People Before Profit blog

“The New Jim Crow” is must-read for social justice movement

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:11:00 +0000

Any number of superlatives could easily describe Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness." Few books in recent years have left such an indelible impression on me.

It should be mandatory reading for anyone in the social justice movement, for anyone who hopes to see socialism in our nation's future.

Much like James Baldwin's "The Fire Next Time" or Michael Harrington's "The Other America," Alexander's book is a wakeup call to this nation.

At stake is the future of millions of young African American men (and other people of color) who are caught in the web of a justice system that callously, unfairly and systematically turns them into a racial caste in their own land.

"Although this new system of racialized social control purports to be colorblind," writes Alexander, "it creates and maintains racial hierarchy much as earlier systems of control did. Like Jim Crow (and slavery), mass incarceration operates as a tightly networked system of laws, policies, customs and institutions that operate collectively to ensure the subordinate status of a group defined largely by race."

But unlike Jim Crow, the stigmatization, marginalization and discrimination of African American men who make up the new racial caste is not ostensibly the result of being black, but the consequence of falling into a supposedly "non-racialized" criminal justice system at the core of which is mass incarceration.

In other words, this system of social control (from stop-and-frisk to incarceration to parole and probation) is on the surface colorblind and non-racial. The courts have said that intent, not disparate racial outcomes (for example, the disproportionate number of African American men as compared to white men that are incarcerated), is necessary to prove racism - something that is nearly impossible to do. But in its essence and functioning, racial bias permeates every pore of this system.

Thus millions of African American men who have "done time" for mainly non-violent and minor offenses find themselves unable to vote, qualify for food stamps, live in public housing, sit on juries, etc., - that is, turned into a socially and legally excluded racial caste without rights. "A criminal freed from prison," according to Alexander, "has scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a freed slave or a black person living in "free" Mississippi at the height of Jim Crow."

This turn to mass incarceration as a mechanism of racialized social control dates back to 1982, which is when then President Reagan officially declared a "War on Drugs." Over the next three years, the number of African American men in prison for drug offenses nearly quadrupled and then increased steadily until it reached its high point in 2000, a level more than 26 times the 1982 level.

By 2006, 1 in 9 African American men between the ages of 20 and 35 was behind bars, and far more were under some form of penal control - such as parole or probation. Of the 7.3 million in the web of the criminal justice system, Alexander tells us, only 1.6 million were in prison.

The site of this "war" is the ghetto (and barrio). It would, therefore, be reasonable to assume that this war was driven by a tsunami-like wave of drug use and violent crime sweeping poor Black communities. But actually, crime rates and drug use were trending downward as Reagan made his announcement.

Moreover, drug use in the suburbs and on the college campuses is about the same as in the ghetto.

What then was behind this formally color-blind, but in fact deeply racist, "war"?

Shaken by economic, political and ideological ground lost in the preceding decade and a half at home and abroad, the Reagan administration and its supporters were determined to set into motion a counteroffensive whose objective was to restore the class power and profits of the 1 percent, while crushing any opposition on a domestic and global level.

An integral part of this effort was to destabilize and disempower the African American community and to divide the working class, especially in the South, along racial lines.

The most reactionary sections of the ruling class and its representatives in government had not forgotten the decisive role of the African American people in general and African American youth in particular who at the head of a multi-racial movement overturned the formal system of racial segregation (Jim Crow) in the 1960s.

That social power, therefore, had to be neutralized, preferably crushed. The "War on Drugs" and mass incarceration became the vehicle to fracture the Black community and establish a new racial caste system of social control, while at the same time appealing in the name of "law and order" to the racial hostilities and resentments of some white workers.

To a degree the counterrevolution that Reagan began was successful. It not only restored class power and profits, reestablished the Republican Party in the South to a position of dominance, and put in place a new system of racialized social control, but it also threw the Black community and the entire people's movement onto the defensive for the next three decades.

It wasn't until the election of Barack Obama that the terrain of struggle shifted in a more favorable direction, although the right wasn't defeated decisively, nor was the new racial caste system dismantled.

Both still need to be done, which in turn would create a better playing field to move a progressive agenda. So let us begin by crushing the right at the polls in November and proceed to take apart the new racial caste system. No small task, but never underestimate the power of a multi-racial people's movement of millions.

Book information:
"The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness"
by Michelle Alexander
The New Press, 2012 (reprint of 2010 original), 336 pages, paperback, $19.95. Also available on Kindle.

Van Halen's new pro-union 'Tattoo'

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:29:00 +0000

Classic rockers Van Halen are back with their first new studio album ("A Different Kind of Truth") in 14 years. And the album's lead single, "Tattoo," is a pretty important pro-union shout-out.

The legendary band has David Lee Roth returning on lead vocals, and their new song, says Roth, is all about union pride. That much is evident in its lyrics:

Uncle Danny had a coal tattoo

He fought for the union, some of us still do

On my shoulder is the number of the chapter he was in

That number is forever like the struggle here to win

So what are coal tattoos? They're the permanent marks left on miners from years of coal dust getting into their pores. Clearly, the lyrics evoke powerful imagery.

Roth said that he could relate to the pride that he believes coincides with joining or fighting for a union. "What's more poignant than the union struggle today?" he said. "You identify with that, you join a team, you join a group...when you get a tattoo."

And even though tattoos are decorative, he noted, they could also hold significance. And the song's mention of a 'coal tattoo,' he said, pays tribute to the daily wear and tear of working-class unionists.

Van Halen is currently on tour, and their new album is available online and in stores.

Photo: Van Halen members Wolfgang (left) and David Lee Roth perform in New York. Charles Sykes/AP

Santorum's pro-ignorance populism could doom America

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:14:00 +0000

Does Republican Rick Santorum want the American people to be as ill-informed and buffoonish as he acts? To make sure we are, he's willing to sacrifice our education and future job prospects. All this is apparent from his condemnation of President Obama as an "elitist" on the grounds that the chief executive is trying to ensure that all Americans are able to get a basic community college education.

Santorum's own words: "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob." One can only imagine the former Republican senator, had he been around a couple centuries ago: "Elitists with your fancy talk of public education! Not everyone needs to go to school for that uppity readin'!"

Santorum went on to suggest that President Obama seeks to control people's minds! "There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor ... That's why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image."

Not everyone needs to go to college, says the ex-senator. True enough, if you mean that we as a nation do not need to be producing millions of PhDs in "Esoteric Cinema Through a Shakespearian Perspective." But can any thinking person really say honestly that it is not in the national interest for everyone to be given the opportunity for a basic education through the level of community college?

Let's do what Santorum doesn't want the American people to do, and take a look at what a standard community college has to offer. Kirkwood Community College is located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and has satellite centers in Iowa City and surrounding counties. Given that much of Iowa is rural agricultural territory, the college has gone to great lengths to bring education to people even on the remotest farms by setting up fiber optic telecenters in very small towns.

Ever heard of Monticello, Iowa? Kirkwood has, and has decided that the people there actually deserve an education. For those even further away, or who have inflexible work schedules, the school helped pioneer distance education as far back as the 1990s. I know this because I received my Associates Degree from Kirkwood.

One would be hard pressed to come up with a justification for saying that KCC's administrators were "elitist socialists" for trying to bring the opportunities and joys of higher education to people who would otherwise not have been able to attain it. But what is Kirkwood actually teaching them? A mishmash of America-hate and Marxism-Leninism, as Santorum seems to think? Let's take a look.

Perhaps the most subversive program the school offers is its Liberal Arts degree program. The requirements for this include several classes in the English language, both written and spoken. While it's conceivable that someone could use their newfound oratory skills to agitate for the 99%, it is more likely that they will first employ the skills in the workplace.

Then there are courses in math, hard sciences, history, humanities, and social sciences. And just to assure Senator Rick, I didn't learn Leninism in the social sciences classes! I did, however, learn about Latin American culture, which would even be helpful to students who go on to business school if they hope to work with Latin American companies.

