guest worker program, but more permanent resident visas. Not to be outdone, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), head of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, issued a letter signed by 73 congresspersons supporting the Sensenbrenner-Frist approach but criticizing Frist for proposing more legal immigrants.

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote when Congress reconvenes March 27. Immigrant rights groups, the AFL-CIO, SEIU and other unions, the Conference of Catholic Bishops and others are urging continued demonstrations and lobbying to stop repressive measures and assure that whatever legislation is passed contains legalization with a clear path to citizenship. Hundreds of clergy will gather that day in Washington to pressure the Judiciary Committee, Frist and others.

“What happens on and after March 27 could be decisive for the struggle in the Senate,” said Rosalio Muñoz, immigrant rights activist and Southern California district organizer for the Communist Party. “The whole Senate could vote by April 1, so pressure needs to grow broader and deeper each day.”

Around the country:

• Over 50 hunger strikers gathered at San Francisco’s federal building March 21 to start a week-long fast featuring marches, rallies and candlelight vigils. Strikers and their supporters heard legendary United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta call for a new appreciation of immigrants’ contributions. “It’s time we said, ‘you are here, we embrace you as citizens,’” Huerta told the crowd.

Sheila Chung, executive director of the Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition, said the strike aims “to build legislative support for initiatives that help undocumented workers gain permanent legal residence and citizenship, provide for family reunification, assure justice on the job, and uphold immigrants’ civil rights and civil liberties.”

• Trenton, N.J., was the site of a large demonstration March 20, while actions were planned for March 24 in Arizona cities and towns.

• A massive demonstration is slated for Los Angeles on March 25. Mobilizations are also set for Denver, Philadelphia and other cities.

• In Los Angeles on March 26, the annual labor and clergy celebration of Cesar Chavez’s birthday will focus on justice for immigrants.

At the same time, labor, immigrant rights and civil rights groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and People for the American Way are mobilizing e-mails, letters and phone calls urging opposition to Sensenbrenner’s and Frist’s bills as well as inclusion of immigrant-friendly measures in the Judiciary Committee bill.

Senators can be called through the congressional switchboard, (202) 224-3121, urging rejection of all repressive measures, support for legalization and a clear path to citizenship, and full labor and civil rights for all.

More information on demonstrations around the country is posted on the New American Opportunities Coalition’s web site, www.cirnow.org.

Patriot Act renewed, repression continues

Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:05:00 +0000

By a vote of 280-138, the House of Representatives has agreed to renew the USA Patriot Act with only minor new safeguards for civil liberties and several troubling new items. As the Senate had already voted 89-10 to renew the act, the legislation was quickly signed by President Bush.

When the Patriot Act was signed in 2001, it included “sunset” provisions for several of its components, meaning that, unless reauthorized by the end of 2005, they would lapse. By the end of the 2005 congressional session, no such agreement had been reached, so twice in succession the deadline for renewal was extended.

The House of Representatives had quickly voted to extend the act, but in the Senate, enough Republicans, as well as most Democrats, had expressed doubts about the act to prevent the upper house from agreeing. There were threats from Senate Democrats to filibuster the act, so the compromise of extending it was agreed to.

Meanwhile, there were shocking revelations about warrantless spying on the U.S. population by the National Security Agency, which had been authorized by Bush in evident violation of both the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. There had been many other revelations about abuse of power by the government, including last week about “mistakes” made in FBI surveillance of the “wrong” people.

Many asked why on earth the president needed the Patriot Act in the first place, as he seems to think that because there is a “war” and he is “commander in chief,” he can do anything that tickles his fancy anyway. Meanwhile 397 city and county councils had passed resolutions calling for repeal of all or part of the act, as had eight state legislatures. (You can see a complete list of the resolutions at bordc.org, the web site of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee).

Yet in the end, there were not quite enough votes in the Senate to either support a filibuster or to insist on more than minor changes in the act. Although some Republican lawmakers were critical of the act, not enough of them were willing to buck the president. In the final House vote on March 8, 13 Republicans voted not to extend the act, joining 124 Democrats and one independent. But 66 Democrats joined 214 Republicans in voting to extend.

In those congressional districts where anti-Patriot Act resolutions had been passed, it was much more likely that the House member, irrespective of party, would vote not to extend. So organizing, agitating and speaking up turn out to be worth the trouble! Who’d have guessed?

So the act was extended with a few positive modifications, most notably that libraries functioning “in their traditional capacity” will no longer be forced to hand over client information in response to federal “National Security Letters,” and there are new four year sunset provisions attached to the Patriot Act’s authorization for “roving wiretaps” (i.e. the blanket right of the government to wiretap any phone that a terrorism suspect might use) and the power to seize business records with minimal due process.

But some new negative things were also added. The Secret Service will be able to arrest peaceful demonstrators at “special events of national significance.” (We are guessing that this is wherever Bush or Cheney show up.)

And very disturbingly, the version of the act signed by Bush sets up a new procedure that potentially limits the time available to people on death row for the filing of federal habeas corpus petitions, shifting the power of decision from the federal courts to the U.S. attorney general. This is of a piece with the Bush administration’s campaign to undermine judicial review.

