People Before Profit blog

NY Better World Awards honor activists, salute protests

Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:38:00 +0000

A cold December day did little to chill the spirits of those attending the annual New York Friends of the Peoples World Better World Awards: a scheduling misunderstanding had left attendees standing in a freezing wind until the auditorium was opened.

Once inside, hearty salutes to striking fast food workers and the tens of thousands protesting the killing of Michael Brown and Eric Garner paid by Jarvis Tyner district chair of the New York Communist Party, and others quickly warmed the crowd as the program honoring Cormanita Mahr, Vice President of United Healthcare Workers East (SEIU 1199), Zephyr Teachout a candidate for governor of NY, Reverend Danilo Lachapel, director of Give Them to Eat Ministry and New York CP labor leader Bill Davis, got underway.

A resolution condemning the police killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown was presented and passed unanimously. It urged all "intensify our personal efforts and those of organizations in which we participate, joining with the millions of African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and other people of color, as well as white working people who are ready to fight to end the scourge of racism, and for full equality in our land."

The event was MC'd by Estevan Nembhard-Bassett, the New York CPUSA organizer.

Mahr, a longtime union peace and justice advocate who directed 1199's campaign to secure paid leave when receiving her award, saluted the young people in the streets leading the way demanding justice for Eric Garner.

Teachout, argued that campaign finance reform can be achieved through antitrust reform. Antitrust legislation can be seen as a form of indirect campaign finance reform by limiting the power of corporations to influence elections, she said.

Commenting on taxes, Teachout said, "I would roll back the tax cuts Governor Cuomo handed the wealthy few. We should extend the millionaire's tax beyond 2017, to ensure we can fund our schools and public programs for the long-term. We should bring back a form of the bank tax, and review the corporate tax system, to ensure companies pay their fair share."

Bill Davis, received Peoplesworld.org's of the Lifetime Achievement Award. He expressed his appreciation this way, "All that I have accomplished and hope to in the future I owe to my party. Not that everything that I have done was within my party. But when I took on responsibilities in other organizations, whether it was my union, the May Day Committee, the Working Families Party, the Left Labor Project, Veterans for Peace, or numerous Political Campaign Committees and campaigns - I did so with the party's help and encouragement."

The Reverend Danilo Lachapel, when receiving his award paid tribute to peoplesworld.org and those on the program working for the poor, including the Communist Party. "I see no contradiction between my Christian beliefs and those of communists; communists fought along side those in Central and South America to free themselves from brutal dictatorships backed by Western powers".

Ricky Eisenberg, longtime peoples troubadour led participants in songs of struggle while participates enjoyed a variety of delicious entrees prepared by the food committee.

In closing, one of the organizers of the event, Tina Nannarone thanked all who braved the cold and wind to help make the Better World Awards a huge success.

New connections were made and earlier ones solidified. Forward - A Better World is Possible!

Click here for photos of event.

New tasks for the Cuba solidarity movement

Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:50:00 +0000

The stunning announcements Dec. 17 by Presidents Obama of the U.S. and Raul Castro Ruz of Cuba, about the exchange of prisoners and the upcoming reset of the whole relationship between the two countries creates a new scenario for the Cuba solidarity movement.

The ultra-right in and out of Congress responded with frenzy. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida called Obama's actions "absurd, disgraceful and outrageous." Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and other leading GOP politicians agreed. An exception was Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, who has been pushing for an end to the U.S. blockade of Cuba for a while. Rand Paul, the "libertarian" right wing Republican Senator from Kentucky, said engaging with Cuba is "a good idea."

Most Democratic Party leaders gave at least cautious support to the president's proposals, including Hillary Clinton and two other people mentioned as possible 2016 presidential candidates, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and outgoing Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Exceptions included U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who is close to Cuban exile circles in his state and blasted the changes.

Vermont's independent senator, Bernie Sanders, said Obama's announcement was "a major step forward toward ending the 55-year cold war with Cuba."

Evidently, this is going to be an election issue in 2016.

Polling suggests that public opinion will support the reset of the relationship between the two countries. Over the years, public hostility against Cuba has declined, and many are annoyed that the government tells them they can't travel to Cuba. Many resent the seeming "stranglehold" that the South Florida exiles have over U.S. foreign policy. Lately the good press that Cuba has been getting over its contribution to the fight against the West African Ebola epidemic has been helpful in changing public opinion.

It seems probable that the Obama administration will now work with considerable speed to implement the changes. Obama has stolen a march on the Republican opposition, so it is to his advantage to move as fast as he can so that the the right cannot catch up until it is too late.

Some things can't be undone. The releasing of the three remaining "Cuban Five" in exchange for two U.S. agents can never be reversed. The anti-Cuba right has said they will block funding for the creation of a new U.S. embassy in Havana, but the building is already there: Its name needs just to be changed from "Interests Section" to "embassy." They can't stop Cuba from opening an embassy in Washington D.C. either, except by special legislation which won't prosper. They can try to pass special legislation forbidding the restoration of full diplomatic relations, but that will face a constitutional challenge.

Obama's statement about possibly taking Cuba off the "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list also enraged the reactionaries, who are not bothered when somebody commits acts of terrorism against Cuba like the blowing up of a Cuban airliner in 1976. Currently, besides Cuba, the only states on that list are Iran, Sudan, and Syria. The removal of Cuba from the list, a long time demand of progressive activists in the United States, would eliminate some trade restrictions. Few think that Cuba actually "sponsors terrorism," so it's being on the list has nothing to do with protecting our people. Reagan put Cuba on the list in 1982 in part because of Cuba's efforts to defend Angola against attacks from the apartheid regime in South Africa. To remove Cuba from this list, all Secretary of State John Kerry has to do is to declare that Cuba is not sponsoring terrorism anywhere, and that Cuba is off the list. The United States has removed other countries from the list in the past without problems. Congress has no say in the matter.

The changes in the rules for travel and most of the other changes Obama announced also not likely to be successfully challenged except by passage of new anti-Cuba legislation, which will be an uphill struggle and will not gain the support of public opinion.

The toughest item will be the passage of new legislation eliminating the blockade entirely. In his speech, Obama said he would ask Congress for this. This means repealing or radically modifying the Toricelli Amendment of 1982 and the Helms-Burton act of 1996, and other things. But now that the Cuban 5 are free forever and the other changes, within the purview of executive power, are underway, the large network of organizations and individuals who have been working for decades to change U.S. Cuba policy will be able to increase their concentration on new goals.

In the past, getting such legislation through Congress has not been possible, to a large extent because it was always opposed by the White House. Now the White House will support it. While the Republican majorities in both Houses present a special problem, it is also the case that there are business interests who want the blockade eliminated. So let's not be pessimistic about this, while understanding it will take a lot of work.

The immediate task is to defend the Cuba reset program presented by Obama from attacks by the right.

In the New Year, let's hit the ground running!

Photo: AP

Oakland town hall demands end to police violence

Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:39:00 +0000

OAKLAND, Calif. - Ending the longstanding reality of unpunished police violence against black and brown men was the topic Dec. 17 at a town hall meeting that drew people from all over Oakland and nearby communities.

People of all ages, mostly African American but including all races, packed the pews and spilled over into the choir loft at north Oakland's Beebe Memorial Cathedral, at the gathering organized by Black Elected Officials and Faith-Based Leaders of the East Bay.

While the nationally-known names of Michael Brown and Eric Garner were woven throughout the presentations, speakers also recalled with grief their friends and family members who had met with violence at the hands of police.

Listening intently were area elected officials, government administrators, and some police officials.

A theme that came up often, as dozens of audience members spoke, was the need for police to interact with and really get to know the people in the communities they serve.

"When we talk about community-police interaction, we understand that especially our African American and brown young men are scared of police, and we also understand that some police are scared of the citizens they meet," Wanda Johnson told the crowd.

Johnson's son, Oscar Grant, was fatally shot by a Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer on New Year's Day 2009, just weeks before his 23rd birthday.

Police need to live in the communities they serve, "so they know how to react when situations occur," Johnson said. "Take off the uniforms sometimes, come to some of the events, talk with the people and get to know them."

A number of speakers called for restorative justice programs, where everyone involved discusses what happened, how to keep it from happening again, how the offender can address the damage, and together make a plan that community members can make sure is carried out.

"The solution I put forth today is that we come together and we do what we say needs to happen in any relationship that needs to heal," said one woman. "We begin the dialogues, we talk, and we take on restorative justice conversations that are already going forward, and we start to have them all over this city." She urged faith-based organizations to host such dialogues between law enforcement and the community, "and let's talk, let's start to heal."

Another woman put it differently: "As adults we always think we have the solution and we don't stop to hear what the youth want us to do." She called for restorative justice circles with law enforcement, community members, teachers, youth, and young adults, in all Oakland public schools.

Many speakers called for an end to the practice of supplying police departments with military weaponry.

Oscar Grant's uncle, Cephus Johnson, put the issue in a broader context as he sharply criticized huge military spending generally, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and related it to the pervasive and growing militarization of police departments.

Pointing out that in 2012, Oakland taxpayers paid nearly $1 billion toward the Pentagon budget, he urged that the funds be used instead for education including early childhood education, child health care and other social needs.

"We are in a state of emergency," Cephus Johnson said. "The very foundation of society right now is resting on this racist criminal justice system. It's the backbone of society. And this system in its entirety must be dismantled and restructured so black folks, brown folks, those who believe in true justice can really see justice."

Still others took out after local media for demonizing victims of police violence and peaceful protesters.

While most of the evening was devoted to hearing from the audience, some time was left for responses by elected officials.

U.S. representative Barbara Lee, who represents Oakland and surrounding communities, called on audience members to help fight for Congressional passage of six bills she is working on, to support police accountability and grand jury reform, end racial profiling and police militarization, and increase funds for a variety of social needs programs.

"We're going to need all of you, to make those changes," she told the crowd. "Fifty years ago, change did not come from within, it came from outside, it was the protests and the young people" that made the difference.