But aside from arts and sciences, what else does the typical community college offer? Looking through the catalog shows that these schools are modern-day, highly sophisticated trade schools. Students attend and pick up skills to use in the workplace. The school in question offers certificates: apparel merchandising, automobile repair, biotechnology, carpentry, construction management, culinary arts, dental assistance, entry-level firefighting, HVAC installation, pharmacy, plumbing, agriculture business (it is Iowa, after all), nursing, restaurant management, and much more.

Here in Florida, Miami Dade College considers the acquisition of this level of education so important that it gives two years of it for free to local high school graduates.

These schools drive the creation of the new American workforce. In previous decades, lack of a degree might have been fine. Neither of this writer's parents even graduated from high school, and both built successful careers for themselves. While some might be able to do the same today with the same educational background, it is far less likely. As manufacturing has moved overseas, and the industry that has stayed is far more dependent on highly skilled labor, American workers need more advanced training. The newer industries that can move America forward in the 21^st century will require even more technically skilled labor.

Without community colleges and their career training programs, the American workforce will never be able to compete. As the president pointed out in his state of the union address, there are a lot of job openings in technical areas, but there are not enough workers trained to do them.

The ex-senator can froth all he wants, but no amount of populist platitudes can change the fact that there is nothing valiant in glorifying ignorance. If this tendency gains hold, say, through the election of a GOP anti-intellectual as president, we won't have to worry about "elitism" at all: We would be too busy foraging for food in the remnants of a collapsed American economy.

Photo: Lower Columbia Community College welding technology students constructing a constructing hog pens for a county fair. Lower Columbia Community College // CC 2.0

Bring the troops home from Afghanistan

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:11:00 +0000

Events in Afghanistan and here at home since the "inadvertent" burning of Korans on a U.S. Army base show once again that the majority of Americans are right on target in their support for bringing the troops home.

As news comes out of Afghanistan about angry mobs and the killing of Americans, Afghans, and others, the GOP response has been to stoke the flames of more racism and anti-Muslim attitudes by portraying the president as a weak-kneed apologist to "dangerous, out-of-control terrorists."

By implication, Republicans also feed into the Islamophobic lie about the president being a "secret Muslim." Republican presidential candidates and their surrogates, like Franklin Graham, make such racial and religious bigotry part of their regular messaging.

They further hope to undermine the president by using the Koran-burning crisis to condemn his strategy of setting a timetable for withdrawal. That policy, they say, is the reason for all the trouble we are seeing in Afghanistan.

We don't think the American people are going to fall for these arguments. We believe there is a deep understanding on the part of most people that the real problem is the deeply flawed Afghanistan strategy the U.S. has had from the very beginning of its unwarranted involvement there led by the Bush administration.

The flawed strategy is based on the incorrect premise that the United States can send in troops and occupy a nation in order to fight terrorism, when in reality military occupation increases terrorism. Plus, there are the one percent's geo-political and economic motivations at work in occupying Afghanistan.

We see where that strategy led in Iraq - to nothing but disaster.

Some have argued that pulling out from Afghanistan will endanger Pakistan, turning that country over to "terrorists." Those who argue that position, however, have given us not a single plausible explanation of how U.S. troops in Afghanistan can possibly have anything to do with keeping Pakistan "safe." If anything, things in Pakistan grew worse after the arrival of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The Republican argument that the reason for the trouble in Afghanistan is that the president, by announcing a withdrawal date, "gave away" our strategy is equally absurd. Afghanistan has been a disaster for us ever since we got involved there. It is a disaster now, and will continue to be a disaster for as long as we stay.

The American people know that to stop the killing in Afghanistan and to stop the loss of U.S. lives there is only one option. Get all the U.S. troops out of there and get them out now.

Photo: "Afghan cop looks at damage to vehicle in Jalalabad airport, which insurgents say was revenge for Koran burnings by U.S. troops." Rahmat Gul/AP

Happy birthday, Marian Anderson! (with video)

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:16:00 +0000

Marian Anderson, the great contralto, perhaps the most renowned of the 20th century, would have been 115 years old today. She was born in 1897 in Philadelphia.

Anderson came from a working-class family and her father died at an early age from an injury sustained on the job.

After a decade of studying and performing in Europe, Anderson performed at Town Hall in New York. In 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt invited her to perform at the White House, after which Eleanor Roosevelt praised her in a newspaper column.

In the late 1930s, Anderson was denied the right to sing at Constitution Hall by the Daughters of the American revolution. A major struggle ensued in which the Communist Party, the left, and the labor movement played a major role.

In response to the DAR, "Eleanor Roosevelt and Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (one of the most outspoken supporters of civil rights in the Roosevelt administration) invited Anderson to perform at the Lincoln Memorial."

Eleanaor Roosevelt resigned from the DAR after the Anderson's refusal.

Queen Latifah led a tribute to the moment during the Obama inauguration in 2008.

Close to 100,000 attended what a became a major civil rights moment prior to the outbreak of World War 2. The concert was also broacast live on the radio.

"Anderson continued to break barriers for black artists in the United States, becoming the first black person, American or otherwise, to perform at the Metropolitan Opera in New York City on January 7, 1955."

The pioneering contralto went on to hold a number of ambassadorships and awards. In 2005, she became the 28th person honored with a U.S. postage stamp. She died in 1993.

Photo: Flickr

60 years too late to save the Rosenbergs

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:28:00 +0000

This story is a re-post from the website of the Rosenberg Fund for Children.

Feb. 25th will mark the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Appeals Court's affirmation of my parents' conviction for Conspiracy to Commit Espionage. As I have explained before, my parents were convicted of conspiracy- not spying, espionage or treason as the mainstream media usually reports. Prosecutors like conspiracy charges because the law in this country holds everyone involved in the conspiracy responsible for all the acts of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.

And all the prosecutors need to show to prove that a conspiracy exists is that two or more people got together, made an illegal plan, and took one overt act to move that scheme forward. It could be as simple as agreeing to make a phone call or arranging a meeting.

In order to prove a conspiracy, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendants joined together in a common plan. This is sometimes referred to as the chain of conspiracy. In appealing their conviction, my parents' attorneys attempted to sever the government's chain of conspiracy at its weakest link.

This is how they did it. Although my parents' denied that they conspired with chief prosecution witnesses David and Ruth Greenglass (my mother's younger brother and his wife) to steal atomic secrets, they could not deny that they knew and met with the Greenglasses on many occasions. After all, they were family. Moreover, my parents' attorneys did not contest the testimony of a third government witness, Harry Gold. Gold stated he was an espionage courier who transmitted a great deal of material to the Soviet Union about the construction of the atomic bomb from Klaus Fuchs, one of the top atomic scientists working on the Manhattan project.

Gold also testified that on one occasion he obtained secret information at David and Ruth Greenglass's apartment in Albuquerque, not far from Los Alamos where David, an Army sergeant, worked as a machinist fabricating pieces of the atomic bomb.

In their appeal, my parents' attorneys acknowledged that while the Rosenbergs and Greenglasses were connected, and Gold, Fuchs and the Greenglasses were connected, no one testified at the trial that Gold or Fuchs knew my parents or vice versa. In other words, the defense claimed that the government had not established the chain of conspiracy that connected the Rosenbergs to Gold and Fuchs.

The Appeals Court disagreed. The Justices pointed out that the Greenglasses testified that my father had given Ruth a half a Jello box-top as a recognition signal and kept the other half. David testified that when Gold came to his doorstep in Albuquerque he presented the half of the Jello box top that matched the one Ruth had kept.

David stated further that my father said the person who came to collect the secrets would use a code phrase with Julius' name in it. Gold and David both testified that Gold used the name Julius at the meeting to prove his bona fides. Thus, the Appeals Court concluded the jury could infer the connection between the Rosenbergs and Gold through the Jello box top and code phrase.

