People Before Profit blog

Veteran's voice: a soldier's death

Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:30:00 +0000

This article was originally published on April 20, 2012.

Last month, a soldier in my old unit who deployed with us to Afghanistan committed suicide. He was only 25 years old. What caused this young man with so much promise to feel that there is no way out?

I personally continue to battle my demons from the war, along with the veterans of wars past. Was he fighting demons like the rest of us? Or did he come home and find the problems he had before he left for war were still waiting for him. Was he having family relationship problems? Did his girlfriend leave him, or did he have nightmares of the war? Did he lose his job, or couldn't find one, was he one of the thousands of homeless veterans that the average American turns a blind eye to? Did he try to get help and no one listened?

PTSD stands for post traumatic stress syndrome. It has affected thousand of combat and noncombat veterans alike. However, many veterans are afraid to get help, and go undiagnosed and untreated because of the stigma that is attached to the syndrome. PTSD will not go away on its own.

Everyone needs to recognize PTSD and suicidal symptoms, and tendencies. Here is a summary, drawn from PTSD Support Services:

Depression

They feel depressed; "How can I tell my wife, she'd never understand?" they ask. "How can anyone who hasn't been there understand?"

Accompanying the depression is a very well developed sense of helplessness about one's condition. In Vietnam, and later in Iraq and Afghanistan, combat held no final resolution for anyone. Regardless of how one might respond, the overall outcome seemed to be just an endless production of casualties with no perceivable goals attained. Regardless of how well one worked, sweated, bled and even died, the outcome was the same. Our GIs gained no ground; they were constantly rocketed or mortared. They found little understanding from their "friends and neighbors" back home, the people in whose name so many went into military service. They returned to the United States, trying to put together some positive resolution of this episode in their lives, but at home they were still hopeless. Why even bother anymore?

Many veterans report becoming extremely isolated when they are especially depressed. Substance abuse is often exaggerated during depressive periods. Self medication as an easily learned coping response; alcohol appears to be the drug of choice.

When someone has a major "attack" of depression they start to think about the value of their lives. How much have they improved the standard of living, upheld family values, felt disappointment in wasting their lives and in many cases where the PTSD has been chronic, felt they have wasted their lives by not reaching a "higher standard of Living" or accomplishment. This is a path to possible suicide. This is where counseling, group therapy, and medications needs to be used! (Understand that when this depression "hits" we are in pain, ended a relationship, lost another job, and we can't see going on with the same routine. The idea of suicide becomes a tool for an easy out of all the combined pain!)

Isolation

Combat veterans have few friends. Many veterans who witnessed traumatic experiences complain of feeling like old men in young men's bodies. They feel isolated and distant from their peers. They feel that most of their non-veteran peers would rather not hear what the combat experience was like; therefore, they feel rejected. Much of what many of these veterans have done during the war would seem like horrible crimes to their civilian peers. But, in the reality faced by combatants, such actions were frequently the only means of survival.

Rage

The veterans' rage is frightening to them and to others around them. For no apparent reason, many will strike out at whoever is near. Frequently, this includes their wives and children. Some of these veterans can be quite violent. This behavior generally frightens the veterans, apparently leading many to question their sanity; they are horrified at their behavior. However, regardless of their afterthoughts, the rage reactions occur with frightening frequency.

Avoidance of feelings: alienation

The spouses of many veterans I have interviewed complain that the men are cold, uncaring individuals. Indeed, the veterans themselves will recount episodes in which they did not feel anything when they witnessed a death of a buddy in combat or the more recent death of a close relative. They are often somewhat troubled by these responses to tragedy; but, on the whole, they would rather deal with tragedy in their own detached way. What becomes especially problematic for these veterans, however, is an inability to experience the joys of life. They often describe themselves as being emotionally dead.

Survival guilt

When others have died and some have not, the survivors often ask, "How is it that I survived when others more worthy than I did not?" Survival guilt is not based on anything hypothetical. Rather, it is based on the harshest of realities, the actual death of comrades and the struggle of the survivor to live. Often the survivor has had to compromise himself or the life of someone else in order to live. The guilt that such an act invokes or guilt over simply surviving may eventually end in self-destructive behavior by the survivor.

Anxiety reactions

Many veterans describe themselves as very vigilant human beings; their autonomic senses are tuned to anything out of the ordinary. A loud discharge will cause many of them to start. A few will actually take such evasive action as falling to their knees or to the ground. Many veterans become very uncomfortable when people walk closely behind them. One veteran described his discomfort when people drive directly behind him. He would pull off the road, letting others pass, when they got within a few car lengths of him.

Intrusive thoughts

Traumatic memories of the battlefield and other less emotion-laden combat experiences often play a role in the daytime life of combat veterans. Frequently, these veterans report replaying especially problematic combat experiences over and over again. Many search for possible alternative outcomes to what actually happened. Many castigate themselves for what they might have done to change the situation, suffering subsequent guilt feelings today because they were unable to do so in combat. The vast majority report that these thoughts are very uncomfortable, yet they are unable to put them to rest.

Such experiences among veterans are rare, but not as uncommon as many may believe. Many veterans report flashback episodes that last only a few seconds. For many, the sound of a helicopter flying overhead is a cue to forget reality for a few seconds and remember Vietnam or Iraq, re-experiencing feelings they had there. It is especially troublesome for those veterans who are still" numb" and specifically attempting to avoid these feelings. For others, it is just a constant reminder of their time in the war, something they will never forget.

In closing, no one knows what drove this young man to this final act. I wish I had been there to listen to him, and tell him I understand.

RIP young soldier, the war is over for you now.

Read more on the symptoms of suicide and combat PTSD here.

Gregory McLaughlin is an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran.

Photo: At the Veteran's Day Parade, Nov. 11, 2011, in Portland, Ore. Jamie Francis/The Oregonian/AP

Why Workers Memorial Day concerns us all

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:33:00 +0000

Many of us haven't given much thought to the fact that April 28, this weekend, is Workers Memorial Day.

Why should people busy grocery shopping, taking care of kids or just enjoying the spring stop to bother with yet another day of remembrance this weekend? After all, many of us might say, there are lots of other important things happening.

Here are just a few reasons why we should be concerned about Workers Memorial Day:

*A baggage handler was ejected from a faulty baggage cart when it tipped over and he was killed. After resisting for two years, Delta Airlines has just agreed to pay an $8,500 fine for causing the death of one of its employees two years ago. His life, someone has just decided, was apparently worth only $8,500.

*A man worked as a sandblaster all through his 20s. By his early 30s he started getting short of breath. At the age of 34, he opened the door to his house and fell to the floor crying as his wife and 13-year-old son watched. "I can't do it anymore," he told them. The diagnosis was silicosis. The microscopic sand particles that had filled the air sacs in his lungs caused him to die by suffocation. This sad story was just recounted to a panel of U.S. senators by the man's son.

(The first pamphlets and videos warning about silicosis came out in the 1930's when Frances Perkins was Secretary of Labor. In 2012 the disease is still killing people on the job.)

*DIRERCTV doesn't always bother providing proper harnesses or safety gear so a young father of two who installs satellites for the company fell more than eight feet off a ladder during an installation.

*A woman at a recycling plant is pricked by a poisoned needle. She dies from the poisoning and infection that result.

A report by independent federal auditors, released April 19, shows obstructions thrown up against new federal job safety standards are worse than those in other areas of federal regulation.

Although deaths on the job have declined dramatically since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted 42 years ago, its fines are too small to matter, its enforcement can be delayed by appeals, and businesses often get too much time to obey. And no one is ever convicted or jailed for a felony when a worker dies. Business opposition and Republican control of the Labor Dept. before President Barack Obama was elected have made things worse.

Workers Memorial Day is a day that we should get out there and express our anger and our outrage, compassion and condolences, over the lives of our brothers and sisters still being cut short by greed-motivated profiteers.

Workers Memorial Day is a day to educate ourselves and our co-workers about our rights to safety on the job.

Yes, Workers Memorial Day is a time to remember the dead, but even more important, however, it is a time to resolve that we will fight for the living. Click here for the location of the Workers Memorial Day event closest to you.

Photo: Two OSHA officials and an NYPD officer stand by a construction site where two workers died on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Richard Drew/AP

The great conspiracy

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:45:00 +0000

While I am not a great believer in grand conspiracy theories, I have a serious conspiracy theory about what is going on behind the façade of U.S. politics.

It is a truism of politics that the reasons politicians, especially conservative politicians, give in public for the policies they advocate are not the same as their real reasons. Often they are just looking for a reasonable sounding excuse to sell constituents on anti-people policies.

Republican operatives, at least some of them, are not stupid. They can read the polls and the demographic projections as well as anyone else. They know that as more liberal, more open-minded youth grow into adulthood, their reactionary policies will get less and less popular, that they will have a harder and harder time selling their brand of hucksterism.

