People Before Profit blog

A tip for Joe the machinist: Watch your back

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:04:00 +0000

You work hard. You do good work. You loyally stick with your employer through good times and bad. Do you have a right to a paycheck that rises over time?

On any Labor Day over the last 50 years, the answer - from labor and management alike - would be obvious: Of course!

But that answer doesn't seem to hold anymore. Earlier this year, a trio of top business consultants openly challenged the notion that good employees doing valuable work deserve to see their paychecks steadily increase. This past July, the Harvard Business School circulated their challenge throughout corporate America's upper echelons.

This remarkably brazen assault on core American workplace values originated at Booz & Co., one of the nation's most prestigious corporate consulting firms. America's corporations, Booz analysts advised earlier this year, need to start attacking the "exorbitant" paychecks now going to their most prized, "steady and reliable" veteran workers.

The Booz analysts offer an example of the "significantly overpaid" worker they have in mind. They call him Joe the Machinist, "a stellar employee who knows the ins and outs of the organization, the result of his many years on the job."

Joe's "wealth of institutional knowledge" has become a valued corporate asset. But Joe, after over two decades on the job, is making a lot more than he used to make, especially "compared with co-workers who have been doing the same job for just two years."

Corporate America, the Booz & Co. advice continues, now needs to "address these kinds of wage disparities." Companies need to start "retooling labor costs" to narrow "the gap between high wages and market value."

This retooling, the Booz analysts gush, could net U.S. corporations "labor savings of 15 to 20 percent." Of course, the analysts acknowledge, Joe the Machinist "might have to take pay cuts" along the way.

But what a payoff these pay cuts would produce! Firms that seriously retool, the Booz consultants promise, "will end up with larger and more sustainable improvements in their [profit] margins."

Some business leaders are already cheering the Booz analysis.

"We infantilize workers like Joe," a former Bank of America executive charges at a Harvard Business School online discussion site, "by insulating them from the harsh economic realities by paying above market wages."

Corporate America, in fact, has been doing precious little "insulating" over recent years. Corporations have been depressing wages to fatten profit margins for decades now, and the pace of that depressing has only accelerated since the Great Recession hit, as new research from Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies details.

Corporate profits from mid-2009 through 2011's first quarter, this research notes, increased 39.6 percent. Over that same span, typical full-time U.S. workers have watched their paychecks drop 1 percent.

The Booz analysts want America's Joe the machinists to swallow ever lower paychecks to help their U.S. corporate employers "keep up with intense competition" from elsewhere in the world. Yet they demand no similar sacrifice from U.S. corporate executives.

That makes no sense, particularly for analysts who are arguing we must "narrow the gap" between exorbitant pay and actual "market value." U.S. CEOs currently take home far more than the global "market" rate for executive talent.

CEOs at companies with over $10 billion in annual revenue, The Wall Street Journal reported back in 2008, make twice as much in the United States as they do in Europe - and nine times more in the United States than they do in Japan.

Corporate America, in other words, needs some serious "labor cost retooling" at the top - before gutting pay for its most experienced and skilled workers at the bottom.

Labor journalist Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much, the weekly Institute for Policy Studies newsletter on excess and inequality. This article originally appeared in Other Words, also published by IPS. Photo: Kheel Center // CC 2.0

Rick Perry and the push for American theocracy

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:44:00 +0000

The political right wing has never been far from the Bible, at least in rhetoric. However, recently there has been an increasing push to further inject their version of Christianity into the governance of the nation.

Besides recent anti-abortion laws and efforts to bar LGBT rights, prominent politicians, including Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, have forged ties with controversial fundamentalist Christian groups. Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising group to have worked its way into the political arena is the New Apostolic Reformation which demands nothing less than world rule by fundamentalist Christians.

Many in the conservative right push the notion that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation," ignoring evidence to the contrary found in the First Amendment, the Treaty of Tripoli, and the works of Thomas Jefferson.

This line of thought has been used to justify discriminating against LGBT citizens and women, among others.

To better understand this theocratic push, one must understand the term dominionism. This concept proclaims that Christians have a divine duty to rule and to rule according to Biblical principles. It is derived from a sect called Christian Reconstructionism which advocates replacing American law with laws supposedly straight from the Bible (executing homosexuals, stoning adulterers, among others). The dominionism movement, which has drawn support from a range of extremist sects, appears to be just as political as it is theological.

One prominent political figure who seems to be caught up in the dominionism movement is the latest Republican presidential candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Let's look at how Perry's views on this have affected his governance of Texas.

Perhaps the easiest to see is Perry's puritanical and obsessive push for abstinence-only education, now mandated in 94 percent of Texas school districts. Despite the results to the contrary, Perry insists, "It works." The curriculum for these programs in public schools includes Bible verses, religious instruction, and factually incorrect information about contraceptives. The results: Texas has the third highest teen birth rate, and the third highest teen HIV-infection rate.

Then there is Perry's opposition to repeal of Texas's now-unconstitutional criminalization of sodomy. In fact, the 2010 Texas GOP platform Perry ran on explicitly calls for the criminalization of gay sex.

Perry's August 6 "The Response" event at Houston's Reliant Stadium was perhaps the most telling example of how much his extreme brand of Christianity factors into his politics. Promoting this fundamentalist-Christian event with a gubernatorial decree, Perry pushed the bounds of the separation of church and state.

This event was intended to "call upon Jesus" to help combat our "financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters" as well as, of course, the increasing acceptance of homosexuality. Among the participants in this prayathon were the American Family Association - a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group that compares gays to Nazis and wants to recriminalize homosexuality, and the International House of Prayer, a group known for pushing Uganda's "kill the gays" bill. Also participating were various pastors with bizarre religious beliefs including one that tied Japan's economic downfall to imperial demon sex, one who claimed that Oprah Winfrey was the precursor to the Anti-Christ, and another who claimed that the Statue of Liberty is a demonic idol.

These pastors all belong to the New Apostolic Reformation, which subscribes wholeheartedly to the ideology of dominionism. Many of them view Rick Perry as their ticket into power. The pastors in this movement often style themselves as prophets or apostles with a direct line to God.

Back in 2009, a pair of "prophets" from this group, Tom Schlueter and Bob Long, visited Rick Perry in Texas. According to "prophesies," they said, Texas was the "Prophet State" that will lead the United States to a Christian theocracy, and Gov. Perry was a big part of the plan. Apparently, Perry has bought into their "prophesy," as his "Response" event was stacked with NAR members.

Perhaps this explains one of Perry's comments on Fox News. Speaking to Neil Cavuto in June about his low poll numbers in Texas, Perry remarked, "A prophet is generally not liked in his hometown."

There are several theocracies currently in existence around the world. These include Iran and Saudi Arabia. These countries enforce archaic, often barbaric, versions of religious or pseudo-religious regulations as law.

Now imagine an America ruled actively as a theocratic nation. Gays and lesbians, at least 20 million people in America, would be put to death or at least imprisoned. Abortion would be outlawed even if the mother's life were at risk. Religious freedom would be thrown out the window. The state would censor media to enforce someone's interpretation of Christian-consistent content. The teaching of evolution and the study of evolutionary biology would be banned as blasphemy. Books ranging from "Catcher in the Rye" to "Harry Potter" could be banned nationwide.

Is this a nation that we as Americans want to become? If not, perhaps we ought to watch more closely who we vote for.

Photo: Gage Skidmore // CC 2.0

Hoping for an audacious jobs proposal Mr. President

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:28:00 +0000

As we approach Labor Day, 2011, the three biggest concerns on the minds of the American people are jobs, jobs and jobs.

With the official unemployment and underemployment rate combined at 25 percent and the worst economy since the Great Depression showing no sign of improving for the vast majority, it cannot be otherwise.

The labor movement is calling for $4 trillion in government spending to rebuild the nation's infrastructure and for government programs on the scale of the WPA in the 1930s. Rep, Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., has introduced a bill that moves in this direction. Over the next two years her measure would directly create more than 2 million jobs.