Of course, we now know a lot more than the Appeals Court did 60 years ago. Over 20 years after their decision, my brother's and my legal action forced into the public eye secret government files detailing Gold and Greenglass's initial confessions. Gold first said he used the name Ben in the code phrase, while David testified Gold used the name Dave. Another government file reported that after several months in custody Gold and Greenglass were brought together to iron out this discrepancy, and it was at that meeting that Greenglass "proposed" that "possibly" Gold used the name Julius. Gold responded that he was "not at all clear on this point," but none of this came out at the trial three months later and both testified that they were certain the name Julius was in the code phrase.

It was not until the 2010 publication of Walter Schneir's book Final Verdict that we learned that Ruth Greenglass, not my father, was tasked with the job of creating the "recognition signal." Thus, the two pieces of "evidence" upon which the Appeals Court based its decision to uphold my parents' conviction, have lost their probative value.

Harry Gold and David Greenglass inserted the name Julius into the code phrase just a few months before the trial, and Ruth Greenglass, not Julius Rosenberg, created the Jello box-top recognition signal. But, of course, once the executions took place on June 19th, 1953, these fatal errors could not be undone.

Photo: "From an untitled lithograph of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, by Pablo Picasso, 1952." Graphicwitness.org

Oscars hid shameful side of "The Artist"

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:38:00 +0000

At the 84th Annual Academy Awards the film, The Artist (2011), was awarded the Oscar for Best Motion Picture, as well as Best Director.

Most people have heard this film reviewed as a charming Valentine to Hollywood's golden age of silent film. Those who have not seen it, however, are likely unaware that the film opens with a shameful and blatant episode of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda that has no place in advancing the plot of the film and was obviously tacked on to reflect the personal prejudices of someone involved in the film's production.

The film has also been slammed by American screen legend Kim Novak for sampling a large portion of the score from the 1958 film Vertigo in which Ms. Novak starred. So if you want the unique experience of watching a silent film, I would ignore The Artist and seek out one of the classic works of Sergei Eisenstein instead. They are currently available on DVD.

Russian director Sergei Eisenstein worked creating both silent and sound pictures until his death in 1948. His radical innovations have proved immensely influential even today.

He is perhaps best known for the films Battleship Potemkin (1925), often regarded as his masterpiece, and appearing on nearly every critic's list of the greatest films of all time, as well as October (1927), which used actual veterans of the storming of the Winter Palace to re-create the events of the Bolshevik revolution.

It is his first feature film, Strike (1925), however, which is set in pre-revolutionary Russia, that I believe deserves a wider audience and a more appreciative review by those delving into areas of cinema with which they are as yet unfamiliar, such as the silent classics.

The film opens with a passage from V.I. Lenin that is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it in 1907. Once the action begins, one is immediately struck by the remarkable camera angles, the use of reflections and silhouettes as well as the dissolves and montage techniques. There are also swooping aerial shots from inside a factory that make for startling images.

The drama of the action remains powerful as well, such as in a scene where a worker, distraught over having been falsely accused of theft, takes his own life. This tragedy in the film results in a work stoppage and eventually a walk out in which the workers cart the factory manager out of the building in a wheel barrel, dumping him down a steep embankment and depositing him in a polluted stream.

Eisenstein's photographic brilliance isn't limited to the whirring gears of great machines or masses of toilers streaming from factory gates by the hundreds. His close examination of characters is also compelling. There is the factory owner in his silk top hat, frequently surrounded by cigar smoke and so bloated he can barely wedge himself behind his desk.

Once the factory is abandoned, a delightful scene occurs as the owner wanders about his empty office, helpless to operate even a typewriter.

There are also the profiles of a motley cast of informants with colorful code names as 'the Monkey,' 'the Bulldog,' and 'the Fox,' who disguises himself as a blind beggar in order to better spy on the enemies of capitalist exploitation. In addition, the scene in which an agent of the Tsarist secret police approaches an odious misfit to recruit strike-breakers from amongst the ranks of the lumpen proletariat is not one the viewer will soon forget.

Most striking of all, however, is that while viewing the film you realize that the tactics of the ruling class, regardless of what country they happen to be in, and the challenges faced by the working class, have not changed since this film was produced in 1925. Indeed, much of it will be shockingly familiar to those involved in the current struggles for labor, peace, and justice.

Renewed interest in silent film is certainly positive from the standpoint of increasing one's own cultural experiences, but novelty will never take the place of quality. Films such as Eisenstein's Strike set the gold standard in this realm, while pictures such as The Artist may be little more than a curious footnote to future students of film.

Photo: Forward.com

Iran, Israel and the U.S.: the slide to war

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:02:00 +0000

Wars are fought because some people decide it is in their interests to fight them. World War I was not started over the Archduke Ferdinand's assassination, nor was it triggered by the alliance system. An "incident" may set the stage for war, but no one keeps shooting unless they think it's a good idea. The Great War started because the countries involved decided they would profit by it, delusional as that conclusion was.

It is useful to keep this idea in mind when trying to figure out if there will be a war with Iran. In short, what are the interests of the protagonists, and are they important enough for those nations to take the fateful step into the chaos of battle?

First off, because oil and gas are involved, a war would have global ramifications. Iran supplies China with about 15 percent of its oil, and India with 10 percent. It is a major supplier to Europe, Turkey, Japan and South Korea, and it has the third largest oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. Some 17 million barrels per day pass through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, a significant part of the globe's energy supply.

In short, the actors in this drama are widespread and their interests as diverse as their nationalities.

According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran is building nuclear weapons that pose an "existential" threat to Israel. But virtually no one believes this, including the bulk of Tel Aviv's military and intelligence communities. As former Israeli Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said recently, Iran "is not an existential" threat to Israel. There is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb and all its facilities are currently under a 24-hour United Nations inspection regime.

But Israel does have an interest in keeping the Middle East a fragmented place, riven by sectarian divisions and dominated by authoritarian governments and feudal monarchies. If there is one lesson Israel has learned from its former British overlords, it is "divide and conquer." Among its closest allies were the former dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, and it now finds itself on the same page as the reactionary monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman.

Iran is not a military threat to Israel, but it is a political problem, because Tel Aviv sees Teheran's fierce nationalism and independence from the U.S. and Europe as a wildcard. Iran is also allied to Israel's major regional enemy, Syria-with which it is still officially at war- and the Shiite-based Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq.

In the Netanyahu government's analysis, beating up on Iran would weaken Israel's local enemies and at little cost. Tel Aviv's scenario features a shock and awe attack, followed by a United Nations mandated ceasefire, with a maximum of 500 Israeli casualties. The Iranians have little capacity to strike back, and, if they did attack Israeli civilian centers or tried to close the Hormutz Strait, it would bring in the Americans.

Of course that rose-colored scenario is little more than wishful thinking. Iran is not likely to agree to a ceasefire-it fought for eight long years against Iraq-and war has a habit of derailing the best-laid plans. In real life it will be long and bloody and might well spread to the entire region.

Iran's leaders use a lot of bombast about punishing Israel if it attacks, but in the short run, there is not a lot they could do, particularly given the red lines Washington has drawn. The Iranian air force is obsolete, and the Israelis have the technology to blank out most of Teheran's radar and anti-aircraft sites. Iran could do little to stop Tel Aviv's mixture of air attacks, submarine-fired cruise missiles, and Jericho ballistic missiles.

For all its talk about "everything being on the table." The Obama administration appears to be trying to avoid a war, but with the 2012 elections looming, would Washington remain on the sidelines? On the "yes" side are polls indicating that Americans would not look with favor on a new Middle East war. But on the "no" side are a united front of Republicans, neo-conservatives, and the American Israeli Political Action Committee pressing for a confrontation with Iran.

Israeli sources suggest that Netanyahu may calculate that in the run-up to the 2012 American elections, an Israeli attack might force the Obama Administration to back a war and/or damage Obama's re-election chances. It is no secret that there is no love lost between the two leaders.