In closing remarks, meeting chair Keith Carson, president of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, emphasized that the town hall was just the first of many such discussions.

Photo: Wanda Johnson, mother of victim Oscar Grant, addresses the audience. Marilyn Bechtel/PW

AFGE says military overspending led to unpaid furloughs

Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:50:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (PAI) - Citing a study by the independent, non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Government Employees (AFGE) says military overspending on contractors led to unneeded unpaid furloughs of civilian Defense Department (DoD) workers.

And AFGE, which represents the civilian DoD workers, who were left for weeks with no jobs and no paychecks, is demanding the Defense Department, particularly the U.S. Army, follow the law that limited the agency's overall spending on such contractors.

The problem is not just in the past, either, AFGE notes. That's because DoD furloughed its workers to cut spending to comply with "sequestration," the GOP ordered federal budget cuts in 2013. And unless the new 114^th Congress acts, sequestration will return, AFGE warns.

The comments from AFGE and its citation of the GAO report are the latest evidence in the union's continuing effort to rein in government overspending on private contractors. That spending has mushroomed for years, both in the U.S. and abroad. Congress has set limits on overall DoD contractor spending, but DoD broke them, the union pointed out.

"Department of Defense spending on service contracts is closing in on $200 billion annually, having more than doubled in little more than a decade; already, it is more than double the cost of the Department's entire civilian workforce," AFGE reported.

"Contractors and their allies in Congress, think tanks, and the media used the debate over 'acquisition reform' to push for proposals to further enrich contractors. Conspicuously absent from this debate is how DoD can control spending on service contracts," it said.

DoD civilian workers are supposed to perform many of those services, due to the national security implications of contracting them out, the union adds. AFGE also repeatedly points out that using civilian defense workers for various tasks is cheaper than contracting out.

Overall, DoD overspent its $56.5 billion contracting limit in fiscal 2012, which ended Sept. 30, 2012, by $1.72 billion, the accountability office report said. It stayed within its fiscal 2013 limit of $57.5 billion, by $500 million. But that year, GAO said, the Army blew through its ceiling on contractor spending, while the rest of DoD did not.

"While implementing both the civilian and contract services limitations, the department faced uncertainty about funding levels associated with the automatic, across-the-board cancellation of budgetary resources, known as sequestration," GAO pointed out.

The sequester forced a $37 billion cut in DoD discretionary spending, GAO said. DoD saved the money by furloughing its civilian workers, "but contract services were not subject to these furloughs and DOD continued to use contracted support under existing contracts."

DoD reported different figures for the contractor spending, the report adds, because its contracting offices kept excluding items. But the key point - the overspending - remained, GAO said.

"Varied implementation of fiscal controls hampered military department efforts to adhere to the spending limits. In fiscal year 2012, DoD exceeded the spending limit because each of the military departments exceeded their respective spending targets," GAO added.

Since DoD overspent in one prior fiscal year and the Army overspent its contracting budget every year, DoD had to take the money out of its own civilian workers' pockets, AFGE, which represents the workers, said.

"No 'acquisition reform' is complete if DoD is still unable to identify and control the ever-increasing costs of its service contracts," AFGE said. The union said the agency must "ensure the cap on service contract spending is retained.

"Not only does it (the contractor spending cap) discourage DoD from shifting work from civilians to service contractors, but it helps to hold down costs. Recommendations from GAO to improve planning, enhance control, and ensure consistency in guidance should be implemented, as well as close loopholes that allow large amounts of service contract spending to escape scrutiny."

AFGE also said the department must finally assemble a master inventory of all the private service contracts - something, GAO pointed out, that Congress first required in 2008 - to hold services accountable for staying within spending limits. Doing so will also "reduce reliance on costly contractors for performance of risky contracts, as required by law," AFGE noted.

And it said the Army contracting and budget office needs "special oversight," given its past record for budget-busting on contractor spending. "Working-class and middle-class civilian employees must not again lose paychecks because of the Army's illegal over-spending on service contracts," AFGE stated.

Photo: DoD

Obama’s historic shift on U.S.-Cuba relations

Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:05:00 +0000

Americans and Cubans woke up on Dec. 17 to the jaw-dropping news that the U.S. is making a monumental shift in its relations with Cuba. The remaining three Cuban Five prisoners had been freed from U.S. jails, and two U.S. prisoners, Alan Gross and an unnamed intelligence operative, were returning to the U.S.. Hours later President Obama told the nation: "I've instructed Secretary Kerry to immediately begin discussions with Cuba to reestablish diplomatic relations that have been severed since January of 1961."

The president's actions, negotiated with Cuban President Raul Castro and with the help of Pope Francis, set the stage for an end to the failed 54-year-old U.S. embargo against trade with Cuba, and opened up, as Obama put it, "a new chapter among the nations of the Americas."

This shift was in the making for a while. A recent New York Times editorial series seemed to signal that a major portion of ruling circles were ready to make such a move and for multiple reasons.

The Times pointed out one important reason for thawing U.S. Cold War policy towards Cuba: It would bolster U.S. relations with the rest of Latin America, where the United States finds itself more and more isolated. The solidarity towards Cuba displayed by Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua and all the countries of Central and South America and the Caribbean has been unyielding. The United States has found itself isolated throughout the world on its Cuba policy. Last year's United Nations vote on ending the U.S. embargo left the U.S. and Israel as the only two dissenters out of 186 nations.

Public attitudes towards Cuba in our country have been changing dramatically over the years, with majorities now favoring ending the embargo, opening up trade, scientific and cultural ties, and travel and re-establishing full diplomatic relations. Even in the all-important state of Florida, the shift among the politically significant Cuban American population has been seismic. For the first time ever, this previously solid Republican voting bloc chose a Democrat who had called for the end to the embargo over a Republican in the governor's race this year.

But as important as these factors are, making a policy change required a president who had the courage and foresight to act on them. The American people elected such a president in 2008 and 2012. Elections matter.

In addition to the U.S.-Cuba agreement releasing the remaining Cuban Five prisoners and American Alan Gross, and re-establishing diplomatic relations, President Obama announced the following actions:

* making it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba and use credit and debit cards, allowing U.S. financial institutions to open accounts at Cuban financial institutions.;

* significantly increasing the amount of money that Americans can send to relatives in Cuba;

* opening a review aiming toward removing the State Department's designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism.

* increasing telecommunications connections between the United States and Cuba;

* facilitating more trade.

These remarkable changes are in the interests of the American people. Yet the president pointed out the limitations of executive action.

"These are the steps that I can take as president to change this policy," he said. "The embargo that's been imposed for decades is now codified in legislation. As these changes unfold, I look forward to engaging Congress in an honest and serious debate about lifting the embargo." This is a challenge to us all to build the broadest possible movement to make Congress revoke the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, the 2000 Trade Sanctions Reform and Enforcement Act and four other laws that since 1961 have crippled our policy toward Cuba and therefore our relations with all of Latin America.

This move by Obama is a historic sea-change in U.S. foreign policy. It opens up tremendous possibilities for progressive exchange with the socialist island 90 miles to our south, a country that has been a beacon of hope and progress for the hemisphere and the world. It took enormous courage by this president. The Republican right-wing has already responded with rabid criticism and more can be expected, especially once the new Republican-controlled Congress takes office in January.

Of note is the role played by Pope Francis in facilitating this enormous development. Both Obama and Castro thanked the Pope. This new leader of the billion-strong Catholic Church has stirred the world with his advocacy for the poor, immigrants and the oppressed. All three men - Obama, Castro and Francis - it can be said, are change-makers, taking bold steps - even if they go against some past orthodoxies - to reflect the new realities, complexities and values of the 21st century.

Obama's historic Cuba announcement follows his other important post-midterm election actions, including protecting Alaska's Bristol Bay from oil and gas drilling, providing deportation relief for undocumented immigrants and signing the U.S.-China carbon agreement. All these are significant, bold progressive actions that need public support against the Republicans' shrill efforts to overturn them.

Certainly we can find fault in some of the president's comments on Wednesday about human rights and communism. After the images of militarized police using rubber bullets and tear gas against peaceful protesters in Ferguson, Mo., the notion that the U.S. "believes that no Cuban should face harassment or arrest or beatings simply because they're exercising a universal right to have their voices heard" is rather ironic. But it's not surprising that Obama (and others) reflect some degree of anti-communism. We should not expect them to suddenly become advocates of Cuban socialism!

But let's not let such language distract us from the enormous significance of the president's action. It deserves our unqualified support.

Who could have imagined, even a few days ago, the president of the United States saying to the Cuban people and government: "America extends a hand of friendship"! That should be music to the ears of everyone who believes in peace and international people's solidarity.

A broad base in our country favors this, including major corporations, small businesses, farmers, workers, religious and social justice groups. This is the makings of a multi-class, broad people's coalition to support the president's actions and end the embargo. The left should help champion this.

Some on the left are worrying that this is just a ruse for imperialism to get a foothold in Cuba; that it is the beginning of the end of the revolution. What would they prefer: a war? This joint U.S.-Cuban move is a victory for all of us who want to see socialist Cuba succeed. Such naysaying implies that the Cubans have had no say in the matter or they are naive. But following Tuesday's announcement in simultaneous televised speeches by Obama and Castro, the Cuban island resonated with the sound of church bells ringing in celebration of the freedom of their Cuban Five heroes and the major opening in relations with the U.S. Why would we Americans do less?

It's worth noting that despite the punitive 50-plus-year U.S. blockade, Cuba's health care system is the envy of the world. It puts people first. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than our country. It has sent doctors and health care professionals all over the world to heal the sick and injured, most recently to West Africa to fight Ebola. It has educated students from throughout Asia, Africa and the Americas - including the U.S. - to become doctors in needy communities in their own countries.

President Obama noted these achievements in his speech, pointing out "the benefits of cooperation between our countries" especially in the medical field. "It was a Cuban, Carlos Finlay who discovered that mosquitoes carry yellow fever; his work helped Walter Reed fight it," Obama said.