What can they do to hold back the tide of demographic shifts on issues like gay marriage, gender and racial equality, and climate change? How can they prevent the natural course of events from reducing them to an ever smaller role in government? How can they prevent the Occupy movement from permanently altering the national political conversation?

While all the efforts that Republicans make nationally and in the states have a veneer of right-wing justification, it is not pure coincidence that they all trend in the same direction.

Often coverage of politics in the media focuses on one issue at a time, or on "horse-race" coverage of electoral contests. It is only when we step back that we can see the connections between issues.

Here is my theory: The efforts of Republicans in the many states where they control the legislatures and governorships are part of a conscious, concerted effort to prevent the future from happening.

How can they hold back the tide? They are attacking all the institutional sources of organized opposition to their policies. These are not separate efforts on separate issues, they are part of a grand conspiracy.

They are attacking union rights, and the power of unions to oppose them. They attacked and destroyed ACORN, which was responsible for the registration of millions of low-income voters. They are attacking Planned Parenthood, trying their best to defund its existence, not just its abortion funding. They are passing bills to restrict voting rights and access to voting, from trying to eliminate same-day registration in Maine, to various voter ID laws. They are attacking the environmental movement, trying to convince as many people as possible that climate change is a phony issue. They have successfully attacked limitations on corporate and ultra-rich funding of elections.

All these efforts have one thing in common: they make it more difficult for opposition to reactionary policies to build structural and institutional strength.

If they can endlessly tap the money from corporations and the ultra-rich, if they can restrict the access to voting for youth and racial minorities, if they can put unions and women's organizations on the defensive, if they can make voter registration difficult (in Florida, the League of Women Voters has suspended voter registration due to new Republican-sponsored laws), if they can make it more difficult for community groups to survive, the Republicans can actually turn the clock back for at least a few years.

For the conservative base, they offer reasons aimed at whipping up conservative frenzy, but those reasons are not the only, or even main, actual reason they are pushing these policies so aggressively. The Rovian schemers want to at least delay the changes in the electorate which have been coming for years, and which overwhelmed their strategy in 2008. "Republican strategists" got a glimpse of their future, and they decided to hold it back as long as possible

Ultimately, it is not mainly about the issues, it is about power-political and economic power.

If unions grow, and successfully fight back attacks on union rights, then unions will be a bastion of money and foot soldiers for progressive campaigns. If women's organizations can keep from always being on the defensive, they can make the gender gap in favor of Democrats grow even more than it already has. If civil rights organizations (and good government groups) can continue to register racial minorities until their voting strength matches their percentage of the population, then it will be an uphill battle for Republicans to swing any swing states their way. If youth can be encouraged to vote rather than being discouraged by efforts to disenfranchise them, then shifts in the sentiments of registered voters will happen much more swiftly. If the environmental movement can clear the fog being spread by oil and gas companies to present the truth about global warming and other environmental challenges, then more and more voters will vote for politician and policies which will help preserve the health of humanity on our planet. And if all these organizations, movements, and issues are understood to have a common purpose, then massive coalitions can be built which will overwhelm the reactionaries.

And that is a specter that is haunting the Roves of the Republican political world. That is the meaning of the Kasichs, the Scotts, the McDonalds, the Palins, the Scott Walkers, and their minions in our state legislatures and in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

Photo: DonkeyHotey // CC 2.0

“Cabin in the Woods” is full of surprises

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:30:00 +0000

The Cabin in the Woods takes the overdone slasher flick formula, tears it down, and builds it back up into something that is at once both exciting and confusing. It's an enigma wrapped in an enigma, and ultimately, that makes it an exemplar for the modern horror film.

Co-written by Joss Whedon (who is soon to have the upcoming Avengers film under his belt), this movie starts out as something that seems, admittedly, like a boring rehash of your typical adolescent scare gimmicks: A bunch of teenagers plan a weekend getaway at a remote cabin. For each teen, all the formulaic checkboxes are filled: you've got the jock, the "bad girl," the "good girl"' the stoner, and the genuinely decent guy.

You think you know where this road leads, but we suddenly take a sharp left turn: Someone is watching these teenagers. No, it's not a big reality TV sort of thing, which is what the viewer might initially think.

Essentially, two interwoven plots take place simultaneously, and as this juxtaposition occurs, all the horror clichés are delightfully demolished and analyzed in a very tongue-in-cheek fashion.

When the zombies enter the picture, we begin to realize just how much black comedy and satire is going on here. But it doesn't begin and end with the walking dead. Other monsters come into the picture, and in a most creative and unlikely way.

References to iconic horror films like Hellraiser, Evil Dead, and Friday the 13th run rampant in this movie, and you can tell the actors and director are enjoying the ride, having just as much fun as the audience.

But somewhere along the lines, in this little film that is neither ambitious nor overtly serious, there is some kind of message present; something that makes the viewer think.

Concepts like exploitation, voyeurism, and apathy are examined. In fact, the final scene of the film comes across as very subtle commentary on the desensitization and carelessness of some modern American youth and young adults - essentially poking fun at a portion of its own audience.

But there's an important touch, even to that aspect: It forces one to rethink just what, artistically, a horror movie is, and plays with that thin line between entertainment and boredom. It explores a kind of cinematic wall: a figurative divider of sorts between form and content - and then promptly tears it down, merging the two elements to create a flick that actually gives something back to the audience.

That being said, "Cabin..." has its Achilles' heel, which is in the acting. Aside from the funny one-liners of Fran Kranz (who portrays the stoner), the rest of the cast is serviceable at best. Chris Hemsworth (the jock), while a great actor, is simply underused here.

You'd think a horror movie that wants to make some kind of statement (as it does so well) would also focus on putting some more emotional oomph into the roles of some of these teens, but it falls, at least partially, flat in that regard.

But the great thing is that you don't have to focus too much on that - there are so many other things going on, that the story doesn't really stop to breathe...and neither will the audience.

"The Cabin in the Woods" is a great film because it's going to change the face, at least in the short-term, of its genre. It's fun, it's surprisingly deep, and it never takes itself too seriously.

The movie is far from the masterpiece of the year, but it's one of the best horror trips we've seen in a long time.

"The Cabin in the Woods"
Directed by Drew Goddard
Starring Chris Hemsworth, Kristen Connolly
Rated R, 95 mins.

Photo: A scene from "The Cabin in the Woods." Diyah Pera/AP and Lionsgate Films

Integrating American Bandstand

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:56:00 +0000

The year was 1961. I had graduated West Philadelphia High School in January 1959. All through high school my close friend and I had been following the civil rights developments going back to Little Rock. We couldn't believe the violence, the hatred and ignorance coming from the racist mobs desperately trying to hold on to the evil system of Jim Crow.

We wanted to get involved but we didn't know how to connect to the civil rights movement in our community.

After graduation I had managed to find a job as a messenger delivering offset plates for a small unionized printing shop in center city. It was strictly a muscle and shoe leather kind of job that paid minimum wage. But with the high unemployment rate among Black youth, I was glad I had the job.

That year I found a very reasonable one-bedroom apartment in a well-kept building in a neighborhood called Powelton Village. Powelton Village was a liberal, left-wing enclave just adjacent to the University of Pennsylvania campus in West Philly, surrounded on three sides by a Black working-class community which was part of what was know as "The Bottom".

In Powelton Village I met a lot of civil rights and peace activists and I was ready to get involved.

I was part of the effort to form a community-based civil rights group. We were predominantly-youth and called ourselves the West Philadelphia Action Committee; West Pac for short.

We wanted to do our part to help the fight against racism not only in the South but in our neighborhood as well. This was a youth group that was committed to actively exposing and ridding our community of discrimination and segregation.

When a barbershop in the U of P area would not cut the hair of an African student we protested. When any one was denied an apartment or wouldn't let a black youth use their facilities we were on the case.

The TV studios of WFIL were located in a predominantly Black neighborhood in West Philadelphia. This was where Dick Clark's American Bandstand originated.

Bandstand was a national TV show but at the time no Black teenagers appeared on the show. Black and Latino rock and roll artists performed and a lot of the dances they did originated in the Black community, but no Black teen dancers ever appeared on the show.

Black youth in Philly watched the show for the music and artists but they greatly resented the fact that our dances where being copied (dances like the Stroll, the Cha Cha Cha, the twist and the classic Philly Bop) and we couldn't be there to show how we danced. We resented that they would give "our" dances different names. The Cha Cha Cha,(Cuban) for example, was called the Chalypso and white artists were covering Black songs to give them a "white" kind of beat.

I mean Pat Boone doing Little Richard's Tutti Frutti - Come On! And, I should add that we also resented that they were getting rich off our culture.

But the big issue was why can't black, brown and white socialize together, dance together, make friendships and yes if it happens fall in love with one another like normal people do.