But the U.S. also has a dog in this fight, and one not all that different than Israel's. American hostility to Iran dates back to Teheran's seizure of its oil assets from Britain in 1951. The CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and install the dictatorial Shah. The U.S. also backed Saddam Hussein's war on Iran, has had a longstanding antagonistic relationship with Syria, and will not talk with Hezbollah or Hamas. Tel Aviv's local enemies are Washington's local enemies.

When the Gulf monarchs formed the GCC in 1981, its primary purpose was to oppose Iranian influence in the Middle East. Using religious division as a wedge, the GCC has encouraged Sunni fundamentalists to fight Shiites in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, and blocked the spread of the "Arab Spring" to its own turf. When Shiites in Bahrain began protesting over a lack of democracy and low wages, the GCC invaded and crushed the demonstrations. The GCC does not see eye-to-eye with the U.S. and Israel on the Palestinians-although it is careful not to annoy Washington and Tel Aviv-but the GCC is on the same page as both capitals concerning Syria, Lebanon and Iran.

The European Union (EU) has joined the sanctions, although France and Germany have explicitly rejected the use of force. Motivations in the EU range from France's desire to reclaim its former influence in Lebanon to Europe's need to keep its finger on the energy jugular vein. In brief, it isn't all about oil and gas but a whole lot of it is, and, as CounterPunch's Alexander Cockburn points out, oil companies would like to see production cut and prices rise. A war would accomplish both.

Iran will be the victim here, but there will be some who would take advantage of a war. An attack would unify the country around what is now a rather unpopular government, allow the Revolutionary Guard to crush its opposition, and give cover to the current drive by the Ahmadinejad government to cut subsidies for transportation, housing and food. A war would cement the power of the most reactionary elements of the current regime.

There are other actors in this drama-China, Russia, India, Turkey, and Pakistan for starters, none of whom support a war-but whether they can influence events is an open question. In the end, Israel may just decide that its interests are served by starting a war, and that the U.S. will go along because it is much of the same mind.

Or maybe this is all sound and fury signifying nothing?

The sobering thought is that the three most powerful actors in this drama-Israel, the U.S. and its European allies, and the Gulf Cooperation Council-have many of the same interests, and share the belief that force is an effective way to achieve one's goals.

On such illusions are tragedies built.

Jeffrey Sachs and “The Price of Civilization”

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:59:00 +0000

In 1980, the richest 1 percent paid 34.5 percent of their income to taxes. By 2008, the richest 1 percent paid 23.3 percent of their income to taxes. This information came from a report of the Tax Foundation. It was data like this plus the documentation that drew me to The Price Of Civilization by Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs, who presently teaches at Columbia University, calls himself a clinical economist. With economic and financial problems dominating the electoral scene, this book is an important source. It is strong on data, although it is weak in analysis and even weaker in offering viable solutions.

Given the lies about Social Security and Medicare being cast about by Republican candidates for president, check this out. In 1959, the elderly poverty rate was at 35.2 percent. Then came the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965. These included both Medicare and Medicaid. By 1969, the elderly poverty rate fell to 25.3 percent, by 1979 to 15.2 percent, by 1989 to 11.4 percent. By 2008, the elderly poverty rate dropped to 9.7 percent. These data from the U.S. Census Bureau are invaluable to debunk the lies spread by Newt Gingrich. His goal of destroying Social Security stretches back to the infamous Contract For America of the mid-1990s. It became better known as the Contract On America.

Sachs is particularly good at showing where productive value from work is going. He states that CEOs are cashing in like never before. At the beginning of the 1970s, the average top-100 CEO was making off with 40 times the average worker's pay. By 2000, the average top-100 CEO was ripping off 1,000 times the average worker's pay. During the same period the median take-home pay of male full-time workers, adjusted for inflation, has stagnated.

In fact, the attacks on Social Security and Medicare, the plummeting of tax rates for the very rich, soaring profits, and the outlandish pay for top CEOs are all evidence of a rapacious, unrelenting class war by the rich. Attacks on President Obama for making class warfare are hollow at best. Class warfare has been part and parcel of capitalism from the get-go. The attempts to label our first black president as a socialist and the "food stamp president" smack of anticommunism and racism, the twin divisive ideologies of that same capitalist class.

Jeffrey Sachs's research and writing can be a real working class weapon in this crucial election year. It comes with a number of provisos. While useful information pours out of its pages, its analysis is faulty and its solutions, at times, are down right misleading.

The author tends to attribute laws passed to presidents, particularly Johnson and Kennedy. For example, the benefits to the elderly from Social Security and Medicare are attributed to Lyndon Johnson with no mention of the civil rights movement and labor movement at the grass roots. Without these movements, there would have been no or a limited "war on poverty." The author had an excellent opportunity to show how unity benefits all citizens. It's not there.

The Price of Civilization makes a case for the root of the economic crisis being one of a lack of civic virtue among the elite. This focus places the structural crisis, including financialization, and the cyclical crisis of capitalism a distant second. This moral crisis emphasis leads the author to plead with the rich to please pay more taxes. A political novice would recognize the futility in this approach.

Sachs states that the environment is the second most decisive issue facing our people. (He places education first, geopolitics third and managing diversity fourth.) Yet, at the same time, he attacks greens for opposing nuclear power. This flies in the face of past and recent nuclear meltdowns in the Soviet Union and Japan respectively and the close call at Three Mile Island in the USA. Missing also is a call for green jobs that are so badly needed and would unite the environmental and labor movements.

The author particularly misfires when it comes to political focus. After exposing the class warfare made by the rich on the working class, where does Sachs aim his main fire? Unfortunately, it is at President Obama. The author takes particular aim at the various stimulus bills which quite possibly averted a much more dire economic downturn. Nor does the author see the danger in strengthening the extreme right with such attacks.

Sachs needs to be more analytical when it comes to history. After World War I, Germany and Italy were wracked with failing financial Institutions, high unemployment and parliaments incapable of solving their countries' economic woes. Their wealthy classes wanted government subsidies flowing to them instead of to the laboring classes. They wanted tax exemptions. Their countries got fascism and the world got World War II.

While the author continuously points the reader in a healthy direction, like tax the rich, agency is almost completely missing. It isn't until the very last chapter that he singles out the millennial generation as a force for change. But while young people can play an important role, vast movement experience shows that left to their own devices, youth will gravitate to spontaneity and can even be pulled in reactionary directions. Organized labor combined with women, people of color and youth would have both the power and direction that is needed in this election year and beyond.

Book information:
The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity
By Jeffrey Sachs
2011, Random House, 336 pages, hardcover, $27.00

Art Perlo contributed to this article.

Veteran’s voice: The human cost of war is too high

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:59:00 +0000

With the Iraq war ending and the Afghanistan war still going on, and a possible conflict with Iran about to begin, as a veteran of the Afghanistan war who made it home safely. I reflect on the fact that there are many who did not. They came home in body bags, or injured and maimed. How many service members, noncombatants and contractors were actually hurt or will be in these imperialist wars?

Watching the national news outlets, you may only hear about one or two service members being "hurt", however it is much worse then they want you to know. Let's look at some numbers.

According to antiwar.com, as of November 14, 2011, the estimated number is well over a staggering 100,000 in combat-related injuries according to some sources, and this is just Iraq. Now let's look at some numbers from Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan has been officially going on for 10 years and as of few months ago, the number of U.S service members killed has been 1,896. The total wounded since the beginning of the Afghan war is 14,342.