Given the crisis, people are looking to President Obama to lay out his jobs program this Labor Day or next week, as the White House has announced he will.

The unemployment crisis is so deep and so pervasive that only a massive program of federal spending to create many millions of jobs will have any real impact.

The president has proven, time and again, that he is a voice of reason, that he is realistic and that he believes in compromise while the Republicans are willing to consider anything, up to and including outright treason, if it advances their aim of defeating him in 2012.

The jobs program President Obama unfurls needs to go way beyond any "reasonable" mix, however, of a few tax cuts, patent reforms and limited work on highways and airports. The GOP will oppose these things anyway.

A real jobs plan begins with restoring balance. The rich must pay their fair share in taxes. (The bulk of the deficit is the result of tax cuts that benefited the wealthy.)

The corporations claim that the economy isn't rebounding because of "uncertainty" on the part of corporate leaders about how much they may have to pay in taxes. The second piece of a real jobs plan, then, is to clear up that uncertainty by telling corporations they will have to pay their fair share and by assuring the broad majority of workers that there will be increases, not cuts, in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Adding to these programs, like fair tax rates for the rich and corporations, is part of restoring the balance in the economy. The joblessness we suffer results from the lack of balance we have had for so long.

The third part of a real jobs plan is to make a serious investment in America. That means, at a bare minimum, $2 trillion to shore up existing infrastructure and $2 trillion more in the technologies of the 21st century - high speed rail, clean energy and universal broadband to begin with. Pass the Schakowsky bill on top of this and we would begin to make a serious dent in the unemployment crisis.

The more basic issue for all of us on this Labor Day is whether we, as a nation, believe everyone can be a full participant in the life of the nation. This is the issue we can all address at town hall meetings and rallies that will happen from one end of the country to the other. Tell the tea partiers that their vision of a "can't do America" is a vision we reject. This is the issue we can address by signing jobs petitions put out by the AFL-CIO and others.

The basic issue for all of us on this Labor Day is whether we believe the people make the rules - or is it some chosen few who do that? Tell your elected representatives that it is the people who are in charge.

The basic issue for all of us on this Labor Day is whether hard work is rewarded with economic security and a future of greatness or whether it results in nothing more than additional wealth for the people on top. Tell your elected officials that we will claim the fruits of our labor.

People are proving every day that they will fight for jobs and justice. We hope, this Labor Day, that the president will put forward the type of bold jobs plan the country needs. If you do, Mr. President, we will have your back.

Michigan Republicans cut welfare and twist Bible

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:49:00 +0000

With joblessness at extreme levels and child poverty reaching new highs (twenty three percent of Michigan's children now live in poverty), Michigan's Republican dominated state Legislature did the opposite of what reason and sanity call for.

Last Wednesday, they passed a 48-month lifetime limit on welfare benefits expected to cast more than 11,000 families off the welfare rolls on Oct. 1 - including more than 29,700 children.

Added to their previous votes granting tax breaks for corporations and votes to raise taxes on both the working poor and the pensions of seniors, Republicans continued the drive to balance the economic crisis on those already suffering the most.

That wrongheaded, mean-spirited and life threatening action was bad enough. What is outrageous is the post debate explanation given by Republican Rep. Dave Agema on his Facebook page.

Agema writes "During the debate, One of the DTW (Detroit) reps just stated God would 'get us' if we reduce welfare. I seem to recall a Biblical verse that states 'let them that will not work, not eat' (if they are able). Welfare reform is long overdue."

Agema's Facebook comments are off base on several accounts. First "able-bodied" people are lining up by the thousands whenever and wherever job interviews or job fairs take place. Even employers offering low wage jobs are deluged. Aldi, a discount grocery chain, had almost 1000 people apply for twelve openings in Holland, Michigan (a town very close to Agema's district) two days before the legislatures vote. A few days earlier in Detroit, 5,000 desperately searching for work came to a jobs fair, sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, held at Wayne County Community College.

In addition, was the intention of the Biblical verse to condemn the weak and the poor? Rev. Tim Yeager chair of the Communist Party USA's Religious Commission, told People's World that Agema had completely taken the quote out of context.

Rev. Yeager said "To use the letter of Paul to the Thessalonians as a justification for cutting people off from state assistance, when there are no jobs to be found, is a total distortion of Paul's words, and the exact opposite of what Jesus teaches in the gospels.

"The text of 2^nd Thessalonians 3:10-11 (New Revised Standard Version) is: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work.

"The early church in many places was a communal society where property was shared, and people were expected to contribute according to their ability. Paul is NOT talking about the poor who have lost their land or their homes, who have little or nothing, who are willing to work but cannot find it, or who cannot work, or who are disabled, or widows and children."

One could say that the idleness the disciple Paul was talking about is exemplified by those that hoard their extreme wealth and abandon our communities. Dick Dauch, the American Axle CEO, and major Republican donor, comes to mind. Dauch justified closing Hamtramck's plant by saying, "We have the flexibility to source all of our business to other locations around the world and we have the right to do so."

Rev. Yeager said, "Jesus often describes the Kingdom of God as a banquet to which the poor and the homeless are invited first. The poor and the 'undesirables' are invited to places of honor at the feast."

Rep. Agema and his fellow Republicans are on the wrong biblical track.

PW photo

Millions make change

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:13:00 +0000

The two main eras of progressive change in our country in the last century were accompanied by a broad and spirited upsurge of people.

In the Depression years, a powerful people's movement, in the forefront of which was the working class and its organized sector (trade unions), crystallized into a mighty force for social progress. It was the backbone of a series of people's legislative victories - Social Security, unemployment insurance, welfare benefits, the right to organize into unions, etc.

Three decades later a movement led by Martin Luther King broke the back of legal segregation and enacted civil rights laws, while at the same time inspiring a host of popular struggles that followed on its heels.

Both movements - of the 1930s and the 1960s - were diverse, mass, militant and spontaneous as well as organized. Both combined political action and mass action. And both, as mentioned, were decisive to the change process specific to their era.

In other words, had they not been on the scene at the time, progressive change would either not have occurred or occurred in a much more limited way.

Which brings me to the present. Following the recent debt agreement between the president and the Republicans, progressive and left voices were critical of the administration. Many felt that it gave up too much and got little in return.

There is truth here, but I'm not sure if that is main lesson that should be drawn from this deal.

For me what stands out is the inadequate mobilization of the American people in this struggle. To be sure, the seniors movement left its imprint on the process in so far as entitlement programs were not touched for the time being. But that shouldn't obscure the larger reality that too many Americans were onlookers, waiting to see what would happen behind closed doors in the nation's capital.

If this were a problem specific to only this struggle, it would be one thing, but it isn't. It dates back to the day after the election of Obama.

For whatever reasons, the level of mass activity at the national level hasn't approached that which took shape in the course of the 2008 election campaign. During the campaign mass activity was broad, grassroots, united and sustained over time. It brought millions into organized activity as well as influenced the thinking and actions of many more millions who went to the polls.

But it didn't carry over to the post-election period. And in not doing so it reduced the progressive potential of the Obama victory since then.

Social progress without mass pressure is never easy in a capitalist system. Capitalism is structured to resist change of a progressive and radical nature. But it is especially tough going in circumstances where the right wing controls many levers of power, as it currently does.

Indeed, without a powerful people's movement mobilizing millions and advancing a program of a progressive character, the political discourse will tack to the right and legislative victories will be few and far between, as in the present situation.

The political imperative of this moment, therefore, is clear: the quantitative and qualitative strengthening of the people's movement for progressive change.

Whether it happens depends on the human factor, that is, on what ordinary people do. Just as the initiatives and actions of the American people were an essential ingredient in the progressive-democratic thrust in the 1930s and 1960s, so too will the initiatives and actions of millions feeling the awful weight of this terrible and protracted economic crisis be essential in today's conditions.

Seize the time!