And if you need hay fever medicine, you may have to leave your name with your pharmacist, depending on the ingredients. (No, we don’t know what that has to do with terrorism, either.)

Some of the most dangerous aspects of the Patriot Act were not even up for discussion this time around as they had no sunset provisions. One of these is the way the act defines terrorism: As any dangerous and illegal act that “appears to be intended” to change government policies or public opinion. This could be used against labor or civil rights demonstrations, for example.

And the Bush administration and Republican right want even more restrictions on our freedoms. The ink was not dry on the renewed Patriot Act before the Republicans were plotting to create a new class of warrants which the executive could issue without even going to a judge.

Whether these antidemocratic measures can be stopped and rolled back depends on the outcome of the November 2006 midterm elections. If the current public dissatisfaction with the Republican administration produces a change in the majority in either house, and especially if it brings more progressive Democrats to office, it will help stop new repressive legislation. With a bigger victory and continued pressure, the rollback of things such as the USA Patriot Act become possible.

Ask the Communists

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:10:00 +0000

Q: Obviously you oppose terrorism, but what position do American Communists take toward the homegrown (non-al-Qaeda) resistance to the U.S./British occupation? Do you support the armed resistance? If so, where does this position fit into the overall class struggle in Iraq and beyond? If not, how do you reconcile this position with your anti-imperialist stance?

A: We support the difficult struggle of the Iraqi Communist Party, along with the trade unions, women’s organizations and other democratic forces in Iraq, to build broad, nonsectarian national unity in order to both rid themselves of foreign occupation and construct a democratic society that is not under the thumb of imperialism and reactionary forces.

We believe that the struggle for democracy is a key part of the class struggle and the struggle against imperialism. Armed forces that target the civilian population hinder the development of broad unity among all sectors of the Iraqi people. Armed forces that have the aim of installing theocratic or other reactionary government are anti-democratic.

In crisis situations especially, Communist parties in each country have a special responsibility to their people to carefully and soberly assess the political balance of forces and the mood and concerns of the people, to help find the methods of struggle that can achieve the national and democratic aims of the working class and its allies without violence if at all possible. We believe that the Communist Party and working class in each country is best qualified to make such assessments regarding their own country.

We believe that all peoples have the right to resist dictatorship and foreign occupation and to determine for themselves how they will do so. We Communists are humanists, and we see armed struggle as the very last resort, something to be avoided, unless it is forced on the people when all other, peaceful means of struggle have been exhausted or become impossible. In all such cases, we keep in mind that the poor and working-class people usually pay the heaviest price.

We invite readers to submit questions about the Communist Party USA, its basic policies, and a Marxist viewpoint on current social issues. The answers are provided by Marc Brodine, chair of the Washington State Communist Party. Questions can be sent to cpusa@cpusa.org.

My foremothers paved the way

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:00:00 +0000

I recently lost my mother to cancer.

My experience of caring for her was something that I would not have believed. From the moment we were informed of her terminal illness, she was so accepting of it, saying simply that she had lived her life and she was ready to go. She said she was not afraid to die; her near-death experience had taught her it was nothing to fear.

I began to reflect on her life and what she had given to me. I thought about her mother and her grandmother. I realized that each one had paved the way that allowed me to be the woman I am today.

In Mexico almost a century ago, my great-grandmother somehow allowed my grandmother to get an education and become a schoolteacher. Although unmarried, my grandmother not only was educated, but traveled and taught in other parts of Mexico, very progressive for those days. She went one step further: she chose to marry a man of her own choice, a man who was not in her social class, an indigenous man from Zacatecas.

My mother was also a woman who had broken away from several social norms. She fell in love with an abusive man who was an alcoholic, a womanizer, who would beat her severely. After 11 years and against many odds, with four children in tow, she left him, never to return. It was an act of bravery very few women took in her generation, an act of bravery that gave me the opportunity to not repeat that cycle. An act of bravery that allowed my daughter to experience what a healthy relationship is.

My mother’s first child was born with Down syndrome. Instead of sending him away she accepted the challenge of raising him, and instead of treating him as someone with a disability, she raised him based on his abilities, again at a time when this was not the social norm. There was no one to tell her that this was the best way — quite the contrary: family members called her cruel and heartless. This decision too had a great impact for me, because it laid the foundation on which I would base my career. My children grew up accepting people who were different from them.

My mother’s bravery paved the way. While making sure we got our education, she too went back to school. She started with finishing elementary and junior high school, then she got her high school diploma, and at age 51 she got her bachelor’s degree. For her it was never too late to finish something that you want to do. It was a monumental task for her. This act of bravery gave me the confidence to finish my own schooling and the belief that as a woman I have the strength to go after any goal I set for myself, that it is never to late to achieve them.

My mother sacrificed a great many things but I can fully understand how satisfied she was with her life and how this allowed her to go in peace. My foremothers have been women who through their example have allowed the next generation to move forward. I see my daughter and she is the culmination of the path that we, her foremothers, have paved.

Rossana Cambron is a reader in Los Angeles.

EDITORIAL: No war on Iran!