"Cuba sent hundreds of health care workers to Africa to fight Ebola and I believe American and Cuban health care workers should work side by side to stop the spread of this deadly disease."

The Cuban people with their tenacity, talents, resilience, and social awareness will determine their future, honoring the social system that has provided a way to do so much with so little.

This is a moment to embrace, to celebrate and to grasp hold of. It is not a moment to damn with faint praise. Let us all remember December 17, 2014, as a day when that long moral arc of history bent towards justice. Thank you, President Obama, for this great holiday gift of hope, peace and goodwill.

Now it's up to all of us to work hard - lobbying, letter-writing, sign-holding, Facebooking, tweeting, organizing - to support the president's action and demand that Congress pass a law that ends the embargo completely. Contact your senators and representative now! Get your friends, neighbors and co-workers to do the same.

Photo: President Barack Obama talks on the phone with Alan Gross, who was en route to the United States from Cuba, in the Oval Office, Dec. 17, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Athletes join growing movement for racial justice

Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:57:00 +0000

"Usually I stay out of politics and police brutality. I'm not saying all cops are bad or anything, I'm just saying what happened is uncalled for, and I think that hurt a lot of people. It hurt the nation," said Derrick Rose, star basketball player for the Chicago Bulls.

Rose was thoughtfully reflecting on the reasons he wore the "I can't breathe" t-shirt while warming up for a game against the Golden State Warriors on Dec. 6. These were the final desperate words uttered by Eric Garner as he was being strangled by a police chokehold on Staten Island. A grand jury refused to indict the officer.

Scores of professional and college athletes, including entire teams, are following Rose's lead and speaking up. Given the enormous pressures on athletes to "shut up and play," the stand of NFL and NBA athletes, and players from the Georgetown Hoyas men's and Notre Dame women's basketball teams, is both courageous and unprecedented.

Rose and some close friends were contemplating the injustice as they watched thousands of people marching in Chicago. They had experienced incidents of racism, police brutality, and violence in the Englewood neighborhood where they grew up. Rose had already decided to speak out, concerned about the future of his own two-year-old son.

The first to protest were St. Louis Rams football players, several of whom came onto the field holding their hands aloft shortly after the non-indictment of the officer who killed Michael Brown.

On Dec. 7, Cleveland Browns player Andrew Hawkins took it a step further by speaking out against police killing of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland and John Crawford, killed by police in a Walmart store in Beavercreek, Ohio (see video below).

"I understood there was going to be backlash, and that scared me, honestly. But deep down I felt like it was the right thing to do," Hawkins said. "If I was to run away from what I felt in my soul was the right thing to do, that would make me a coward, and I can't live with that."

Hawkins spoke emotionally about his fears that the same thing that happened to Tamir Rice would happen to his two-year-old son.

The Internet and media have been abuzz over the protests and reactions to them. While some police unions have issued condemnations, and racist vitriol has been directed against many of the players, they have received widespread support from teammates, fans, coaches, athletic directors and sports writers.

On Dec. 10, the entire Georgetown men's basketball team wore the t-shirts, becoming the first athletes on the college level to protest.

"It was quite a few families who lost a loved one this year with the Michael Brown case and Trayvon Martin also. We really wanted to represent those families that all lost someone," said junior guard D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera after the game.

Afterwards Georgetown coach John Thompson III shared how the players arrived at their decision. "The emotions and feelings in the locker room are all over the place. It's not necessarily that everyone feels the same way. Emotions [range] from fear, to frustration, to confusion, to anger," said Thompson.

Thompson III's father is John Thompson, Jr., who has been outspoken for years against racism as a former coach for the Hoyas. Thompson, Jr., was the first African American coach to win an NCAA title. He also played professionally for the Boston Celtics during the late 1950s and 1960s and endured constant racist harassment.

The opposing team and its coach were equally supportive of the Hoyas' protest. "It's a pretty strong stance," Kansas coach Bill Self said. "I think it's pretty good. It certainly shows a lot of solidarity amongst their unit. I don't see anything negative with it at all."

The entire Notre Dame women's basketball team, composed of black and white players, wore the t-shirt on Dec. 6. The idea originated with forward Taya Reimer, a white player, who suggested to her teammates they wear the shirts after students on the Notre Dame campus organized a die-in. The players were strongly backed by both the school athletic director and coach, both white.

"That's what we want our kids doing," said Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick. "If all we're doing is teaching them to play sports, then we're missing the boat."

"Notre Dame is a place that has always fought for social justice," said Irish coach Muffet McGraw, who is also white. "In my office I have a picture of Father (Theodore) Hesburgh and Martin Luther King arm in arm in the fight for civil rights. I was really proud of Taya (Reimer) and our team for being willing to publicly stand for something you believe in." (Story continues after video)

Hesburgh is a progressive theologian and former longtime president of Notre Dame University. In 2009, he defended the university's decision to invite President Obama to give the commencement address and confer him an honorary degree against right-wing opposition over the president's support for reproductive rights.

In addition to Hawkins, a number of other Cleveland professional athletes have spoken out, including basketball star LeBron James, who wore an "I can't breathe" t-shirt before a recent game with the Brooklyn Nets. Teammate Kyrie Irving and several of the Brooklyn players joined James.

Outspoken Browns players' rep Johnson Bademosi hand scrawled the words on a warm-up jersey before a game against the Indianapolis Colts. He wrote a moving explanation of his actions on the website MMQB (Monday Morning Quarterback).

"But this issue as I see it - police killings as a symptom of the systematic and historical devaluing of black lives - seemed too big to ignore," wrote Bademosi. "My T-shirt was a tribute to the life of Eric Garner and to the countless black men victimized by our country's never-ending hegemony, and an expression of the feelings that my teammates and I felt while we were discussing these issues."

Photo: This picture of Bulls Derrick Rose went viral on social media Dec. 6 when he became the first NBA star to wear this t-shirt with Eric Garner's last words at a pre-game warm up (via Twitter).

U.S. and Cuba announce re-establishment of diplomatic relations!

Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:49:00 +0000

At noon on Wednesday, Dec. 17, church bells began to ring all over Cuba.

At that hour, President Barack Obama of the United States and President Raul Castro Ruz of Cuba simultaneously announced a breathtakingly radical agreement to change the relationship between the two countries, which have been in the deep freeze since the victory of the Cuban Revolution on January 1, 1959.

A significant feature of the new agreement was the decision by the United States to release the three remaining members of the Cuban Five, a group of Cuban undercover agents who were arrested 16 years ago for carrying out surveillance of potentially violent right-wing Cuban exile groups in South Florida. Two of the five, Rene Gonzalez and Fernando Gonzalez, were freed after serving out their terms. The three remaining members of the Five, Gerardo Hernandez, Antonio Guerrero and Ramon Labañino, have now been freed. The case of Gerardo Hernandez was especially dire as he was serving life terms on trumped up murder charges.

As a humanitarian exchange, Cuba has now freed former USAID subcontractor Alan Gross, who has served five years in a Cuban prison after having been convicted of violating Cuban law by smuggling in sophisticated, prohibited surveillance avoidance equipment under the guise of visiting Cuba as a tourist. Arriving on U.S. soil looking fit and happy, Gross called for work toward the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. The Cuban government has been suggesting for several years that a humanitarian exchange of Gross for the Cuban Five be carried out.

Gross' family came to also support the idea of such an exchange. Evidently a factor in tipping the scale in favor of the exchange was that Cuba agreed to free unnamed other prisoners, also, including a Cuban national serving 20 years in a Cuban prison for spying for the United States. President Obama called this individual "one of the most valuable intelligence agents" the United States has had in Cuba. CNN reports that the unnamed agent played a role in the arrest of the Cuban Five and of three other U.S. government workers accused and convicted of spying for Cuban: Ana Belen Montes, Walter Kendell Myers and Myers' wife Gwendolyn.

But the coordinated speeches of the two presidents went far, far beyond the agreement about the exchange of prisoners. It is clear that President Obama is now aiming for a radical reworking of Cuban-U.S. relations. Paraphrasing Einstein's definition of madness, he said "I do not think we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect different results."

The far reaching changes that will take place immediately or after some study include:

* Making it much easier for U.S. citizens to visit Cuba, spend money there, and use U.S. credit and debit cards while in Cuba. The categories of persons allowed by the United States to travel to Cuba will be expanded to include new groups.

* Establishment of full diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States. Currently, there is only a low level diplomatic presence of the United States in Cuba and Cuba in the United States, called the U.S. and Cuban "Interests Sections" and not "embassies." The top diplomats are officially called "chief of the Interests Section" instead of "Ambassador."

* Removal of Cuba from the U.S. government's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism." Again, this is supposed to happen after "review" by the U.S. State Department, but it is improbable that it would have been announced if it were not pretty much decided.

* Cuban-Americans will now be able to send up to $2,000 to relatives in Cuba, instead of $500 as heretofore.

* It will be easier for businesses, U.S. and foreign, to trade with Cuba. The U.S. will stop blocking the importation of certain kinds of communications equipment, including computer hardware and software, to Cuba, making it possible for many more people in Cuba to have improved internet access. Blocks to certain banking transactions will be eased.

In his own speech, President Castro stated "I wish to thank and acknowledge the support of the Vatican, most particularly the support of Pope Francis, in the efforts for improving relations between Cuba and the United States, and ...the government of Canada for facilitating the high level dialogue between the two countries.

The Cuban president also expressed thanks to the Cuban people for its steadfastness and to the enormous international movement consisting of "hundreds of solidarity committees and groups, governments, parliaments, organizations, institutions and personalities, who for the last 16 years have made tireless efforts demanding their release [i.e. of the Cuban 5]. We convey our deepest gratitude and commitment to all of them".

Besides the Pope, the freedom of the Five has indeed been the focus of a worldwide campaign of a scale not seen since the trial and execution of the Rosenbergs. In the United States, numerous organizations, including labor unions and churches, and individuals have been active in pushing for the freedom of the five prisoners. Every year, the United Nations General Assembly has voted by near unanimity to call for the end of the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba.