Photo: Stand Up Chicago rally, June 14, 2011. PW

Labor board rule changes help defeat employer delay tactics

Tue, 30 Aug 2011 10:56:00 +0000

By now, there's been publicity - and lots of management propaganda - about proposals by the National Labor Relations Board to change some rules governing union recognition elections, and particularly the campaigns that precede them.

Those campaigns often include rampant employer labor law-breaking, illegal firings, intimidation, spying and worse. The NLRB rules would not outlaw such abuses - but they would make the playing field more level by shortening the amount of time available to vicious and venal employers and their union-buster so-called "law firms" to institute such tactics.

But there are lesser and subtle employer abuses, and that's what the NLRB rules would also curb. Here's an example, courtesy of the Teamsters, of that type of under-the-radar employer abuse - abuse the agency's new rules could potentially stop:

"In many cases, workers overwhelmingly want to join a union," the union said in its formal statement on the NLRB's proposals. "But employers are skilled at taking advantage of antiquated rules and preventing workers from benefiting from a collective bargaining agreement. They are able to waste the government's resources with frivolous appeals.

"The Teamsters also support the proposed change that would defer eligibility issues until after the election if they involve less than a fifth of the workers in the bargaining unit. Changing this rule would eliminate many unfair challenges that are intended only to delay an election.

"Such challenges bogged down an election in 2003. On Nov. 18, Local 527S of the Graphic Communications International Union (now IBT's Graphic Communications Conference) filed a petition to represent the 69 employees who bagged and delivered the Atlanta Journal-Constitution at the facility in Cumming, Ga."

"The composition of that unit was challenged. The employer claimed the only appropriate unit was all 3,800-plus employees in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution circulation department located in 70 facilities scattered over 58,000 square miles.

"The board has never refused to apply its normal presumption in favor of a single location unit in favor of an integrated unit covering so many facilities in such a vast space. Nevertheless, a six-day hearing was conducted over nonconsecutive days," the Teamsters continued.

That's another employer stall: Drag out the hearing, giving the company more time to intimidate, harass, fire, and scare workers out of voting for the union. "On Jan. 23, 2004, the regional director directed an election at the single-facility Cumming location. Finally, on Feb. 6, a representation election was scheduled for Feb. 17, 91 days after the petition had been filed."

The GCIU, now called the Graphic Communications Conference/Teamsters, was lucky. For years, in such cases, a series of 91 cases was relatively short. We've known of elections that were delayed, thanks to company and union-buster legalisms, for years.

"The board's proposed rules would have prevented this delay," the Teamsters continued. "The issues could have been resolved after the election. If the employer's challenge was upheld, the union would have walked away. If the employer's challenge was denied, the ballots could then have been counted. The board's proposal to take the uncertainty of scheduling a date for a representation election out of the equation is laudable. It will provide unions, employers, and employees with much-needed guidance and predictability as to what will occur from the filing of a petition for an election to the counting of the ballots."

We could not have said it better.

Now, take that one instance of employer stalling - by challenging which workers should be voting - and multiply it by every circumstance you can think of, from size of the unit to who is on the payroll at the time to location of the voting booths to you name it. In one election involving Delta Airlines and the Flight Attendants, the company even tried to add some deceased attendants to the voting rolls.

It is easy to see why representation elections are delayed...and delayed...and delayed...and eventually denied, when the union or the workers lose members or hope.

The NLRB, said the Teamsters and other unions, has proposed "modest, common-sense changes that preserve due process and strengthen the secret ballot process...And they eliminate the uncertainty that costs so much in time, money and productivity."

That's the formal legal reason for changing the rules. But the real reason is to cut down employers' opportunity to delay, delay, and deny workers' rights.

Photo: Carlos Fernandez // CC 2.0

"Small government" ideas promote big business practices

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:35:00 +0000

In April 2010, RNC Chairman Michael Steele told a group of 200 students at DePaul University that African-Americans "don't have a reason" to vote for Republican candidates.

Steele said that for decades the GOP pursued a "Southern Strategy" that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.

"Small government" is the new "Southern Strategy."

The GOP uses the argument of "small government" to oppose affirmative action. Republicans use the same talking point to fight against programs for ending the economic crisis as well as health care reform.

Since all of these programs benefit working people, no worker has a good reason to vote for Republican candidates.

Affirmative action is a case in point. Even though it benefits all workers, the GOP stands opposed. As is well known, affirmative action programs are designed to eliminate racial and gender discrimination and promote racial diversity.

Republicans however, show little interest in racial diversity, mainly because large corporations, major GOP supporters, collect hundreds of billions of dollars in wage differentials from minorities and women. (When the lower pay for women is added, the differential is more than a $1 trillion). Minority workers and women make 70% less than their white male counterparts. Affirmative action would help end this wage disparity.

Therefore by opposing affirmative action, the GOP wants to get "big government" out of the way of big business's ability to turn a profit.

There is another side to the debate. Not only are minority workers cheated, but white workers also lose out because of threats of replacement by cheaper labor.

Similarly, by arguing against "big government's" people-helping programs like the economic stimulus and health care, the GOP are actually pursuing policies that are harmful to the majority of white voters.

For example, according to StateHealthFacts.org, in 2009, 61 million Americans (20%) lived in poverty.

There are twice as many poor whites (26 million) as poor blacks (13 million) and 9 million more poor whites as poor Latinos (17 million).

Furthermore, while 4.5 million Black children and 5.6 million Latino children live in poverty, so do 4.8 million white children.

By refusing to allow a second stimulus, the GOP condemned millions of workers, white and non-white to a continued life of poverty.

The first stimulus was insufficient because only one-third of its funds were used to create new jobs. An additional third was used to save the jobs of local and state government workers, and the remaining third provided unemployment compensation.

A second stimulus would have helped create millions of new trade union jobs.

Now, waiting for the private sector to provide jobs will result in greater unemployment for indefinite amounts of time. New job creation is not taking place despite the more than $1 1/2 trillion in the U.S. corporate coffer - nor will it until demand is greater. Over 70 percent of the U.S. economy is consumer driven. Less government hasn't produced economic growth.

So too with the small government argument for health care "reform" which is to protect pharmaceutical companies and allow premium increases.

If the GOP manages to rescind the Obama health care legislation the result once again will be 50 million uninsured and 100 million without major coverage.

Single payer Medicare for all - a big government program - would cover every single American and save the nation hundreds of billions in revenue each year.

Single payer savings would be used to reduce the deficit; fighting for it, means also fighting attacks on the current law.

Finally, the Pentagon gets 58% of yearly discretionary spend while housing and health care receives 5%, education 4% and transpiration 2%.

If the GOP truly wanted to cut government spending, it would rail against the profiteering of the military-industrial complex.

At the end of the day it is patently clear that "small government" is an excuse to oppose programs that benefit working people.

Bosses, workers, Elmo: amazing films at Traverse City festival

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:48:00 +0000

Here's a wrap-up of highlights from the 7th Annual Traverse City Film Festival that were not mentioned in my previous columns. An amazing, high ratio of progressive films among the 150 screened.

Face to Face was a surprise hit from Australia, winning the Founders Prize for Best World Fiction Film. In Australia they have a social program available to resolve conflicts. People who are part of a criminal dispute are given the opportunity to get together in a sort of conflict resolution setting where they try to hammer out an agreement to avoid having to go to court. In this film, reminiscent of Twelve Angry Men, a young, emotionally uncontrollable worker slams the back end of his boss's car after he is fired from work. The concerned parties are gathered together to help prevent sending the young man to court and probably a long prison term. However, the story unravels with surprise twists. Boss/worker relations and the workplace go on trial instead. In the course of trying to resolve the conflict, it is found that the boss is having an affair with his secretary, and previously with the mother of the young man; fellow workers are harassing an Arab worker; other workers are making fun of the emotionally disturbed young man; and the story piles on and on while addressing job pay, racism, ethnic relations and much more. The film, like the conflict resolution process, is a valuable exploration of the class struggle.