How much does it cost to treat these wounded service members? Costsofwar.org reports:

What has the U.S. already spent on veteran's care to date?: How much has the federal government spent on veterans' medical care and disability benefits since 2001? To date, $13.2 billion has been spent directly on veterans' medical care and $18.1 billion has been paid out in disability compensation and other benefits, for a total of $31.3 billion. However, these figures significantly understate the total costs for the following reasons:

* The $13.2 billion number is for veterans only - not for medical costs to those who are still serving. A service member who is wounded on the battlefield is first treated within the military medical system, for example in battlefield medical centers and then transferred to Army or Navy hospitals, such as Walter Reed. It is not until after the service member has been discharged that he or she is eligible to use the veterans' medical system. Therefore there is a lag between when the injury takes place and the initial treatment is conducted (paid for by DoD) and the later period in which that troop receives medical care from the VA and shows up as a direct cost to the VA medical system.

* For disability benefits, the service member again becomes eligible to apply for benefits after discharge. However, this is the beginning of the process, and there is a 6-12 month backlog of pending claims from veterans who have applied for disability compensation and benefits. Therefore, once again there is a lag between the time when veterans are discharged and when the benefits paid out are shown as expenditures for the VA.

Why are these young men and women dying? Is it because we were attacked on 9/11? If that is the case, Osama bin Laden has been killed. So again why are we still there?

These young men and women have lost their lives, or returned home injured, or maimed because of the capitalist, imperialist policies of the United States. The U.S. government has allowed these young men and women to go through these hardships to get a foothold in an area they have been long after. We were sent over there to remove what the U.S. called dictators because they wouldn't "play ball" with us anymore. The U.S government says that we are over there because they are murderers, but if we look at the real reason we're over there, then we must be murderers as well. Support our troops by bringing them home, not by sending them back into harm's way.

Gregory McLaughlin is an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran. Photo via U.S. Army.

University of Pennsylvania awards Du Bois honorary doctorate

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:35:00 +0000

Happy birthday, Dr. Du Bois! Today would have been the 144th birthday of WEB Du Bois, the great scholar, civil rights and peace activist.

Born in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, in 1868, Du Bois quickly emerged as one of the 20th century's outstanding thinkers and social activists. Armed with a PhD from Harvard University, the young scholar came to national prominence at the turn of the century when he challenged Tuskegee University head Booker T. Washington's accommodationist policies.

His famous collection of essays, The Souls of Black Folk remains poignant and relevant even today. Du Bois went on to help found the Niagara Movement, a group of activists, workers and scholars devoted to fighting segregation and racism.

A committed socialist early in life, Du Bois withdrew form the Socialist Party because of its acceptance of segregation in some of its branches.

In the wake of the Niagara conferences he joined the effort to found the NAACP, where he served on its board for decades and edited its magazine, The Crisis.

After the first world war, Dr. Du Bois led five Pan African Congresses aimed at speeding the decolonization effort and achieving African independence.

Handcuffed at the age of 83 during the McCarthy period of Cold War repression, Du Bois ran for the U.S. Senate in New York and won over 100,000 votes. He joined the Communist Party in 1961 and died in Ghana in 1963, the day before the iconic civil rights march on Washington, led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

A two-day conference was recently held at the University of Pennsylvania to honor the late scholar who briefly worked there.

The university, at that time, however, declined to give the young professor a permanent job. While at the University of Pennsylvania, Du Bois studied Philadelphia's 7th ward and penned The Philadelphia Negro, considered to be the first sociology study published in the U.S.

An honorary doctorate was bestowed on Dr. Du Bois in the course of the event by the university's Board of Trustees. Dr. Lewis Gordon, a professor at Temple University spoke at the conference and later said, "There is nothing in Africana Studies that does not owe a debt to W.E.B. Du Bois."

Photo: James and Esther Jackson papers at NYU's Tamiment Library. James and Esther Jackson seeing W.E.B. Du Bois off on a 1958 trip to Europe.

Will Supreme Court deliver death knell to campus diversity?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:39:00 +0000

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could mean the death knell for racial and ethnic diversity on college campuses. But, despite the notion that the High Court is "protected" from public opinion and politics, the American people do have the ability to influence the case's outcome.

Ever since the modern-day civil rights movement and its victories, the extreme right wing in the United States has been gunning for any and all democratic gains from those struggles. This includes remedies for past and present discrimination, such as affirmative action.

Today the Supreme Court is packed with legal representatives of this extreme right-wing worldview.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that universities could take into account racial and ethnic diversity in their admissions process, although they could not use "quotas." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the author of the majority opinion in that 5-4 ruling.

Public universities could use race in their complex admission point system, as they use children of alumni as a factor, because the goal of racially diverse campuses was good for the country, democratic, and constitutional, the court said.

And indeed studies show that while class-based considerations can increase the numbers of black and Latino college students, race-based considerations result in slightly higher percentages, more reflective of the population at large.

In 2004, one study of 146 selective colleges and universities found that Blacks and Latinos would account for 4 percent of the student body without any affirmative action considerations. Affirmative action based on race/ethnicity increased that number to 12 percent, the study found. With socio-economic affirmative action the number of black and Latino students would have been 10 percent. In the U.S. population as a whole, African Americans and Latinos make up 13 and 16 percent, respectively.

O'Connor retired in 2005 and in her stead President George W. Bush appointed Samuel Alito, who vehemently opposes any attempts to remedy racial, gender or other types of discrimination.

The four dissenting justices in 2003 were Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has written opinions hostile to remedies for racist discrimination, replaced Rehnquist.
In short, the court is even further to the right and hostile to civil rights than it was in 2003.

To make matters worse, on the more liberal side of the court, Justice Elena Kagan is recusing herself from the case. She was the Obama administration's solicitor general and worked on the case before being appointed to the Supreme Court.

It looks grim indeed. The court will hear arguments this fall on the case, which is based on a white student's suit against the University of Texas claiming she was denied admission because of her race. It is sure to be an issue in the 2012 elections.

The far right will try to throw sand in the electorate's eyes with claims of "reverse discrimination." Don't be fooled by the divide-and-conquer tactics. Affirmative action is a remedy for past and present discrimination. Equal protection under the Constitution is there exactly for that reason - to remedy the ongoing damage from the racist institution of slavery. Racism and other forms of discrimination still exist. Therefore remedies need to exist. These remedies have benefited all Americans, including women, people with disabilities and others.

That's where the American people come in. Electing a president and Congress that will stand squarely with civil rights and diversity sends a message to the court, a message they will hear loud and clear. Just think of how much more further right the court could go with a President Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul.

While reelecting President Barack Obama and rejecting a tea party Congress is the most important way to send a message to the court, it's not the only one. Students, families, unions, schools - the 99% - have to send other messages through petitions, demonstrations, letters to the editor, online campaigns, that racial diversity and affirmative action are valued and necessary for a 21st century democratic America.

Photo: PW/Pepe Lozano

Anna Julia Cooper, 1858-1964: A fighter for equal rights for all

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0000

Only the black woman can say "when and where I enter, in the quiet, undisputed dignity of my womanhood, without violence and without suing or special patronage, then and there the whole Negro race enters with me."

Anna Julia Cooper, in A Voice from the South, 1892

Born into slavery in North Carolina in 1858, Anna Julia Haywood Cooper lived long enough to see the rising Civil Rights Movement. During that century-plus lifetime, she was a leader in the fight for African American equality, women's equality and their rights in education, and for African Americans' and women's right to vote.

Cooper helped to launch the late 19th century black women's club movement. She served as principal of The M Street High School, an important Washington D.C. educational institution. At age 65, she earned a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne in Paris. She continued to write about slavery, and the importance of education, until the end of her life.

Cooper's mother, Hannah Stanley Haywood, was a slave, and her presumed father was her mother's master, George Washington Hayward. She began her long career in education when at the age of nine, she won a scholarship to St. Augustine's Normal and Collegiate Institute in Raleigh, N.C., which had just been founded to educate former slaves and their families.

Her emphasis on equality for women in education began during her St. Augustine years, when she fought for and won the right to study Greek, which had been reserved for male theology students. Cooper continued that struggle after enrolling at Ohio's Oberlin College, which was among the first U.S. colleges to admit both black and white students. There, she insisted on pursuing the more rigorous "gentleman's course" instead of the basic two-year "ladies' course."