WPAC met and decided that we could send the message all across the country that youth could challenge the taboo against racially mixed dancing on TV by integrating American Bandstand.

We sat down and made a plan. First we had to find the right three couples who could do it. They had to be teenagers (which counted me out). They had to be visibly black. There was one light complexioned African American youth who wanted desperately to go on the show but on black and white TV we thought he would not appear to be black. The couples would have to be nicely dressed and of course and it was important that they knew how to dance. We discussed what we would do when we were denied and if we got in how to make sure they got on camera.

We also were afraid they would not let us in because the show was notorious for giving preference to "regulars." Putting it all together, we thought we would likely not get in. But we sure were going to try.

The day of reckoning arrived. Our three couples got on the line, which formed on the sidewalk outside of the studio. They were early enough so that the Bandstand people couldn't say they were out of room.

There was a person in control of the line and he was letting people in approvingly. When he got to the first of our three couples he stopped them and said, "Wait here I will be right back."

Our couples where expecting to be told to get off the line at that point. Instead, out of the door comes none other than Dick Clark. He smiled and stuck out his hand and said, "Welcome." Our couples were surprised and also a bit relieved I'm sure. They went in and yes they were seen on national TV. There were no incidents of hostility. There was no Little Rock, Arkansas, type reaction. I think our youth were nervous but they had a good time.

I don't remember whether we organized another test or not. Unfortunately, WPAC was eventually red-baited out of existence. But some of us became lifelong activists.

But all America knows that American Bandstand and the late Don Cornelius' Soul Train ultimately became quite integrated. They both were based on the West Coast and black, brown, white and Asian/Pacific youth were socializing and dancing together, as a regular occurrence over many decades.

Years later you could see that the styles of popular dancing were blending across racial lines.

Perhaps, to the consternation of the tea party types who consistently promote racial division to elect Republicans, history shows that people of different races and nationalities can get along socially and politically especially the younger generation.

The struggle to eliminate racism continues and while we have a great deal of distance to go we must not let them push us back to the horrors of Little Rock, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Selma. I think Dick Clark if he was alive today and most Americans would agree, we must go forward!

Photo: Clark in 1963. Wikipedia.

The 2012 elections and socialism

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:58:00 +0000

No objective person can fail to see that the presidential election is currently the main form of the class struggle in our country. The working class and its allies on the one hand and the right-wing extremist section of corporate power on the other are committing all the resources at their disposal to this fight.

The AFL-CIO has promised to mobilize 400,000 volunteers and to provide this huge army with all the funds, literature and organization it can muster. Labor's allies among minorities, women, youth and many others will add tens of thousands more to build this mass movement to re-elect President Barack Obama, defend democracy and prevent an all-out legislative assault on the living standards and basic rights of the American people.

On the other hand, every right-wing extremist group is trying to activate its members and use unprecedented corporate funds to spread fear, lies and hatred for the president in hopes of dividing and intimidating the working class, suppressing its vote and electing the GOP candidate, presumably Mitt Romney.

The reelection of Obama together with a supportive Congress alone will not guarantee solutions to the serious problems facing our country, but it will greatly improve the ability of the American people to fight to end the economic crisis, create jobs, assure the rights of labor, minorities, women, immigrants and the LGBT community and address severe challenges in areas of health, education, retirement, the environment and government services.

On the other hand, if Romney wins and Republicans control Congress, the American people will be forced to fight for basic survival and the most elementary social, economic and political rights.

This became clear from the results of the 2010 elections when victorious right-wing extremists forced the working class and people in many states into protracted battles to preserve long-established rights of labor, minorities, immigrants and women, as well as access to public education, social services, voting and, in the case of Michigan, even the right to self-government.

Despite the stark differences, despite all that is at stake and despite the obvious mobilization of personnel and resources on both sides, some on the left, in the Occupy movement and among progressive intellectuals continue with a variety of pretexts, usually some criticism of Obama, to denigrate and disparage the electoral battle, to discourage active participation in it and spread the outrageous claim that the outcome is irrelevant.

It's obvious who benefits from this. It plays directly into the hands of the Republicans and the one-percenters who seek by any means necessary to suppress and demobilize the votes of the working class and its allies. In fact, it amounts to an abandonment of the fight and a complete capitulation to the most reactionary, anti-democratic forces in our country.

The leftists who hold these views seek to justify themselves with the claim that elections in our country are "rigged" or, at least, favor corporate forces. They also advance the strange argument that elections, involving hundreds of thousands in rallies, intense persuasion and door-to-door canvassing and eventually engaging tens of millions, are not mass movements.

The fact is that in every arena of the class struggle under capitalism workers fight an uphill battle. Corporate power is not called "the ruling class" for nothing. Even in the best of circumstances, when unionized workers simply seek a contract, they operate in a playing field where employers have the power to lock them out, hire scabs and threaten to shut the plant - a threat that they sometimes carry out.

The outcome is always some kind of compromise far short of ending capitalism. Does this mean progressive forces should turn their backs on the fight and downplay its importance?

The Communist Manifesto emphatically rejects this idea. It states that the class struggle is an objective reality, not something that socialists invent, create or instigate. It may not and generally does not take the form that left forces might prefer and it goes on whether or not they choose to participate. But the Manifesto states that, regardless of the form the class struggle takes, the role of socialists is to "fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class" and "in the movement of the present" also to "take care of the future of that movement."

In other words, you may choose to abstain from the 2012 elections, but, if you do, you will not advance the fight for socialism, you will do nothing to affect the balance of forces or bring about "the final conflict."

To move the ball towards the goal you must be on the field. Everyone can take part and a myriad of skills are needed. At each stage your impact will depend on how hard and how well you play. But one thing is certain - you will have no influence if you sit out the game.

The less you know the better about "The Cabin in the Woods"

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:07:00 +0000

Sometimes less is more and trust me, the less you know about this horror film before seeing it the better you will enjoy it.

All I can say is that it centers on five college friends who decide to spend the weekend at a remote cabin in the woods where bad things happen to them.

But in the hands of Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the upcoming The Avengers Assemble) and Drew Goddard (Cloverfield), who co-wrote the screenplay, this tired-out formulaic slasher movie plot is turned completely on its head.

Each of the protagonists represents the stereotypes you find in these films so there is the jock, the slutty hot blonde, the virgin, the book nerd and the pothead.

But in a subtle twist it is the latter's stoner paranoia that makes him sniff out the truth about their deadly predicament showing that taking drugs can be good for your health.

Directed by Goddard this will satisfy all your horror needs while keeping you guessing.

It is deliciously ingenious and a lot of fun and breaths much needed new life into a predictable and hackneyed genre.

So if you want to be surprised, go see it!

The Cabin in the Woods

Directed by Drew Goddard, written by Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon

Running time 95 minutes.

Rated R for strong bloody horror violence and gore, language, drug use and some sexuality/nudity.

Review originally appeared in Morning Star

Fighting racism: a must for victory in November

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:20:00 +0000

The outcome of the November presidential and Congressional elections is expected to be very close. Victory or defeat may hinge on a few million votes in some key battleground states.

The political terrain is treacherous owing to the deep economic crisis affecting millions, giving rise to great frustration, anger, disillusionment and anxiety. Republicans are shamelessly exploiting this issue.

The Republican right wing has closed ranks behind Mitt Romney, papering over fissures between conservative and extremist tea party elements. Corporate money is flooding into right-wing Super PACS waging a racist, scorched earth policy against President Barack Obama, painting him as elite, uncaring, incompetent and un-American,

The right wing is stoking paranoid fears that the nation's first African American president is seeking to destroy the U.S. Constitution while they relentlessly attack basic democratic rights and even the concept of government -- of, for and by the people.

Republican strategists know on the basis of the issues they are way out of step with the American people: Issues like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid privatization, taxing the 1%, funding for education, health care and the social safety net, reproductive and immigrant rights, marriage equality, the list goes on.

Besides blaming Obama for the economic crisis, they are counting on two things for victory: voter suppression and racism.

Republican controlled legislatures in a host of states have passed bills that could suppress election turnout by as many as 5 million voters, including in battleground states. Voter suppression and disenfranchisement is largely based on racism and bigotry, which the Republicans are using shamelessly to sow division by winning over a section of white workers, a strategy they have employed for the past 40-plus years.

Republicans are caught in a trap of their own making. On the one hand, they concede Obama will win the overwhelming support of African American, Latino and other communities of color and youth. To court extremists, Romney conducted a racist anti-immigrant campaign. But Republicans, who have long written off the African American vote, know they must win a larger portion of Latino voters in battleground states. So Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is offering a phony path to citizenship.

To court the extremists, Republicans have conducted a "war on women," which has resulted in a huge "gender gap." Recognizing they need the support of women, they are now feverishly trying to close the gap.