Another film, this one from France, also addresses the workplace, but in this case, an entire factory is shut down. Forced to find another job after every attempt was made by the workers to keep the plant open, a young woman trains for and becomes a nanny. She ends up traveling to a richer part of the city and working for a wealthy stock trader. In her process of befriending her new boss, (she moves into his house) she finds that his callous stock trading games caused the closure of the factory that sent all her fellow workers and friends into the unknown world of unemployment. What happens next in My Piece of the Pie defies all expectations. It's another opportunity, along with films like Made in Dagenham, for workers to feel good in the theater.

At least a couple important films from Michigan were featured at this festival. Director Heather Courtney brought her time-consuming project about several young men from Upper Michigan who decided to enlist in the National Guard because "it only involved a few weekends a year, and we'd get $20,000 each." Before long, they're fighting in Afghanistan. Where Soldiers Come From tells the human interest story of young men, many of whom are driven to the military for economic reasons, many of whom needed a few more years of experiencing life in their own communities, but are taken into the seemingly endless world of war, indoctrinated into hate and violence and dumped back into society to forage for themselves. The effects on the family and community are well examined in this thoughtful and probing study.

Dearborn, Michigan, is home to the largest community of Arabs outside of the Middle East. Traditionally middle-class Fordson High School, build by Henry Ford for his son (get it: Ford - son) has now become an almost totally Arab school. What's more amazing is that it still has a top class football team - of mostly Arab students. The energetic film follows the team members at practice and in their private life as Muslims and, well, just ordinary young men who want to win a ballgame and pursue the American Dream. Unfortunately their excessive practice schedule forces them to make great sacrifices during the Ramadan season in August. Fordson: Faith, Fasting, Football is a one-of-a-kind sports film, with a valuable statement about tolerance and understanding.

Being Elmo was one of the best "feel-good" movies of any festival: an award winner that bubbled with joy and kindness and a sense of childhood wonderment. Not only was it the dream of a young African American boy to become a great puppeteer, but Kevin Clash went on to become the voice and persona of the famous Sesame Street character, Elmo. The film follows his life, utilizing documentary footage made when he was young, up to his present hectic schedule of bringing love and joy to every child he meets. His presence at the festival brought magic, as he came out with Elmo after the screening and proceeded to personally meet every child in the audience.

Contrast that to one of the darker films at the festival, but still just as effective as a cinematic study of life. An Encounter with Simone Weil explores the life of the relatively unknown Jewish progressive, and the tragedy of suicide. Director Julia Haslett had personal reasons for studying this enigmatic historical figure, an author/activist/philosopher who penned over 16 books mostly about politics, religion and philosophy. Haslett's father, like Weil, took his own life also, and during the making of the film Haslett's brother succumbed to suicide. The film ends up being not only a probing examination of Weil but a personal statement from the director in a beautifully cinematic treatment that traverses the political and social upheavals of the 20th century. It's a shocking and deeply emotional study as more and more facts are discovered about Weil's life. It's a film that's worth the investment. Check out Simone Weil.

Although films were scheduled at three-hour intervals, it was still difficult to get to all the films that were worth checking out. Several of the selections that were praised in previous columns include Miral, Even the Rain, Made In Dagenham, Potiche (Trophy Wife), In a Better World and Incendies. Also, some great classics were brought back, including Modern Times, To Kill a Mockingbird and the Iranian favorite, White Balloon.

By far, the relatively new Traverse City Film Festival, thanks to Michael Moore, is probably the most progressive, most friendly and most fun festival that's come along in quite a while. It would be worth your time to check it out next July. In the meantime, if you want ideas for film rentals, you could go to their website and pick just about any title. I doubt you'd be disappointed.

The Republicans must be defeated

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:20:00 +0000

After watching the recent Republican presidential debate in Iowa, I am sure millions have been convinced more than ever that the Republicans must be defeated in 2012.

This motley crew of right-wing fanatics are not in favor of giving any concessions to the working class, the poor or the victims of systemic racism.

They have no regard for historic levels of poverty, unemployment, home foreclosures, hunger and homelessness that people of color suffer.

They don't care about the youth and children who attend run-down, understaffed and underfunded public schools every day.

The fact that tens of million of youth who should be going to college or starting their first real job but instead face the prospect of years, decades, perhaps even a lifetime of joblessness, underemployment and incarceration is a non-issue to them.

They didn't get the memo on global warming and the health care crisis.

The Iowa debate convened the real "death panel," because if the GOP policies prevail a whole lot of people won't survive.

In their debate, the war hawks pushed for more war, more squandering of blood and treasure while claiming to support the troops.

With the addition of Rick Perry, the political debate among the Republican contenders has moved even further to the right. The process of picking the next Republican "fuehrer" shows a party whose time has long past.

The GOP candidates oppose the concept of people before profits. As Mitt Romney put it last week, "corporations are people." Their uncompromising priority is protecting the wealth and privileges of the super rich, which means they are uncompromisingly against the general welfare of the people, particularly multiracial working majority.

They say they're opposed to big government, but that is a cover up.

By opposing raising taxes on the super rich and cutting the military budget and subsidies to big oil, they oppose jobs for the unemployed, rebuilding the collapsing infrastructure, ending the foreclosure crisis. Theirs is not a noble cause.

The very premise of their policies is a fallacy. If the dominant policies of the current Republican contenders prevail, our nation will be driven into a far deeper crisis economically, socially and politically.

The truth is that the crisis will not be overcome without increasing the wellbeing and buying power of working people. And that is what they are fighting tooth and nail.

The racial dynamic of their policies are something that should alarm all democratic minded people.

It is no accident that the tea party's largest base is among southern whites, who according to a recent Notre Dame study, continue to be highly influenced by the ideology of racism.

They considered black people inferior before Obama, and they continue to be motivated to defeat Obama because he is African American.

The driving force for progressive activism in the coming 2012 election is not how serious one can criticize Obama's concessions to the right but the grave historic danger from the right. The Republicans must be defeated.

Having just watched the movie The Help, and as the son of a mother and father who grew up in the Jim Crow South this writer is reminded of what is at stake. If the Republican-Libertarian-tea party Axis thinks we are going back to the days of Jim Crow, they are mistaken.

The extreme right has done enormous damage to the national spirit of unity and hope. And it is true that Obama didn't fight hard enough and succumbed to the enormous pressure from the right on too many occasions. However, the democratic forces have to take our country back from the fanatic right-wing minority.

One has to be impressed by the new militant spirit of fight back that is gaining momentum cross the country. Grassroots folks from people's and labor organizations are confronting tea party elected officials at their town hall meetings.

Labor is gearing up for the big fight for jobs and decent contracts. The immigrant rights movement is on the move.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus and Black Caucus are holding hearings on the issue of jobs creation through public works to repair our neglected infrastructure.

Taxing the rich has become a majority demand. Tens of thousands are lining up at job fairs organized to get corporations to step up and hire the unemployed, veterans and youth.

Peace forces are pushing to bring the troops home and transfer the money to create jobs and stop the massive number of foreclosures.

This is a crusade to put the people first.

Before the announcement of Hurricane Irene on Sunday, tens of thousands were planning to come to Washington to welcome the now postponed opening of the monument to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

What are they demanding? Jobs. Jobs. Jobs!!

Despite their correct criticisms of the president, they understand that the main danger comes from the right.

If the GOP regains all three branches of the government, the crisis of human suffering can and will become far more severe.

The majority of the American people understand that the reelection of Obama is not an option. It is part of what is necessary to win this epic battle.

Photo: Rick Perry. Ed Schipul // CC 2.0

Rahm Emanuel’s first 100 days: new style, same substance

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:07:00 +0000

CHICAGO - After 100 days on the job, new Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is touting his administration's first accomplishments. The impression is one of boldly charting a new course of change.

The accomplishments touted include transferring more police onto the beat, cutting some financial waste, greater transparency, implementing dedicated bike lanes, encouraging the creation of 4,000 private sector jobs, greater use of the social media to communicate with the public, etc.