Cooper earned a bachelor of arts degree, and a master's degree in mathematics, from Oberlin.

As a teacher and later principal of The M Street High School - the country's first high school for black students - Cooper set academic standards that enabled many students to win scholarships to Ivy League colleges. This challenge to the widespread view that black students should instead be trained for manual trades cost her the principalship, but she continued as a teacher until she retired in 1930.

That year, at age 72, Cooper became president of Frelinghuysen University, a night school providing education for older, working African Americans. After retiring as president in 1940, she served as registrar until 1950.

At age 19, Cooper married George Cooper, a professor at St. Augustine's. He died two years later and she never remarried. At age 57, and while she was studying for her Ph.D., she adopted five young children of a deceased nephew.

As one of the founders of the black women's club movement, Cooper focused not only on overcoming the huge social and economic difficulties faced by the growing number of educated African American women, but also on winning equality for black men and women of all classes, and for women generally. The club movement also paid particular attention to the continuing sexual exploitation of black women.

"The colored woman feels that woman's cause is one and universal ... not till race, color, sex and condition are seen as the accidents and not the substance of life ... not till then is woman's lesson taught and woman's cause won - not the white woman's, nor the red woman's, but the cause of every man and every woman who has writhed silently under a mighty wrong," Cooper, one of a handful of black women participants, told a women's conference during the 1893 World Colombian Exposition in Chicago.

She added, "Women's wrongs are thus indissolubly linked with all undefended woe, and the acquirement of her 'rights' will mean the final triumph of all right over might, the supremacy of the moral force of reason, and justice, and love in the government of the nations of the earth."

Cooper wrote many essays and addressed a variety of audiences. In her book, A Voice from the South, published in 1892, she wrote, "... woman's cause is the cause of the weak; and when all the weak shall have received their due consideration, then woman will have her 'rights,' and the Indian will have his rights, and the Negro will have his rights, and all the strong will have learned at last to deal justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly ..."

In 2009, Anna Julia Cooper became the 32nd person commemorated by the U.S. Postal Service with a stamp in the Black Heritage series.

Take it from me: Community colleges are worth investing in

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:07:00 +0000

Some educators and political scientists would argue that America's system of community colleges is the bedrock achievement of the public higher education system. Community colleges were the byproduct of the Johnson administration's "Great Society" initiative to reduce poverty and make education more accessible to working class and poorer students.

In two years or less, a community college student can receive schooling on a variety of programs from hands-on vocational training such as fixing computers and plumbing to a traditional liberal arts curriculum that results in a transferable associate's degree.

These community colleges are publicly owned and operated by coalitions of local school districts, making them an ideal stepping stone from high school to the workforce or more advanced education.

I am a student at Lehigh Carbon Community College in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania. Known as LCCC for short, this institution is publicly financed and run by the school districts of Carbon, Lehigh, and Schuylkill Counties. It is one of 16 public community and junior colleges in Pennsylvania.

People here are pinched for education. There are many famous schools in the area like Lehigh University and Moravian College. Sadly many of these schools are outside the financial range of many students. This is where LCCC comes into the picture. For residents of the three counties LCCC's per-credit tuition is $91 - a very reasonable rate for working class and other low-income students compared to other public institutions in Pennsylvania.

But there's still inequality in higher education that needs to be stamped out. A common complaint of any college student regardless of economic status is college textbook prices. This semester I am only taking three classes, or nine credits. My total textbook prices turned out to be well over $400. Textbooks should be subsidized to cover all costs and reduce the financial burden on students so they can worry about studying and getting good grades instead of wondering whether they have to choose between their academics or next meal.

And more can be done. Ultimately, we need to get to a system where higher education is free and all educational costs are covered, much like in Europe and other developed countries.

We can start by expanding Pell grants and state grants to more students in the short term.

Beyond that, college loans are crippling everyone. It's an unfair system based on capitalist principles that deprive working people of educational opportunities. Loans should be phased out and replaced by guaranteed federal scholarships which cover all students who want a quality public education. These scholarships and expanded grants would be covered by progressive taxation on the 1% who at the end of the day will still be able to afford to go to Harvard and Yale.

Does everyone need to go to a traditional college? More and more community colleges are expanding to offer four-year degrees and even some graduate coursework. These colleges still offer students of all ages financial flexibility and a great education for half the cost of a traditional four-year school.

Although LCCC is only a stepping stone until I transfer my degree to a four-year school; I am learning to overcome stereotypes I had about these schools and public education in general.

LCCC is well funded and offers students with disabilities like me extra help in navigation of college life. Accommodations processes are streamlined, counseling for transition difficulties and other mental health problems is free, the faculty and staff are sensitive and friendly to my needs, and extra help such as tutoring and drop-in help labs are free for all students who request it.

Some of the things that now help me here at LCCC were never at Mercyhurst College, a traditional liberal arts school that I attended last year. First off the faculty, despite popular opinion of community colleges, are very knowledgeable and know what they're doing. Many of them are retired professors from major universities and colleges.

The Career Development Center helps students with job hunting tips, resume building, and job placement to transition from college to a career.

Student activities and clubs here are not only fun but provide real educational value. I've already connected with the campus LGBT alliance and plan on making contacts with other progressive minded students in the multicultural association and the political society.

The library has the biggest selection of books and articles that I've ever seen. It is vastly bigger than what I saw at Mercyhurst. Books on every subject imaginable to help students research and dialogue effectively are all there. Articles and knowledge are easy to access online for free.

I spend much of my free time there reading on progressive values and history. It's exciting stuff. I now finally understand the value of a public education that should be accessible to all students who wish to learn as I do.

Don't let anyone tell you that public education isn't worth investing in. Our system of community colleges offers a comprehensive and high quality educational experience for millions of students just finding their way into higher learning. Let's have community colleges as their first stop on their journey and quest for knowledge and learning.

Photo: Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick announces Jan. 24 proposal to reform state's community colleges. Office of Governor Patrick // CC 2.0

Why Occupy?

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:38:00 +0000

The following remarks are excerpted from a teach-in at Northwestern University, 2/15/12. The author is speaking on his own behalf and not as a representative of the University.

The common wisdom, handed down by venerable elders with a bemused smile and a world-weary sigh, is that young people are idealistic; that you (or we, depending on how old you think I am) want to change the world, but that we will one day "grow up," make the wrenching transition from innocence to experience, and come to the realization that things are as they are, and that the best one can hope for is to play by the rules, tailor one's expectations to the ugly reality of the world, and surround oneself with what joy and comfort one can muster.

This is a lie.

The world is changing. It changes every day, by pressure from above (which we call the status quo) and by pressure from below (which we call resistance, dissidence, uprising, and insurrection).

Two examples here will suffice. In Greece, the cradle of western democracy, the troika of the EU, the IMF, and the ECB have imposed yet another series of draconian austerity measures designed to protect bank profits by shredding the social protections of workers.

The austerity plans, which have been accompanied by humiliating demands for German and European supervision of Greek finances, met first with protests, and now meet with open riots. Over the weekend, Athens burned, and workers have decided that if they cannot be heard at the ballot box, they will be heard in the streets.

In Wisconsin and Ohio, Republican governors and Republican-dominated legislatures tried to ram through bills gutting the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively about their working conditions. In both cases, workers mobilized by the tens and hundreds of thousands.

In Wisconsin, after months of miltant action in the state capitol, over one million voters signed petitions calling for a recall election of Governor Scott Walker-the largest portion of a state electorate ever to petition for the recall of a governor. In Ohio, workers petitioned for a referendum on the anti-worker legislation, which was then defeated by an overwhelming majority of the state's voters.

To this list we might add the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring (however contradictory their results), mass protests of Israeli and Palestinian youth in the streets of Tel Aviv, the Bolivarian movement in South America, the experiments with workers' collective self-management in Argentina...