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:23:00 +0000

As marchers call this weekend for an end to the Iraq war, signs are growing that the U.S. will attack Iran. Some of the Bush administration’s charges sound eerily familiar: a covert nuclear weapons program, support for al-Qaeda, a menace to peace. An underlying motive is also familiar — oil.

Last week John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the UN, ratcheted up the rhetoric still further, claiming that Iran is pursuing not only nuclear weapons, but “the capability through increasingly longer-range and more accurate ballistic missiles … that is obviously very dangerous.”

But the International Atomic Energy Agency has said there is no evidence that Iran has or is developing nuclear weapons. And under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it has signed, Iran has every right to develop nuclear power to generate electricity.

The administration’s war drumbeat has long roots. Long before George W. Bush became president, the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party was trumpeting the need for pre-emptive action to assure continuing unchallenged U.S. world dominance. Under Bush, foreign policy has been militarized and the budget stripped of funds for human needs.

In January 2005 investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that U.S. commandos had already conducted raids inside Iran. Hersh said top military officials told him “the next strategic target [after Iraq] was Iran.”

As in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. corporate media is participating in the drumbeat, uncritically reporting the administration’s claims. Provocative statements by Iran’s right-wing president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have played into this effort.

Some will argue that an administration mired in Iraq, sinking to new lows in the polls and beset by multiple domestic crises, is not likely to start a new war. But others warn that might be seen as a way to silence the opposition.

An attack on Iran would likely be through massive air strikes – a threat made more menacing by Pentagon documents citing likely use of massive “bunker buster” bombs and tactical nukes.

Now is the time to raise the cry, “No war for oil — No war on Iran!”

EDITORIAL: Congressional elections matter

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:19:00 +0000

Peace-loving, working-class, progressive and left-minded people are commemorating the third anniversary of an illegal, immoral war this weekend. While mourning the thousands of dead and war-wounded Americans and Iraqis and worrying about attacks on democratic rights, everyday people are organizing and uniting to take the country back from the mean-fisted grip of the ultra-right and its corporate partners in crime.

In eight months we can elect a new Congress. A 15-seat change in the House and six-seat change in the Senate are needed to topple GOP control. The Democratic Party is crafting its election strategy, as is the GOP. What should the left strategy be for peace, economic justice and equality?

The Communist Party USA has adopted a strategic policy that emphasizes the necessity of defeating the ultra-right in order to move democratic and social justice struggles forward.

If the GOP loses control of Congress the field of struggle shifts to a more favorable landscape for workers, communities of color, women, youth, seniors and all struggling sectors of the population.

A recent MoveOn.org e-mail notes: “Taking just the House of Representatives, here is a small slice of who will be leading: Nancy Pelosi, a progressive, becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives; John Conyers, who forced a national debate on the Downing Street Memos, would be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; George Miller, a big advocate for working people, would be chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and could bring a vote to raise the minimum wage.”

To defeat the entrenched, ruthless ultra-right, the CPUSA argues, the widest multiracial all people’s unity is required, with special attention to left-center unity.

What does left-center unity mean? Rather than attacking centrist Democrats for wishy-washy positions, it means looking for the center’s most advanced demands and working with those to build the broadest, most powerful united struggle. It’s possible to take back Congress in November but it’s going to take unity, struggle and vote protection to do it. The left needs to be deeply involved in that titanic battle.

North Carolina confronts shameful history

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:24:00 +0000

WILMINGTON, N.C. — An eager crowd squeezed into the auditorium of the Cape Fear Museum Feb. 28 to discuss what happened here 108 years ago. They were enthusiastic about the chance to discuss events that until now were mostly only talked about in whispers and in small family gatherings.

On Nov. 10, 1898, an organized white mob used force and violence to overthrow Wilmington’s duly elected city government. Historians researching the event call it the only actual coup d’etat on U.S. soil.

On that day the local Black-owned newspaper, the Daily Record, was burned out and its presses destroyed. Racist gangs called “Red Shirts” rampaged through Black neighborhoods shooting into Black crowds and ransacking homes.

In the name of ending “Negro Rule,” about 200 armed men organized by the White Government Union invaded City Hall, forcing aldermen to resign and then “electing” white supremacist replacements hand-picked by the mob. (Only three of the 10 aldermen replaced were African American.) In the following days, hundreds of Black community leaders and their families were arrested, put on trains and expelled from the area. Some whites who opposed the White Government Union were also expelled. Hundreds more African American residents fled on their own, never to return.

While the Wilmington race riot, as it came to be known, was particularly violent and brutal, it was only part of a larger statewide effort to overthrow the more democratic governing coalition established during Reconstruction after the Civil War. The Wilmington race riot helped statewide efforts by planters, the railroads and white supremacists to overthrow a coalition of Republicans (including Abolitionists, white small businessmen and African American leaders) and Populists (including many poor white farmers and rural people).

In 2000 the North Carolina Legislature established the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission “to develop a historical record of the event and to assess the economic impact of the riot on African Americans locally and across the region and state.”