To be sure, after 24 years of Mayor Richard M. Daley, some big changes were in order. And Emanuel is inheriting huge problems, including a projected $635 million city budget deficit and a $700 million Chicago Public Schools budget deficit. City unemployment stands at 9.9 percent overall and over 20 percent in the African American community and higher among youth.

But is the new administration really much of a change from Daley? A close look reveals more change in style than substance.

Like the Daley administration, the Emanuel policies represent powerful financial and big business interests and global transnational capital. Among the new accomplishments are many commissions and task forces stocked full of business and finance leaders.

To deal with the city financial crises Emanuel has insisted on "shared sacrifices" so everyone "has skin in the game." But the sacrifices have all been one sided.

Two of Emanuel's first big fights have been with organized labor. Emanuel threw down the gauntlet by dictating terms in the public media and bullying public workers, while trying to pit them against city residents.

First, Emanuel pledged to make $75 million in cuts to close a current year budget deficit. Emanuel threatened to lay off 625 city workers unless they agreed to rule changes to save the city $50 million.

The Chicago Federation of Labor leadership subsequently released a report, which contains thoughtful proposals that would instead save the city $242 million.

So far the administration has turned a deaf ear and some observers wonder if the bullying is an effort to intimidate labor and turn city residents against public workers instead of demanding sacrifices from big business. Needless to say, relations with the labor movement have been strained.

Emanuel and new school department CEO Jean-Claude Brizard are also bullying teachers in public. To deal with the Chicago Public Schools budget deficit, the School Board cancelled a 4 percent pay raise that city teachers had coming according to their contract.

The move was part of a larger plan passed, which included a $150 million property tax hike, a $200 million spending cut and tapping $250 million from a reserve fund. It will result in 500 staff layoffs.

Emanuel and Brizard have announced a longer school day and year, which will begin September 2012, despite teacher opposition. A task force has been established to determine how to implement the idea.

Chicago Public Schools "has loaded its advisory council with charter school proponents, parochial school leaders, administration-connected clergy, politicians and union-busting advocacy groups," Chicago Teachers Union spokesperson Stephanie Gadlin told CBS. "This news has nothing do with helping our children and everything to do with politicizing a real serious problem. Our children deserve better."

Needless to say, teachers' union President Karen Lewis declined to participate.

But extending the school day would not include hiring extra staff nor do any of the reforms being discussed include reducing class size, which most education experts agree is the most effective way to improve education, and adding extra classroom personnel.

Emanuel has also said little of the Tax Increment Financing Accounts that have been siphoning $500 million a year from city school and parks and used as a mayoral slush fund for economic development. Millions have been invested in downtown development and subsidizing big businesses rather than in community development and schools.

A task force of business leaders has been set up to suggest reforms.

It appears Emanuel will also continue forging ahead on privatization of public services and assets. One indicator is the hiring of Lois Scott as the city's CFO. Scott was formerly president of the financial advisory firm Scott Balice Strategies, specializing in government privatization deals.

Since taking office Emanuel has been silent on the parking meter debacle and the possibility of renegotiating or cancelling the deal, which was a blatant give-a-way to global capital corporations.

Emanuel decided to implement a privatization deal agreed to by the Daley administration to turn over the city's recycling program to the transnational giant Waste Management. This is being done under cover of establishing a competition between the private and public sector. In fact, this is a deal that was already made.

And Emanuel favors expanding the number of charter schools, the main form of school privatization. Some of the largest investors, like Bill Gates, the Walton Foundation and hedge funds like the Stearns Family Foundation in Illinois, support the charter school movement. Charters are seen as a way to reduce and eliminate teachers' unions and any regulations governing wages, benefits and the workday.

Mayor Emanuel may have a new style, but it masks the same political substance of his predecessor. Only a bigger labor led people's movement can successfully resist the pro-big business policies of the new administration.

15 years after welfare “deform”

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:56:00 +0000

This week marks the 15th anniversary of welfare reform, also known as welfare "deform."

On August 22, 1996, aided by a Newt Gingrich-led Republican Congress and bitterly divided Democratic Party, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

The legislation gave life to a new "welfare-to-work" program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families that is administered through block grants to states.

"Welfare as we knew it" was over. The TANF program is set to expire in September.

In the economic boom of the 1990s, the TANF program was hailed by many as a great success with perhaps over half of the former recipients finding minimum wage work. In a 2006 tenth anniversary New York Times op-ed, Clinton boasted, "Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts."

The fate of the other 40 percent seemed beyond the president's concern.

In today's economy, the modest employment gains in service industry jobs have been all but wiped out, with these workers joining their counterparts in the vast army of the unemployed - the 16 percent of the U.S. workforce who face the danger of permanent unemployment.

With poverty rising, TANF funds only reach 4.5 million families, or 28 percent of those needing assistance, according to Jake Blumgart of the American Prospect.

"By contrast, in 1995, the old welfare system covered 13.5 million families, or 75 percent of those living in poverty," he writes.

As might be expected in a period of recession and GOP budget cutting, the numbers of those in greatest need are growing.

"The increase in deep poverty has been especially large," writes LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "The number of families in deep poverty rose by 13 percent between 1996 and 2009, from 2.7 million to 3 million."

In September, Congress is expected to pass a continuing resolution and re-approve the faltering TANF program. It should consider anti-recessionary employment measures not contained in the original bill.

The value of TANF funding has dropped by over 30 percent in the last 15 years; funding desperately needs be enlarged.

In addition, jobs measures such as the TANF Emergency Fund approved in the 2009 stimulus bill should be, at minimum, re-approved. Funding for jobs expired in September 2010.

However, to really address the crisis, much stronger legislation, including an extension of unemployment benefits and passage of the Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., is needed.

Congress and the president need to know nothing less will do.

It’s complicated: President Obama and mass movement building

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:47:00 +0000

A few on the left say that the absence of a mass movement on the scale of the 1930s and 1960s stems from the fact that millions of Americans still believe the president is an agent of progressive change.

What follows from this theory is the role of left and progressive people is to ruthlessly unmask the politics and progressive pretentions of the president, which in turn will melt away people's illusions in him and trigger a mass upsurge throughout the country.

But is this the case?

I don't think so. And I will tell you why.

The building of a mass movement on the scale of the 1930s or 1960s is a complicated process. A wide-angle lens is needed to capture its many sides.

Before we lay responsibility for the inadequate scale of today's movement on the shoulders of the president, we have to factor in the impact of three decades of right-wing ideological onslaught.

We have to consider the structural changes in the U.S. economy that have economically devastated, socially atomized and politically weakened traditional centers of working class and people's power.

We have to take into account the unprecedented attack against African Americans and other communities of color, dating back to the election of Reagan.

We have to acknowledge the reality of a smaller labor movement, in large measure the result of economic downsizing, production relocation and a fierce right- wing anti-labor offensive.

We have to factor in the impact of the ideological intensification of racism, male supremacy, immigrant-bashing and homophobia in recent years on popular consciousness.

We have to include in our political calculus the negative effects of capitalist-structured globalization on working-class consciousness, unity and capacity.

We have to bear in mind the consequences of the militarization of our society on our society.

We have to note the capitalist class's control and domination of the means of communication and education.

We have to recognize that people in the face of crises can opt for individualist as well as collective solutions.

We have to weigh in the force of habit and inertia.

We have to appreciate that the president operates in a complex of competing class and social forces, some of which (namely the extreme right) are determined to sabotage his presidency.

And we have to bring into bold relief the fact that the left and progressive movements are still too small to exert a decisive and sustained influence on the nation's political direction. Face it. We still preach to the choir.

The multifaceted nature of the process of change is not a reason to throw up our hands in frustration or to revert to simplified explanations, in this case presidential mis-leadership, for the difficulties of building a progressive mass movement.

Indeed, I would argue that today's movement has the potential to eclipse the popular movements of 1930s and 1960s in size, social composition, political consciousness and social power.

Who thought in 1920 or in 1950 that people's movements of enormous scope and strength would spring up and proceed to realign national politics a few years later?

