People Before Profit blog

The GOP's terrorist heroes

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:10:00 +0000

When do right-wingers think an act of politically motivated violence is not terrorism? When a white man flies his airplane into a federal building and kills an African American, as Joe Stack did, Feb. 18, when he killed federal government employee Vernon Hunter and wounded 13 others.

Right-wing bloggers and white supremacist web sites universally applauded Stack. But Republican Party politicians and their media allies also offered twisted justifications and even accorded hero status to Stack after his suicide attack.

This response shows their hypocrisy on the issue of terrorism, as well as the depth of their racism and religious bigotry.

Consider, for example, the words of Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, already widely known for his hatred of immigrants and others who do not look like himself or share his religious beliefs. When ThinkProgress.org asked him if he thought Stack's were terrorist actions, King evaded a direct answer and blamed the government. "I think if we'd abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn't have a target for his airplane," he said.

Indeed, King justified those actions with a denunciation of the IRS. "It's sad the incident in Texas happened," he added. "But by the same token, it's an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it's going to be a happy day for America."

King basically believes that IRS functions are the same as and even responsible for terrorism.

According to media reports about Stack, the IRS found that he illegally created a phony tax shelter to avoid paying taxes. The agency ordered him to pay back taxes amounting to over $14,000.

In an interview the day after the attack, Fox News' Neil Cavuto tried to link Stack's actions to voter discontent. Interviewing newly installed Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., Cavuto opined, "Invariably, people are going to look at this type of incident, Senator, and say, well, that's where some of this populist rage gets you."

In his response, Brown refused to straightforwardly condemn Stack's actions. Instead, Brown tried to give him some benefit of the doubt and to shift the blame for Stack's violence to Washington. "You don't know anything about the individual. He could have had other issues," Brown commented. "Certainly, no one likes paying taxes, obviously. But the way we're trying to deal with things, and have been in the past, at least until I got here, is there's such a logjam in Washington, and people want us to do better. They want us to help solve the problems that are affecting Americans in a very real way."

How kind of the right wing to view Stack's actions in a social context and to frame them as the result of powerlessness and fear in an oppressive society.

Of course, if anyone with a progressive orientation had tried to be this compassionate with a person like Army Maj. Nidal Hassan, who, in a burst of rage motivated apparently by his religious views, fired dozens of shots in a crowded Ft. Hood facility killing 13 and wounding 30 others last November, right-wingers would have denounced them as "bleeding hearts" who are "soft on terrorism" and who share responsibility for the violence.

Take for example, a recent post at David Horowitz's web site. Horowitz is a right-wing extremist who fashions himself as the new Joe McCarthy.

In a post at his site written by Jamie Glazov, the contradiction is all too apparent. In a bit of twisted logic in response to Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano's recent ruling that Maj. Hassan's actions were indeed terroristic, Glazov shifts responsibility from Hassan to Napolitano.

"I wonder if Napolitano will now confirm that thirteen American heroes lost their lives at Fort Hood precisely because of people like her," Glazov writes.

So, in both the Hassan and Stack cases the government is to blame for terrorism. (The applies across the board except when the crime is committed under Bush's watch.) But in the Stack case, he is the hero.

Hassan, on the other hand, is a Muslim extremist naturally prone to violence against America, Glazov insists. He goes on to claim that Muslims are ideologically bent on terrorism. Indeed, Glazov spits, people who embrace religious diversity are embracing and allowing Muslim violence to become a part of American society.

Glazov's hate speech has intentionally promoted harsh views and a violent backlash against Muslims and even non-Muslim Americans of Arabic descent. According to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recent polling shows that significant numbers hold negative views of Muslims, believe they teach hate, and support unconstitutional repression of their civil liberties.

When are Steve King, Scott Brown or Fox News going to start trying to protect us against the Joe Stacks of the world?

Photo: Flames engulf the federal building in Austin, Texas, after Joe Stack's suicide attack. AP/Trey Jones

The most dangerous man in America, worth watching

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:37:00 +0000

"The Most Dangerous Man in America"
Directed by Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
2009, Not Rated , 92 min.

WASHINGTON (PAI) -- We usually don't use The Washington Window as a movie review, but we're going to make an exception, and urge you to see "The Most Dangerous Man In America."

The movie is actually a documentary about the Pentagon Papers case, the secret study of how the U.S. was involved in the Indo-China war and the executive branch lies that permeated the long struggle.

That definitive history was made public by Daniel Ellsberg and his colleague, the late Anthony (Tony) Russo, top researchers at the Pentagon-funded Rand Corp., think-tank in Santa Monica, Calif.

Narrated by Ellsberg, who often talks of the turmoil he went through as he reviewed the history -- and the lies -- of the war, the film also touches on some key issues in U.S. life today, and the impact of the Pentagon Papers case on subsequent history. To recap:

In 1967, with the war already going badly, then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara commissioned the huge study. It had all the history of the conflict, including unseen history of how presidents from Harry Truman through Lyndon Johnson lied to Congress and the people about our involvement in Indochina.

Ellsberg, originally a war supporter (one recreated scene from his Pentagon service has him calling military people in Vietnam for evidence of Viet Cong "atrocities" to justify U.S. escalation) turned against the war while reading the Pentagon Papers' wholesale revelation of the lies and cover-up. He determined to make them public.

He tried Congress. Lawmakers -- even antiwar lawmakers -- were too fearful of Johnson, his successor Richard Nixon, and public reaction to act. One little-known junior senator, Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, read parts of the Pentagon Papers into the record of a subcommittee he chaired. He was ignored.

So Ellsberg turned to the press -- the now-derided and shaky "mainstream media." He shared all of the thousands of pages of the Pentagon Papers, carefully photocopied, with The New York Times. After its own bitter internal battle over publishing top secret papers, documented in the film, the Times started printing the Pentagon Papers -- with accompanying stories -- in 1971.

Nixon reacted with a court injunction to halt the Times, the first time the U.S. government tried to censor a newspaper in advance -- a tactic common in totalitarian countries. Then the Pentagon Papers turned up in The Washington Post. Nixon stopped that, too. But 15 other papers nationwide, including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Los Angeles Times, picked up the ball. CBS, NBC and ABC reported on each installment.

The Supreme Court called a halt to Nixon's censorship, by a 6-3 vote. But what was a trusting relationship between the executive branch and the press, already frayed by the war itself -- what reporters saw on the ground did not jibe with what the Johnson and Nixon administrations and their generals were saying -- was broken.

Ellsberg himself started as an anonymous source for the Pentagon Papers. But his name was quickly revealed, the film shows, and Nixon blew up.

In excerpts of his infamous tapes, played in the film, Nixon, using his usual expletives (they're not deleted), orders his staff to destroy Ellsberg.

How did Nixon try to do that? His White House set up its own "Special Investigations Unit," to get the goods on Ellsberg -- by burglarizing the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist. That unit is also known as "The Plumbers" to help stop leaks. Yes, those "plumbers," the ones who later burglarized the Watergate.

And we know what happened as a result of that. (Nixon also tried to sway federal judge W. Matt Byrne, hearing the case against Ellsberg, by offering him the job of FBI director. It didn't work. And when the plumbers' burglary was exposed, Byrne threw the Ellsberg case out of court, the film notes.)

What are the lessons for us in this? Well, one, Ellsberg says, is people must stay ever vigilant and question what their leaders say. Demand proof, not just assertions, because leaders lie. He's put that into action. Ex-Marine Ellsberg, now in his late 80s, is shown near the end of the film speaking at a protest against George W. Bush's war in Iraq. That, of course, is another war built on presidential lies.

Another lesson is the value of an independent press strong enough -- and well-off enough -- to try to be objective and investigative. Do today's papers have the guts, and the cash, to throw reporters, time and money into uncovering another Pentagon Papers or a second Watergate? That's not likely. As for blogs, TV and Fox...forget it.

And here's another lesson we'll draw, though it's not original: Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it. So go see "The Most Dangerous Man in America." It's a great history lesson.

Black History video celebrates change-making movements

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:39:00 +0000

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — The focus during Black History Month is usually on celebrating individuals. In this video, we celebrate the social movements and with them two individuals who were active in them, and are still active today.