The meeting at the Cape Fear Museum was one of four public discussions sponsored by the commission around the state. LeRae Umfleet, the commission’s chief researcher, presented a summary of its draft report. The final report is to be presented to the North Carolina General Assembly in May, along with recommendations.

Umfleet pointed out that the riot in Wilmington was an open conspiracy, openly planned for months in advance and openly executed. She said it was later used as a model to plan similar race riots in Atlanta, Tulsa, Okla., and Rosewood, Fla. The Oklahoma Legislature appointed a commission to document the incidents in Tulsa and make recommendations. This led to a commission report in 2001 and a flurry of bills for reparations. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s 1993 investigation led to a state bill to compensate the massacre’s survivors.

The commission did not present specific recommendations at the Cape Fear meeting, but several items are under consideration for the final report, including a mandate to include the event in school curricula, apologies from the Legislature and elected officials to descendants, and some form of reparations.

State Rep. Thomas E. Wright, a commission co-chair and one of its main initiators, told the gathering, “What we have in this draft is what we can prove.” For example, Umfleet said deaths were probably undercounted because some evidence shows bodies were simply dumped into the surrounding swamps or rivers and never accounted for in coroners’ records.

Prior to the riot, Wilmington had a thriving African American business community and African Americans were a majority in the city. After the riot, Black businesses lay in ruins. By the early 1900s Wilmington was majority white.

Commission member and former Wilmington Mayor Harper Peterson, who is white, cited a recent study showing African American children today in North Carolina are suspended from schools in far greater numbers and percentages than white students. Peterson said this continued discrimination is directly linked to the events of 1898 and the statewide seizure of power by white supremacists.

“I feel personal responsibility that we make restitution,” Peterson said. “Folks who say we should put it behind us and move on are a disgrace.” He got a sustained round of applause from the largely white audience.

Time for a new civil rights revolution

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:15:00 +0000

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — “They have lied and spied on the American people. We have been in Iraq for three years, it’s time we get out now,” said Jarvis Tyner, guest speaker at the 32nd annual People’s Weekly World African American History celebration here Feb. 26.

The theme of the event was “The struggle continues — Carrying on the legacy of Mother Rosa Parks and Constance Baker Motley.” A similar event was held in Hartford, and both celebrations were marked by vibrant cultural presentations.

Tyner told the audience that the Bush administration “is acting like it owns this country.” In reality, he said, “The people built this country. People work and don’t get paid for the value of what they do.”

In an interview with the New Haven Register that appeared in advance of the event, Tyner called for “a new civil rights revolution in our country” for peace and justice for all the people.

Tyner, executive vice chair of the Communist Party USA, issued a ringing call for unity at the church service of New Growth Outreach Ministries on the morning of the event here. Highlighting common goals in the struggle for equality, he praised the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s courage and activism, including his recognition of the great contributions of Communists such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Pablo Neruda.

Speaking to overflow crowds both here and in Hartford, Tyner emphasized that the struggle to achieve equality has been long and hard. Unity is the key ingredient, he said. “Without everyone uniting and fighting for the common and just cause,” he said, “we will not achieve this goal.”

The events raised nearly $2,500 to kick off the 2006 Connecticut People’s Weekly World fund drive.

U.S. readying military attack on Iran

Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:38:00 +0000

News Analysis Evidence is mounting that the Bush administration is preparing a major military attack on Islamic Republic of Iran.

In January investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that top military and intelligence officials told him, “the next strategic target [after Iraq] was Iran.” News reports say months ago former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the Israeli military to be ready for unleashing an air assault on Iran by this month. At least two unmanned U.S. drone aircraft have crashed while flying over Iran, identifying potential targets.

Couple these developments with almost daily pronouncements by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice or President Bush that Iran is a “pariah,” that it has a covert nuclear weapons program, that it has crossed a “red line,” that it is an ally of al-Qaeda, that it poses a menace to peace, and that “there is little more to talk about,” and the picture is clear: a pre-emptive U.S. strike against Iran is increasingly likely.

The pretext will be preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Yet according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is not a shred of evidence that Iran possesses or is developing such weapons. And weapons experts say even if Iran wanted to produce nuclear weapons, it wouldn’t be able to do so for at least 10 years.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty explicitly allows countries like Iran to develop nuclear power to generate electricity. All indications from IAEA inspections and records show that this has been the sum total of Iran’s research program.

The vote in the IAEA on Feb. 4 to “refer” Iran to the UN Security Council, a vote that was aggressively pushed by the Bush administration, is part of this picture. After this week’s meeting of the IAEA, and despite last-minute efforts by Russia and others to prevent Iran’s referral the Security Council, it looks like such a move is now imminent.

The referral will set in motion a process very similar to the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration’s goal is to lay the political basis for charging Iran with harboring weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Its aim is to ultimately get the UN’s blessing, or acquiescence, to a U.S. pre-emptive attack. Sound familiar?

Iran has the second or third largest untapped oil reserves in the world, an estimated 126 billion barrels. It is also has about 16 percent of the world’s total. Aside from the Bush administration’s desire for unimpeded access to these resources, it also wants to ensure that its rivals, particularly Europe, Russia and China, are denied similar access.