But that is what happened as many foreseen and unforeseen factors came together in such a way that massive social explosions rocked the country and new chapters of progressive change entered the history books.

These movements had their own complicated factors to deal with, including the global rise of fascism in the 1930s.

Should we think that the process of progressive change and the building of a mass movement with transformative capacities would be any less complicated in our time or any less doable?

You know my answer.

Photo: (Teresa Albano/PW)

Monument to freedom

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:21:00 +0000

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

Dr Martin Luther King, August 28. 1963, Washington, D.C.

Across from the Lincoln Memorial where Dr. King gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech in the sweltering summer of 1963, his 30-foot tall likeness emerges peacefully from a deformed and cracked boulder - the mountain of despair. All visitors must pass through the boulder, as Dr. King passed in his struggle, to the imposing and uplifting sculpture, to the monument to human freedom he became.

The idea of a memorial to Dr. King was first proposed 27 years ago. His monument is the first on the National Mall not dedicated to a president. But he holds his own - as he did in life - with the memorials of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. In solemnity the new monument surpasses all but Lincoln's - in hope, it surpasses all.

The "Inscription Wall" surrounding the sculpture contains notable excerpts from fourteen of Dr. King's most well known quotes. They are engraved on a 450-foot crescent shaped granite wall. The quotes span the career of Dr. King, the earliest taken from his rise during the Montgomery Bus Boycotts in Alabama, 1955. The latest quote was taken from his last sermon delivered in Washington, D.C., at the National Cathedral in 1968, four days before his assassination.

The quotes reprise his role as, and his aspiration to be "...a drum major for justice... for peace...for righteousness".

A visitor interviewed by CBS said:

This is just what the nation needs now... I think it really does help us to come closer to the best that we can be. And at the moment it feels that we are so distant from the best that we can be as a nation.

The memorial opened to the public Aug. 22. The official unveiling will be this coming Sunday, a ceremony in which President Obama, the nation's first African-American president, will participate.

Yoshino cherry blossom trees have thrived since 1912 - a gift from Japan as a sign of peace and unity. For only two weeks each spring, their tiny blossoms surround the Basin in a cloud of delicate pink and white. Their blossoming coincides with the anniversary of Dr. King's assassination - a counterpoint of spring, hope, rebirth and renewal.

Water from the adjacent Tidal Basin is used at the memorial as an element that appears only on either side of the main entry, not even visible until one has entered the memorial plaza. It is the sound of water "rolling down like justice" that will draw a visitor's attention, at once welcoming and yet daring the visitor to follow.

The opening of the memorial comes at a fitting time - at a time of wrenching social upheaval brought on by a terrible economic crisis. Dr. King was the best bottom-up organizer of his lifetime. He found power within the people to make the system of Jim Crow segregation unworkable and unsustainable, and in doing so shined the light on paths open to all who aspire to higher common ground.

The spiritual power of Dr. King's message was inseparable from - and indispensable to - its economic power (the power to boycott). The belief that we can be a better people, that there can be a more perfect union, that there can be a more just and peaceful society. That message resonates universally from Dr. King's words and deeds.

As does this: The emancipation of the people from oppression must be the act of the people themselves. You will be given opportunities to participate, to assume responsibility, and to make sacrifices, in the struggle for freedom. They are opportunities all should consider taking.

Photo: Martin Luther King, Jr. is a hero world wide. U.S. Embassy in New Delhi // CC 2.0

The Beer Evolution: New yeast discovered in Patagonian forest

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:15:00 +0000

Ever since the Little Ice Age in Europe, which made it harder to grow wine in many traditionally wine drinking regions, people have been growing grains, infinitely more resistant to cold, and brewing beer. Beer has always played a part in revolutions around the world. From the revolutionaries in colonial America meeting in taverns all the way until today, where the corner bar is still a hotbed of political discussion and debate. Beer has a history of working-class identity and is now experiencing a revolution of its own, on the microbiological level.

For thousands of years, the process of fermentation has been a mystery to man. While microbiology gave us the keys as to how yeast turns sugar into alcohol, scientists have just discovered the ancestral home of one of America's favorite beers, lager.

While Europe was known for wine and ales, the lager was a recent addition to the family tree of frosty concoctions. Brewers and enthusiasts believe that the yeast to make lager was introduced when Bavarian monks moved their fermenting operation into caves to maintain a lower temperature. The yeast that could ferment at a lower temperature inevitably won out and was cultured because of the different taste that it imbued on the brew.

However scientists have wondered where the specific strain of Saccharomyces pastorianus (lager yeast) originated. Recently, however, Dr. Chris Todd Hittinger of the University of Wisconsin and his associates managed to isolate the primitive strain Saccharomyces eubayanus, which mutated to become the modern domesticated strain of lager yeast.

They found the strain in the forests of Patagonia growing in pods on beech trees. The forests that the yeast is native to has daily lows of -2 degrees Celsius and is perfect to cultivate the yeast that activates at a lower temperature. The scientists will be able with this discovery to gauge the differences between the domesticated modern lager yeast and the original to determine at what point and under what conditions the yeast mutated.

Budweiser, Heineken, even Sam Adams all use the lager strain of yeast to give their beers that cool refreshing taste. Now brewers and scientists alike are wondering, what new yeasts are out there waiting to be discovered? And, what new beers can be made in the future when we discover new strains? To the thousands of craft and hobby brewers around the world, this new frontier is a sign that even an art that is thousands of years old can be made new at any time.

Photo: Lisa B. // CC 2.0

Libya: NATO sets dangerous precedent

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:51:00 +0000

It is very likely that the days of Moammar Gadaffi's regime are numbered. Rebel troops, backed by massive NATO bombing raids, have broken through to Tripoli, the Libyan capital. The NATO intervention has been decisive, and that should trouble us.

Had the people of Libya risen up entirely on their own, without outside intervention, and overthrown Gadaffi, he would have had nobody to blame but himself. After a promising start when he overthrew the monarchy of King Idris in 1969, Gadaffi and his colleagues wasted the opportunity to build truly democratic and progressive institutions for their oil and gas rich country. Instead, they chose an individualistic and repressive style of rule, which ended up antagonizing many Libyans and their neighbors. This is why, when Resolution 1973, which authorized armed action to create a no-fly zone in Libya, was introduced in the United Nations Security Council, neither Russia nor China saw fit to use their vetoes. Even though there were warnings that the no-fly zone could easily morph into massive military intervention, they opted to abstain.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was set up after the Second World War, with three goals, according to its first Secretary General, British Field Marshall Lord Ismay: "To keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down." The last goal was soon abandoned, as the newly rebuilt West German armed forces were deemed essential for NATO's operations.

"Keeping the Russians out" turned out to involve, also, sinister interference in their internal affairs of NATO countries. In France, Italy, Greece and elsewhere, NATO set up secret "stay behind" organizations whose purpose was supposedly to resist a Soviet conquest, but who engaged in illegal activities aimed against the left. In Italy, these entities carried out bloody acts of provocation. In Greece, they were implicated in the coup d'état of 1967 and the resulting dictatorship.

In 1955, the Soviet Union and its allies formed the Warsaw Pact as a counter to NATO. But from 1987 to 1991, the socialist governments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe collapsed, taking the Warsaw Pact with them. Logically, NATO should have been disbanded too. Rather, it started looking for a "new mission," which turned out to be projecting force, in the interests of the Western powers and international monopoly capital, to areas of the world far from the "North Atlantic." The disintegration of Yugoslavia brought it into the Balkans. The Afghanistan War brought it into Central Asia. And now it is in Africa.

The double standard of NATO intervention is striking. There have been uprisings in the Kingdom of Bahrain, also violently repressed: Why just pious words and no intervention there? And in many ways Saudi Arabia is a more repressive and despotic regime than is Gadaffi's Libya; why no NATO destabilization efforts? The leaders of the main NATO countries seek to portray it as an "international organization" working for "world peace" and "democracy." Yet when a wide range of institutions, nations and individuals, ranging from United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to the African Union, and including China, Russia, India and other large and important states, called for a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement in Libya, they were contemptuously brushed aside. And it remains to be seen what kind of "democracy" will now be created in Libya.