Which takes us back to their strategy: doubling down on the use of racism, especially anti-African American racism and bigotry. They are stepping up racist attacks on the president, while welcoming an overall increase in a racist hate atmosphere, racist acts of violence and divisiveness.

Thus no one from Romney on down has condemned the vile racist, inflammatory remarks of Ted Nugent at the NRA convention, the use of the racist slur "tar baby" remarks directed at Pres. Obama by Rep. Michelle Bachmann and the appearance of anti-Obama racist bumper stickers.

Republicans are counting on a section of white workers to fall victim to this racist demagogy and hate, to vote against their class self interests and break with their class brothers and sisters.

Republican Super PAC commercials and racist hate talk radio are aimed at disorienting millions of white workers.

Some say these workers are hopelessly lost and should be written off. But it's hard to see how victory is possible without making a determined fight for this section of voters. And thankfully the labor unions and the Obama campaign see this as well.

What the labor movement is saying is "we refuse to allow our brothers and sisters to be exploited this way. We will not be divided." This is the goal of putting 400,000 trade unionists on the ground in shops and neighborhoods across the country.

It's the duty of every worker who opposes racism, as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka showed in 2008, to reach and struggle with anyone who may be influenced by racist (and anti-immigrant, anti-women, homophobic) ideas.

Here again the experience of the labor movement is crucial. During the effort to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the repeal of SB5 in Ohio, the labor movement led the building of broad coalitions, never wrote off anyone, reached out to every part of those states, every city, suburb and rural community, even working-class Republicans.

The danger the Republican strategy poses for democracy and the future of the country can't be overestimated. If successful, the extreme right wing and its corporate backers will shape the public debate, set the legislative agenda and pass reactionary anti-people, anti-democratic legislation affecting the country for years to come.

A loss will mean the working class and its allies will be in a weaker position to oppose the reactionary policies that are sure to follow.

In such a situation, the ability of racist, anti-labor, anti-women, anti-LGBT and anti-immigrant forces will be strengthened.

On the other hand, a united multi-racial working class and labor movement with its many allies can result in a stronger labor led people's movement with a greater fighting capacity after the elections to elevate the fight for a people's agenda. Maximum unity of the multiracial working class is an imperative for victory.

But victory won't happen without a monumental fight at the grassroots, block by block, house by house, speaking with and registering every possible voter about what's at stake and turning them out on Election Day.

This is a time for all hands on deck, for every person who cares about the future of the country to rise to the challenge.

Photo: On assignment for People's World, photographer Marguerite Herbst captures some wonderful moments during 2010 Laborfest at the Summerfest grounds in Milwaukee, WI. Keynote speaker: Barack Obama. http://www.flickr.com/photos/peoplesworld/5556099306/

Study shows tea party not what it pretends to be

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:39:00 +0000

According to "Reading the Tea Leaves: Understanding Tea Party Caucus Membership in the U.S. House of Representatives," authored by University of Maryland researchers Bryan T. Gervais and Irwin L. Morris, the tea party may not be what it pretends to be.

Gervais and Morris argue that the caucus is important in understanding the tea party movement more broadly, writing, "Currently, because the caucus is the only true institutional representation of the tea party in the federal government, it is fundamental to understand what proclivities are behind its membership."

The House members who join the caucus are right-wing Republicans who represent well-off districts. However, the authors argue, joining such a caucus carries a political risk, and "[f]or a member to join the caucus, certain conditions must exist in the member's district, or the move would not be beneficial. Our goal has been to elucidate those conditions."

According one popular narrative, the rise of the tea party was fueled by the rage of white workers hurt by the nation's failing economy, who, in turn, took out their anger on Washington and government in general.

Supposedly at the behest of these fuming white grassroots voters, the tea party became a national player, pushing Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., along with 51 of her Republican Congressional allies, to form the Tea Party Caucus in Congress in 2010.

"Our analysis," the researchers write, "strongly suggests that voters' 'anger,' which is widely presumed to drive the movement, is not so much a reaction to desperate economic circumstances but a reaction to government spending in response to the economic downturn."

While the tea party acts as a Republican caucus, the data shows that the higher the rate of unemployment in any district, the less likely its representative is to join. Districts with lower unemployment rates even in times of economic hardship are likely to be some of the wealthiest in the country. Therefore, they do not benefit as much from continued and increased government spending, though they may pay for some of it.

What, then, is the Tea Party Caucus?

According to the authors, it is "a collection of Republican members who tend to be more fiscally conservative than the average Republican and tend to be from prosperous congressional districts."

The study appears in the current issue of P.S.: Political Science and Politics, published by the American Political Science Association.

Photo: At a protest against cuts in LIHEAP, the energy assistance program for low income households, a federal social services program. Protestors suggested cutting the military budget and reversing tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the name of "shared sacrifice." PW

War on women extends to workplaces

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:31:00 +0000

When Rush Limbaugh enraged women across the country with his hate-filled rants on birth control, calling one college student a "slut," the "war on women" took on mass proportions. Advertisers began to drop from Limbaugh's show en masse. Musicians, like Tom Morello, insisted Limbaugh cease using their music. Celebrities and politicians (Democrats) took to the airwaves to condemn the war on women. MoveOn.org initiated a campaign to stop the war, outlining the "Top 10 shocking attacks from the GOP's war on women, " including changing the definition of rape, cuts to public nutritional and educational programs for women and children, and of course the Republican's favorite target: abortion.

This war on women has significantly hurt them in the polls. Presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is down by double digits to President Barack Obama among women voters.

Attempting to turn that around, Republicans are focusing on women and the economy, an issue seen as Obama's main vulnerability among voters. Romney claimed that more than 90% of the jobs lost since the president was elected were jobs held by women - a claim that was mostly false, according to PolitiFact.com.

Yet, there are disturbing trends regarding war on women and the workplace.

The currently ultra-conservative Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in March that has a negative impact on the rights of women, more specifically "pregnant workers." In the Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland case, the five said state workers do not have a right to enforce a "self-care" provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (giving workers time off to care for their own serious health conditions, including pregnancy and childbirth) by suing their government employers.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the decision "effectively stripped many public employees - the majority of whom are women - of the right to job protection when they need to take time off while pregnant."

For the last two years, since the Republican victories in 2010, public workers, especially teachers, have been under fierce attack legislatively and vilified in the media.

Here in Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel seems bent on vilifying teachers and pushing through a political agenda of an unfunded longer school day, about which parents have expressed deep concern. However, the fiercest attacks on teachers and other public workers - and therefore women - have come from Republican governors, most notably in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.

The anti-woman content on these attacks on public sector workers and their unions have not been lost on women. Oxford University graduate student Alyssa Battistoni writes in her paper, "The Dirty Secret of Public Sector Union Busting," that "amid all the rightful outrage over Governor Scott Walker's proposal to do away with collective bargaining rights for public sector unions in Wisconsin one important point has been neglected: The demise of public sector unions would be most detrimental to women and African Americans who make up a disproportionate share of the public sector workforce."

Private sector industries with a predominant female workforce, such as hotel and hospitality, face special problems that many see as part of the war on women. The ongoing battles at the Hyatt, for example, have been characterized in that way. Looking to downsize its workforce and slash wages to protect their profit margin, Hyatt started the campaign targeting housekeepers, a job held mostly by women. Management fired about 100 housekeepers in the Boston-area several years ago and hired replacements (who the fired staff had trained) at half the wages!

They fired two sisters in Santa Clara, California, both 30-year veterans, because the women objected to a demeaning company bulletin board display of their heads superimposed over bikini-clad female bodies.

In San Francisco the Grand Hyatt threatened to fire a woman who could not return to work three days after a delivery by Caesarian section.

In Chicago, Hyatt cook Sonia Ordonez was fired for a minor infraction, after she had spoken out on continuing mistreatment by management. Ordonez says she's not the first woman at Hyatt to be terminated or disciplined after speaking out.

"I need this job, but I've come too far to take abuse from anyone. That's why I have raised my voice," she said in an email.

Because of this pattern, the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups have decided to show solidarity with the union women at the Hyatt hotels with a "Clothesline Project." The clotheslines outside the hotels bear messages and stories of the struggles women face at work.

One bright spot is the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, signed into law by President Obama. The law was necessary because the Supreme Court, again, severely restricted a woman's right to sue for pay discrimination. Notably, when asked if he supported the pay equity law, Romney refused to answer.

Republicans and ultra-conservatives, women say, are leading the war on women. It extends to the workplace, and is multi-dimensional with political, economic and legal aspects.

Photo: John Bachtell/PW

The rich hurt you and me every day, new book reveals how

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:37:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (PAI) - There's a new book out that shows, in down-to-earth terms, how the rich - and rampant income inequality they foster - hurt you and me, every day.