According to multiple sources, Cheney has played a particularly active role in promoting the planned operation against Iran.

Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA officer, wrote in the August 2005 American Conservative that Cheney had instructed the Pentagon to prepare for a massive air assault against some 450 targets in Iran, including nuclear power research sites and government command centers, to be launched in the event of another 9/11-type event, even if there were no link between the event and Iran. Such a plan could also be activated, of course, by another pretext, like the UN “failing to carry out its responsibilities” to curb Iran’s alleged nuclear WMD program.

This underscores another aspect of assault: namely, that unlike Iraq, the U.S. would not commit to a massive deployment of troops on Iranian soil, but instead would concentrate on crippling the country through bombing raids. Ominously, Pentagon documents have spoken quite explicitly about the likely use of massive “bunker buster” bombs, along with tactical nuclear weapons, to penetrate fortified Iranian facilities that are deep underground. Such a move would be catastrophic for the Iranian people and the region.

The U.S. corporate media is playing its part in the drumbeat to war, uncritically reporting Bush administration allegations of Iran’s wrongdoing. It has been helped in this regard by some of the more provocative statements by Iran’s right-wing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately, this seems to have had some effect on public opinion: one poll suggests 57 percent of the U.S. public would support an attack on Iran if it were done in the name of blocking its access to nuclear weapons.

As the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq draws near, many antiwar activists will no doubt raise the demand of “No attack on Iran” in addition to “U.S. troops out of Iraq now.” Such a call seems timely.

Why we act

Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:19:00 +0000

There are few roles in our constitutional government that are more frustrating than being a member of the minority party during a period of one party control of the government. However, at a time when the majority party in general — and the president in particular — appears to be acting in open violation of the laws and the Constitution, there are few jobs which are more important to the future of our democratic form of government.

People think of Watergate or Iran Contra as constituting crises. They were, in the sense that an executive branch was acting in violation of the law and in tension with the majority party in the Congress. But in the end, the system worked, the abuses were investigated, and actions were taken — even if presidential pardons ultimately prevented a full measure of justice.

Today, the crisis is substantively and systemically far worse. The alleged acts of wrongdoing — lying about the decision to go to war; manipulation of intelligence; facilitating and countenancing torture; using confidential information to out a CIA agent; open and flagrant violations of federal wiretap laws — are far more egregious than any I have witnessed in my 41 years in Congress. The majority party has shown no ability to engage in simple oversight, let alone challenge the administration directly. The courts, while operating as an occasional and partial check, are institutionally incapable of delving into most of the controversies we are presented with as a result of limitations on standing, ripeness, and other doctrines. The media, which is increasingly concentrated, was shell-shocked and in some respects cowered by 9/11, and for the most part unwilling to alienate the party in charge.

Faced with that dilemma, we had a choice. We could simply ignore the myriad of transgressions being committed, and continue to react to the legislative agenda put before us by the Republican Party on a day-to-day basis, or we could do everything in our power to call attention to and document these very grave abuses of power. I opted for the latter course.

I could not live with myself or my children if, when faced with an administration that went to war under false pretenses, used classified information to smear political opponents and wiretapped innocent Americans without warrants, I did not formally respond to it. If the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Constitution, is silent on these matters, who else can we expect to speak out?

So for the last several years I have:

• Forwarded scores of letters to the administration requesting information about these abuses, including a letter signed by 122 members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans.

• Forwarded numerous letters to the Republican chairs asking them to conduct hearings on these abuses, including a letter signed by 52 members.

• Filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the administration, asked for investigations by GAO, various inspectors general, and the Justice Department.

• Held our own Democratic hearings, for which we were forced by the majority to retreat to the basement of the Capitol.

• Filed legislation resulting from our investigation not only censuring the president and the vice president, but creating a select committee to more fully investigate whether impeachable offenses had occurred.

When the National Security Agency scandal broke, we again responded with letters, requests for independent investigations, holding our own hearing, and are now in the process of completing a comprehensive report of these and related civil rights and civil liberties abuses by the administration since 9/11.

All of this constitutes a public record of the constitutional abuses we have seen, and is designed to stand the test of time. It comes on top of the hearings and report I prepared on the electoral abuses in Ohio, which led to an unprecedented Electoral College challenge in the House and the Senate.

Now let me add, in many respects, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the policy failures of this administration. Over the last six years we have seen a record budget surplus turn into a record deficit; we face trade deficits as far as they eye can see and the near evisceration of our manufacturing base; we have a record number of individuals and families who do not have health insurance; we passed a disastrous Medicare sell-out bill; we went through the debacle of Congress and the president politicizing the tragic Terri Schiavo case; port security is abysmal, the Homeland Security Department is a joke, and we learned that Bush knew very well that the levees in New Orleans could be breached even though he later said no one anticipated it. These are all weighty, serious issues. They present significant problems for our nation as well. However, they are not of the same constitutional magnitude as the issues we’re talking about here.