Libya has massive oil, natural gas and water reserves, and has used its wealth to become a financial powerhouse in African affairs. It has provided development aid to a number of the smaller, poorer African states, thereby, along with China, giving them an alternative to dependency on the former colonial powers, France and Britain. Libya's presence in African affairs included, also, illegitimate interference, and was not liked by the African left. Will the poor African countries, formerly recipients of Gadaffi's sometimes dubious largesse, now find themselves completely at the mercy of their former colonial oppressors, who, in exchange for any aid or even trade, impose the notorious neoliberal program of "free" trade, privatization and austerity?

The precedent set by the Libya intervention is also very dangerous. Governments who have friction with the United States have taken note: Venezuela, for example, has announced that it is going to repatriate its gold reserves, in part probably so that these reserves can not be seized by the United States, the United Kingdom or others, as Libya's assets were seized and then handed over to the rebels.

Building up NATO as a bogus "international organization" to project force all over the world must be opposed. Rather, we should demand that our leaders work to strengthen, rather than undermine, genuine international organizations, such as the United Nations, which work for peaceful solutions to humanity's problems.

Photo: BRQ Network // CC 2.0

The Strauss-Kahn dismissal: Blaming the victim, again

Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:13:00 +0000

It seemed at first to be the perfect reversal of that age-old story: the working-class woman forced to submit silently to the ruling-class male sexual predator, the slave woman forced to yield to the master's will.

For a while, it looked like the victim might have her day in court, and win justice.

Advocates for women's rights cheered as Nafissatou Diallo - a Guinean immigrant, a hotel housekeeper - found the courage to challenge one of the world's most powerful men, International Monetary Fund head Dominque Strauss-Kahn, arbiter of the fortunes of nations.

There was physical evidence characterized by the examining physician at a New York City hospital as showing "assault" and "rape."

There were the statements of fellow hotel workers who saw the distraught Diallo shortly after the encounter.

There were Diallo's consistent accounts of the incident, given in different contexts.

There was Strauss-Kahn's reputation in his home country, France, as a "womanizer," and the reports of other unsavory incidents in his past.

There was a district attorney who appeared ready to prosecute the case to the full extent of the law.

And then began a point-by-point assault on Diallo's credibility, including eavesdropping on her private phone conversations and leaking dubious translations. And finally the prosecution's stunning abandonment of the case, accusing the victim of lacking credibility.

As the prosecution prepared to jump ship, the New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Caucus expressed deep concern "that the treatment of Ms. Diallo may deter future victims of rape or sexual assault from coming forward, out of fear that they may be publicly chastised by law enforcement authorities prior to a trial."

The caucus called for Diallo to be shown the same respect as other alleged victims of sexual assault, and to have her case presented to a jury.

Despite the setback, the case is far from over. Strauss-Kahn was forced to give up his leadership role with the IMF and his ambitions for the French presidency are in shambles. As he returns home, he still faces accusations of rape, this time by a French woman inspired by Diallo's courage.

And Nafissatou Diallo, who dared to strip away the mask from a ruling-class titan, vows to continue her fight in civil court.

Photo: Strauss Khan, via Socialist Party of France. CC // 2.0

“Jesus Was a Commie” and “Vapor Trail”

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:57:00 +0000

TRAVERSE CITY, Mi. - Among the 59 short films screened at the Traverse City Film Festival, the title that attracted the most attention was "Jesus Was a Commie," directed by the accomplished actor Matthew Modine.

Clearly an attempt to diminish the negative stigma of the word in American culture, the film brought Modine to Traverse City where he appeared dressed in the same commie-type clothing that he wore in the film, while he spread his charm throughout the audience at the well-received screening. Known for his fine acting work in "Birdy" and "Full Metal Jacket," to name just two, here he waxes philosophical as the sole actor (playing himself) who wanders around different city locations musing on what 'communism' really means.

The thought-provoking 15-minute short challenges the traditional image and interpretation of Jesus and his life.

It starts out with scenes of the Berlin Wall falling and familiar images of Gorbachev and others. The voiceover reflects, "Last night I began reading about the fall of communism; the more I read, the less I believed it fell because it didn't make sense or didn't work. It was something simpler. It seems the most logical reason communism failed was because of greed. I'd say rock and roll being broadcast on Radio Free Europe had as much to do with the Berlin Wall coming down as Ronald Reagan demanding it so."

Although many readers might disagree with this assessment, it's a popular position presented sincerely and is sure to prompt further discussion.

But Modine goes on explaining, "I looked 'communism' up in the dictionary. The origin of communism is 'common' which is a word filled with goodness."

He elaborates on the definition and goes on to reason that during the time of Jesus his followers would sell their goods and bring the money to be shared in common. By this definition they were all 'communists.' This heretical claim would probably lose most Christians by now, but then he backpedals and professes that the most well-known world communist leaders 'corrupted' the essence of communism - it was really Jesus and his disciples who practiced the true meaning of it. He offers the familiar quote from Brazilian archbishop Dom Helder Camara, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

Devoid of a serious examination of Marxism, or communism for that matter, the film still retains a philosophical quest for the truth, and a search for a better understanding of the word 'communism' when used in social discourse. Daringly titled and provocatively scripted, the film is a good starting point for discussion, especially in religious circles - even among progressives.

The longest film (264 minutes), and probably the most progressive at the festival, was shown in the smallest theater (35 seats). Using the Clark Air Base in the Philippines as the focus of the story, "Vapor Trail (Clark)" takes on some challenging themes, effects caused by the toxic contamination left at the base when it was abandoned in 1991, and the relatively unknown American imperialist adventure during the turn of the century that set the groundwork for future escapades in Vietnam, Iraq, and on and on. John Sayles recently took on the same subject, the Philippine/American War, in his new film, "Amigo," based on his own bestseller, "Moment in the Sun."

Those are two totally different styles of direction, though.

Director John Gianvito's work is reminiscent of the great British filmmaker Peter Watkins, known for his highly sensitive and provocative studies of history and politics. Stylistically, he challenges traditional formats, camerawork and film structure; long movies, lingering shots, slower pacing, and deep sensitivity to the subjects. Emerson College Professor Gianvito previously directed a meditative study of progressive landmarks and tombstones in a unique film called "Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind." But "Vapor Trail (Clark)" is a major step forward in his work. Despite the challenging directorial approach, he's an artist to watch, and if you are open to accepting original artistic styles, his films are valuable and rewarding for progressives to see and study.

This of course raises the most important question: How can anyone see these films? Many of the great films shown at festivals are never released or seen anywhere else. But some end up in the movie theaters, on TV, cable or even the Internet. Some go directly to DVD and are available from places like Netflix or Blockbuster. The two films discussed here have websites where more detailed information can be found. But your best bet is to try to attend and support local film festivals, which are often the only source for challenging films like these today.

Photo: Film still

Radical history will come to life at Oklahoma Laborfest

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:09:00 +0000

OKLAHOMA CITY - This city's Central Labor Council is following up last year's highly successful labor festival with a second "Oklahoma Laborfest" Aug. 25-27. It will feature special poster art by one of the state's most sought after artists, Carlos Tello, as well as union music, readings, poetry, workshops, cultural booths, history lessons and outstanding films such as Matewan and Salt of the Earth.

One of the most remarkable features will be a special reading at noon, Aug. 27, of Nor Iron Bars. Here is how they describe it:

From 1938 to 1940, Eli Jaffe, a young writer and activist originally from Brooklyn, N.Y., worked across the state of Oklahoma as an organizer for labor and civil rights on behalf of the Communist Party USA. On Aug. 17, 1940, he was arrested along with over a dozen others in conjunction with a police raid of the Progressive Bookstore, located in downtown Oklahoma City. Details of this raid and the subsequent "Book Trials," which gained national attention, can be read in Books on Trial: Red Scare in the Heartland (OU Press, 2007).