Clara James, as a teenager, joined the NAACP. Born in Texas, she participated in the NAACP's campaign to get the people of Austin to pay thier poll tax which would enable them to vote. Mrs. James joined the Communist Party in 1948, during the Henry Wallace presidential campaign. That campaign's main goal was to get the Progressive Party on the Califonia ballot. James has been involved with many other struggles in California, including the fight for rent control, protests against racist violence like cross-burnings and encouraging community members to boycott banks and businesses that do not hire minorities.

Oneil Cannon joined the communist Party in the late 1940s. Born in Louisiana, after fighting in WWII, he moved to California. He found that in California there was no African American representation, which was just like the situation in Jim Crow Louisiana. He decided to join the party, which at that time was involved in the intergration of Farmers Bank, demanding they hire minorities for positions other than custodians.
Mr. Cannon has also been involved in guaranteeing African Americans are included in the union membership and leadership. He has also fought for education rights for minorities, which included helping to found South West College. Cannon says he always worked to make these struggles multi-racial and fought alongside Mexican Americans for equality. Cannon is the founder of Paul Robeson Society.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zsrlibrary/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

War is peace

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:58:00 +0000

A chillingly Orwellian New York Times headline on Tuesday read "Gates Calls Europe Anti-War Mood Danger to Peace." Apparently for U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, peace sentiment promotes war while war-mongering guarantees peace. Not surprising logic for the former top spy whose agency, the CIA, commissioned the writing of author George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm."

The article reported the defense secretary's speech at the National Defense University as part of a major rethink of NATO policy led by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright.

"The demilitarization of Europe," said Mr. Gates, "where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force -- and the risks that go with it -- has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21^st."

The description of Europe's 40-year-old peace majority as a blessing is, indeed, curious in light of the GOP's longstanding polemic against the world peace movement, particularly during the campaign to place medium range nuclear weapons in Europe. But what has historical truth to do with the verbal somersaults and logic gymnastics of CIA wordsmiths if a higher goal is at stake?

The greater aim in this case, apparently, is the war against terror, and securing adequate funding and logistical support. NATO countries, which provide 40 percent of the troops, if not finances, have been rocked recently by the Netherlands decision to withdraw its troops. NPR reports "In the Netherlands, for example, the coalition government collapsed this month over the issue of troop contributions; the 2,000-strong Dutch troop contingent is to begin withdrawing in August."

It should be noted, to their credit, that the Netherlands socialist's vote collapsed the government.

To the near north of the U.S., Canada plans to withdraw its troops next year.

Germany politely rebuffed Gates' sharp rebuke apparently experiencing little or no untoward dietary effects. The Morning Star writes "Germany's Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg has insisted that the EU 'is well positioned to deal with new security risks. I'm very relaxed about this criticism,' the German concluded."

German low blood pressure was matched by other European officials. NPR says, "Norwegian Undersecretary of Defense Espen Barth Eide told The Associated Press that Gates' criticism was 'understandable,' but that increased funding from European NATO members was not a viable solution."

At the heart of the dispute may be Afghanistan. NPR continues, "Kees Homan, a former director of the Dutch military college and now with the Clingendael Institute, a think tank in The Hague, said Gates is only partly right about the popular aversion in Europe to war. Europeans will fight when they see it to be in their self interest, he said. The problem in Afghanistan is that the war lacks consensus."

Two related issues also seem to be at the heart of Gates' angst. Europe's defense spending is only a fraction of the U.S.: $289 billion compared to $711 billion. U.S. military spending began during the Cold War has not been reduced even with the collapse of its reason for being. This spending of course goes to the heart of the second issue: the attempt of U.S. imperialism to remain the world's policeman and keep Russia and China within its gun sights.

President Obama suggested another course last year and an alternative framework for international relations, to the relief of a world waiting to exhale, which won him a Nobel Prize.

Notwithstanding the president's making good on his ill-advised campaign promise, the troop surge in Afghanistan is tragic misstep in another direction. Moving up and guaranteeing a date for withdrawal has never been so urgent.

Gates' bellicose rhetoric suggests the debate is not over and, perhaps in more rarified heights, is just beginning. No matter though, for the issue will be settled at the ballot box and in the streets.

Socialism USA means jobs, jobs, jobs

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:57:00 +0000

SANCTI SPIRITUS, Cuba - Traveling around Cuba you get a feel for how Cubans struggle every day to develop their country. As an American it makes my blood boil to see how the U.S. government blockade of Cuba helps enforce poverty and underdevelopment on the Cuban people.

I met a young American doctor on a five hour bus ride from Baracoa to Santiago. Riding through the beautiful rural countryside he told me that what impressed him most about Cuba was how, even with all the apparent difficulties and underdevelopment, he didn't see hunger and homelessness. "They all pitch in," he said. "My bus from Havana broke down and a bunch of us got off to help the driver fix it. Really. Right there on the side of the road passengers and drivers passing tools, suggesting fixes and helping clean parts. You see that spirit all over the place."

So what does all this have to do with socialism USA and jobs you ask? It got me thinking about what building socialism is all about. It really is about developing resources to solve problems. It's about basics.

Why are communists, socialists, labor and the left so identified with the fight for jobs and full employment? Sure jobs are essential to well being and living, but it goes deeper than that. What is common to most societies trying to build socialism? Look at the Russian, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, and the Cuban experience and efforts. Take a look at all the emerging countries that had to throw off the yoke colonialism or neo-colonialism to move their countries forward and provide for their people. Or look at places where the left has won local control.

In all these efforts a common thread is concentration on the basics of development - jobs, education, health care, food, and housing, agrarian reform etc. With all the problems, with all the missteps, hardships, failures and even victories of these socialist projects, each pursued policies of full employment and collective problem solving. Even in capitalist societies the left works for these basics. For example the communist parties in India became mass parties and won many electoral victories by developing mass literacy campaigns preparing people for better employment and education opportunities.

What all these basics have in common is that they center on developing the most important natural resource that every country has - its human resource, its people. This is, in part, why literacy and education are so closely linked to jobs and employment policies in efforts to build socialism.

So back to socialism USA. One thing the current economic crisis brings home is that capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It's not just that over 8 million jobs have been lost in this "great recession" or that there were already millions of unemployed and underemployed even at the height of the boom before the crisis. It is a terrible toll in human suffering to be sure. It is also a terrible waste of human brain and muscle lost every day through this terrible crisis.

All the incredible wealth and treasure locked away in the bank vaults of the giant corporations and the rich can't seem to solve the burning problems of the day. No solutions for poverty, homelessness, jobs and health care, not to mention war, global warming, aids, cancer, urban sprawl and on and on.

What terrible waste. The where-with-all and wealth exists. Smart, hardworking people we have in abundance. Simply applying the needed resources in the right places will lead to solutions.

Free education and training for all - as much as you can eat - will help produce the cultural level, the brains and muscle needed. Scientists and teachers to bricklayers and programmers to artists and doctors and all the other talents we need.

Health care for all to not only keep us well and productive, but to cure diseases and expand the horizons of medicine.

Housing, food, and recreation because comfortable, well rested and well fed workers are the most productive and are most likely to make breakthroughs in real sustainable clean energy.

You get the idea. And yes I hear you - if it were that simple then it would have been done by now, right? Well no. Capitalism has too many vested corporate/financial interests that only want to solve problems if they can make money on the solutions. Their system is preserved by restricting opportunity and consumption and dividing people with competition and discrimination. Is that a system past its prime or what? Cut back and restrict our most important resource in our greatest time of need!

The ideal for socialism is "the living is easy, the work is hard." We fight for jobs because with jobs and resources there are no problems that working people can't solve. American working people are like the Cuban people, hard working, problem solving, pitch-in kind of folks.

End the blockade against Cuba and end the blockade against jobs, opportunity at home and watch the world change for the better.

Photo: High school students on their way walking home in Sancti Speritis, Cuba town center. Scott Marshall/PW

Snow job

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:17:00 +0000

It is called a jobs bill, but it is really a snow job. What the Senate passed Monday may have been a victory for bipartisanship, but it was a slap in the face of the 25 million Americans who need jobs.

The Senate voted yesterday in favor of a $15 billion bill whose main feature is a tax break for companies that hire unemployed workers this year. What's wrong with that?

1) It's easy to game the system. Even in this depression, hundreds of thousands of workers are hired every month, while a similar number are laid off or quit. Most of the money will be a free gift to companies which would have hired workers any way.

2) It's lousy economics. Families have stagnant or declining income and are still unwinding excessive debt. If Joe's diner is able to expand successfully and hire workers, then Fred's diner will shrink and lay off workers, because there is no net increase in people dining out.