There can be no doubt that today we are in a constitutional crisis that threatens the system of checks and balances that has preserved our fundamental freedoms for more than 200 years. Just because the president’s approval ratings is down to 34 percent and the vice president’s approval is down to 18 percent, does not mean they cannot do severe, long-term harm to our nation. Our actions are an important clarion call to anyone who is listening — that there is a constitutional line that even a president cannot cross without our people standing up and fighting for their democracy.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) is ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

This is slightly abridged from his diary on www.dailykos.com.

Joe Barton -- always Big Oil's man -- from the archives

Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:17:00 +0000

Did you hear that great groaning sound? It was us, the people of Texas, expressing our opinion about the news that Congressman Joe Barton was fixing to investigate somebody.

“Joe Barton?” people are asking, “Is he still not in jail? What’s he doing investigating somebody else?”

According to Houston reporters, “Smoky Joe” Barton, the pollution king of Ennis, Texas, has declared that he wants to investigate Citgo Petroleum for something, possibly for “conduct unbecoming an oil company.”

Citgo, wholly owned by the revolutionary government of Venezuela, has apparently been making it possible for poor people to keep from freezing, and other high crimes. While people worry about being able to warm themselves this winter, a few progressive local governments have accepted Citgo’s offer of low-priced heating oil.

Without pointing out how ridiculous Barton’s investigation is, Citgo executives in Houston have sent Barton and Congressman Ed Whitfield, co-conspirator on this awkward investigation, a nice letter with some of the information he demanded and a commitment to provide the rest.

Citgo wrote:

“Dear Congressmen Barton and Whitfield:

“Citgo Petroleum Corporation acknowledges receipt of your letter, dated Feb. 15, 2006, requesting information about Citgo’s discount heating oil program for low-income people.

“Citgo initiated this program as a continuation of Citgo’s response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita when heating oil prices began to increase. Citgo’s interest in a discount heating oil program for low-income people began about the same time as a request from a number of United States senators asking energy companies to provide heating oil assistance to low-income people.

“Citgo’s discount heating oil program to low-income people has been implemented through existing charities that historically have provided low-cost heating oil to low-income people. These charities select the recipients of the program. Citgo shall attempt to comply with your request. We expect to be able to answer your questions and to provide you with copies of all records pertaining to the discount heating oil program in Citgo’s possession but it will take longer than a week. Citgo should be able to provide such copies to you within 30 days.”

Why anyone would be so polite to Smoky Joe Barton is a source of wonderment in Texas, where we have seen Barton take advantage of the uninformed people in his largely rural district to defend and encourage corporations that create some of the worst air quality in the state. People living in Fort Worth or Dallas in adjacent districts curse the name of Smoky Joe every time our eyes sting. Cement plants burn rubber tires in Barton’s district, and nobody, so far, has been able to get past Barton to stop them. The best, or worst, part of the joke is that Barton is chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, which is supposed to regulate air pollution!

Barton has endorsed his friend and co-thinker Tom DeLay in the Republican primaries. Legislative records indicate that Barton votes with DeLay 95 percent of the time. Even while DeLay was being socked with multiple charges of corruption with rich lobbyists, Barton organized, on Jan. 15, a luxury train ride from Fort Worth to San Antonio for wealthy backers. A ticket was $2,000!

His opponent in November, Democrat David Harris, says Joe raised and spent $700,000 (to Harris’ $7,000) during the last reporting period. Smoky Joe’s wealthy supporters undoubtedly feel that he needs the money.

More on Joe Barton -- from the archives -- click here.

Photo: Jim Lane/PW

Immigrant rights: Put mass pressure on Congress now!

Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:40:00 +0000

NewsAnalysis This month must see greatly increased pressure from the progressive grassroots, or very nasty anti-immigrant legislation will likely be enacted.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), has presented a draft plan or “chairman’s mark” for “comprehensive immigration reform.” Although Specter took elements of this plan from several legislative proposals, he leaned heavily to the right, stressing new repressive measures such as those found in HR 4437, the Sensenbrenner bill passed by the House in December.

The mark features a large-scale guest worker program which lacks the minimum labor rights unions have insisted on, and which will allow for massive abuse and exploitation of temporary workers. There is no program to offer legalization and a path to eventual citizenship to the 11 million undocumented workers in the country. Instead, they will at best be shunted into a “permanent temporary worker” status with no labor rights. In exchange for merely applying for this status, they will have to waive their rights to appeal adverse government decisions on their cases.

Very troubling is the harshly repressive tone of the mark, which directly follows Sensenbrenner by making undocumented immigrants felons, threatening felony charges against people who help them, and sharply reducing the rights of immigrants to a hearing in the federal courts. In making the undocumented felons, the mark proposal automatically authorizes state and local police to investigate and arrest them, something spelled out more specifically in the Sensenbrenner bill.

When the House Judiciary Committee began debate on the chairman’s mark on March 2, it was immediately evident the plan would meet opposition from both left and right. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) spoke out in the committee against the document’s repressive and anti-labor dimensions, while Senators Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) did so in other settings, including meetings and rallies where they continued to promote their “Secure America” bill as being more generous and immigrant friendly.