No doubt the two governments expected that the Republican Party and the right wing Cuban exile lobby would deplore the action, and they did not have to wait long. Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who will become Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the Republicans take over the Senate next month, said that Obama has given Cuba everything it wanted in exchange for "nothing" and accused the president of being the "worst negotiator" at least since Jimmy Carter. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtenin, R-Fla., former chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee called the president's action "immoral and illegal," and, like Rubio, promised congressional action to stop it. Jeb Bush, who has just announced he will run for president in 2016, also denounced the President's action. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he would work to block funds for establishing a U.S. embassy in Havana. House speaker John Boehner also denounced the president's move.

But there was plenty of support for the President's action. Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said "we have had an embargo for 55 years. It is counterproductive. It is time we normalize relations." Most Democratic party leaders asked about the issue agreed with the President's action. Former Senator Jim Webb, D-Va., who has also been mentioned as a presidential hopeful, tweeted his support. The only major Democrat to pan the announcement was Senator Bob Menendez, D-N.J. who denounced the trade of the Cubans for Mr. Gross. Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who accompanied Mr. Gross on his return to the United States yesterday, said "our policies, frozen in time, have disserved the nation and have failed utterly and abysmally in achieving their original goals."

Initial worldwide reaction is overwhelmingly positive.

Photo: President Obama announces restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba after 50-year break. Doug Mills/AP

Breaking news: Obama freeing remaining three of Cuba 5

Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:03:00 +0000

The remaining three of the Cuba 5 are being freed in a new deal between President Obama and Cuban president Raul Castro under which American Alan Gross has been released from a Cuban prison after five years.

The three Cubans are three of five jailed in the U.S. after they were captured monitoring anti-Cuban terrorist activity that was being orchestrated from the Miami area. Rightwing terrorists funded in the U.S. had previously blown up a Cuban airplane, among numerous other activities.

Cuba has maintained that Gross had actually been spying during his mission to Cuba when he was arrested there five years ago, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Officials said Gross was on a U.S. government plane bound for the U.S. Wednesday morning after being released on humanitarian grounds by the Cuban government at the request of the Obama administration. The deal could help clear the way for broader discussions on strengthening ties and perhaps ending the decades-long U.S. economic embargo against Cuba.

President Obama was to address the nation on Cuba at noon Wednesday, the White House said, and U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity said he was expected to announce the deal. President Castro of Cuba is expected to address his nation at the same time. A full story will appear later today when more details emerge.

Photo: AP

Inside story on how one little city slew an oil dragon

Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:22:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - A dragon by the name of Chevron, breathing a fire fueled by Citizens United and $3.1 million in cash, succumbed to the people of the tiny city of Richmond, California last November when similar right-wing dragons were burning and pillaging voters and their towns across the country.

Labor journalists gathered here last week heard from one of their own the story of just how a tiny East Bay city near San Francisco bested one of the world's largest oil corporations in last November's election. They got the inside "dope" from Steve Early, a longtime organizer for the Communications Workers of America and now a writer and journalist who lives in the town of Richmond.

Just a quick review for those not familiar with the background: Chevron dumped $3.1 million into this year's election in Richmond, a town with just 100,000 people and less than 40,000 registered voters of whom only 20,000 voted. Their aim was to overthrow the local government run by a group of three progressive lawmakers, all of them retired union members, all of them part of the Richmond Progressive Alliance that won control of the mayor's office and the town council in 2010. Before their victory that year the town government had been controlled for more than 100 years by Chevron and its predecessor, Standard Oil.

Chevron was not at all happy when the new mayor, Gayle McLaughlin, with the backing of the RPA, sued Chevron. They sued the dragon after a 2012 fire resulted in hospital visits for 15,000 Richmond residents. They were even less happy with the ongoing efforts by the progressive bloc to increase the taxes Chevron had to pay into the city's coffers.

Early described what Chevron did this year with some of its $3.1 million - an operation that cost the company more than $180 for each individual voter.

Chevron's spending does not include the more than $300,000 the real estate industry dumped into the campaign to defeat the progressives, Early said. The real estate industry was not happy last fall when the town government came down squarely on the side of enormous numbers of residents whose home mortgages were underwater as a result of fraudulent lending practices by real estate brokers and the banks.

The company set up a front organization called Moving Forward which described itself as a coalition of small businesses and unions but which received almost all of its money from Chevron itself.

"There were some unions that supported the Chevron candidates, particularly in the building trades," said Early, "but in reality we had a very large and broad coalition of unions backing the RPA. These included the Communications Workers of America, the Nurses, the Newspaper Guild, rail workers, the transportation union, the public workers, and others. Many of these unions have worked together with other groups in the RPA for a period of ten years now. A real effort has gone on to build a solid coalition."

Early described how voters in Richmond were inundated by what he described as Chevron's campaign of fear. He displayed literature that had the face of Eduardo Martinez, a progressive candidate, super-imposed on a background of buildings that had been set aflame. Early explained that Martinez, a progressive Democrat, had been a leader in the Occupy movement in Oakland. "They tried to depict him and others in the alliance as radicals who would endanger the town," Early said.

Martinez, the newest RPA candidate elected to the city council, says he wants the town to continue on its progressive path. He mentions success in lowering the crime rate and the passage of one of the country's highest minimum wage laws as examples of the direction in which he wants the city to go.

Richmond, he notes, must tackle the problems faced by cities across the country. It has pockets of deep poverty, a city hospital that is running out of money and major problems with pollution. This is why a big company like Chevron has to kick in its fair share in taxes, he and others in the coalition note.

Mayor McLaughlin says more still has to be done to correct Chevron's behavior, including safety improvements, emissions reductions, good paying quality job creation.

Early showed a film put out by the RPA, showing its leading candidates, among them a white woman, a Latino man and an African American man. "The RPA is about building unity," Early said, which is the only way to go in a town like Richmond."

Richmond, a workingclass town, has a population that is 80 percent African American and Latino. Support for the progressive bloc has come from across the board, Early said, despite significant efforts by Chevron to buy off big chunks of potential voters. "They give out money to civic groups, to black churches, to community organizations all in the hopes of buying friends," he explained. There have been reports that Chevron, in one year alone, gave $37,000 to the Chamber of Commerce, $10,000 to the Richmond Police Officer's Association as well as "pilantropic" aid to the YMCA and other groups.

The building of issue-based coalitions on the grassroots level is seen as the answer, however.

"For more than ten years the coalition was built on issues that the groups could agree upon and on issue after issue people went to the voters, one by one, door to door so that by the time they got the hate literature from Chevron it was too late. The voters already knew the progressive candidates and what they stood for. They already saw a city council battle to save homes that had underwater mortgages. They already saw lawmakers fighting for better schools and they already saw crime rates starting to drop. It's the one type of campaign that big money can't compete with.

"In constituencies where you are not anonymous there is a fighting chance, if you do the work, even if it takes years, you can defeat a giant like Chevron," Early said.

Photo: Richmond Progressive Facebook page

Ferguson protesters retrace steps of history and forge new ones

Tue, 16 Dec 2014 14:55:00 +0000

ST. LOUIS - Since the grand jury announcement that Michael Brown's killer would not be tried for any crime, activists have worked to put the ongoing struggle for justice and equality within a historical context. In so doing they've built a new social and economic justice movement on the foundation left by those who struggled before them. On the afternoon of Nov. 25 the movement to build a better, more just and equitable, world moved forward.

Descending the front steps of the Eagleton courthouse, over 500 people poured into downtown, a newly created maze of detours due to the large numbers of police and National Guard present. Marching in the front row was the youngest member of Governor Jay Nixon's Ferguson Commission, Rasheen Aldridge, a young African American "millennial" and a former fast food worker. Aldridge was unlawfully fired from Jimmy John's for participating in a one-day strike for $15 and a union. Over the next ten months, the Ferguson Commission will explore and examine the conditions and causes of economic and social injustice there and his experience in this movement will undoubtedly bring an important perspective and new insights to these longstanding problems.

Turning onto North 4^th Street, the crowd approached the Old Courthouse. Directly across a long lawn from the courthouse, the iconic St. Louis Arch holds the sky peacefully. The crowd stopped briefly, and many climbed the courthouse steps toward a small line of Parks Department workers in green uniforms blocking the top stairs. Others posed with a large bronze statue of Dred Scott and his wife Harriet. As police vehicles of every make followed behind, the crowd marched between the arch and the courthouse.

Standing between the two structures, their placement opposite one another is so apparent, one wonders how the two landmarks are related. The Old Courthouse, scene of the infamous Dred Scott case, stands as an empty monument to the racist policies of the U.S. government and the repressive power of the state. St. Louis Arch reaches skyward like two arms, fingers clasped together in prayer, perhaps, as if pleading with the powers that be. It seems a fitting symbol for the people and city of St. Louis. Far below, the shadow of the Arch fell through the afternoon onto the marchers below who, like the arch, held their arms up. Reaching for the sky, they chanted, "Hands up, don't shoot."

A short distance ahead, the Interstate 44 overpass rumbled. Keeping their pace in disciplined ranks, the marchers chanted all the way. Police vehicles moved to block the streets. Freshly painted correctional buses, idled within view.

Suddenly, the crowd turned, leaving the police blocked by a single line of people arms linked across the road; the rest moved toward the Martin Luther King Bridge.

Stopping traffic from both directions, the demonstrators took control of the bridge. As police scrambled in the distance, the crowd simply sat down. Not a single person spoke. A few looked down at the pavement, some held their heads in their hands, others smoked cigarettes, many focused their eyes above.

For four minutes, even the blocked traffic sat quietly. There it was starkly apparent that this is not only a Black issue. The array of people who observed that moment of silence showed that the fight against exploitation, institutional racism, and police violence is the fight of a broad coalition of people from all walks of life.