The world has entered a moment where millions of people are coming to believe that radical change is not only possible, but necessary: a moment like the great labor struggles of the 20s and 30s, which won the New Deal reforms here in the United States; a moment like the fight for civil rights in the 50s and 60s. While it is hard to predict, in any sort of programmatic way, how radical change will happen and what it will entail, I think we can say a couple of things with certainty.

First of all, radical change will come through radical democracy. The common thread running through every mass uprising on the current world stage-from Tahrir Square to Wall Street and Wisconsin-is the demand that the people themselves, all of them, be vested with control over their own political existence. This means not puppet democracy, not regime change at gunpoint or under the boots of an invading army, not corporate oligarchy masquerading as a representative republic, but real, sovereign, popular, participatory democracy.

Second, because of its thorougly democratic nature, radical change will take place on a class basis. The demand for a fair voice in democratic institutions is indissociable from the demand for policies that address the real concerns of the masses of working people: jobs, economic security, dignity in the workplace, and access to education based on the desire to learn rather than ability to pay.

These two demands-for real democracy and for an economy that serves workers-are neatly summed up in the motto of the Occupy movement: "We are the 99 percent."

Indeed, to my mind, Occupy (whether Wall Street, Chicago, or Northwestern) has no other demands except those expressed in the very form of our organization, the general assembly: we want a public, democratic political culture in which all people can participate meaningfully, and we fight for the social and economic changes such a political culture will make possible.

We fight for our right, the right of the global 99 percent, to build a world that meets our needs.

So why do we Occupy Northwestern? More importantly, why should you? First of all, I would say, because we all Occupy Northwestern already. We are members of the community.

Moreover, for the students in attendance, you have the time, training, and resources for serious political engagement. You are preparing for positions of leadership in law, government, business, and intellectual life. You have the ability to change the world, which carries with it the responsibility to change it for the better.

Whatever issue speaks to you-peace, democracy, economic justice, the struggles against racism, sexism, and homo- and transphobia-get involved. Vote, organize, study, argue, protest, put up flyers and circulate petitions. Make demands. Occupy. Begin building a better, fairer world, rather than simply accepting the one we've been given. We are the 99 percent, and we can do amazing things when we stand together.

Photo: Occupy Chicago (PW/Luis Rivas)

Pipeline rejection is huge Native American victory

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:12:00 +0000

First, of all make no mistake, it was Native Americans who spearheaded and bore the brunt of the campaign against the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline. Native peoples whose health and land was being destroyed by tar sands oil extraction were the first to speak out against the pipeline. This caught the attention of climate scientists, environmentalists and others.

The news media continues to engage in loathsome racist marginalization by ignoring Native involvement in this struggle, touting the opposition of environmentalists. With all due respect to our environmentalist allies, they were following the Indian lead, but it was Native Americans of Canada and the U.S. in the forefront of this protracted struggle, which is still far from over. Nonetheless, a major battle has been won.

The rejection of the pipeline by President Obama was a tremendous victory for tribal nations of the U.S. and Canada. Obama listened to the voices of this land's first peoples. In early December Native leaders presented the president with the "Mother Earth Accord" that outlined the unique U.S. tribal and Canadian First Nations objections to the pipeline. In Alberta, Canada, for example, it was pointed out that the extraction of tar sands oil had already been linked to a 30 percent elevated rate of rare cancers and autoimmune diseases in First Nations communities downstream from the project.

The Mother Earth Accord was developed this past September at the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Emergency Summit. Over 20 tribal nations and private landowners, private citizens, environmental organizations and Canadian political parties endorsed the Accord in opposition to the pipeline.

There were of course, the naysayers to this decision, led by the Republicans with their typical inane, vociferating, hypocritical temerity. Perhaps, the Obama administration is finally realizing that attempting to work with them is akin to entering a Faustian compact.

Republicans contended that the project would have produced tens of thousands of jobs. Balderdash. With the exception of possibly a couple of thousand temporary construction jobs along the pipeline route from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast there was little prospective job creation. Further, latest studies estimate that the pipeline would create fewer than 100 permanent jobs.

News pundits continue to downplay the massive coalition led by Native people with such comments as Obama is " pandering to a small environmental constituency." They deny that Native people are a political force to be reckoned with.

There were massive demonstrations against the pipeline at the White House. In a two-week August-September protest, of mostly American Indians, 1,253 were arrested. On November 6, over 12,000, Native Americans and others, demonstrated in a "human chain" protest that encircled the White House! Incredibly, neither massive protest was initially reported by the TV or newspaper media; a woeful commentary on the stranglehold exerted on news by corporate moguls.

The proposed pipeline would have been deadly for Canadian tribal nations and at least five U.S. Native American reservations and six states, endangering a huge water source- the Ogallala Aquifer- a vital and vast underground water table that covers nine states. This aquifer provides potable water to over 3 million people.

President Obama is to be lauded for his disapproval of this heinous enterprise. Further, this rejection represents a history-making Native American victory over the mammon-obsessed jackals of corporate greed.

"Pity the Billionaire" recounts hijacking of public opinion

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:22:00 +0000

Book Review

"Pity the Billionaire: The Hard Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right"

By Thomas Frank

2012, Metropolitan Books, hardcover, 240 pages, $25.00

Thomas Frank, ex-Wall Street Journalist turned liberal political savant, is currently the darling of the airwaves for NPR and Democracy Now fans. Just Google "Pity the Billionaire," his latest book, and scroll through the pages of reviews and interviews bubbling up since its publication in early January.

According to his version of the recent past, some three years ago the ruling class was facing angry busloads of inner-city residents shouting across manicured lawns in commuter-line gated enclaves. There was talk of "clawback" and criminal prosecutions. The sound of the tumbrels was in the streets and images of the guillotine kept them awake at night. Yet within months the right-wing populism of the middle-class had reared up in the guise of the tea party and, in 2010, gave Republican politicians the biggest electoral landslide in decades.

The received wisdom of the pundits was, at least briefly, he says, that the left would have a resurgence and that we were entering a progressive florescence like the 1930s. But in less than an interrupted heartbeat, the bourgeoisie was on the offensive again, screeching plaintively about "class war" and calling for economic social Darwinism with "let the failures fail."

What started as clear-sighted fury at Wall Street casino-style shenanigans was deflected into a malicious whine at the "irresponsible" victims who had been bilked into buying the American dream of home ownership! Frank traces this "bait and switch" ideological maneuver in the media political dialog from the infamous Rick Santelli rant on the floor of the Chicago commodities exchange through the deification of Fox and Company's Glenn Beck to the Astroturf (a la Koch brothers) inflammation of the body politic in November 2010.

By Frank's analysis, Ayn Rand-spouting "free-marketeers" had hijacked the popular energy of an anti-elitist upsurge and channeled it into an attack on the toothless Keynesian bureaucracy centered in D.C. The gains of 1930s-era financial regulation had been rolled back or gutted by 40 years of creeping Reaganomics and now those hard-won measures were held up to blame for the very excesses they were designed to curb.

As for the mechanisms of this most recent bubble and crash, other renegade traders (but more especially investigative journalists like Pro Publica) may do a better job of explaining the historical details, but Frank's strong suite is his description of the capitalist "reaction" and the seeming sluggishness of the left's response in shaping the media dialog.

In a chapter titled "Mimesis" (Greek for 'imitation'), Frank, aside from a few pages of ill-informed anti-Communist bile, tries to make the case that that the right has learned from the left and become more polemical than at any time in recent memory. The ruling class now claims that they weren't laissez-faire enough, and that Democratic congressmen, their arteries clogged with co-operative cholesterol and corporate sugar, are feeling faint.