The Judiciary Committee will debate the issue for several consecutive Thursdays. It is highly probable that both senators who consider the chairman’s mark to be too liberal, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.), and those who consider it too conservative (most Democrats) will start offering amendments to push it to the right or left. Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has stated that if the end product is too liberal for his tastes, he might introduce a more repressive bill directly to the floor, hoping to get something passed by March 27.

One problem for defenders of immigrant rights has been the lack of unity up to now among pro-immigrant forces. While several unions, notably SEIU and Unite Here, and most immigrant rights organizations have supported the McCain-Kennedy Bill, others —including the AFL-CIO, importantly — have not. Some unions, such as the Laborers’ International, support parts of McCain-Kennedy but balk at the guest worker component. The Congressional Black Caucus largely supports a different bill sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas).

But by tilting his chairman’s mark so far in the anti-immigrant direction, chairman Specter has drawn a clear line in the sand, against which all these forces can unite.

Key elements for such unity can be:

• Legalization to permanent resident (not temporary or conditional) status, with access to citizenship, for all undocumented immigrants.

• Roll back the policies of repression against immigrants that have accumulated since 1996, with no new repression or erosion of their civil and labor rights.

• No guest worker program. But if one is imposed, limit it as much as possible and include maximum guarantees of full rights for these workers, including the right to join a union and go on strike without risking deportation.

Already across the country, immigrant communities and their labor and civil rights allies — plus organizations such as the ACLU, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Bar Association and both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win Coalition — have mobilized to stop HR 4437, the Sensenbrenner bill. This united, broad fight against HR 4437 can be extended to a fight against the anti-immigrant and anti-worker aspects of the Specter mark as well, irrespective of differences over McCain-Kennedy and other matters. All democratically minded people in the United States should consider this a priority struggle, and communicate the above demands to their senators and congresspersons as soon and as forcefully as possible.

Electoral coup in Palestine

Sat, 04 Mar 2006 10:19:00 +0000

There is no doubt that the recent legislative council elections in Palestine were an electoral coup. Due to the nature of this coup and because of the current conditions at the regional and international level, it will be extremely difficult for Hamas to assume the responsibility of forming the next Palestinian government alone.

The Palestinian Legislative Council elections cannot be isolated from the fact that they were not held in a sovereign state. They were conducted under a national authority with incomplete sovereignty within its territories torn apart, disconnected and besieged by the occupation. It is the same authority that was established in 1994 when the majority of the Palestinian factions, including Hamas, refused then to participate in it and in the elections for its Legislative Council in 1996. Many factions did so under the pretext that this was an authority created under occupation and governed by agreements and commitments that damaged the rights of the Palestinian people and closed the door on the process toward liberation and independence.

This claim was made without taking into consideration the nature of the struggle against occupation. Some benefits and relative achievements were imposed by the above-mentioned agreements and commitments, including the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and the return of the PLO leadership from abroad despite all restrictions imposed on it.

This return to the homeland led to a transformation in the Palestinian political system, because activism on behalf of the Palestinian people moved to the Palestinian territories. The Palestinian leadership for the first time was placed face to face with the masses and in direct political, social and economic responsibility to the people, exposing it to criticism and accountability.

This 10-year process, however, was affected by a series of factors, namely the intensity of the conflict with the occupation, especially in this current intifada and the growing popularity of Hamas movement, which did become a real and effective competitor with the Fatah movement. These developments were affected negatively by Fatah’s monopolization and abuse of authority and the absence of any form of political or social cooperation especially with the leftist and democratic forces that could have mitigated Fatah’s monopoly on power.

It should be noted within the same context that the need to contain and absorb the state of internal unrest, bad economic conditions and the spread of unemployment led Fatah to launch the policy of “political employment.” Cadres and members of the ruling party were given political authority in order to reinforce the base of Fatah’s power, thus fostering conditions for poor political leadership, favoritism and bureaucracy, which made matters even worse.

As a result, the crisis inside Fatah escalated, and the state of insecurity and chaos expanded. To ordinary citizens, the situation was becoming more difficult and didn’t seem as though it could be rectified or reformed except through replacing the old tools and the unsuccessful methods and approaches. Therefore, the people decided to change their leadership through the ballot boxes last January and elect Hamas to a majority of the Palestinian Legislative Council seats.

In any case, it is naïve to say that improving Palestine’s internal situation can be done through elections only, or by replacing Fatah with Hamas. This electoral shift will remain incomplete and limited if both Fatah and Hamas aren’t ready to follow the “mutual concessions” formula that is part of the national consensus program. First, Fatah must retreat from its previous practice of trying to monopolize power by failing to give legitimate Palestinian institutions their due importance and consideration, starting with PLO institutions. For its part, Hamas must join the Palestinian political system and find a way to respond to the national consensus program called for in the Declaration of Independence and the international legitimacy resolutions.

Recent statements made by Hamas leaders gave the impression that it will participate in the PNA and in the government, but to the extent that it will not hold any contact or direct negotiations with Israel. Further, Hamas says it will seek to offer only the minimum commitments that accompany such a participation. This position was expressed by showing readiness to commit to a long-term truce and to accept the transitional or long interim solution.