Their vigil complete, the crowd leapt to its feet. Holding up their arms, and shouting "Hands up, don't shoot," they marched toward the police waiting below. In the tangle of roads and construction beneath I-44, the SLPD was just starting to arrive in force against the demonstrators. With traffic stopped for miles in both directions, the crowd milled about briefly before sitting down. Up there on the elevated Interstate, the activists have placed themselves between two historic protests for labor and minority rights in St. Louis.

Fifty years ago the St. Louis Arch, which dominates the skyline to the south, was the scene of a civil rights action by two workers, Percy Green and Richard Daly, who climbed 125 feet up the yet to be completed structure and refused to come down for over four hours to protest the lack of minorities hired to work on the project.

While 15 years ago, just to the north of the protesters on I-70, 300 people, including Al Sharpton, formed a human chain blocking the road. Shouting, "No justice, no peace," they demanded that more minority employees and contractors be used on the Interstate construction project.

Like the brave men and women who fought for civil and economic rights before them, the people sitting on I-44 waited for the police. Some time later, a bus of officers in hardened riot gear appeared. The activists greeted the police legion loudly, "What do want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!" Arms linked in nonviolent resistance, they roared, "Shut it down!"

The police were spoiling for a fight, arrayed in military formation with shields and long wooden clubs. Their textbook plan was to knock someone off their feet with the shield, then work them over with their clubs. Within moments, the unconscious body of a young woman was beaten and lying on the road. When her friends approached to help, the police doused the lot with pepper spray.

The overt violence affected a few of the protesters who started to hurl insults back at the police. Organizers decided that it was time to withdraw. The SLPD in lines three deep followed behind. With each step they beat the pavement like some medieval war band out for blood.

As the crowd dispersed, it was clear that the activists controlled the pace and intensity of events that day. Goggles and dust masks on their heads or hanging around their necks, Ysaye Ellis and Chris Napier reflected while walking back. "The pepper spray was extreme," said Ellis. "All we want is justice and they treat us like we're prisoners."

Later, when asked if the locations today - the Old Courthouse, the Martin Luther King Bridge, and the occupation of the Interstate near the location where the Interstate employment action took place - were symbolically significant, Aaron Burnett, a member of the Organization for Black Struggle, recognized that these were "historic sites of the struggle."

He explained, "We are recreating that base that the movement left off in the 1960s." The people are coming together for a common cause, "and when love for one another is the motivation they intuitively focus on a common work."

If we reexamine the idea of a neighborhood, said Burnett, it isn't about different ethnic groups as such. "It is about different ethnic groups coming together and recognizing this is about class." He's especially hopeful about the level of youth participation: They "are rising and saying enough is enough!"

Photo: A protester holds a sign showing the history of racism from the 19^th century to the 21^st, St. Louis, on Nov. 26. (velo_city/CC)

With #ICantBreathe, new movement for justice inspires

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:12:00 +0000

In response to the police murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner and the failure of grand juries to return indictments, a new movement for justice has emerged.

Sparked by the initiatives of young African Americans and joined by the civil rights and labor movements new coalitions, like #ThisStopsNow and #HandsUpUnited have dramatically brought the issue of police crimes front and center: #BlackLivesMatter. By means of sit-ins, die-ins, picket lines, and blocking highways and bridges, young protesters are demanding that the murders must immediately end and that the racist criminal justice system be radically reformed.

Beginning with the Ferguson protests last August, this movement is now assuming a national character.

Outraged by the refusal of the Staten Island grand jury to indict inspite of videotaped proof of gross police misconduct demonstrations have occurred daily with thousands of participants in close to 20 states. #ICantBreathe has become the rallying cry of the rising protests. Particular note must be taken of its growing multi-racial character.

The labor movement has lent support and AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka has challenged union members and beyond to fight racism and build unity.

This independent movement has established its own demands and priorities. Whether or not they are met will depend on the breadth and depth of the coalitions that are in formation and their ability to involve ever-broader sections of the U.S. public. Union leaders and elected officials are now getting arrested and joining the die-ins, putting their bodies on the line. Sports figures and other prominent personalities are speaking out.

Importantly the NAACP sponsored a weeklong march to Missouri's state capital and a national march on Washington has been called for Dec. 13.

In this regard, building unity around the movement's demands is a top priority. Among the obstacles to such unity are divergent views on the role of the criminal justice system, narrow concepts of coalition; inadequate understanding of institutionalized racism and its beneficiaries; tactics; and ongoing efforts to promote division along political and generational lines.

Significant differences persist on the impact of racism with regard to Michael Brown's murder. Recent polls indicate "62 percent of whites having "some" confidence in a fair investigation, compared to just 35 percent of blacks. Nearly 60 percent of African Americans have not much or no confidence it will be fair."

What is the basis for these differences? Clearly lived experiences are determining factors. Large percentages of African Americans have personal experience with police racism. The New York Times writes, "Some 45 percent of blacks - and 58 percent of black men - say they have personally been discriminated against by the police because of their race, compared to just 7 percent of whites."

Racial profiling, stop-and-frisk policing, sentencing disparities to say nothing of a veritable state of siege in communities of color have fed the growing mistrust and lack of confidence in fair judicial outcomes. Added to this are the recent spate of high profile murders of African Americans by both civilians and police in which the culprits go scot-free. It's small wonder then that young people are particularly outraged and growing ever more radicalized by these patent injustices.

A more difficult question is how in these circumstances can greater unity be built? Is there a minimum basis for cooperation and if so on what issues? In the first place it should be noted that on key questions white and black communities are not worlds apart - on a few there is broad agreement. For example, broad sections oppose the militarization of local police departments: "Most whites (65 percent), and even more blacks (80 percent), do not think local police forces should have military weapons and equipment. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents agree."

Similarly there is a wide consensus on requiring police forces to use body cameras with over 75 percent favoring the measure.

But what of the more problematic issues? How has racism changed and modulated in relation to shifting thought patterns and conditions and to what degree do these changes impact the ability to achieve unity.

Clearly a complex and contradictory pattern emerges. Ruling class racism beginning with the GOP-led assault on the foundations of the New Deal and Great Society has intensified. Welfare reform, mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the trying of teenagers as adults, the war on drugs, deindustrialization, the sub-prime crisis, voter suppression, stop-and-frisk policing, attacks on reproductive rights, all have had a sharply racist edge and effect. Added to this are the accompanying ideological campaigns, popularly referred to as "culture wars" that criminalize young men and victimize young women, particularly single mothers.

A 2012 AP study concluded "51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey." A poll taken a year earlier regarding Latinos produced similar results. In "2011, 52 percent of non-Hispanic whites expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes."

On the other hand, the last quarter century witnessed major shifts in mass consciousness marked by an ideological setback for the most vicious forms of racist ideology. Accompanying it was a growing acceptance of black and brown leadership in both public office and civil society, a marked increase in interracial relations and marriages, along with a major shifts in the U.S.'s multi-racial demographic.

Among white Americans a marked anti-racist trend gained strength. Some 20 to 30 percent vote for African American candidates with higher figures for union members and particularly younger voters. There is also a large and muddled "non-racist" middle: a group that while not consciously anti-racist have rejected its most overt features. It is among this section of the population that the concepts of colorblindness hold most sway.

How to engage and win this broad middle to a greater understanding of racism and particularly its institutional forms and character is a major challenge.

What are the best means and arguments here for conveying the ongoing reality of unfair treatment accorded to black, brown, Native American and Asian Americans based on race?

Various arguments here are in contention, some moral, others based on self-interest. The idea that racism accords whites a special privilege has gained wide currency. In broad popular usage the term 'white privilege" refers simply to the absence of special forms of discrimination and the need for greater awareness of its effects. At the same time it's also the case that demands are made that such privilege be given up, meaning that an alleged accrued benefit be sacrificed.

Challenges to white privilege argue that the concept is classless and that beneficiaries of racism are hardly equal. Because of racism employers gain greater wealth and power and all employees lose, including whites when bargaining power and solidarity is lessened. Additionally the question is asked, what should be given up and by who, in circumstances where capitalists are reaping huge profits. Wouldn't all workers gain by placing the onus on those who benefit most? Here self-interest to say nothing of fairness is seen to be the stronger argument.

But what about what happens when one steps outside of the shop floor and is profiled on the way home from work; or denied a loan or rental, or refused hospitalization because of lack of health insurance, or picks up a child from a re-segregated school with inferior books and supplies or is unable to go to the university because of spiraling tuition? The existence of an ongoing racist social division of labor is undeniable.

On the other hand, wage stagnation, lack of insurance, low-wage jobs, student debt, denial of reproductive rights, unemployment, speedup, etc, affects whites as well. The alleged racial benefits for those struggling to make ends meet are hard to see.

When addressing the issue of racism in the "superstructure" (the legal system, education, etc.) as elsewhere, the argument has to be made time and again that its elimination is in the interests of all concerned. Ending racial profiling, the war on drugs, legalization will mean less arrests, less return offenders, more employable people able to work. So too with reforms in the grand jury system, the creation of civilian police review boards - and the lists goes on.

Finally successful approaches to building unity on these issues will have to take into account the life experiences of different generations: boomers; Generation X, Generation Y and Millennials.

The economy that gave rise to the civil rights/labor alliance forged by Boomers and that shaped the reforms experienced by generation X in the 1960s has been radically reshaped and with it the demands and needs of following generations. Even the "counter revolution" engineered by Reagan conservatives and their latter day followers while experienced by Generation Y came after the birth of today's Millennials beset by enormous student debt and coming from communities ravaged by the Great Recession. It is this generation, socially aware, racially tolerant, politically left and liberal but increasingly disengaged from political parties that have taken to the streets en masse demanding an end to police crimes and murder.

It is also this generation that is the mass base of today's low-wage worker movement. Already in Ferguson and elsewhere unity of action is growing out of these struggles and with good reason.