3) It's chicken feed. To have a real impact on the economy, the government should be spending between $400 billion and $1 trillion this year to make up for the collapse in private spending and investment. According to the New York Times, the sponsors say the bill will create "tens of thousands of new jobs." That's fewer than the jobs needed each month just to keep up with the growth in the labor force.

The bill was advanced when Republican obstruction blocked consideration of real action on jobs. Even this bill -- a package of business tax cuts with "jobs bill" wrapping paper -- received only five votes from Republicans, who want even more business tax breaks.

It appears that Democratic strategy is to bring up a series of smaller bills instead of one large package.

The Hill quoted Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin saying "This is not the end of our debate on creating jobs through legislation this year, it's the beginning of that debate." Good luck to them, but they better move fast.

Notices have already gone out to 1.2 million people will lose their unemployment benefits on March 1, the first of five million who will be denied before summer. And in every state capitol, legislators are planning deep layoffs and cuts in essential services to deal with the end of stimulus funding at the end of the year. These are real emergencies affecting literally millions of people.

The Coalition on Human Needs has called for people to flood the Senate with phone calls. "Tell them: Act NOW to pass a full-year extension of unemployment benefits... and more aid to states for Medicaid, education, and other vital services and jobs." Call 1-888-460-0813 and ask for your Senator's office.

Nurse's verdict protects patients

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:02:00 +0000

On February 12, Anne Mitchell, a registered nurse at Winkler County Memorial Hospital in far west Texas was acquitted, of "misuse of official information," a third degree felony carrying a possible 10 year sentence. The jury took only an hour to hand a major victory for nurses all over the country who have a duty to report actions of doctors whose behavior endangers patient health.

Mitchell and two other nurses had sent an anonymous letter about alarming behavior of Dr. Rolando Arafiles Jr. to the Texas State Medical Board for doing improper medical procedures and pushing the sale of questionable nutritional supplements from his business to his hospital patients. When the hospital failed to respond to her complaints she reported him to the Texas Medical Board that licenses physicians.

Her identity as an anonymous whistle blower was protected until the doctor found out he was under investigation and asked his friend and business associate, Winkler County Sheriff Roberts, to find out who the whistleblower was. According to the New York Times, the sheriff seized the nurses' computers and found the letter. As a whistleblower in good faith her name is supposed to be protected.

This resulted in the hospital firing her and the felony charges against her.

The acquittal verdict was a great victory. Many nurses around the State of Texas and the country had come to her defense and raised over $50,000 for her. But, most important, had she not been acquitted, it would have silenced whistleblowers to the detriment of the care of patients. Nurses are a very important line of protection and defense for the proper care of patients and a different verdict would have had a chilling effect on the protection of patients.

The NNU (National Nurses Union) is submitting a bill to congress and in it is much stronger protection for nurses who come out and speak about poor medical practices and situations that endanger patients. Currently, the Texas "safe harbor laws," which are very weak, are a nurse's only protection for speaking out. Many nurses call them the "unsafe harbor laws!"

The medical (and nursing) boards rely on other medical professionals to alert them to unsafe practices.

Currently, Anne Mitchell has filed a suit against the hospital, the doctor and Sheriff Roberts along with several elected officials including the County Attorney and District Attorney.

As a lifelong RN, I admire Mitchell's courage. I have known firsthand the problems of giving good care with poor staffing ratios, as well as lack of protection when a nurse complains or finds herself in an unsafe situation where she cannot walk out or be accused of abandonment. The NNOC (National Nurses Organizing Committee) and the National Nurses Union are successfully organizing nurses in California and other states, including Texas, because of these kinds of conditions. They hope to make improvements as their membership is already in the hundreds of thousands.

Anne Mitchell, right, and Vicki Galle at the Andrews County Courthouse, Feb. 11. Mitchell was acquitted, Galle had charges dropped earlier from the same complaint. Merissa Ferguson/AP

Driving us to distraction in land of logos

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:50:00 +0000

"Why can't I walk down the street free of suggestion?"

That line from the Fugazi song "Suggestion" has always haunted me. The song is not about advertising. It's a song written from a woman's point of view as the subject of men's sexual desire. However, I heard this song about the same time I saw the 1988 Rowdy Roddy Piper movie "They Live", and I drew my own interpretation. In "They Live," an alien race had infiltrated society and was using subliminal messages to steer the actions and thinking of Americans in the 1980s. When the protagonist, Piper, put on special sunglasses, he could not only see the aliens, but could also read the subliminal messages on everyday objects. For example, billboards now said, "Marry and have many children" and money now said, "Exalt your new god"... or something like that. It's been 20 years since I saw the film.

I live in California. From day one of moving here 10 years ago, I've noticed that this is the "land of logos." We are clogged with chain stores and their corporate-approved colors, while stickers on car windows push clothing companies.

I was painting a mural in a coffee shop in Oceanside, and a customer was exchanging pleasantries with me while I worked. I mentioned that this coffee shop had the best coffee in San Diego, and she asked, "Is it as good as Starbuck's?" as though Starbucks was the standard for good coffee. This mentality likely comes from the belief that Starbucks is everywhere, so they must be good. Since the "market decides" what is best, then Starbucks must be top shelf.

In my time working as a cook at Applebee's restaurant, I always wondered why on Earth customers continue going to a restaurant where soups come boil-in-a-bag and steaks are microwaved. (Note: that is a true business secret of Applebee's. Steaks are grilled just long enough to leave lines on both sides and then thrown in the microwave.). A co-worker told me that he believes familiarity draws in the crowds. Applebee's is a nationwide chain. When folks see this sub-par, "crazy-crap-on-the-walls" eatery, they are reminded of home, normalcy and welcoming, mediocre familiarity.

I live in a town with a Big-O Tires and Firestone Tires, as well as a dozen tire outlets all called simply "Llantera" (Spanish for "tire shop"). All perform the same duties, but the llanteras are often ridiculed for not having a snappy name.

I spend a great deal of time reading history and watching documentaries. It is educational, but information is a commodity. It has the ability to be skewed, bent, disregarded, hidden, disposed of, exaggerated, nostalgized, and outright invented to sway opinion or coerce emotion. If I turn on the television, I am bombarded with Cold War style reports about attacks from "terrorists," with no one mentioning that there were only two attacks on the territorial USA since Pancho Villa's raids in 1916. Since that date, the USA has militarily invaded or occupied 45 other nations ... not including CIA operations, drug wars, or reconnaissance. I hear the right wing constantly talking about Mao Zedong's policies that killed "100 million people in China," but that would be close to a normal mortality rate for a country with a population of 1.4 billion. This is similar to saying that since 2.5 million people on average die in the USA, and George W. Bush was president for eight years, 20 million people died under his policies. Of course, when Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" came out in 1980, many of us in the left heralded the book as the long awaited true story of historic events, but its testimonies are from persons with opinions and agendas as well.

George Orwell said, "He who controls the present, controls the past. He, who controls the past, controls the future." The skewed history and advertising we are surrounded by is like street signs and the lines on the road. When we first get driver's licenses, we are over-aware of the markings and signage, but as we gain experience we grow borderline unconscious to the guiding of our hands. Today I caught myself becoming fearful of the Taliban gaining control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, as I was zoning out to the background radio news in traffic. Yesterday, the urge was strong to grab the Silk (owned by Philip Morris) brand soy milk from the supermarket shelf, because the blue and white box was just more appealing than the house brand. Steered ... steered by suggestion. It's no surprise that so many citizens of the USA do not know which way is forward when our direction is constantly being distracted.

Nicholas James is a construction contractor in Inland Empire, Calif.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carolyncoles/ / CC BY 2.0

Hair-raising display at CPAC

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:49:00 +0000

The 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, which took place this past weekend, showed the nation two things: the right-wing fringe, while still small, has become more activist and, secondly, it has become even more extreme. It was more than tinged with fascist ideology. The conference embraced it.

The increased activism was indicated by the number of participants: in 2005, the straw poll conducted at their yearly event garnered only 641 votes; the number this year was 2,395. This is not surprising; we've seen the same trend with the tea party movement.

The fact that they are even more extreme was shown by the fact that the fascist John Birch Society - previously considered even too extreme for CPAC - was one of the co-sponsors.