But Hamas’ proposals for dividing political functions between those who negotiate and hold contacts with the Israelis and those who assume other government affairs is not an adequate formula and lacks any political basis. They will probably be rejected by the potential partners in the next government, including Fatah.

Therefore, Hamas’ participation in the PNA necessitates answering an important question: How it can match the election promises that helped it win a majority and the reality of the PNA with its commitments and the international agreements that have been signed? Moreover, large sectors of the Palestinian people are concerned about Hamas’ social program, especially in the area of freedom of expression, the status of women and personal liberties and rights of the individuals and other matters.

In conclusion, we totally reject all forms of interference in Palestinian internal affairs and the U.S. and Israeli pressure exerted on our people at the political and economic levels. We also oppose the oppressive international campaign against Hamas which at the same time ignores Israel and which does not demand from Israel to end its occupation and recognize the national and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

On the other hand, the question that remains to be posed is to what extent is Hamas ready to meet with the national consensus program ratified by the PLO? This takes us back to the “mutual concession” formula based on common national denominators that should strengthen the internal front, in order to overcome the current crisis and prevent national divisions, conflict and chaos that will be against everybody’s interests. We are waiting Hamas’ answers to see if it can agree with the current national consensus formula.

Hannah Amireh is a member of the executive council of the Palestine Liberation Organization and a leader of the Palestinian People’s Party.

A monster was unveiled!

Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:48:00 +0000

Commercial news reporters and pundits have lately made a great to-do about the 50th anniversary of Nikita Khrushchev’s famous “secret” speech denouncing Stalin’s leadership in the old Soviet Union. They credit the speech with beginning a process that eventually ended with the downfall of the entire socialist structure of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

They may or may not have been right, and Khrushchev’s denunciations may or not have been right, but a much larger and more dangerous truth has been revealed in these 50 years. Stalin claimed (for that matter, so did Khrushchev) and progressives the world over claimed that imperialism, not socialism, was the greatest threat to world peace and prosperity.

Capitalism blamed socialism, the Soviet Union, Stalin and, later, Khrushchev.

Who was right? After the communist “threat” imploded, did world peace come? Were people no longer bombed and napalmed? Were the great land grabs of the previous 300 years finished? Were people no longer driven into poverty?

Or did capitalism continue doing what it had done since it became the dominant economic form on Earth? Did it continue grabbing up other peoples’ resources? Did it go on driving down the wages and benefits of American workers as well as those in other countries? Did it invent new “enemies” when it needed them to cover its aggressions and excuse its atrocities?

Did torture end? How about the destruction of the world environment? What about destroying the schools and opposing new scientific knowledge? How about the threat of nuclear holocaust? Was the “Cold War” the last war, or did war continue?

Jim Lane (flittle7@yahoo.com) is a labor activist in North Texas.

Shani breaks the rules

Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:44:00 +0000

Olympic gold-medal winner Shani Davis is not playing by the rules. I don’t mean the Olympic rules of international athletic competition. He has abided by those. He trained hard, practiced long, competed honestly. He should be a momentary national hero. But Davis’ press is ambivalent rather than celebratory. The reason: The speedskater is not playing by the unspoken, but powerful, racial rules that constrain Black men in America.

Davis was labeled selfish for deciding not to complete in a “team pursuit” event that would have given a white teammate a chance to win five gold medals.

Davis was labeled rude for his terse interview on NBC after his medal win in the 1,000-meter race.

He made a decision to put his personal goals for success above those of another athlete.

He chose not to grin for the cameras and announce he was heading to Disney World.

These hardly seem like headline-provoking choices. But when these choices are made by a Black man, the first Black man of U.S. winter Olympic glory, they provoke America’s racial angst.

Black men in America face very strict constraints on their public behavior. Powerful images of Black men as aggressive, sexual predators emerged at the same time that Black men first assumed the role of citizen following Reconstruction. These myths were used to justify a system that terrorized African American communities and limited Black men’s public expressions.

Under lynch-mob rules, Black men could be murdered for the slightest infraction of the social code. They learned to play by the racial rules by appearing meek, deferential and grateful in public.

Social scientific studies continue to show that rambunctious Black boys are perceived as threats in our nation’s classrooms, while unruly white male behavior is excused. Unabated racial profiling in our nation’s cities means that Black men live under the constant threat of criminalization. When Shani Davis failed to act sufficiently gleeful after his win, he was asked: Are you angry? Our nation continues to read Black male autonomy as frightening, angry and aggressive.

What does all of this have to do with Shani Davis? It helps explain the angst about his actions. White athletes regularly behave in similar ways: Bode Miller anyone? But the subtext here is racial. How dare you keep a white skater from reaching his goals, just so that you can pursue your own? How dare you not smile broadly for the cameras, in order to reassure the nation that you are a safe Black man?

Shani Davis is not a race hero. He does not belong, politically speaking, in the same league as conscientious athletic dissenters like Tommie Smith and John Carlos of the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. Shani Davis is just a world-class athlete, fiercely competitive and not media friendly. And that is OK. Black men have the right to claim their victories and their humanity unconstrained by the nation’s racial rules.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago. This piece originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune and is reprinted by permission of the author.