A frequent contributor to Harper's magazine, Frank produces a well-turned and emotive prose and provides a brief respite from the mindless palaver of the 24-hour news cycle. If you want a copy of "Pity the Billionaire," get it soon and give it to a liberal friend, because it's so deeply topical and immersed in 15-minute history that it is likely to be out of date soon. He was writing before Occupy Wall Street hit the front page. Like in his earlier books, he suffers from the lack of investigative legwork on his subject, unless it is the media itself. But give him due; after all, he is only a columnist, not a reporter. It seems a shame that he is so busy holding his nose in the air that he has forgotten to keep his ear to the ground.

Ohio students form state association

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:53:00 +0000

COLUMBUS, Ohio - In late January, students from across Ohio gathered here for a weekend to form a statewide organization. Despite an untimely snowstorm that kept many from attending, about 100 Ohio college students participated. Between meeting new friends, eating delicious pizza, and talking about politics, we actually got a whole lot done.

We formed a number of committees, agreed on a plan to make March 1 a national day of action for education and set up a statewide network. On Saturday morning, we wiped the snow off our shoes, hung up our coats and sat down to hammer out details. It wasn't easy, yet, Sunday when we left after a short rally, we were the Ohio Student Association! We had formed a union for Ohio students!

From our numerous discussions, it became clear that the issues students face are tied to the corporate power structure that runs our state and that we cannot build student power without working together across the state, as well as forming coalitions with others with similar problems. Our main goals include more democracy in our university settings and taking on the outrageous costs of education for ordinary families.

The Ohio Student Association came about because a group of passionate students decided that they were tired of searching for individual solutions for collective problems. It was difficult at times, but mostly it was just really exciting. Organize your campus. Build coalitions, and work together. Talk about what unites you rather than what divides you.

You can contact OSA at its website.

Photo: vasenka // CC 2.0

Expect a bitter fight on the budget

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:21:00 +0000

A range of progressive groups are pointing to key positive directions in President Obama's 2013 budget.

Top among them, in our view, are the plan to invest more than $350 billion in job-creating measures, and the moves to tax the rich to pay for it.

Make no mistake: these are going to be the core battleground issues for the Republican right. Their number one priority is to defend the super-rich, and to oppose any government spending for the public good.

Notable job-growth measures in the president's budget include:

* "An upfront investment of $50 billion from the surface transportation reauthorization bill for roads, rails, and runways to create thousands of quality jobs in the short term."
* "Project Rebuild, a series of policies to help connect Americans looking for work in distressed communities with the work needed to re-purpose residential and commercial properties, creating jobs and stabilizing neighborhoods."
* "$30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 schools and $30 billion to help states and localities retain and hire teachers and first responders."
* A new tax credit for small businesses that add jobs.
* A Pathways Back to Work Fund to support summer and year-round jobs for low-income youth.
* Increased funding for non-military research and development.
* Ending tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas.
* Expanded funding for inter-city passenger rail transportation.

Other important elements include new funding for child care, community college programs, college affordability, and teacher training and compensation.

Tax-the-rich measures include:

* Ending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for the super-rich.
* A new Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on the largest financial institutions, to offset the cost of the bailouts these firms enjoyed.
* Elimination of 12 tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal companies.

Business Week moans: "Under Obama's plan some taxpayers [meaning those with the top incomes] would pay 43.4 percent in federal taxes on their dividends next year. That's almost triple what they now pay and comes on top of corporate taxes."

We say, "It's about time." But Republicans, ever in the service of the wealthy and corporate CEOs, will be saying, "No way." In the coming months, as Congress debates the actual appropriations bills that will implement spending for the next year. the Republicans will be fighting tooth-and-nail to block these measures.

There are many other positive aspects of Obama's budget, including measures to promote a green economy - which are also job-creating.

There are also negatives, as others have pointed out. These include cuts in federal workers' pensions, and a 14 percent cut for some important social programs. Such cuts, the president said, were not his preference but an attempt to deal with the budget cutting requirements of the Budget Control Act - a bill passed last year at the height of the right-wing deficit/budget-slashing campaign.

In addition, many of the positive measures don't go far enough.

Meanwhile, many of the cuts in military spending are really just cuts in planned increases, not "real" cuts.

Both the positives and the negatives of the budget plan underscore the need for greater organizing and action by working class people:

* to demand that Congress passes funding for these job-creation and tax-the-rich measures, and more, and
* to defeat the reactionary Republicans at the polls in November.

Photo: President Barack Obama speaks about the $8 billlion Community College to Career Fund that is included in his 2013 budget, Feb. 13, at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Va. (AP/Charles Dharapak)

Dispelling the war clouds over Iran

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:29:00 +0000

As if two wars weren't enough, new war clouds are gathering over the Middle East. With the Afghanistan war still going full tilt, and that in Iraq not exactly wound down, talk is ratcheting up about a possible Israeli preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. U.S. involvement would be sure to follow.

As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the conflict centers around allegations Iran is striving to develop nuclear weapons - allegations Iran has consistently denied. And we all know how such allegations turned out in Iraq.

Within both the Obama and Netanyahu administrations, officials hold conflicting views.

Adding fuel to the fire are claims and counter-claims about covert actions Israel and Iran have supposedly taken against each other.

In the emerging situation, the Israelis are said to be considering a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities as early as this spring, and the Obama administration is reportedly urging more time for intensified economic sanctions.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said, "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

He has also said he hopes for a diplomatic solution, and he has reportedly warned Israel the U.S. opposes an attack.

Most Republican presidential contenders are beating the war drums full blast.

Many things in this situation are unclear. But one thing is virtually certain: an Israeli strike would not only unleash a third devastating war in the Middle East, but the United States would quickly become enmeshed as well.

As with the two existing wars, ironies abound. While Israeli ruling circles raise alarms about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, Israel itself is known to have up to 400 undeclared nuclear weapons.

What about the claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons? In 2007, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003, while apparently keeping options open for future development. After the IAEA released a new report on Iran's nuclear program last fall, it was widely asserted the agency had reversed its earlier assertion and said Iran was actively trying to develop a bomb.

But military intelligence analysts Greg Thielmann and Benjamin Loehrke, writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in November, pointed out that the IAEA's views had not changed significantly between the two reports. They quoted Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee, after the IAEA's latest report, that while he believes Iran is keeping its options open, "We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build a nuclear weapon."

The analysts said the latest report shows Iran has conducted "scattered research activities" that seem more like trying to sharpen understanding of nuclear weapons design than actively pursuing a bomb.

Meanwhile, the IAEA and Iran held talks in Tehran late last month, and more talks are scheduled later this month.

Iran continues to assert that it is only developing nuclear energy, which is its right under the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Commenting on the IAEA report, President Ahmadinejad declared that Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons: "The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads." Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said his country "fundamentally" rejects nuclear weapons.

The U.S. has a long, sordid history of involvement with Iran. In 1953, after democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh nationalized Iran's oil, bringing on economic sanctions, the CIA and British intelligence engineered the coup that deposed him and brought the authoritarian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlevi to power.

For more than a quarter-century, until Pahlevi was overthrown in 1979, the U.S. armed the shah and his repressive SAVAK intelligence agency. Diplomatic relations were broken after the revolution, and have not resumed.

Amid the cloud of swirling claims, one thing stands out. A way exists for Israel and the United States - if they are serious - to make sure Iran doesn't develop nuclear war-making capacity.

For Israel, that way would be to acknowledge its possession of nuclear arms, and follow the lead of South Africa and Brazil in renouncing its weapons program.

For the United States, it would mean living up to our obligation under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and taking the lead, together with the other acknowledged nuclear weapons states, to eliminate these potentially devastating weapons - the only true weapons of mass destruction - forever.

An effective first step could be implementing the long-sought Middle East Nuclear Free Zone. Nuclear free zones now cover at least 112 countries, and span the entire southern hemisphere. Iran actually made the first proposal for such a zone, in 1974. Achieving this status for the Middle East would not only end speculation and concern about Israeli and Iranian weapons, but would be an important step toward unsnarling the complex relations between nations in the region.