To those who counsel patience it is likely that they will say as King said, "we cannot wait." Channeling that anger, building unity around its righteous indignation, providing strength for the long haul and helping convince the unconvinced is the task that is at hand. Meeting it is challenge of the day.

Photo: Some 25,000 people marched in New York City on Dec. 13 demanding justice for Eric Garner and all victims of racism and police violence. Protests were also held across the country and in the nation's capital. (B.C. Lorio/CC/Flickr)

Marches against police killings sweep the nation

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:14:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - Led by mothers, fathers, and widows of African American men killed by white police officers, thousands of protesters marched up Pennsylvania Avenue Dec. 13 chanting "I Can't Breathe" and "No Justice No Peace."

The demonstration, called by the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network, was mobilized in about one week yet drew an enormous crowd from as far away as California, Washington State and Arizona. The people, of all races, women and men, young and old, packed the capital's widest avenue and reached for many blocks. A demonstration twice or even three times larger filled the streets of New York City and similar protests were organized in Boston, San Francisco and over 100 other cities and towns across the nation.

"This is not a black march or a white march but an American march for the rights of American people," Sharpton told the crowd.

Rogue cops shoot to death about one person per day, he said, calculating that these atrocities "would be kept quiet....swept under the rug. But we're going to keep the light on Michael Brown, on Eric Garner, on Tamir Rice, on all of these victims because....the only way you make the roaches run is you got to cut the light on."

The father of John Crawford, 22, shot dead by Ohio police in a Walmart for picking up a pellet gun said Walmart has not even sent the family a message of condolence and the company has refused to release footage of his shooting.

Michael Brown Sr., father of young Michael Brown, shot to death by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri said, "This means the world to me to see everyone coming together for a common cause."

The widow of Eric Garner, strangled to death by a policeman, said, "My husband was a quiet man but he's making a lot of noise right now. His voice will be heard."

Kadiatou Diallo, mother of Amadou Diallo, held up a copy of Time Magazine with the image of her son, shot to death in a hail of 41 bullets 16 years ago. "Sixteen years later, we are standing here and debating the same thing," she lamented.

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who represents Houston told the crowd, "We will take up legislation to bring about change in the way policing is done in this country." He pointed out that a bill requiring an annual report on every case of people dying in the police custody has been approved by the House and is pending before the Senate.

CBC members, led by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., have called for Congressional hearings on the issue of police violence. His comments made clear that the Republican leadership of the House and Senate will face pressure to enact laws to end these police killings when Congress reconvenes in January.

Hazel Dukes, president of the New York NAACP, was marching in the vanguard of hundreds of members of her organization who traveled here on 15 buses. "I came here to stand for equality and justice for all," Dukes told the People's World. "We've seen over the past several years a rash of killings, of police misconduct with no punishment for this misconduct."

She added, "Whenever a uniformed officer is involved in misconduct there should be a special prosecutor" assigned to prosecute the offender. She also called for federal laws requiring the Justice Department to "monitor" police misconduct. "We need laws on the books that encompass every state, not separate laws for Alabama and New York."

The AFL-CIO and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsed the march and sponsored buses from several cities including Baltimore. AFT president Randi Weingarten spoke at a pre-march rally at Freedom Plaza. "An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," she said, urging unity in the struggle for human rights including the right of workers to join unions.

Jeffrey Johnson, an organizer for the AFT Maryland State Federation, told the World, "I have four kids including two boys. How do you protect them?" He pointed out that Washington is the nation's capital. "Our Congress is here. They need to hear from us."

Adam Lange, 29, a white man from Phoenix, Arizona, said Rumain Brisbon, an unarmed black man was killed by Phoenix police on his own door step on Dec. 2.

"I joined a march in Phoenix a couple of weeks ago to protest Brisbon's killing and when I heard about this action, I felt I had to be here. This is an issue that touches every state. It affects all of us. The critical point is that this is such a clear manifestation of racism in America."

Wendy Jackson of Barstow, California, held a handlettered sign, "Hands Up! Don't Shoot." She accused rightwing elements of launching an offensive that has drastically escalated the racist violence. "People came together and elected the Obama administration," she said. "They voted for an African American president because it was time for a change." Then has come repeated refusals by grand juries to indict white police officers when they shoot or strangle, innocent, unarmed African Americans. "People are saying. This isn't what we voted for! People are saying, We can't breathe. It's time for America to say NO to racism."

Photo: Crowd marching down Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington D.C. | Margaret Baldridge/PW

Calif. legislature will consider health coverage for undocumented

Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:52:00 +0000

A bill to extend health coverage to all Californians regardless of their immigration status will be among items California's new legislature will consider when it returns to work after the New Year.

As the legislature held its opening session Dec. 1, state Senator Ricardo Lara introduced SB 4, the Health for All Act of 2015. The bill aims to expand coverage under Medi-Cal (California's Medicare) to income-eligible residents whether documented or not. It would also set up a marketplace that would "mirror" Covered California, the state's health care exchange under the Affordable Care Act. The ACA, or "Obamacare," specifically excludes undocumented people from coverage.

In introducing the measure, Lara cited President Obama's executive action on immigration reform. Those eligible for the expanded "deferred action" status are still excluded from federal health programs.

"Although it's no substitute for comprehensive immigration reform in Congress, President Obama's action is a tremendous step forward for our immigrant community," Lara said. "But we'll still have a significant population without access to affordable health care."

SB 4 is similar to a measure Lara introduced last year, which failed to make it out of the state Senate's appropriations committee, reportedly because of concerns over its potential cost.

A coalition of over 30 California immigrant rights and health organizations praised the Health for All Act's reintroduction, calling the measure "the logical next step to build upon California's powerful leadership in passing welcoming, inclusive policies."

"We believe that no one should suffer or die from a treatable condition, no matter where they were born," the coalition's statement said. "We're all in this together, and we're all healthier when all are covered."

Among signers were the California Immigrant Policy Center, California Labor Federation, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), Health Access California, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported Dec. 3 that California Governor Jerry Brown is considering expanding state-funded Medi-Cal coverage to undocumented people eligible for deferred action under the president's order.

In a related action Dec. 1, Sen. Lara introduced another bill, SB 10, to establish the California Office of New Americans, to provide education, application assistance, legal services, English instruction, civics classes and fraud prevention to undocumented immigrants. Of an estimated 2.6 million undocumented Californians, over 1.5 million are estimated to be eligible for deferred action.

A study issued by the UC Berkeley Labor Center last spring found that new costs of covering Californians eligible by income for Medi-Cal but unable to enroll because of immigration status would be modest, while health benefits would be significant. The study said undocumented immigrants make up 9 percent of the state's workforce, and pay over $2 billion in state and local taxes annually.

In recent years California has led in adopting other pro-immigrant measures including student financial aid for DREAM Act students, drivers' licenses for undocumented residents, and extending Medi-Cal to recent documented immigrants and DREAMers who qualify financially.

Photo: Gary Kazanjian/AP

The CIA backstory needs to be remembered

Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:22:00 +0000

As the debate on the Feinstein Committee's torture report continues, we need to remember the "backstory."

A key CIA concept is that of "plausible deniability." This goes back to the CIA's founding. There are certain things CIA agents do which would create problems for the political leadership of the country if they became known. But such things do often become known eventually, so the political leadership has to be able to say that these were rogue operations and they knew nothing about them.

The Church Committee hearings (see below) about the CIA's murderous operations led to legislation designed to curb the "plausible deniability" scam, but surely the CIA has not been inhibited by this.

The torture report reveals horrific practices, but the CIA has been doing much worse things since it was founded after the second World War. To list them all would require a thick tome, but here is some of the worst:

- The overthrow of moderately progressive Iranian president Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran in 1953. Working through Kermit Roosevelt (Teddy Roosevelt's grandson), the CIA channeled money to Shiite clergy, prostitutes and street thugs to create a situation of disorder, during which monarchist elements of the armed forces were able to violently dislodge Mossadeq and restore Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. This was done to fend off a threat of nationalization of British petroleum interests in Iran. The pretext was an imminent "communist takeover" in Iran, a shameless lie.

- The overthrow of left-ish president Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala in 1954. The CIA managed to create a crisis situation on a shoestring, leading to an army coup. This in turn led to a civil war in which 200,000 Guatemalans were killed, mostly civilians. The pretext was again an imaginary "imminent communist takeover." The real reason was that Arbenz's government was trying to implement a land reform in which idle land owned by the United Fruit Company (ancestral to today's Chiquita Banana) would be distributed to poor farmers. The head of the CIA at the time, Allen Dulles, and his brother John Foster Dulles, President Eisenhower's secretary of state, both had financial interests in United Fruit.

- The overthrow and murder of Patrice Lumumba, prime minister of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in 1961. The CIA worked with Belgium and with anti-Lumumba Congolese politicians on this. The pretext was that Lumumba was "erratic" and was causing instability. In fact the instability was brought about in part by the CIA's machinations. At least five million people have died in civil wars in the Congo. The real reason was the mineral richness of the Congo, which the U.S. and European ruling classes wanted to keep exploiting for their own benefit.

There were similar activities worldwide, which aligned the United States with some of the most despotic regimes in world history. This has gone on in every continent except Antarctica. And the news has often slipped out as to what the CIA was doing.

For example, in 1970, left-wing guerrillas in Uruguay captured CIA asset Dan Mitrione and subsequently killed him. Out of this incident came information that Mitrione had been assigned to teach Uruguayan security forces how to torture political prisoners.

In 1975, a conscience-stricken CIA agent, Philip Agee, published Inside the Company: C.I.A. Diary, in which he revealed a massive amount of information about CIA activities all over the world but especially in Latin America. This book confirmed the suspicions of many that the CIA had its tentacles extended worldwide and that, rather than gathering information to protect the United States against outside aggression, it was involved in dirty tricks which violated both the sovereignty of numerous countries and the consciences of ordinary Americans.