99 To 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking The World And What We Can Do About It, by Chuck Collins and with a forward by Barbara Ehrenreich, is a book we've needed for a long time, and especially since the Occupy movement rose up last fall.

Collins clearly and compellingly spells out how unequal we've become - and why. He patiently and powerfully explains the price we pay, in each of our daily lives, for this inequality. And he gives all of us, people who've worried about inequality for years and people just starting to feel alarmed, the confidence that we can indeed narrow the gaps that so divide us.

A tough order. This demands an author who understands both stats that define our great economic divide and the spiritual emptiness this divide engenders within us.

Collins book helps readers gain a mastery over the practical politics of attacking inequality. He has actually organized grassroots campaigns that take aim at inequality's drivers, and has built coalitions for change among working families and affluents alike.

Over the past two decades and more, Collins has moved among - and rallied - all the key players and groups working to make America a more equal place. Think tanks and trade unions. Tax reformers and concerned business leaders. People of faith and even some people of wealth uneasy about their privilege.

Collins has launched economic justice advocacy groups and co-written a book about saving the federal estate tax with Bill Gates Sr., the father of America's richest man. He shared strategic insights with Occupy activists and listened and spoke at hundreds of community forums.

And Collins writes well, with welcome touches of humor. Early on in 99 To 1, he notes he surveyed hundreds of people for ideas on titling the book. He still can't help smiling when he remembers one of the ideas that came in, Eating The Rich: Recipes for Ending The Class War.

But Collins has no interest in "eating" - or bludgeoning - anybody. He's looking for allies, wherever he can find them, for taking on the "compounding inequalities" that are "sucking the life energy out of our communities and destroying our health, livelihoods, well-being, and happiness."

"We really have no choice," he explains in these pages, "but to throw our energies into stopping these forces."

This brief and accessible volume can help significantly in that effort. Read, enjoy, and learn from it. Most of all, share it.

99 To 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking The World And What We Can Do About It

By Chuck Collins

Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Paperback, 168 pages, $14.95 (also available in Kindle edition)

How to save America's postal service

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:06:00 +0000

(PAI) - Congress is confronting a major problem: What to do about the future of the U.S. Postal Service - and its 500,000 workers.

On one side are unionists, led by the Letter Carriers, the Postal Workers and the Mail Handlers, who say the reason USPS is running deep in the red is the federal government sitting on billions in previously overpaid pension contributions from USPS to defray future retirement costs. And the GOP Bush regime pushed through a 2006 postal "reform" law that forces USPS to send $5.5 billion every year to the Treasury to prepay future health care costs for future retirees for the next 75 years.

The deficit is not because of the Internet - though that's a problem threatening money-making first class mail - or the Great Recession, though that has cut mail volume, or because of labor costs, the unions say.

Return the overpaid pension funds and stop the prepayment requirement - there's already $44 billion of that set aside - and the service runs in the black.

On the other side is USPS management, congressional Republicans and, of course, the anti-worker forces of Big Business and the Radical Right. They use USPS management's claims that it will lose $15 billion this year - triple what it "lost" last year - to campaign for firing more than 100,000 workers, letting another 100,000 or so go by attrition, killing Saturday delivery and prompt-delivery guarantees and slowing down first-class mail by closing 250 sorting centers.

The House GOP, aided by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would go even farther. They'd appoint a financial dictator to run the USPS, who could close post offices and sorting centers, raise stamp prices, fire workers and trash union contracts.

Congress is caught in the middle, between the claims of USPS financial "losses," and the fact that cutting workers and service causes pain and sends service down the drain. Sen. Bernard Sanders, Ind-Vt., and 26 allies proposed a solution that avoids the drastic cuts by taking a positive approach: Don't cut the USPS, but expand its use and usefulness in the Internet Age.

We thought we'd print some of what he had to say during the debate. If you like his ideas - and we do - call your senator.

"The Postal Service needs a new business model," Sanders told his colleagues. "Right now, if one walks into a post office and says to a postal clerk: 'Hi. I would like to give you $2 to notarize this letter,' the postal clerk would say: 'It is against the law for me to do that. I can't take your $2.'

'Postal Clerk, can you make 10 copies of this letter?' 'Nope. It is against the law for me to do that.' 'Rural Postal Clerk, I would like a fishing license or a hunting license. Can you help me with that?' 'I cannot do that. It is against the law.'

'I want to mail this box of wine and beer.' 'I cannot do that. It is against the law.'"

"What we want to do is take away many of the restrictions imposed on the Postal Service by Congress and give them the flexibility to be more entrepreneurial to bring in more revenue," Sanders said. "We have some 32,000 post offices in America. Today letter carriers deliver mail to about 150 million doors. That is a huge infrastructure.

"If we have some pretty smart entrepreneurial types telling us what we can do in addition to what we are doing now-what the letter carriers can do, what the post offices could do, what the Postal Service can do in terms of new products and services, can we bring in more revenue? I think we can."

Sanders proposed creating an independent panel of entrepreneurs to recommend other services the USPS could provide, after removing the restrictions he listed. Then he got to the financial point the unions have made.

"No one debates first-class mail is down. A lot of people now use e-mail and the Internet rather than first-class mail. But what many people do not fully understand is the major financial crisis facing the Postal Service is the fact that they have an onerous burden of having to provide $5.5 billion every single year in future retiree health benefits -- $5.5 billion every year-imposed upon them in 2006.

"According to the inspector general of the Postal Service, the $44 billion in that account right now is all that it needs because when that accrues interest over a 20-year or so period, it will have enough money to pay out all the future retiree health benefits.

"Furthermore, there is no disagreement the Postal Service overpaid" some $13 billion into federal workers' retirement funds. It's owed that money, Sanders said.

"If the Senate is prepared to be bold, to do the right thing, we can save jobs. We do not need to lay off or to downsize the Postal Service by over 200,000 workers. We do not need to shut down over 3,000 rural post offices. We do not need to shut down half of the processing plants in America and slow down mail delivery service leading to an eventual death cycle for the Postal Service."

"This is not a Democratic issue; this is not a Republican issue," said Sanders, an independent. "Republicans and Democrats have rural post offices. All know how important they are. All want to save jobs in the middle of a recession. All want the Postal Service to be strong."

So do we. Sanders' bill is the way to go. Competing legislation that dismantles the USPS, fires workers, closes centers, slows the mail or trashes union contracts, these are not the way to go. Call your senator and say so. And since the White House has taken no position on the issue - other than to favor cutting out Saturday service - call them, too.

Photo: Postal workers and supporters demonstrate in front of the Oakland, Calif. Federal Building Sept. 27, 2011, during national day of action to save the U.S. Postal Service. Marilyn Bechtel/PW

Ben Bella, guts and inspiration of Algerian Revolution, mourned

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:58:00 +0000

Ahmed Ben Bella, a leader of Algeria's liberation struggle and the country's first president, died on April 11 at his home in Algiers. His age was reported as either 95 or 96.

He spent 23 years of his life in prisons and a decade in exile, yet never ceased in his condemnation of injustice, particularly of imperialism, most recently NATO's bombardment of Libya last year.

Ben Bella was one of the founders of the National Liberation Front (FNL), the movement that freed Algeria from over a century of French occupation. His tenure as president of an independent Algeria was short, as he was overthrown by the military only two years after assuming office.

While he is one of the giants of anti-colonial fighters in the post-Second World War period, he has a mixed reputation in his own country, which only one month ago celebrated its 50^th anniversary of independence.

Born to a peasant family near Algeria's border with Morocco, Ben Bella already joined an anti-colonial party at the age of 15. By his late teens, he enlisted in the Free French forces and fought with distinction in the Second World War, receiving several medals, including a decoration for bravery from General Charles de Gaulle himself.

At the same time, according to The Telegraph newspaper, the French military labeled him "intelligent and dangerous."

Like countless veterans across the colonial world who fought to free Europe from fascism, he returned home bitter at European hypocrisy and determined to fight for his own people's liberation. The massacre of thousands of Algerians by European colonists in Sétif in1945 was one of the major sparks for the development of a militant liberation movement.

In 1947, with Hocine Aït Ahmed, he established the paramilitary Organisation Spécial, and two years later they raided a post office in the city of Oran. Jailed by the French colonists, he escaped in 1952 by sawing through his cell bars using a file smuggled in a loaf of bread.

Based in Cairo, he co-founded the FLN in 1954, and spent the next two years traveling across independent North African nations acquiring weapons for the liberation fighters and coordinating their activities. On a trip to Tunis, the plane carrying him was hijacked by the French who captured and jailed Ben Bella and four other Algerian leaders.