Because of his work as a labor and civil rights organizer and his relationship to the CPUSA, Jaffe was one of the four defendants put on trial for "criminal syndicalism," or plotting for the overthrow of the United States government through violent means. The only evidence entered into court against Jaffe was the fact that he had no middle name (which was offered as proof he was a Russian spy), a photograph of him sharing a meal with African Americans and excerpts from books gathered in the bookstore raid.

Jaffe wrote Nor Iron Bars, a one-act stage play of several scenes, in September 1941. The play is based on his experience in the Oklahoma County jail, where he spent four months over the course of the trials. The play incorporates elements of his own Oklahoma City story as well as the social realism, regionalism and agitation propaganda that was predominant in literature and the arts at the time. The play has never before been produced or publicly read.

Wilma Lewis Jaffe, native Oklahoman and Jaffe's widow, has granted exclusive rights to produce the play to Laborfest Planning Committee member Rachel Jackson. This year's public reading is being facilitated by the Lawton Improv Group under the direction of Daren Two Hatchett. Those interested in participating in the reading or in being in the audience are welcome.

For more information on the Laborfest, see the website.

Photo: A section of Carlos Tello's poster art.

Obama, the debt, and "shared sacrifice"

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:18:00 +0000

"Shared sacrifice" has become a key talking point among many top politicians opposing the Republican Party's defense of the super-rich and refusal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

The idea is the national interest demands that everyone has a stake in contributing to resolving the debt crisis. If workers are expected to contribute, then the wealthy too should pay their fair share. Sounds reasonable, right?

Except that there is not a speck of fairness in asking the working class and poor to "share" in paying for a crisis created in the first place by capitalist greed.

Recall that the Great Recession itself was brought on by speculation in sub-prime mortgages that deliberately targeted black, Latino and senior homeowners.

These homeowners lost billions while banks and mortgage companies were made fabulously richer.

In addition, remember that when several banks and finance companies collapsed, those "too-big-to-fail" were bailed out by U.S. taxpayers, many of whom were victims of the fraud in the first place.

Adding to the crisis were two imperialist wars that cost untold billions in wasted money, to say nothing of thousands of U.S., Iraqi and Afghan lives.

And yet now the working-class public is being asked to sacrifice again, even though:

Corporate profits are higher than ever;
Executive compensation has exceeded pre-recession levels;
Big businesses like GE pay no U.S. taxes.

On the other hand:

Worker productivity is up while wages are stagnant;
16 percent of the workforce remains unemployed;
One in five children live below the poverty line;
2 million homes are in danger of being foreclosed on.

In these circumstances, after the recently concluded debt deal, vague promises of protecting programs serving the poor, along with Social Security and Medicare, offer little comfort. This is particularly so when those promises are accompanied by talk of "entitlement reform."

Potential cuts have been referred to a "super-committee" to be decided by November.

With President Obama saying he is ready to "take knocks" from his own party for putting entitlements on the table, key elements of the social safety net may well be on the chopping block.

The probability of a double dip recession raises this danger.

There are precedents. Only a year ago, the lame duck Democratic-controlled Congress, in order to reach agreement with the GOP, agreed to cut food stamps for hungry families in order to preserve school lunch programs.

Yes, Congress made Peter the father go hungry, so his child Pauline might eat in school.

And now it seems the sharing of sacrifice is being turned on the labor movement and the very process of collective bargaining.

President Obama, while in Iowa this week, acknowledged the importance of collective bargaining, but then called on public workers to make wage and benefit concessions.

"I do say, though, to my friends in the public sector unions, that it is important that you are on the side of reform where reform is needed," he said.

According to the president, unions should say, "We're willing to make some modifications in terms of how our pension systems work so that they're sustainable for the next generation of teachers as long as it's a conversation, as opposed to it simply being imposed and collective bargaining rights being stripped away."

He went on to call for sacrifice and "burden sharing" and suggested reducing state workers benefits while oddly lending legitimacy to the tea party led assault.

The president made his view clear: "If a public sector employee is able to retire at 55 with 80 percent of their wages, and the average public sector employee has got a 401(k) that they've just seen decline by about 20 percent and they have no idea how they're going to retire, and they're feeling burdened by a lot of taxes and they don't feel like the public sector employers are making any adjustments whatsoever to reflect the tough economic realities that are facing folks who are not protected, then there's going to be a natural backlash."

A natural backlash? From whom?

The president surely knows only too well the backlash is a tea party inspired artificial "astroturf" corporate-driven campaign.

That there may be confusion among some workers on the issue in no way implies a natural or spontaneous movement demanding a lowering wages and benefits.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka put it well recently: "And too many of our political leaders in both parties are stuck, focused on deficits instead of creating jobs, telling us we need to make tough choices and accept shared sacrifice. But working families - young workers, seniors, people of color, poor people, and people with disabilities - have been doing all the sacrificing, while billionaires get tax cuts, and corporations get tax incentives to export good jobs overseas!"

Jessie Jackson also takes note of the problem: "Shared sacrifice" is said to be lowering rates even further on the top end and corporations, while reducing school lunch programs, slashing funding to poor schools, and cutting affordable housing. "

In today's political environment shared sacrifice means that workers and the poor are getting the short end of the stick. It cannot be an excuse to allow the slow but sure erosion of hard fought gains like collective bargaining and the safety net, no matter who tries to do it.

Shared sacrifice cannot mean that policymakers make choices that favor the value of corporate shares, while everyone else is sacrificed.

Photo: dignidadrebelde/Flickr

Dissident Arts Festival held in New York

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:21:00 +0000

The sixth annual Dissident Arts Festival was held in New York City at the Brecht Forum.

John Pietaro, a labor organizer and musician, along with poets and activists John and Steve Bloom, brought the festival to New York City last year from Beacon, N.Y., where it originated.

The festival featured film, poetry and song. First on the bill was one of the most highly regarded labor films ever made in the U.S., Salt of the Earth. Documentarian Kevin Keating (Harlan County U.S.A., and Giuliani Time), who led a discussion on the movie, said, "The audience loved the film. Everybody was stunned, I think. I don't think anyone in the audience had seen it before. The film was made by communists and that power came through in the film."

Singer/songwriter Judy Gorman did a great rendition of Pete Seeger's Talking Union.

The Raging Grannies also showed up and made a lasting impression. Carson Chutters, a New York teacher said the Grannies "were wonderful. It was really exciting to hear them. I'm an educator. I work with eight- to 12-year-olds. I'm always looking for ways to integrate and make music more accessible to people who don't always have exposure to these ideas, and I especially think that the music and lyrics and the way they were talking about these really complex issues made it really easy and fun to participate ... What a wonderful way to start engaging than signing a really exciting song and getting into it."

Poets Steve Bloom, Sara Goudarzi, Mary Ellen Sanger, Angelo Verga, Jackie Sheeler and Robert Gibbons read some of their works to the delight of the audience. Satirist Dave Lippman provided the audience with belly laughs "protecting greed" and other acts.

A jazz and spoken word ensemble from San Francisco, Upsurge, blew the audience away with their powerful music and lyrics, which condemned Wall Street and the greedy banks. The leader of the group, Raymond Nat Turner, said, "This is a perfect showcase for what we've been doing for 20 years in the Bay Area." This was the group's first performance at the festival.

Summing it up, festival organizer John Pietaro said, "This is the second year of the festival in New York City. People we get each year have a following. Kevin, who was with us last year, Gwen Laster, who performed at Obama's inauguration, Upsurge, from San Francisco."

"The goal is for Dissident Arts to become a real organization, not just a yearly concert but a regular series of things influenced to some degree by Pete Seeger's people songs, the composer's collective in New York in the 30s, and Aaron Copeland," said Pietaro.

He concluded. "We need to have a broad coalition of people who are tired of capitalism and certainly tired of the military industrial complex that we've been living in."

Photo: Radio Noir performs at the Dissident Art Festival.