That same year, a Senate committee headed by Senator Frank Church, D-Idaho, carried out hearings which revealed even more of the CIA's trajectory of mayhem. Investigations by Seymour Hersh and others added to the horrifying picture of assassination plots against foreign leaders and other skullduggery.

But the CIA continued on its secretive and interventionist course, being especially active in the never-ending efforts to overthrow the socialist government of Cuba by means which included working with terrorist Cuban exile groups. The CIA's alliance with violent fascist groups in South and Central America alone killed thousands. Using foreign assets was another way to establish "plausible deniability." This is why the CIA made use of people like Cuban right-winger Luis Posada Carriles, the main suspect in the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 which killed 73 people. One of the tactics that Posada used to get off the hook at his trial was to hint that he could tell some tales about the involvement of U.S. government higher ups - thus destroying their "plausible credibility."

So remember:

Torture and other activities by the CIA did not arise in response to 9/11/2001. This has been going on for well over half a century.

And when politicians claim they "were kept in the dark" about what the CIA was doing, they are most emphatically invoking "plausible deniability."

Photo: Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, just before she released the report on CIA torture. | Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

UN officials demand prosecutions for U.S. torture

Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:25:00 +0000

GENEVA - (AP) All senior U.S. officials and CIA agents who authorized or carried out torture like waterboarding as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, top U.N. officials said Wednesday.

It's not clear, however, how human rights officials think these prosecutions will take place, since the Justice Department has declined to prosecute and the U.S. is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

Zeid Raad al-Hussein, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said it's "crystal clear" under international law that the United States, which ratified the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994, now has an obligation to ensure accountability.

"In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable, or commit torture - recognized as a serious international crime - they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency," he said.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hopes the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques at secret overseas facilities is the "start of a process" toward prosecutions, because the "prohibition against torture is absolute," Ban's spokesman said.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, said the report released Tuesday shows "there was a clear policy orchestrated at a high level within the Bush administration, which allowed [it] to commit systematic crimes and gross violations of international human rights law."

He said international law prohibits granting immunity to public officials who allow the use of torture, and this applies not just to the actual perpetrators but also to those who plan and authorize torture.

"The fact that the policies revealed in this report were authorized at a high level within the U.S. government provides no excuse whatsoever. Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability," Emmerson said.

Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth echoed those comments, saying "unless this important truth-telling process leads to the prosecution of officials, torture will remain a 'policy option' for future presidents."

The report said that in addition to waterboarding, the U.S. tactics included slamming detainees against walls, confining them to small boxes, keeping them isolated for prolonged periods and threatening them with death.

However, a Justice Department official said Wednesday the department did not intend to revisit its decision to not prosecute anyone for the interrogation methods. The official said the department had reviewed the committee's report and did not find any new information that would cause the investigation to be reopened.

"Our inquiry was limited to a determination of whether prosecutable offenses were committed," the official said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss an investigation. "Importantly, our investigation was not intended to answer the broader questions regarding the propriety of the examined conduct."

Photo: Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., discussing the findings in the torture report. | AP

Foreign policy intrigue: Why Obama got rid of Chuck Hagel

Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:13:00 +0000

Experts can't seem to agree about why President Obama told Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to step down. Was Hagel too "dovish," as some argue, or too interventionist on Syria, as others suggest, or just an incompetent manager, as still others say? And what does the president's new choice for the job - Pentagon official Ashton Carter - say about Obama's foreign policy?

If you haven't been following the news, Hagel announced his resignation from the top civilian Pentagon post on Nov. 24, reportedly at Obama's request. This week Obama named Carter to replace Hagel.

It has sparked a flurry of often contradictory interpretations.

Hagel, a former senator from Nebraska, is one of the few "moderate" Republicans and was the only Republican in the president's Cabinet. As a senator he opposed the Iraq war. Commentator Robert Parry suggests that Hagel's departure may mean Obama is bending to the will of "liberal interventionists" and neoconservatives. Harvard professor Stephen Walt says he saw Hagel as "a bit of a more realist voice ... a bit of a skeptic about America's penchant for unthinking interventionism."

But a New York Times editorial says one factor spurring Obama's dissatisfaction may have been a memo Hagel sent to the White House that echoed a key complaint of the interventionists - criticizing Obama for not moving to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while combatting the Islamic State in Syria.

Many pundits cite complaints that the White House has been "micromanaging" the Pentagon. The Associated Press reports: "The level of control the White House has exerted over the Pentagon in particular has rankled those who have held the agency's top job ...." Yet a number of commentators, for example veteran Washington Post journalist Thomas Ricks, say Hagel was a poor manager.

More profoundly, however, it is in fact the president's job to control the Pentagon - civilian control of the military is a core democratic principle in our country.

"While the White House has denied that it has negatively interfered with the Pentagon, officials made clear this week that Obama had no plans to loosen his reins on the Defense Department," the AP reported. "The president of the United States is the commander in chief and sits at the top of the chain of command," Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said. "That means the president bears significant responsibility for what happens at the Pentagon and the Department of Defense."

Also worth considering in regard to complaints from the Pentagon: Military leaders, defense contractors and their partners in Congress are upset about cuts in military spending - among an array of federal cuts mandated by Obama's 2013 budget deal with Congress. In addition, many at the Pentagon don't like Obama's efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.

On Sunday the White House announced that six Guantanamo prisoners who had never been charged with any crime were transfered to Uruguay over the weekend, the largest release of Guantanamo detainees since 2009, early in Obama's first term. According to the New York Times the arrangement had been finalized last spring. "Significantly, however, delays by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in signing off on the arrangement placed it in jeopardy. Mr. Hagel's slow pace this year in approving proposed transfers of low-level detainees contributed to larger tensions with the White House before his resignation under pressure last month."

"Although President Obama vowed in 2013 to revive his efforts to close the prison, the military had transferred just one low-level detainee in the first 10 months of this year ... But the bureaucratic logjam appears to be clearing: Since November, it has transferred 13 more."

Hagel's replacement, Ashton Carter, was a Pentagon official in the Clinton administration and more recently served as deputy defense secretary. According to a Times analysis Carter is "widely viewed as to the right of the president on issues like the administration's policy in Syria and the pace of the release of prisoners from the military prison at Guantánamo Bay." The Times reporters suggest that he "may advocate a stronger use of American power overseas." At the same time other analysts say Carter does not advocate unilateral U.S. action.

Carter is seen as easily gaining Senate confirmation as the next secretary of defense.

What does this mean for President Obama's foreign policy in the remaining two years of his term? It is hard to believe that Obama would choose someone who would oppose him on key foreign policy matters like Syria. In a Nov. 5 press conference, Obama, emphasizing that his "number one focus" in Syria is to block the Islamic State (ISIS), projected "eventual political negotiations" rather than removal of Assad. Is Obama now buckling to pressure to aggressively pursue regime change in Syria? Is the pressure for American interventionism too strong for any president to resist? Some think so.

Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch blog, argues that "there is "really only one party in the nation's capital, and that's the War Party." Obama, he writes, is "resigned to war presidency status." If the next secretary of defense is a warhawk, Engelhardt says, the explanation is that "no other candidate nominated by a Democratic president would have a hope in hell of making it through a confirmation process overseen by the assumed new head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain."

In the view of Harvard professor Walt, Obama's "natural instinct" and "great political strength" has been caution: to want to "look at the long view when other people were hyperventilating." Obama has an "appreciation for the realities [in other words, the limits] of American power," but he inherits a "foreign policy establishment" of interventionist Democrats as well as Republicans, says Walt. This "built-in national security establishment" includes not just government institutions but also think tanks and other organizations that promote the idea that, as Walt puts it, "if the U.S. isn't running things in many parts of the world Americans aren't going to be safe."

Neither Walt nor Engelhardt identifies any significant opposition in Washington to this bipartisan interventionism. And they don't probe the root causes of this policy. The two are related, though. If the interventionist drive comes out of the logic of U.S. capitalism in today's globalized phase, as some believe, are there some more far-seeing parts of corporate America who see that as a problem? Meanwhile polling after last month's midterm elections indicates that foreign policy is low on voters' minds. Yet the choices Obama makes on foreign policy in his remaining two years in office - the extent to which he will buck the "establishment" - will depend in part on public opinion.

Photo: President Obama meets with then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, left, and other top Pentagon officials, Oct. 8, 2014. Official White House photo by Pete Souza

"I can't breathe" march on Washington to protest police killings

Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:14:00 +0000

WASHINGTON---Thousands of protesters chanting "I can't breathe" are taking to the streets across the nation as outrage spreads against police murder of Eric Garner and hundreds of other innocent, unarmed Black men and youth. That protest reached the halls of Congress in the nation's capital this week.

"I can't breathe" were the dying words of Eric Garner, 43, as a white police officer clamped a chokehold on the unarmed man on Staten Island last July. A video proved that the officer, assisted by other officers who pinned Garner to the ground, murdered Garner. Yet a grand jury refused to indict his killer and his accomplices, igniting angry protests in New York City and across the nation.

Police arrested 150 protesters in Oakland, Calif., the night of Dec. 8 for blocking the on-ramp to I-80 and for blocking an Amtrak train by sitting down on the tracks. In New York City, that same night, basketball star LeBron James and other members of the Cleveland Cavaliers NBA basketball team wore tee shirts emblazoned with the words, "I Can't Breathe."

The gathering storm will hit Washington this week when eight mothers of unarmed Black men killed by police will testify Dec. 10 in a House hearing sponsored by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Thousands are scheduled to demonstrate in "Freedom Plaza" Saturday Dec. 13 in response to a call by the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network. Rev. Sharpton referred to news reports that Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot unarmed Black youth, Michael Brown to death in Ferguson, Mo., last August, will be terminated from the police force. The issue, Sharpton said, "is not Wilson's job. The issue is justice for (Michael) Brown....In my view, the prosecutor was so determined not to move forward with the case that he misused a grand jury and therefore dealt a setback to....police accountability in this country."