During imprisonment, Ben Bella emerged as one of the key leaders of the Algerian liberation movement united within the FLN. Inspired by the Vietnamese victory against the French, the FLN waged war from bases within the giant North African colony as well as in neighboring countries like Morocco and Tunisia. The French tortured, raped, mutilated, and killed millions of Algerians and labeled the FLN fighters "terrorists" in their effort to retain Algeria, which they considered inherently part of France.

After almost a decade of war, and approximately one million Algerian causalities, protracted negotiations between de Gaulle's government and the FLN led to Algeria's independence in July 1962. Ben Bella was released from jail that March, and he was elected President of Algeria in September the following year.

Like many leaders of newly independent nations, Ben Bella was faced with a host of obstacles to stability and development: the continued dependence on and interference of the former colonial power; balancing competing ideological and regional groups within the country; and satisfying the expectations of a long-suffering people.

He pursued a socialist path such as massive construction of schools, redistribution of land to peasants, and the creation of a national oil and gas company.

As importantly, he established Algiers as a base for the global anti-colonial struggle, hosting liberation movements and providing training and arms to their fighters. Amongst the many anti-imperialist heroes who spent time in Algiers during Ben Bella's presidency were Che Guevara, Nelson Mandela and Yassir Arafat.

Nevertheless, lingering rivalry from the years of struggle against the French and accusations of autocratic and corrupt rule led to Ben Bella's ouster by his own defense minister, Houari Boumediene in June 1965. Held under house arrest until 1980, he then lived in exile in several European countries before returning to Algeria and being pardoned by Boumediene's successor in 1990.

Ben Bella then led a small political party he formed, but it did not fare well in elections. Nonetheless, he was recognized as an elder statesman in his final years, particularly in Africa and the Arab world. While he no longer advocated socialism, he remained committed to the anti-imperialist politics of his youth and he spoke eloquently about the plight of Palestinians and other oppressed peoples.

As Vijay Prashad, professor of International Studies at Trinity College and author of The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third Word, explained to People's World, "Ben Bella moved from Marxism to an Arab-Islamism, but what remained intact was his fierce radicalism and patriotism."

According to one Algerian academic, "The death of [Ben Bella] was unnoticed by ordinary people. . . Maybe nobody knows him, especially the new generations, because those who have been ruling the country did not want people to know who Ben Bella really was."

Another Algerian scholar declared: "No one can deny Ben Bella's key contribution to Algeria's independence and his exemplary anti-colonial struggle owed him worldwide fame. Algerians were deeply saddened by the news of Ben Bella's passing."

Indeed, Algeria declared eight days of mourning following his death. And tributes from governments, (including the United States) political parties, and organizations around the world were issued to Ben Bella, who was, in the words of Prashad, the "guts and inspiration" of the Algerian Revolution.

Photo: Ahmed Ben Bella Ahmed Ben Bella, the first president of independent Algeria, waves to crowds in Algiers in 1965. (AP)

Women deserve factual medical information, even about abortion care

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:50:00 +0000

Decisions about medical procedures and patient care should be left to clinicians and their patients - not to politicians. As a family physician, I understand this, and my goal is to provide each patient the individual time and attention they need to make the decision that is right for them.

Women deserve complete, accurate information about their health care. In my practice, I ensure that women receive the counseling and education that is relevant to their care, and document medical informed consent to show that the patient's decision is voluntary and informed.

Patients' informed consent laws were developed by public health officials to make sure that people understand the medical treatments they receive. Unfortunately, under the guise of caring about women's health, abortion opponents in my state of Arizona have pushed our governor and legislators to mandate onerous requirements before a woman can terminate a pregnancy. Their version of medical information is based on ideology, not medical facts.

A central premise of their efforts is a false assertion that abortion care is dangerous. In fact, abortion care is one of the safest and most commonly provided medical procedures in the United States. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization. The overall safety of abortion care is supported by a recent study by Dr. David Grimes and Dr. Elizabeth Raymond, released last month in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found that abortion care is 14 times safer than childbirth.

This careful and comprehensive analysis was based on the most recent U.S. national data and a review of research from 1998 to 2005. The data show that pregnancy-related complications and illness are much more common in women who choose childbirth, compared to those who choose abortion care. Every complication studied was more common among women having live births than among those choosing abortion care.

Despite what the medicine shows, groups opposed to abortion care and to contraception have distorted medical informed consent policy to misinform women about the potential risks of abortion care. State policies like those that our legislators have been debating present medical findings in a way that is either misleading or patently wrong.

The bottom line: State policies undermine women's health and decision-making if they do not give women a true portrayal of the medical information they need for the situation they are in.

Every woman deserves factual medical information whenever she is facing a decision about her pregnancy. We must make sure the information she gets provides the truth about her medical care. It is not right for our elected officials to take away my ability to provide the safe, high-quality evidence-based medicine that women need and deserve.

Dr. Gabrielle Goodrick, MD, is with Camelback Family Planning, Phoenix, Arizona

American Forum.

Spain’s King Juan Carlos: Let them eat elephant?

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:31:00 +0000

Spanish workers, retirees and students are facing severe cuts to health and education services, and high unemployment. King Juan Carlos of Spain decided to get away from it all. He took a safari to Botswana for an elephant hunt.

The Spanish public may not have found out about the king’s African jaunt, except he broke his hip. Juan Carlos spent the equivalent of $60,000 for his vacay - that’s two years’ pay for most Spanish workers.

Let them eat elephant, anyone?

Trying to tamp down the ire of the Spanish people at the royal’s conspicuous consumption, the king has apologized. That may not be enough.

And get this: King Juan Carlos is the honorary president of the World Wildlife Federation of Spain. That’s the organization that is supposed to be saving elephants, not shooting them.

Poor Juan Carlos. He can’t even claim a temporary bout of insanity made him do it. A 2006 photo of him standing next to a dead elephant is now circulating.

The Spanish government is slashing budgets by 30%, but according to news reports the palace budget got a mere shaving of 2%. Did the poor King of Spain use public money for his killing spree, or did the money come from a rich Arab – as is being claimed – who was trying to buy favors from the king? Doesn’t really matter. It’s all sick.

Royalty. Who needs them? That’s why, thank goodness, we had a revolution some 200-plus years ago.

But America has a way of innovating and reinventing. Can we really say that America doesn’t have a royalty of a new type? President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said we did. He called them “economic royalists.”

As Americans, we pride ourselves in not having social classes – or castes – with permanent and immovable boundaries that ensure only the “right” people mingle and marry each other.

That’s true - to an extent. Usually the boundaries kick in on race, national origin, wealth – and in many areas of life – gender. America’s economic royals even divide themselves between “old” money (think Vanderbilt, DuPont, Rockefeller) and “new” money (think Buffet, Trump, Gates).

Economic royals we do have. We have tons of politicians, think tanks and media conglomerates that work overtime to keep the 1% royalty going. The policies of the last Republican administrations, like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Reagan and Papa Bush’s trickle down economics, for example, are directly related to the extreme wealth gap that we have in this country. It is a gap that is growing, as more and more 99% Americans sink into poverty.

Good tax policies are one way to moderate the effects of capitalism’s fatal flaw (you can’t have great wealth without great poverty and exploitation).

The government should collect more taxes from millionaires and billionaires than from the poor, working class or middle class people, right? Then invest those tax dollars into services that the country benefits from – education, social safety net, health care, transportation, clean air and water. Right? That’s how a democracy works.

Not according to the royals. No. They have to keep their money from the big, bad government, elected by the people, because they create jobs with it and raise people’s living standards.

Mitt Romney or Donald Trump don’t hire more people because they get a tax break on their income. No! They fire people. Not even Warren Buffet – who says billionaires should have a higher tax rate than their secretaries – would hire people because of a lower tax rate.

What creates jobs, according to most business people, is demand, which happens with “lots of regular people having money to spend,” according to former business owner Dave Johnson of Campaign for America’s Future.

You and me, we create jobs, not tax cuts for billionaires.

Government can “prime the pump” by spending tax money in ways that would create demand and fuel job creation. But government, in right-wing hands, can also “prime the pump” to fuel an extraordinary wealth gap.

New York Times writer Charles Blow put it brilliantly in his column “Focus, people.” It’s up to us to decide what kind of government we are going to have. Will it be a Republican one that works for the haves? Or a president (and Congress) that sees things in a dramatically different way. That’s the choice we have.

If Americans don’t chose wisely, then the economic royals will be telling us: Let them eat elephant.

Photo: Spain's King Juan Carlos poses with his trophy during a previous hunting trip. This photo appeared on Rann Safaris, the company that organizes game hunting excursions.

Taxing millionaires to build healthier communities

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:36:00 +0000

SAN FRANCISCO - In 1972, Lillian Hoffman (not her real name) moved here with her three children to escape a violent husband, poor job prospects, and the racial oppression of the south. Despite severe trauma and debilitating depression, Lillian found work as a teacher's aide and cleaned houses on weekends to make ends meet. When she retired at 65, she was looking forward to a new, quiet phase in life.