The racism, coded or out-in-the-open lynch mob-like rhetoric, especially employed when talking about President Obama, was hair-raising and sobering. Even Republicans seem not to be safe from it. Michael Steele, the African American chair of the Republican National Committee, was the only member of that party to receive more unfavorable than favorable votes in the straw poll.

The meeting's content - immigrants are enemies; tax breaks for the rich will help working people; the agencies that ensure the safety of our food, workplaces and environment somehow harm us; abortion is murder - combined with a new fringe narrative: Obama is transforming America into some kind of dictatorship.

Aside from their class positions that defend the banks, corporations and billionaires by saying African Americans, or immigrants or women or unions or liberals are the problem, they got something else wrong. They are misreading the American people.

According to Florida's Tea Party candidate in the Republican Senate primary, Marco Rubio, the election of Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts signaled a turning point: Americans are fed up with the "extreme liberal agenda" of Obama.

The reality, though, is the opposite. Many voters are frustrated by the slowness of change, by the jobs crisis, and opted to stay home. Or they opted to send complacent liberals a message: don't take Main Street for granted! Speeding up the reform process, curbing corporate power and creating jobs are strongly desired by the American people. That's why Barack Obama was elected and the Democratic majority in Congress too! It was a repudiation of the Bush extreme-right agenda.

Rubio was right about one thing: the 2010 elections will be a referendum. If the Republicans gain seats, a huge blow to progress will have been dealt. Therefore, it is up to all of us who care about peace, equality and democracy to push forward, to continue to build a multi-racial, unity-based the movement at the grassroots, neighborhood by neighborhood, workplace by workplace, school by school, to fight for jobs, health care, end to war and violence and terrorism, equality and democracy for all, and connect it to what's at stake in the mid-term elections.

If there is one truism in politics and life, it is, the only thing constant is change. It begins with each of us.

Photo: Newt Gingrich speaks at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference. Kevin Wolf/AP

Message from Greece

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:43:00 +0000

A serious Greek debt crisis is unwinding, threatening the stablity of the Euro and, with it, of the European Union itself. EU-wide institutions may be too weak to overcome resistance from France and Germany to bail out Greece. But either Greece gets bailed out, or basic political stability both in Greece and the EU will be at risk.

The background of the Greek debt crisis is summarized as follows.:

The previous right-wing government of Kostas Karamanlis took a joyride on the global financial-bubble jet with a captain refusing to report there was no more fuel until a crash landing ensued.

The new left-center Panhellenic Socialist Movement government actually issued the "no fuel" report, exposing the fact that the previous government had outright lied to everyone, central bankers too, about the size of government debt. The report revealed the largest budget deficit in Europe, far exceeding the 3 percent cap mandated by the EU central bank or the French and German member banks who would have to finance the largest burden of additional debt. The PSM plan to address the deficit and a restructuring of the Greek economy will mean targeted cuts in services, adjustments in taxation, as well as steps to reduce the size of the economy's informal sector, which is closely related to large numbers of undocumented workers in the Greek workforce. Still in play are whose services will be cut, and how progressive the tax program used to service the debt will be, and how the immigration question will be addressed.

European Social Watch estimates 20 percent of Greece's gross national product is in the "informal economy." Generally speaking, the informal economy of a country is defined as unreported economic activity. Sometimes called black, gray, moonlight, underground, shadow, informal markets often pose the single biggest economic obstacle to the normalization of immigrants in society. Informal wealth cannot be taxed. If you cannot establish a progressive tax system on income, it is nearly impossible to fairly distribute wealth and development, or empower democratic institutions. Informal economic activity is a key structural component in the current crisis. Success integrating undocumented workers into society is a foundation for long-term progress for Greek workers.

Reforms reducing disposable income (via taxes) will compel millions into an intense, very class-oriented struggle over how wealth will be re-divided in society to accommodate the structural changes. Ten thousand Greek workers have hit the streets in recent weeks to make their views known.

France and Germany have long been proud of their relatively progressive income tax, and broad social benefits. Thus they are peeved at Greece for being "irresponsible."

If Greece defaults on debt it will be more expensive than the PSM deficits needed to keep the restructuring from breaking down civil society, and democracy. Still, the "investing" class is counter-attacking by speculating in Greek bonds - in effect saying "any inflation from Greece exceeding 3 percent deficits must be paid up front, by Greece, in higher interest!"

There are important lessons for workers worldwide.

First, stay focused on universal and progressive taxation in the big policy debates, at every level. Taxation is the flip side of public investments in the abilities, health and welfare of our people - and the infrastructures that propel advanced development. It is a pillar of sustainable democratic institutions, accessible to all on an equal footing.

Second, managing immigration challenges so that they result in second-class citizenship, economic or otherwise, for the millions of globally migrating workers, poses grave risks for all social progress.

There is a third lesson, related to some left perspectives on the character of the global financial storm of which Greece is the latest big wave. Some say the point of worker uprisings against disproportionate sacrifices is a repudiation of social democracy and of the democratic struggle in general. They propose instead calling for the overthrow of capitalism. Anything less is a sellout. Such positions weaken the ability of workers and their friends to unite and bend society against the dominance of ultra-right and finance capital interests as far as possible, and toward workers' needs. It is this struggle that demands attention NOW, and to which all other questions must be subordinated.

Stay focused on the concretes of the class issues, count the money behind the positions - messages for all from Greece. As in ancient times, they are running a marathon to bring us the news.

African American equality and immigrant rights: united we stand

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:19:00 +0000

All workers have a big stake in fight for immigrant rights and should reject those who are trying to use that issue to drive a wedge between people -- black, brown and white.

We are a nation of immigrants. Unless they are Native American Indian, virtually every U.S. family has some roots in another country. The U.S. has the most multiracial and multinational working class in the world.

The long-term trend is immigration will continue. Some especially, on the right, think this is some kind of "threat" to the country, but our multiracial character is a wonderful strength.

Why are people coming here?

Recently migration from Mexico has been dropping because of the economic crisis here. This shows that Mexican immigration is about jobs and survival. U.S. imperialism has always had a stranglehold on the Mexican economy, but it has been made worse by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

I've been to the Arizona border with Mexico and I've seen the faces of mostly young people who are risking their lives to walk through snake infested, sweltering desert. They carry with them the hopes of their families and villagers they will make it across, get a job and send some money home. Many do not make it.

It brings to mind the plight of thousands of escaped slaves during slavery who would have to walk and run for hundreds of miles trying to not get caught by the bounty hunters, while not knowing what consequences they would have to face once they reached a "free" state.

African Americans have an immigrant past too. We were "illegal immigrants" for over 300 years. We were dragged here from our homeland.

Thousands ran away following the North Star on the Underground Railroad which was run by abolitionists, black and white. Many African slaves ran away and joined Indian tribes. When Mexico abolished slavery in 1829 many escaped south of the border to freedom. These are some of the historic links that showed solidarity between black, brown, white and red people trying to overcome the horror that was U.S. slavery.  

The same kind of racism directed at the African America people for 400 years is being directed immigrants today. There needs to be unity.

The new composition of those immigrating to the U.S. has made immigration a real issue in the Black community. According to the 2008 U.S. Census, 1 in 4 African Americans today were born abroad. Of those born abroad over half come from the Caribbean and 34% were born on the continent of Africa. In 1960 it was only 1% from Africa. Africans now account for one in three foreign born Blacks. Based on the 2008 numbers 8% of all African Americans are now foreign born.

Barack Obama's father was an immigrant.

Today over 25% of all children under the age of 6 are being raised by at least one foreign-born parent. The children of immigrants have as much chance for greatness as native-born children, if given a chance.

Fair and humane treatment of immigrants would reject mass deportations and criminalization. It would include amnesty are issues that should be supported by decent minded people everywhere.

I have been especially disturbed by the efforts by right wingers like Lou Dobbs (who was finally forced out from CNN) to convince African Americans that immigrants are the reason for high unemployed among U.S. born workers.

Those who are trying to promote anti-immigrant ideas in our community are promoting racism and violence and ought to be completely rejected.

Disunity at this time of crisis is the path towards more hardships and new defeats for the working class as a whole.

To call immigrants "law breakers" as many right-wing commentators do is to not tell the real story.

The fact is our immigration laws are oppressive and unjust. They are selectively enforced depending on the country of origin the race and class of the immigrant worker. The experience of an immigrant trying to enter the U.S. from Mexico versus Canada can be like night and day.