Sharpton added, "There must be a sustained nonviolent protest because we are grappling with the very real issue of police misconduct and fairness within the criminal justice system. And until there is substantive federal oversight, we will not stop marching and raising our voices."

The NAACP had staged a "March from Ferguson to Jefferson City," gathering at the Governor's mansion to demand action after a grand jury likewise refused to indict officer Darren Wilson for murdering Michael Brown. The NAACP is also urging the U.S. Senate to approve the "Death In Custody Reporting Act" sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn). The House approved the bill unanimously in 2013. If the Senate, now a majority Democrat, fails to enact the law, it is unlikely to be revived for another two years or more. The NAACP points out that an estimated 1,000 people die in custody each year. "The current lack of uniform reporting has made it nearly impossible to ascertain patterns of how many, or exactly in what manner people are dying in the custody of law enforcement."

The British magazine, The Economist, released a survey showing that police in the United States shot to death 409 people in 2012, all ruled "justifiable homicide." That same year, British police shot to death not a single human being. Japan also had zero fatal shootings by police. Germany had eight fatal shootings by police.

Photo: Dave Bledsoe , Eric Garner Protest Union Square to Rockefeller Center, Taking to the streets to protest that Grand Jury Verdict on Eric Garner. CC 2.0 generic.

Miners' families hope for justice at coming trial

Mon, 08 Dec 2014 11:25:00 +0000

BECKLEY, W. Va. - On Monday, April 5, 2010, an explosion rocked Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Mine, killing 29 miners who were working underground at the time. The mine is located in Montcoal, W. Va. (near Whitesville) in the northwest corner of Raleigh County, West Virginia. Its entrance is beside a small stretch of road, nestled in a narrow holler along a small creek between two tall hillsides. In that dreary valley is where the nation's deadliest explosion since 1984 took place, killing 29 miners.

The disaster and the resulting deaths shocked the mining communities of Raleigh and Boone Counties in southern West Virginia's Appalachian Mountains. It also left the dead miners' families grieving as they gaze at the door through which a father, husband, or son shall never pass again.

The holidays will be bleak this year for those families as they sit down to Christmas dinner-if there is one. As the family gathers around the table, a chair will stand vacant-Daddy's chair. Tears will come as a wife glances at the couch where her husband used to doze after a hard day's work.

A mother may stop to wipe her eyes as she, out of habit, starts to set a place at the table where her dear son used to sit.

The possible loss of a loved one in the mines is something that every West Virginia coal mining family has come to accept. Although steeled to the dangers inherent in coal mining, there is no balm, except perhaps time and justice, that can assuage the grief, pain, and loss that a miner's family must suffer-especially when their loss is caused by a coal company's deliberate negligence in their greed for ever greater profits.

The question that now faces those grieving families is whether there will be some sort of reckoning. Will those responsible for their loved ones' deaths ever be made to answer before the law their actions and negligence? As the case against Don Blankenship, former CEO of Massey Energy, slowly proceeded from court hearing to hearing, the deceased miners' families crowded into the courtroom, seeking answers to that very question.

The latest chapters in the Blankenship saga unfolded this month when, on Nov. 13, a federal grand jury indicted Blankenship on four criminal counts: Conspiracy to violate mandatory mine safety and health standards, Conspiracy to impede mine safety officials, Making false statements to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and Securities fraud. The safety violations for which Blankenship stands charged are believed to have caused a build up of highly combustible methane gas, leading to the explosion that killed those 29 miners. If Blankenship is convicted on all of the charges he could spend up to 31 years in prison.

Blankenship was scheduled to be arraigned at 1:00 pm and have a bond hearing at 2:00 pm on Nov. 20. His attorneys, however, attempted to delay justice by requesting a postponement of both hearings. The families did receive a bit of justice on the 19th when Blankenship's request for a postponement was denied. They got even more good news the next day when Magistrate R. Clarke VanDervort denied Blankenship's request to be released on his own recognizance.

At the Nov. 20 hearing, Eric Delinsky, one of Mr. Blankenship's attorneys, argued that his client should be released on a personal recognizance bond by citing Blankenship's deep roots in southern West Virginia as proof that he'll appear for upcoming hearings. Delinsky made the usual defense claim that, his client is innocent (to which assistant U.S. attorney, Steve Ruby, expressed confidence that the evidence strongly supports the state's case against Blankenship). Magistrate VanDervort apparently was not so trusting of Blankenship's ties to the community and imposed a $5 million cash-only bond, subject to forfeiture should Blankenship abscond.

The date for Blankenship's pre-trial hearing is set for 1:00 pm on Jan. 6 and all pre-trial motions are ordered to be submitted by no later than Dec. 30. The trial itself is set to begin at 9:00am on Jan. 26 before U.S. district judge, Irene Berger in Beckley federal court.

Photo: Roadside memorial showing all 29 miner helmets. John Miliam/PW

Protesters hit School of the Americas “training” center

Fri, 05 Dec 2014 15:31:00 +0000

FORT BENNING, Ga. - The year 2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the murder of a 16-year-old girl, her mother, and six Jesuit priests by School of the Americas (SOA) trained soldiers in 1989 at the University of Central America. An annual demonstration, this year Nov. 21-23, has taken place at the gates of Fort Benning in Columbus, Ga since 1990.

Peace activists, trade union allies, immigrant rights advocates and other human rights activists converge to demand justice for those killed by graduates of the SOA (renamed Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001) and call to shut down the Stewart Detention Center, a private prison used to hold undocumented immigrants in rural Southwest Lumpkin, Georgia.

Stewart has the highest deportation rate (98.5 percent) in the country. Stewart Detention Center is operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the country's biggest private, for-profit prison corporation.

Saturday, Nov. 22 began in Lumpkin with a three-part vigil with speakers and musicians. After a nearly two-mile march, the vigil finished at the entrance to the Stewart Detention Center with participants hearing stories of those who have been directly impacted by U.S. immigration policy, followed by more live music. Speakers emphasized the connection between militarized U.S. foreign policy, forced migration and the U.S. immigrant prison system.

Participants then made their way to Columbus, Georgia and the gates of Fort Benning. Upon arriving at Fort Benning early Saturday afternoon, activists proceeded to walk to the gates of the base. The procession of about 1,000 included street theater, giant parade puppets, and musicians and ended at the stage set at the gates of the base. The day ended with live music and workshops at a nearby convention center.

People participating in the demonstration, many carrying white crosses bearing the names of victims, said they wanted to show their contempt for a system that trains professional killers who think nothing of trampling on the rights of both Americans at home and people overseas. Many were aware that protesters overseas, doing nothing more radical than the ones demonstrating in Fort Benning, have paid with their lives.

Photo: A music session takes place at the School of the Americas training center. Earchiel Johnson/PW

Don’t Shoot Coalition condemns police targeting of movement leaders

Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:39:00 +0000

St. LOUIS - The Don't Shoot Coalition condemned today in a statement what it says is the retaliatory arrest of Rasheen Aldridge, a youth leader and member of the Ferguson Commission. The coalition, in its statment, also objected to what it termed the widespread targeting of protests leaders including arresting them after protests, holding them on exaggerated charges and putting 24-hour holds on them.

"Numerous activists in our movement have been followed, harassed and intimidated by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police and other local police agencies," said Michael T. McPhearson, Don't Shoot co-chair and executive director of Veterans For Peace. "The treatment of Rasheen stands out as politically motivated in response to his leadership on the ground and as a Ferguson Commission member."

Rasheen Aldridge is only the most recent and prominent victim, according to the coalition.

A youth leader involved in numerous campaigns, Aldridge has met with Mayor Slay to discuss city policy changes in the wake of Michael Brown's death. He was also recently appointed to the Governor's Ferguson Commission. And, on Monday he traveled to Washington and met with President Obama about conditions in Ferguson.

On Nov. 25, the day after the Grand Jury announcement, Aldridge was part of a protest at City Hall in which peaceful protestors attempted to enter St. Louis City Hall, a public building that should have been open. In response to his activism, the City of St. Louis has put out a summons for his arrest for allegedly assaulting an officer while attempting to enter City Hall that day.

Zach Chasnoff, a former organizer with Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), was also charged with assaulting an officer for attempting to enter City Hall. He was arrested by eight officers while grocery shopping with his wife days after the protest. After being arrested, the cops took his handcuffs off and one officer aggressively got in Chasnoff's face and urged Chasnoff to punch him. Chasnoff's wife was also intimidated and harassed by officers while inside the Schnuck's grocery store. Chasnoff was put on a 24-hour hold.

Last night Derek Laney, also of Missourians Organizing For Reform and Empowerment (MORE), was arrested at a protest in front of the Department of Justice regarding the no indictment for the officer who choked Eric Garner to death. Laney was arrested while lying flat on the ground; now, he is currently being held without bond on a 24-hour hold for third degree assault at the St. Louis City Justice Center.

Wes McEnany, president of the Mid-South Organizing Committee and the Show Me $15 campaign, was arrested last night at the Phillips 66 on N. Broadway. As part of the national fast food strikes, workers were finishing up a protest last night when the police came up in riot gear and started to cuff workers. McEnany went to talk to the police, who told him they would arrest everyone unless McEnany would be arrested. McEnany was charged with failure to obey a police officer.

David Whitt, a resident of Canfield Apartments and co-founder of the Canfield Watchman Copwatch group, was riding his bike on the morning of Nov. 24, the day that the Grand Jury announced its decision regarding Officer Wilson. He pulled over to the side of the road on his bike. When police drove by, they arrested him, saying they stopped him for failure to wear a bicycle helmet. He was charged, however, with disrupting traffic.

"The Don't Shoot Coalition calls on Mayor Slay and all law enforcement leaders to control their police forces," said McPhearson. "Those who 'serve and protect' must demonstrate a greater respect for democratic rights. It's time to drop all charges against protesters and stop targeting perceived political leaders." said McPhearson.

Twenty year-old Ferguson activist Rasheen Aldridge met with President Obama this week in the White House to discuss Ferguson. Pablo Martinez Monsivais AP