For years, Lillian had struggled to keep her family safe and healthy amid the rising poverty, joblessness and growing crack cocaine epidemic in Bayview-Hunter's Point. When one of her kids got caught up in community violence and drug use, Lillian took over raising first one, and then several, grandkids.

Just after Lillian turned 67, a grandson was shot and killed. Grieving and fearful that her family's addictions were turning her home into a crack house, she decided to take drastic action and evicted all her children. After years of carefully navigating Section 8 housing, Lillian forgot an important requirement: each bedroom needed to be occupied. Within months Lillian was evicted from her home of 30 years.

When the sheriff's men arrived, Lillian fell to her knees and begged them to let her stay. As they pulled her away, she became aggressive and threatening and was hospitalized for psychiatric observation. Upon discharge, she was given a seven-day voucher for a Tenderloin flophouse, and when this expired, she became homeless.

Lillian picked up her first crack pipe at age 68 and drank every day to make the pain go away. Eventually she was connected to a social worker at a public health clinic, but with resources tight and budgets shrinking, all they could offer was a temporary shelter bed, medical care and a housing application that "might come through someday."

Lillian returned to the streets, and grew so angry and hostile that few service providers would approach her. Her story is common in the U.S. among those living with chronic mental illness, entrenched poverty, and homelessness.

In 2004, by overwhelming majority, California voters passed the Mental Health Services Act, imposing a 1 percent tax on adjusted gross incomes over $1 million to transform the public mental health system. With this new revenue, voters created a vastly improved safety net for mentally ill Californians.

Among the first services initiated were the Full Service Partnership (FSP) programs that provide wraparound services with collaborative partners. Targeting people like Lillian, long considered "too hard to reach," FSPs serve people who have often lived on the streets for years.

FSPs offer intensive, recovery-oriented treatment models that meet people "where they are." Treatment happens on the street, in hotel rooms, homeless shelters, and anywhere people in need happen to be.

Participants are offered emergency housing from day one. Mobile treatment teams, made up of mental health specialists and consumers of mental health services who are in full recovery, seek out the hardest-to-reach people and the highest users of emergency services. The teams use life experiences and clinical expertise to get people into housing and treatment. "Flexible funding" provides for basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter, while participants are connected to disability and other public benefits.

FSP teams are available 24 hours a day, have low caseloads and see participants 1-3 times a week, providing "wraparound" services that have proven most effective in treating people with chronic mental illness.

According to the Petris Center, an independent research and evaluation center at the University of California, Berkeley, since the FSPs began serving the state's neediest people, rates of homelessness, incarceration and emergency hospitalization have declined significantly. In strict economic terms, housing and treating a person with mental illness for one year costs less than emergency psychiatric inpatient treatment or a long-term stay in jail.

With this millionaires' tax, California voters have slashed costs at emergency rooms around the state, since many of the highest users are people living with mental illness and homelessness who seek hygiene, shelter and safety in the ERs. Taxing just the richest 1 percent of Californians has led to the creation of an innovative, cost-effective safety net that simultaneously reduces costs for the state and the size of the budget deficit.

Unfortunately, for others, such as low-wage workers and students, no similar millionaires' tax offsets the rising costs of health care, education and housing. And yet, the solution is clear. The Mental Health Services Act, built entirely on a 1 percent millionaires' tax, is transforming the public health system.

Today Lillian lives in a large studio in a new building with a garden and a ground floor bakery. She has taken full control of her recovery from depression and trauma. And although Lillian's life is still full of struggle, her story shows how even the smallest of taxes on the richest 1 percent can build healthier, safer and stronger communities for Californians.

The soul of the NRA

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:00:00 +0000

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the National Rifle Association's 141st Annual Convention, held in St. Louis, Missouri.

While I'm not currently a gun owner, I have nothing against guns or gun enthusiasts. I've owned guns in the past. I was raised around guns. And I enjoy emptying a few rounds just as much as the next guy.

I imagine very few things in life relieve stress better than completely destroying a life-size zombie target down on the family farm - except, maybe, playing the drums or having sex, the latter, of course, being the most fun.

In fact, my father-in-law is an NRA member. Both he and my stepfather have conceal-and-carry permits. And it's not uncommon for either one of them to surprise me with, "Hey, check out what I got."

So I don't have a problem with the NRA, or with most NRA members. But, like my father-in-law and stepfather - and probably hundreds of thousands of other gun owners - I'm terribly concerned about the NRA's right-wing politics and support for anti-union political candidates.

When I first got to the NRA Convention I wasn't sure what to expect. I knew there would be a huge exhibit hall full of gun manufacturers hawking their latest designs. I figured there would be exhibits for merchandise peripheral to the gun industry - people showing off their new gun-sights, binoculars, hearing protectors, deer-scented sprays, turkey grunters and other hunting related products.

Additionally, I was pleasantly surprised to see charities for disabled service men and women and police officers. I was pleasantly surprised to see NRA sponsored firearms training programs, NRA emergency roadside assistance and gun safety rules brochures.

The NRA even has a youth magazine - The Eagle Eye - highlighting volunteers who work with youth and teach gun safety.

Eddie Eagle, the NRA youth mascot, says: "If you see a gun - Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." It's good advice.

There was even a NRA wine drinkers' club!

However, I did not expect to see booths for silencers and specialty bullets. I didn't expect to see scantily-clad women holding semi-automatic weapons and signing posters, sexualizing an already over-sexualized weapon.

Nor did I expect to hear crazy Ted Nugent ranting and raving about "chopping their heads off in November." He was referring to President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton, all of which, according to Nugent, are "criminals."

I didn't expect the blatant disrespect heaped upon our Commander and Chief. Agree or disagree with our President, but he is still our President. He was elected by the majority of the American people. And he doesn't deserve to be likened to a "coyote pissing on your couch" that should "be shot," as Nugent said.

Which leads me to ask: Has the NRA been taken over by crazy, right-wing nuts?

The exaggerated masculinity - of which there can be no better example than the loaded gun - the just a little crazy Ted Nugent, and the right-wing shock jock conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck, mixed with guns in a highly charged political context is not a good combination. In fact, it's a little scary.

Additionally, why are all of these people so paranoid? Do they honestly believe that the president is going to take away their guns?

From what I can tell - in spite of all of the pronouncements to the contrary - there seems to be no shortage of "freedom" and "liberty." The Second Amendment is safe!

Most Americans - those without criminal backgrounds - can openly sell or buy semi-automatic weapons, silencers and specialty bullets. Which Second Amendment rights are being infringed upon here?

And as for Nugent or Beck, are they demented marionettes paid to keep people in a state of frenzied shock and fear so they'll buy more guns?

They both say our Second Amendment rights are in danger of being taken away. However, the evidence just doesn't support the conclusion.

In fact, I would argue that the biggest threat to the Second Amendment right now is the right-wing co-opting of the NRA. These people give all gun owners a bad name.

If the average NRA member is like my father-in-law or step-father - people who like to hunt, shoot targets and want to feel safe in their own homes - which I believe is the case, then the NRA needs to do some serious house cleaning.

And they should start today!

Tax wealth not work!

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:48:00 +0000

Tax Day demonstrations took place by the hundreds this week from one end of the nation to the other.

On Wednesday morning, at one of these actions in California, David Watson, a member of Patriotic Millionaires, told a rally of union members and community activists that the tax system in this country is designed to give him breaks that he hasn't asked for and that he doesn't need. "We're supposed to have a progressive tax rate in this country," he declared to the cheers of the hundreds listening to him. "We don't."

It was much the same all over the rest of the country this week with the AFL-CIO, Move On and many other members of the 99% Spring Coalition demanding taxes on wealth, not on work. They demanded that the 1% and corporations pay their fair share. They rejected wholesale the basic premise of the Republican-Romney-Ryan budget that instead gives millionaires and huge corporations more tax breaks than they already have and workers higher taxes than they now pay.

The Tax Day actions mark a big victory for labor and all of its progressive allies. They have succeeded in taking the issue of taxes away from the tea baggers and the rest of the right-wing Republican cabal that too often used the issue in a demagogic way to blast "big government" and any other force that has the ability to devote resources to meeting the needs of the people, rather than those of the rich.

The tea-party "taxpayer" parades of two years ago look pathetic when stacked up against today's uprising by the majority for fairness in taxation. The Tax Day actions of this week approached the issue of taxes from the point of view of the working-class majority, not from the point of view of a selfish 1% minority.

We congratulate everyone who came out in force this week. As a result of these actions lawmakers are going to have to pay attention to what matters. They are going to have to invest in jobs, in the schools, in the infrastructure and they are going to have to take care of the working-class majority they were elected to represent. Their argument that these things can't be afforded has been rejected by the majority.