And by the way, slavery was legal for 300 years but that didn't make it right.

The key to any humane resolution to the problem is some form of amnesty which will unite families, end the criminalization of millions of working people and allow those without documents to find their way to citizenship and legal employment.

The other part of the solution is jobs. We urgently need a green revolution which would create millions of good jobs. A national jobs bill needs to be passed that will create tens of millions of good jobs through federal spending.

In addition, it's time to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and shift those trillions of dollars away from war to creating jobs by rebuilding our country.

The U.S. economy will benefit far more from such a huge increase in the buying power of working families through massive job creation then from more tax breaks for the wealthy, not to mention what it will do to our national spirit.

Not everybody is on same page

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:21:00 +0000

Let me begin with the obvious: the left (organized and unorganized) has seldom been of one mind. Differences over aims, strategy, tactics, programmatic demands, forms of struggle, etc. have been commonplace.

This moment is no different. In fact, I would argue that two distinct and competing trends have taken shape in the course of the first year of the Obama presidency.

One trend stakes out a left position on every issue, resists compromise, believes that the Democratic Party has no democratic/reform potential, pays little attention to right-wing extremism in its strategic and tactical thinking, and reduces President Obama to nothing but a puppet of Wall Street.

This trend turns criticism of the Obama administration into a measure of one's militancy. The sharper the tone the more legitimate one's left credentials. The main, if not the only, thing holding up far-reaching political and economic reforms, in the eyes of this trend, is the president. Somehow, in this rendition of the political moment, the interaction and struggle between (and within) competing political coalitions/blocs composed of various class and social groupings has no or minimal bearing on the process of change since the 2008 elections. In short, the class struggle in all its complexity is both simplified and invisible.

This same trend "damns with faint praise" the new currents, thinking and initiatives in labor and people's organizations, while it narrowly defines political independence as only electoral formations outside the two-party system. It acts as if militant minorities and moral outrage can reshape the political landscape alone, forgetting that popular majorities in the end make history.

Finally, this trend places an outsize accent on left initiative and unity, but detached from broader forms of unity and struggle.

The other trend on the left argues that the 2008 elections reset the political terrain to the advantage of working people and their allies.

While the Obama administration is not above criticism, this trend believes that criticism should be constructive and unifying, not a test of one's radicalism.

The main role of the left, according to this trend, isn't simply agitational - talking points, sound bites and militant slogans. Political agitation has an important place in class and democratic struggles, but only to the degree that the left is involved in day-to-day struggles in a sustained, practical and non-sectarian way.

In 2008, a broad people's movement was instrumental in electing Obama and a Democratic majority in Congress. Since then, however, it hasn't reached the same level and scale of activity. Without reassembling this coalition, progress will be largely unrealized.

This trend embraces left demands, but it embraces broader demands as well that masses of people are ready to fight for. It doesn't counterpose one against the other. Instead, it sees broader mass demands as a highway that has to be traveled to win more progressive and radical changes.

In a similar vein, compromise isn't a dirty word in this view. Instead, whether and when one makes compromises depends on a very sober estimate of the balance of class and social forces.

This trend understands as well that its task is not only to unite a broad multi-class coalition in the current phase of struggle, but also to assist the working class and its core allies to impress their unmistakable stamp on the struggle for reforms.

Unlike the other trend that shoehorns Obama into a tightly sealed political shell with little or no political potential, this trend believes he has a role, a potentially major one, to play at this juncture of the class struggle.

By the same token, it strongly rejects the notion that the task of the left is to reconfigure the struggle into a contest of the people's movement against President Obama.

This trend supports left unity, but insists that practical involvement with broader movements and coalitions and some rough agreement on strategic orientation among left groups are a necessary condition for such unity.

Finally, an independent, labor-based people's party is a strategic necessity in the view of this trend, but it doesn't see such a formation on the short horizon. In the meantime, it supports struggles for political independence (which take many forms) both within and outside of the Democratic Party.

No individual, organization or social movement on the left fits neatly into one or the other trend outlined above. Life is always more complicated than broad generalizations. Nevertheless, these two trends are taking more definitive form and the future of the left and its place in U.S. politics, in my opinion, hinges on which trend becomes dominant. I think it is obvious where I stand.

China Is NOT a ‘rogue nation’

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:59:00 +0000

Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert Borosage, in a recent article, unfortunately joins the protectionist chorus targeting China as the source culprit in the Great Recession, adding some classic Reagan/Bush type embellishments and familiar economic arguments. The accusations run as follows:

1. China manipulates its currency by setting it to a (nearly) fixed ratio to the U.S. dollar. This, it is alleged, assists China in selling products to the U.S. and others at below their real value. The allegation is based on the premise that China's economy is growing faster than the U.S. economy, its productivity is rising faster, therefore its currency should be rising relative to the U.S. dollar, instead of staying fixed. If the Chinese currency rose relative to the U.S. dollar, its exports would be more expensive, and the trade deficit would narrow, presumably fueling more domestic production in the U.S.

It's true that exports have played an important role in China's extraordinary growth ever since Deng Xiaoping initiated the unique mixed socialist and market-oriented system that has dominated China for over 30 years now. The economic growth this mixed system has generated is unprecedented in modern times, especially considering it takes place in the world's most populous nation. And, unlike the U.S., the living standards of Chinese workers have steadily risen - so much so that China is almost single-handedly responsible for net world poverty levels falling in recent years.

It's also true that most economists think China's currency is somewhat undervalued. However it is difficult to see how a vast nation trying to restructure a poor, mostly subsistence-agricultural, economy into an industrial one, and simultaneously striving to deploy advanced technologies, can avoid a well-directed export sector. In addition China is now using its reserves from exports not only to finance U.S. debt at low interest rates, but also to buy commodities necessary to sustain its growth to meet the needs of its expanding population. It is not just paying off corrupt dictators. China has been notably reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. It is making strategic investments promoting long-range sustainable growth in the nations that possess these commodities. China's overall trade accounts are actually quite balanced, even though it maintains a large surplus with the U.S.

Apprehensions about an overheated economy, and a desire to stimulate domestic demand, will likely compel China to soon revalue its currency. The term "mercantilism," used by Borosage to describe only Chinese surpluses acquired from trade, merely suggests envy.

2. Borosage expressed an inexplicable animus toward China's industrial policies giving support to strategic industries. Given the perilous shape of the U.S. infrastructure, and the deepest depression since the 1930s - why isn't he, instead, calling for our own leaders to do likewise? Is there any confidence among the workers of this country that Wall Street or unregulated markets are going to restore U.S. prosperity? Or decisively develop a green economy? Or develop a national high-speed rail system? Or reverse the long downward trend in working people's take-home pay? I don't think so.

3. China's economic polices caused the 2008-09 financial crisis. Huh? No mention of banks? Financialization? Here Borosage "ducks" instead of confronting, as he has ably done otherwise, our difficult but essential obligation to bring our own financial system under public control and construct our own pillars of progress!

4. China is a communist dictatorship? My response to this is: "And ... ???" I suppose, if I were Chinese I might agree that dictatorship, communist or otherwise, is not a sustainable political system once a certain level of development is attained. But is it really time to resume the Cold War?

5. China is a "rogue nation." In the new economic environment arising out of the Great Recession, it is the countries without industrial policies, not those with them, that are more likely headed to increased instability and uncertainty, to taking truly "rogue" paths such as those advocated by the ultra-right.

I find no fault with debates over the wisdom of WHEN China should modify its exchange rate. But heading off into an anti-China campaign goes nowhere. The truth is that the Chinese and American economies are enough entangled with each other to almost be called a marriage. We are stuck with each other. We should take the road of counseling to improve relations - not the rhetoric and ill will of divorce.

Tax Policy and class struggle

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:29:00 +0000

Under cover of the recession, companies laid off over 7 million workers, in 2009 alone. These savage layoffs led to record increases in workers' productivity. The value that workers produce each hour has gone up. That means that the workers left on the job are forced to work harder to produce more. Who is getting this increased value the average workers have produced?

The workers are not getting the extra value they have created; their pay has not gone up. The recession has been used to increase the rate of exploitation. Are the companies who hire the workers getting it? True, they take the first bite out of the profits workers produce with their labor. But only the first bite, because the employer must pay off all of the vampires who feed on the workers. First the employer pays the banks that may well get the biggest part of the profits. Then the landlord must be paid. Landlords continue to raise rents, Recession or no recession. The big oil and energy companies are also raising their prices. That way they take another part out of the profit. Last, come the taxes, even though many of the biggest companies get out of paying taxes.

So the profit is divided into many parts. There is fierce fighting as to who gets the biggest part of the profit the workers produce. The banks, insurance companies and Wall Street gambling companies are gaining control of the economy. They are grabbing the largest part of the profits, compared to manufacturing, transportation and construction companies. Other ways in which workers are cheated out of the value they produce include paying monopoly prices for necessities such as medicines and gas. Raising workers' taxes is yet another way of taking more of the value that workers produce.

Taxes are needed to fund the government and provide the services we need. In fact, the government needs a lot more revenue to fight the recession. We need more social services and bigger stimulus packages to save and create jobs. But the important question is, "Who should pay these taxes?"

The short answer is: those who can afford it should pay, or, "Tax the rich." This fair principle of taxation is called "progressive." Recessive taxes, such as sales taxes, put the main tax burden on working people. Fighting for progressive taxes is an important part of the class struggle. An example is the fight to fund health care reform. The House bill pays for it with a millionaire's tax. But the Senate bill taxes workers' health benefits. Another fierce struggle is to end the huge Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those cuts made the income tax less progressive and helped bring on the Great Recession.

At first, the federal income tax was progressive. Few workers paid it, only 4 million in 1939. By 1945, 43 million had to pay. Inflation had reduced the value of the individual cash exemptions. However, notice the rate millionaires paid, 94%! But they hired accountants who got them off of paying what they should.

Even in the official, Bush-era history of the federal income tax, they admit the Reagan tax cut of 1981 "represented a fundamental shift in the course of federal income tax policy. This brought the top tax bracket down to 50 percent.". . . "Over the 22-year period from 1964 to 1986 the top individual tax rate was reduced from 91 to 28 percent." The Bush tax cut for the rich depressed that top rate even more. Tax cuts for the rich and the huge budget for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have doubled the federal debt. To get out of the Great Recession, our country needs change, change to a progressive tax policy.

State budget crises have also been worsened by letting the rich off and shifting the tax burden to working people. To make it worse in Illinois, the state has a flat income tax and faces a $13 billion budget shortfall. The individual tax rate is 3%, the same rate if you make $20,000 a year or $20 million. Already, state employees are being laid off and vital services have been cut back. A good coalition has been formed to save public workers jobs and the important services they supply. But they have been misled to support a 60% tax increase for individuals and only 8% increase for corporations. While the Communist Party of Illinois supports the coalition's protests against cuts, the Communists call for a tax increase on higher incomes only. Also, they are fighting for a second federal stimulus to help states maintain services and prevent state layoffs.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathanmcintosh/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Ultra-right has not been decisively defeated

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:06:00 +0000

The Communist Party's strategic direction, as outlined in its main discussion document for its upcoming convention, is correct. Our thinking on the need to defeat the ultra-right, going back 30 years now, has been correct.

I agree with those who feel we may have over-estimated the impact of the 2008 election victory on the ultra-right. It suffered a setback but it remains extremely powerful. We argued that it must be decisively defeated in order for real change to happen. That defeat has proven tenuous at best.

We've seen something quite different happen. The extremists have re-fashioned themselves as leaders of the "tea bagger" movement - corporate-financed and racist and hateful in their rhetoric - to push back against the big momentum we helped build for passage of health reform.

But the extremists have the loudest voices on the right and in our media and in the heads of most Americans. See here for some examples.

http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/201002050022

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/05/tancredo-obama-literacy/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k21Qf5aYomE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012910/content/01125111.guest.html

Let's remember that these powerful voices are the echoes of the slaveholding plantation owners and McCarthyites of a bygone era, but they wield an influence over the thought patterns of Americans and politicians that we have yet to fully understand.

And the corporate media just loves them, loves them, loves them. The media helped this right-wing movement craft a loud message against health reform that set the stage for the more tenuous Democrats of the Senate to move away from our victory on this issue.

This fact doesn't mean our strategy was wrong. It means that we need to have a more sober assessment of what happened in November 2008 and the exact power of the labor-led people's movement since then, as well as a clearer understanding of the nature of the legislative process.

Certain ideological institutions and state apparatuses are designed to preserve conservative tendencies and capitalist power. Two important ones are the Senate and the corporate media. The Senate was made to keep people's legislative demands under firm control. This fact was not a big enough part of our considerations recently. Understanding and working to change how the Senate operates might be a key point of struggle. Consider also that about six major multinational corporations own something like 90 percent of the media in our country. Who can out-shout that?

The Supreme Court's recent decision to hand elections to corporations is no help. And the fact that Republicans are finding new sources of campaign cash from Wall Street, in order to block Obama's plans to wring some measure of repayment out of the bankers who caused the economic collapse, will prove a big obstacle.

We need a bigger voice to counter the sheer power of those trends. That means the biggest and broadest movement possible - something like the electoral coalition that put Obama into office - in motion to win a more progressive agenda than the Obama administration has already put into place.

We will not win or even be a part of such a movement by focusing mainly or only on "left criticism" of the center force through which any progressive agenda will have to pass. Some in our ranks argue that "left criticism" is the only way to go right now.

We have to set aside this bad idea in a decisive way at this convention.

We cannot mistakenly convince ourselves that the broad movement needed to thoroughly defeat the right and win progressive change resides somewhere close to us on the left. It did not during the election and does not now. We number thousands in a country of hundreds of millions. Our specific role has to be to build that movement of tens of millions by providing clear thinking on strategy and tactics to overcome the biggest obstacles to winning a better agenda.

I think the main convention discussion document quite rightly points to the struggle for jobs and economic recovery for Main Street first (based on new ways of economic and political governance) as the first big movement that can help the Obama coalition accomplish what still needs to happen.

People who call themselves communists have to put this fight first and foremost, above the discontent and easy words aimed at failure, above the urge to push back with the criticism of the marginalized. What-we-should-have-dones and other Monday morning quarterbacking have to be set aside. The broadest possible movement alliances should not be sacrificed for argumentation or clinging to old, even failed, ideas, such as insisting that we name our theories after dead European guys, as if that is some measure of our revolutionaryism. Those are just words.

The real measure of our small movement is how big of a people's movement we can help put into motion to make real change.

The convention is a time for renewal, a time for shedding an old skin. It is a time for honest people to fine tune our best ideas and send the bad ideas and wrong ways of doing things to the scrap heap. It is a time to mobilize ourselves for what might be one of the most decisive fights in our country's history against the right wing and the corporate and militaristic forces gathered around it. Nothing else can help our movement, our class, our country or the world.

This article is part of the discussion leading up to the Communist Party USA's 29th National Convention May 21-23, 2010. The People's World takes no responsibility for the opinions expressed in this article or other articles in the pre-convention discussion. All contributions must meet the guidelines for discussion. To read other contributions to this discussion, visit the site of the Pre-Convention Discussion period.

All contributions to the discussion should be sent to discussion2010@cpusa.org for selection, not to this publication.

For more information on the convention or the pre-convention discussion period, you can e-mail convention2010@cpusa.org.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org

A blizzard of nonsense

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:31:00 +0000

Some Republicans are having great fun laughing about the recent snowstorms on the East Coast. They pretend that global warming would, if real, somehow eliminate winter. Therefore, the fact that we still have winter must mean that global warming isn't real. Somehow, "Snowmageddon" in DC trumps lack of snow in Vancouver, B.C., for the Winter Olympics, at least as far as U.S. political theater. (They're having to truck in snow for Olympic events!)

Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., he of "let's make health care Obama's Waterloo," tweeted that "it's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.'" Another right-wing loon, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, had some aides construct an igloo and label it "Al Gore's Home." Even some Democratic senators are claiming that the snowstorms in DC make it much less likely that any climate change legislation will pass this year, because it makes it more difficult to argue that global warming is an imminent danger.

This blizzard of nonsense has everything to do with right-wing campaigns and nothing to do with reality. Climate scientists, and climate change campaigners, never claimed that global warming would somehow magically eliminate winter instantaneously. The world's global average temperature over a year continues to rise, but we will also continue to have seasons.

Global warming doesn't mean that it will be hot everywhere all the time, right now. Winter won't disappear. There will still be snowstorms. There will still be icy conditions on our roadways some of the time.

One trick the climate change deniers use is to take the long-term projections of climate scientists, their most dire warnings, and pretend that if the worst doesn't happen right now, this instant, the whole idea must be false.

What the scientists are telling us, rather, is that we are on a path to catastrophe in the long run. If all the ice in Greenland melts, sea levels will rise more than 20 feet. No one is claiming that sea levels will rise that much this year, or next, or even for many decades. But, if we don't act now, we turn the dire predictions into self-fulfilling prophecies. If we don't stop the long-term buildup of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, we will accelerate the melting of Greenland. The fact that sea levels aren't swamping Florida this week neither proves nor disproves these predictions.

There is another bit of phony reasoning hidden in the deniers' frivolity and sarcasm. Even though snow is certainly identified with winter, more snow does not disprove global warming. With warmer climates, there is more evaporation, putting more potential precipitation into the clouds, which will come down as snow during winter. More snow is actually more proof of global warming, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. Global climate change theory predicts many more extreme weather of many kinds, from more devastating hurricanes to more intense floods and droughts, to more just plain "weird weather" events.

Global climate change is happening on a much faster timeline than in the past, if you look at geologic eras. But faster doesn't mean instantly. Rather than the ice sheets melting over thousands of years, it will likely be a few hundred, unless we act now. Just because a threat may take decades to fully manifest itself, that doesn't mean that the threat isn't immanent.

Greenhouse gasses accumulate in the atmosphere. Every additional ton of carbon dioxide that goes up stays there for about a hundred years. So unless we stop adding to that accumulation, we are adding to the problem, and making it more difficult to solve in the future. If we wait until the storm surges are lapping Wall Street in lower Manhattan, it will be too late to solve the problem, for two reasons.

One, because so much global warming pollution will have accumulated that we can't reduce it fast enough to stop the problems from getting worse. Second, because once it gets warm enough, we will pass several tipping points that will overwhelm anything humanity does to slow global warming.

For example, as the ice melts in the Arctic (already happening at a fast pace), less ice means less of the sun's rays are reflected back into space and more are absorbed by the darker ocean that is now exposed. This speeds up warming in the Arctic, already happening much faster than in the continental U.S. As it gets warmer, the permafrost which covers much of the far north will melt (as is already happening in Alaska-just look at pictures of collapsing houses and telephone poles.). That permafrost contains many millions of tons of frozen greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane, which are released as the melting occurs. If we get to the point where the permafrost is melting much more rapidly, so much greenhouse gas will be emitted that human efforts will be dwarfed, no matter how radically we reduce our emissions.

We have to turn around before we reach that point. That's why we have to act now, so we don't create a crisis which is unsolvable on a human timeframe.

So even if there is lots of snow, we still have to act sooner rather than later.

Photo: Street scene in Baltimore this week. The Feb. 10 blizzard broke the city's snowfall record, dumping 18-20 inches on top of the 26 inches that fell Feb. 5-6. (PW/Tim Wheeler)

Capitalist hypocrisy and Eastern European anti-communism

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:55:00 +0000

There is a new push in the Czech Republic to get the court that regulates political parties to suspend the right of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia to run candidates for public office or otherwise function like other political parties. The party is the successor in the Czech Republic to the old Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.

The argument for suspension of the CP, used earlier against its youth league, was that it has not given up its claim to represent the ideas of Marx and Lenin, or its stated aim of replacing private property with social property. The part about Marx and Lenin focuses on their alleged espousal of violence as a means of political change, which, according to the eight right-wing senators who have brought the case to the court, violates the constitution. The part about changing private into social property gives a hint as to the real reasons for the persecution campaign.

The allegations against the CP of Bohemia and Moravia are, in a sense, "true." It indeed promotes the political and economic ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin, though it does not call for the violent overthrow of the government. It also is for socialism, which means social and not private ownership of the means of production.

But the accusers are hypocrites and the accusations are a smokescreen for another agenda.

On the issue of armed struggle, neither Marx, nor Engels, nor Lenin nor the Czech Communists ever called for armed struggle to overthrow governments when even a flawed bourgeois democratic regime was in power. So what are the Czech rightists really worried about?

The Czech Republic and other countries in the region have been hit hard by the world financial crisis (which, by the way, was not caused by communists). The ruling classes in each country, linked to international monopoly capital, want to balance the shrinking national budgets on the backs of the workers and other ordinary people.

There are parliamentary elections in the Czech Republic on May 28-29. Polls on voting intentions show that the Social Democrats are in first place with about 33 percent, the right-wing ODS (Civic Democrats) are second with about 24 percent, and the Communists third with between 13 and 14 percent. This represents an advance for the Social Democrats and Communists, and a reverse for the ODS. The remaining four parties running candidates are right wing.

In the country's parliamentary system of government, the national leadership, to replace the current caretaker government, is selected by the parties that win the most seats in the lower house of parliament. Both the Social Democrats and the Communists have promised to fight to protect social welfare, while the ODS and the other right-wing parties would emphasize privatization and austerity. The prospect of a Social Democratic victory stiffened by a strong Communist presence is surely frightening to those people who have been accumulating fortunes and enjoying privileges since the old socialist regime collapsed, even though up to now the leadership of the Social Democrats has refused to work with the Communists, making an actual SD-Communist coalition unlikely.

So suddenly a new anti-communist campaign appears, which, if successful, would subtract that 13-14 percent from the left side of the parliamentary equation.

Very convenient!

This is a crass power grab which should be denounced by all progressive people worldwide.

I am cheered by the news that a Czech court has reversed a 2008 verdict that had abolished the Union of Communist Youth, the youth branch of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. The prosecution of the Union of Communist Youth had been based on the same logic as the right wing's demand that the courts suspend the CP's right to participate in elections.

The background behind Toyota recall

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:43:00 +0000

The massive recall of Toyota Motor Corporation vehicles has shocked the world. Sasaki Shozo, a labor movement researcher, contributed an article to Akahata on February 5 and 6. The excerpt is as follows:

Toyota is recalling more than 10 million units of 21 models, including the Prius, across the world, including the United States, Europe, Canada, and China.

The cause of defects is said to be design flaws and quality problems. Toyota's U.S.-based parts supplier is responsible to some extent. However, it is Toyota itself that must bear the blame for failing to ensure the safety of its products and continuing to produce defective vehicles. When a defect was found in the first place, it should have made appropriate responses to it and strengthened safety management.

The underlying cause, in fact, is the contradiction between "procuring parts of high quality" and stress on "low cost" in pursuit of the position as the world's number-one car maker.

With more than 13 trillion yen in its internal reserves, it has not allowed the wages of its workers to increase and has replaced full-time regular workers with contingent labor under the pretext of international competition. It has exported low-cost vehicles abroad as a result of its all-out cost-cutting efforts in order to increase profits. In contrast, it has ignored the need to contribute to stimulating domestic demand and individual consumption.

High profit first

Even at overseas factories, a top priority was the pursuit of cost-cutting measures. The reason for Toyota's problems is that Toyota disregards the need to ensure product quality and guaranteeing customers' safety.

Toyota states that based on its "customer first" philosophy, it develops and provides safe and outstanding high quality products and services. And as for corporate social responsibility, Toyota states that it highly prioritizes product safety which is a matter of life and death.

However, under its high profit first policy, Toyota ignores its own corporate philosophy and claimed corporate social responsibility. This attitude has led to the present recall of more than a million cars.

Regaining customers' trust

Toyota should strive to regain domestic and foreign Toyota owner trust in its product safety.

To this end, it is needed for Toyota to drastically change its business strategy of cost reduction to make high profits. It should raise workers' wages and improve their working conditions, secure non-regular workers' jobs and treat them equally with regular workers, and guarantee stable unit prices for affiliated firms and subcontractors. In other words, Toyota should fulfill its social responsibilities.

This is the way for Toyota to produce safe and high-quality cars and achieve national and international trust. This will help expand and stabilize domestic demand and recover local and national economies. In order to pursue this course, Toyota needs to return to society a part of its profits and internal reserves.

What government must do is to exercise leadership to require major corporations to fulfill their social responsibilities.

- Akahata, February 5 & 6, 2010

* * *

An engineer who has been involved in product design and development at a Toyota-affiliate company pointed out that the period before a new car comes onto the market, the so-called time-to-market, is very short.

He said to an Akahata reporter, "If Toyota had spent enough time to conduct test runs, torture tests, crash tests, and various other tests to evaluate a product's ability to withstand extreme conditions, the company could have discovered defects in newly-developed cars. Because it is difficult to determine, for example, actual safety at the time of the crash and problems regarding the accelerator pedal and the brake system only by computer-simulated tests, developers must check out each item before putting a new product on the market. However, short-term development is the norm at present. They have a time limit and must keep to a development deadline."

- Akahata, February 7, 2010

This article originally appeared at Japan Press Weekly.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8762328@N03/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

The tea party movement’s backward march

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:26:00 +0000

After watching the Nashville convention of the tea party movement, it is clear that they continue to be a racist, red-baiting movement against health care reform, jobs for all, an end to war, and economic and social justice.

They are out to bring down Barack Obama because they see him as a force for progressive change and they are against progressive change. They are a movement to take our country back to the policies of Reagan, Bush or worse.

As the conference showed, they have few people of color in their ranks. That is because, while they say they are "color blind," they are against any measures for racial equality and inclusion.

The opening speaker at the conference was none other than the notorious right wing bigot, former Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo told the nearly all-white gathering that the reason Obama was elected was because people voted for him "who could not even spell the word ‘vote' or say it in English." Tancredo went on to call for bringing back literacy tests.

Tancredo's despicable proposal would bring back what was a vicious method of denying the franchise to Black voters and is now illegal, as a way to prevent the election of an Obama type candidate in the future. Looking at his audience, it wasn't a surprise that his remarks were greeted with cheers and loud applause.

Tancredo went on to blame the election of Obama on "the cult of multiculturalism," whatever that is. Tancredo would no doubt prefer to go back to a time when the cult of segregation dominated our national life.

And by the way, in response to Tancredo's ridiculous claims, Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree made the point on the Rachel Maddow Show that most of Obama's votes came from whites.

But the tea party conference was keynoted by a racist speech and no one there objected.

This was a meeting of people who do not believe that the last presidential election was legitimate. They don't even believe that the president is a U.S. citizen. They are opposed to any government spending to help the massive numbers of unemployed, impoverished, foreclosed and evicted - all victims of the Republican-initiated Wall Street ripoff that brought down the nation's economy.

Concern for the 40,000 people who annually die needlessly because they don't have health insurance is not their cup of tea. The 30 million still uninsured should just perish if their coverage is by a government-run program. "Smaller government" is more important.

The tea party notion of "pro-life" does not extend to those who have died because of U.S. pre-emptive wars, and military spending is exempt from their opposition to big government spending.

The conference was an orgy of racist hate aimed mainly against blacks, Latinos, immigrants and the nation's first African American president.

Sarah Palin, the $100,000 speaker, is making hay on the backs of this movement. She thinks she is presidential timber (2012). I doubt it, but for sure she will come out of this a very rich racist, red-baiting demagogue.

It clear to most observers that most of the tea party participants, as shown by their signs and slogans, are opposed to the president mainly because he is black.

Just like the old southern racist hypocrites that for decades ruled the South and had a big sway in Congress, the tea party movement is using red-baiting and anti-terrorist hysteria to rationalize their support for the most reactionary section of the U.S. capitalist class: the powerful insurance monopolies, the armaments industry, the anti-union labor corporate elite.

Sarah Palin has jumped in front of this backward march. She is part of the new McCarthyism combined with racist contempt for the first black president.

Her notion that Obama is more like a college professor and what we need is a commander in chief is another version of calling him "uppity."

To attack Obama for being too smart after eight years of supporting a one-sentence president is ridiculous and racist. This all coming from a politician who has to write crib notes on her hand because she obviously can't retain the most elementary parts of her own program.

Palin knows full well when she attacks Obama that she is furthering racial division in the country, which is an especially dangerous game to play during hard economic times. Her racist attacks on immigrants, that they are bringing the country down; her opposition to any government spending to help working families survive the crisis - all of these attacks give encouragement to the racist lunatic fringe.

Former President Jimmy Carter said the tea party movement reminded him of the pro-segregationist movement he knew growing up in the South.

Television commentator Lawrence O'Donnell said it reminded him of the racist movement that was organized in South Boston in opposition to school integration. O'Donnell said, "These people are more opposed to the president then they are to health care reform." He recounted how the Republican opposition did not treat Hillary Clinton like that when she presented health care reform in the 90s.

Progressive activist and actor Jeanine Garofalo described the tea party movement as the rebirth of the White Citizens Councils.

This movement Palin has jumped in front of is really a movement that hates change and wants to go backward. Their aim is to help the extreme right take back the Congress in November and the presidency in 2012.

Whether they succeed depends on the level of activity of the broad democratic, multiracial, labor and people's coalition that defeated Bush and his right-wing Congress. If they are activated on the issues of jobs, health care and peace the right will suffer another setback.

This fight cannot be won by Obama alone. This fight cannot be won by the Democratic majority in Congress alone.

Without street heat, without real grassroots organizing, we could loss the fight for change and be pushed back to the Bush era or worse. We dare not let that happen.

Consider the Nashville tea party meeting and the elections in New Jersy, Virginia and Massachusetts a wakeup call.

Like Obama did in his State of the Union speech and his confrontation with the Republicans at their caucus, it's time for the anti-racist majority, for the majority that wants health reform, a clean environment, massive job creation, peace, and economic and social justice, to take the offensive.

Photo: Sarah Palin addresses the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Feb. 6. On her hand, her crib notes are visible. (AP/Ed Reinke)

‘Julie and Julia’ — most underrated movie of the year

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:03:00 +0000

"Julie and Julia"
Directed by Nora Ephron
2009, PG-13, 123 min.

I have long admired Nora Ephron's writing. But this year she not only wrote but also produced and directed a movie that IMHO (in my humble -- or is it honest -- opinion) is the best of the year, "Julie and Julia." It's also probably the most underrated.

"Julie and Julia" is a celebration of women, and their "traditional" domain, the kitchen and food. But as with much in life, the pinnacle of many a career is occupied by men, the kitchen included. And so it was in 1950s France when Julia Child arrived in Paris with her U.S. diplomat husband. Men dominated the top cooking positions. It was an all-male class that Ms. Child elbowed her way into at Paris' famous Le Cordon Bleu.

Ephron shows Julia Child as pioneer, bringing her to life for a new generation of women to appreciate. And with Meryl Streep's stellar and Oscar-nominated performance, there is much to appreciate.

Ephron also expertly weaves the modern-day blogging story of Julie Powell's "Julie/Julia Project" with Child's autobiography, "My Life in France." Ephron manages to place each woman in her time, place and circumstance. Powell is in a thankless post-9/11 job answering questions from stressed out victims of that attack.

Child is in post-war France, at the beginning of the anti-Communist witchhunts in the U.S. and reaction against things "foreign." (Ephron portrays the real-life State Department witchhunt interview with Paul Child.) And she embraces open air markets with live eels and other French food delights that would be considered strange by 1950s American cooking standards of tuna casserole topped with potato chips and marshmallow jello molds.

In Ephron's and Streep's world, Child is the definition of "joie de vivre" and embodies a never-quit, fearless spirit, refreshing to see in a woman in the kitchen chopping onions. Ephron's nuanced portrayal of the Childs' relationship also makes you realize Paul was quite a forward thinking man, un-intimidated by Julia's exuberance and intelligence, happy to be her partner on this journey.

Julia Child embarks with two French women, Simone Beck and Louisette Bertholle, into unknown territory for everyone - man or woman. They write a French cookbook for the American kitchen (actually Child says for women without servants), "Mastering the Art of French Cooking."

As a child of Saturday Night Live's portrayal of Ms. Child, I never quite took her too seriously. Yet after seeing "Julie and Julia" I found a new and profound appreciation for the pioneer chef. If it wasn't for Julia Child, who not only pioneered and mastered the complexities of French cooking in an American context, but also created the TV chef, where would the Food Network or Iron Chef be?

The story of blogging Julie was, for me, just a foil to modernize and bring anew the life and times and contribution of Julia Child - although Ephron's expertise makes the character more interesting than she is reported to be in life.

"Julie and Julia" is a refreshing portrayal of two adult women, passionate about cooking and food science. It is funny and a welcome respite from too many female roles that can be put into either victim or object categories.

If I had a vote for Best Director, it would go to Ephron. And apparently the Oscar committee doesn't agree with me since Ephron is not on this year's list.

Photo: Meryl Streep plays Julia Child in the movie "Julie and Julia."