During the height of the Great Depression the money was found to build the Empire State Building, roads, tunnels, dams and enormous bridges, all with beneficial effects for the entire nation. During the current economic disaster the people are saying they expect no less and that it is up to their lawmakers to act.

Photo: During an Occupy Dallas tax day protest outside the Citigroup shareholders meeting, April 17, in Dallas. LM Otero/AP

Stop Wall Street speculation that drives up gas prices for families

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:50:00 +0000

The following piece by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) was circulated recently to numerous publications by the Maryland AFL-CIO.

Millions of American families are feeling the burden of ever increasing gas prices. I join them in their anger and frustration over the rising price of gas, and I want to do something about it. I recently joined a group of my Senate colleagues in sponsoring a bill, S. 2222, which will give federal regulators immediate authority to invoke emergency powers to rein in speculators who are responsible for rapidly rising gasoline prices.

There is broad agreement among energy experts and economists that speculators are one of the causes for the rapidly rising price of gas. Domestic oil production has risen to its highest level in a decade, oil supplies are greater today than they were three years ago and demand for oil in the United States is lower today than it was in 1997. Yet gas prices continue to soar.

There is something wrong with this equation. There is no logical reason why gas prices should continue to rise if oil supplies are up and demand is down.

The American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and other experts all say excessive oil speculation in the futures markets significantly increases crude oil and gasoline prices. A Feb. 27, 2012 article in Forbes Magazine cited a recent report by the investment bank Goldman Sachs pointing out that excessive oil speculation adds 56 cents to the price of a gallon of gas.

This "speculators" bill would set a 14-day deadline for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to take emergency steps to stop excessive speculation by Wall Street traders in the crude oil, gasoline and other energy futures markets. Also co-sponsoring the measure are: U.S. Senators Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Al Franken (D-MN), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Bill Nelson (D-FL).

Today, speculators control more than 80 percent of the energy futures market, a figure that has more than doubled over the past decade. As gasoline prices near or surpass $4 a gallon, the CFTC still has not complied with a provision in the Wall Street reform law that required the agency to establish trading limits by Jan. 17, 2011.

It is time to take decisive action now to stop financial speculators who are helping drive up prices for all of us at a time we can least afford it.

Photo: Despite an increase in domestic oil production, prices continue to rise. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

2012 elections: Building a new foundation

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:21:00 +0000

I'm not one who thinks elections don't matter nor do I believe they are diversions from making fundamental change. In 2008, the election changed the political landscape for the better and opened the possibility for great change.

In 2010, the extreme right gained the momentum, won elections in many states, elected a majority in the House and has since been able to advance much of its political agenda.

The class struggle, rather than stopping during an election, actually intensifies. In this election the most reactionary section of the 1 percent is making a big push to advance its political agenda. When we consider this and the fact that not all progressive forces who could have been involved in 2010 were involved, we see the urgency of bringing all progressive forces into motion in 2012.

Obama has made some bad policy moves, but he does not see eye to eye with the Republican policy, and most of the 1 percent wants the first African American president defeated in the worst way. This battle is bigger than Obama the candidate. The issues involved are critical to the fight for democracy and advancing the class struggle.

The AFL-CIO understands what's at stake. Even though they have disagreements with some of Obama's policies, they are jumping into this election with both feet. Their recent announcement that they would put 400,000 union members in the field going door-to-door talking to working families all across the country is crucial to defeating the right danger in November. This massive grassroots crusade to convince working families to go to the polls and vote their class interest is just what is needed. Four hundred thousand union workers going door-to-door educating and organizing for a big vote and talking face-to-face with millions of working and middle-class families can have a tremendous impact. Door-to-door and face-to-face they will have to challenge racist and anti-working-class ideas that are fostered by the extreme right. The great thing about an army of 400,000 workers going door-to-door is that it will not only potentially bring people to the polls but will have a long-term positive impact on the ongoing fight for economic and social justice.

The national civil rights organizations also understand what is at stake. The black vote could be over 80 percent for Obama and against the Republicans. Latinos and youth and students should be a landslide for the president too. But for these things to happen, work must be done.

Recently, hundreds of thousands all across the country have taken to the streets to protest the cold-blooded murder of Trayvon Martin. They forced the final arrest and indictment of Zimmerman.

This was a huge victory and at the press conference one of the speakers connected justice for Trayvon with a call for massive voter registration. The fight for Trayvon is connected closely, of course, to the fight against racist "stand your ground" legislation in 25 states and this connects to the struggle against the American Legislative Exchange Council, the extreme right-wing outfit that has produced boilerplate legislation for every right-wing cause in the country. People in the movement for justice for Trayvon Martin understand these connections.

We can expect that this will have an impact on the coming elections. People can see the great human tragedy resulting from the racist obsession with guns and vigilantism being pushed by the right wing, especially since Obama's election.

The recent racist shooting spree in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and so many other police and non-police acts of racist violence and killings are related to the racist atmosphere created by an ultra-right determined to defeat Obama. The growth of violence in black and Latino communities has and continues to be rooted in poverty, joblessness and structural racism, and none of this was even mentioned in all those Republican presidential debates. They failed to mention it because it is their policies that contributed to the creation of the crisis conditions.

The movement for justice for Trayvon Martin is part of a pre-election democratic surge against the right, and anti-racism is a powerful mobilizing force in this epic battle.

In 2008 many voters went to the polls in great numbers to protest the racist policies of the Bush administrations, especially after Katrina. This November millions of all races and nationalities will see the elections as a way to protest the political complicity of the Republicans in the rise in gun violence, the many cases of police and civilian killings of people of color.

Just last week the 99 percent movement organized the training of 100,000 activist for the 99% Spring Actions protesting the 1 percent.

Black and Latino, civil rights and immigrant rights groups are mobilizing thousands to do voter registration and education.

Women's organizations are also organizing to bring out a large vote, spurred on by the Republican attacks on reproductive rights and women's equality in general. The women's vote potentially is the largest part of the anti-right-wing vote. "Rock the Vote" and other voter education and registration campaigns aimed at youth are also being initiated. The LGBT organizations are in motion as well. And a new national movement is taking on the attempt of the Republicans to suppress the vote.

Most of these groups are pushing against the main agenda of the extreme right. While they have real differences with aspects of President Obama's policy, they understand that the main danger is the right danger.

At the same time there are many basic issues that they see eye-to-eye with the president on. They will vote against the right-wing opposition but they must be prepared to continue the struggle on their issues in the post-election.

In the case of the groundbreaking Occupy Wall Street Movement, which is an amalgamation of different political trends, even with a vocal anti-Obama trend in their ranks, their main issues of concern and actions are actually in harmony with much of Obama's agenda.

When you put together what all of these groups are doing to defeat the right-wing agenda, you see a broad grassroots nationwide movement come to life. And that is what is needed to build the unity and people power necessary to deliver a strategic victory for the people in November.

This is a basic part of the big picture politically.

The way to not repeat what happened in 2010 is to keep up the pressure (based on issues) in the post-election.

Some are saying they are "tired of supporting the Democratic Party," and that they want to work for a third party now.

A lot of people are impatient, myself included. Impatience is a normal human feeling to have. But if it leads to any form of withdrawal or marginalization or boycotting the coming historic election struggle, it is not in harmony with what broad progressive masses are doing today.

The broad democratic/left/progressive forces are getting there but they are not at the point where it is possible to build a national people's party capable of competing and winning national elections while holding the neo-fascists at bay. Especially in presidential elections we have to deal with the real relationship of forces today.

If Obama is defeated it will not speed up progressive change. In 1932, if Herbert Hoover would have defeated FDR, would that have sped up the establishment of the New Deal? I don't think so.

On the other hand, what those 400,000 organized workers and hundreds of thousands of others who are fighting to maximize the vote against the Republicans are doing will make a huge contribution to the advancement not just of effective immediate actions but of real political independence over the long range. A progressive third party capable of democratizing the electoral system, winning public office, holding the extreme right at bay while building a viable democratic pro-people presence in every state cannot succeed without the whole-hearted inclusion of forces like those 400,000 workers going door-to-door.

What is going on today is building a necessary political foundation for transforming our country into an advanced democratic nation.

Victory will be ours but we must lay the foundation for it and this cannot be done through propaganda and agitation alone. It requires the mobilization and organization of millions.

These mass organizations understand this. And again, despite the fact that they don't agree with Obama on every point, they know they must act against the main danger.

If the right loses the majority in the U.S. House and does not win the White House, it will open up the possibility of positive change especially if the movement continues after the election. Frustrations and some real short-comings aside, the united multi-racial labor and people's movement has a winning strategy. They understand that the solution to making big changes in the future lies in changes we can make today.

Photo: President Obama speaks at Southern Maine Community College, March, 30, in Portland, Maine. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP