People Before Profit blog

Pennsylvania's voter ID law is just crazy

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:21:00 +0000

Honestly I thought all of this nonsense with voting rights was settled twice. First in 1865 and second in the 1960 s. But voter ID laws have been popping up all over the country, it seems wherever a Republican legislature is to be found.

But, for one thing, there is not much voter fraud in this country. Mostly, all these laws mandating photo IDs and other proof of identity when you go to the polls to vote negatively affect the elderly and racial minorities who have limited access to photo IDs or birth certificates. Republicans claim that IDs prevent fraud. But in my home state of Pennsylvania where the latest farce is going on, even the Republicans admit there is no voter fraud problem in the sta te. People who go to vote are doing so legally.

The Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania admits there's no voting fraud yet Republicans have enacted a new ID law that will negatively affect the poor, minorities, and the elderly. Some elderly people who have voted for decades will be unable to do so now. There are literally hundreds of thousands of voters who will be unable to vote because they have no ID.

The Pennsylvania law is the strictest in the nation. In order to receive an ID to vote you need a Social Security card, official birth certificate, and two proofs of residency. That's just crazy. What about the homeless? What about the elderly whose birth records are ambiguous or not available?

Recently Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai boasted about the Republicans' "accomplishments" this way:

"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation - abortion facility regulations - in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Really? Isn't it the job of any public servant to serve their constituents and the people? It's not the job of the state to try to illegally influence an election.

Already a progressive movement is building to defeat the law. A lawsuit seeking an injunction has been filed, and protests have been taking place. A state court this week is hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the law. Hopefully it will be declared unconstitutional.

Voting is a right in a free and democratic society. Why then are we restricting civil rights? Those battles were fought long ago. Fortunately, the progressive movement is more than ready to rise up and fight against this attack on civil rights.

I remember my first time voting, in 2008, when I proudly checked the box for President Obama. I want other people of all races and ages to be able to have the same historic chances I did. To take that away is unjust, unfair, and undemocratic.

Photo: At the rally in front of the Pennsylvania State Capitol, July 24, in Harrisburg. Demonstrators protested the new voter ID law and set the stage for a state court hearing on a lawsuit seeking to prevent the law from taking effect this year. John C. Whitehead/The Patriot-News/AP

New "Spider-Man" spins a predictable web

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:48:00 +0000

The Amazing Spider-Man is a 'reboot' of the Spider-Man film series, leaving behind the Sam Raimi-directed trilogy of the previous decade and starting the story over anew. For the most part, this new film is how Spider-Man should have been done in the first place. The film is energized and emotive. On the other hand, it's also far from groundbreaking.

Starring Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as girlfriend Gwen Stacy, the origin story ultimately stays true to the comic. Peter gets bitten by an irradiated spider, acquires powers, and steps into his costumed hero role. The additive here is that Peter, living with his aunt (Sally Field) and uncle (Martin Sheen), is trying to find out about his parents, who mysteriously left when he was young and never returned.

When Peter finds secret documents belonging to his father, it leads him to Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), a scientist experimenting with tissue regeneration; Connors works for seedy corporation Oscorp, which will remain a dark and troublesome focal point throughout the series. (Yes, this film seems to make some anti-corporate commentary, but blink and you'll miss it.)

After his uncle is shot and killed by a robber, Peter feels a great sense of responsibility to protect New York. Meanwhile, he vies for the affections of Stacy, while earning the ire of her father, a police captain who's determined to catch "the masked vigilante called Spider-Man."

Meanwhile, Connors develops a regenerative serum that backfires, mutating him into a sentient, lizard-like creature. Convinced he is the pinnacle of human evolution, Connors devises a plan to turn New York's citizens into similar creatures, whereupon Spider-Man must save the day.

Rebooting this series so soon would be understandable if the new approach justified doing so. But with a formulaic main plot and an origin story that feels too rushed, The Amazing Spider-Man has trouble justifying the need for its existence.

The film does boast several talented actors: Garfield is perfect in the title role. His portrayal is subtle and brooding; he is the definitive Spider-Man. That being said, much of how Peter slips into the red-and-blue jumpsuit is hard to believe - but that's due to the way it was written, not Garfield's performance. The transition period from socially awkward teen to confident, wisecracking hero just plods along too quickly to be realistic.

Traditionally, Peter is the stereotypical 'nerd;' introverted and awkward. Garfield's Peter has just a little too much swagger, doing kickflips on his skateboard and cracking smooth one-liners with his love interest.

Stone is this story's secret weapon. She provides a nice mix of humor, likability, and emotional depth. She's easily the best actor of the film.

Ifans, however, gives a very flat and unconvincing performance as "The Lizard." He spouts ridiculous ideas, and by the time he's begun ranting about the next step in evolution, you'll have thoroughly had enough of his one-dimensional "mad scientist" character.

Both the wittiness of films like Iron Man and the powerful symbolism of The Dark Knight are absent here; The Amazing Spider-Man is just straightforward escapism. The agitating thing about the movie is that it has so much potential. But just when it seems like a tantalizing plot thread is going to go somewhere, it unspools into a tangled pile of clichés.

If you've seen the original trilogy, then you will probably appreciate this version's shift from the previously colorful, campy tone to a darker, more abrasive one. There's also more feeling. And the character interactions and scenarios are much more relatable. As far as superhero films go, this one can certainly stand on its own two feet. It's just that it never manages to deliver the kind of oomph that a movie with such an iconic pedigree should.

All in all, The Amazing Spider-Man certainly spins an interesting web. But despite its captivating lead actors and admirable ambition, it simply fails to impress - let alone amaze. My rating: C+

The Amazing Spider-Man

2012, PG-13, 136 mins.

Directed by Marc Webb

Actors: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Denis Leary
Photo: A scene from the film. Official film Facebook page

National Lampoon's Romney vacation?

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:34:00 +0000

Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has been out of the country in a multi-country tour. This was likely an effort to shore up his light foreign policy experience. That experience to date has been limited to a Swiss bank account, untold millions of dollars in the Cayman Islands, and creating thousands of jobs in low-paying countries. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, this tour has turned out to be from one gaffe to another.

The first leg of his trip brought him to the United Kingdom, and succeeded in creating an unflattering image of Romney in the country he once referred to as "a second tier nation" and "just a small island." In fact, his trip already has a Twitter hash-tag: #Romneyshambles.

Romney first got himself in hot water by publicly stating that he was not sure if London could handle the Olympics, calling the situation "disconcerting." Not surprisingly, this offended British politicians and officials, including Prime Minister David Cameron who responded by suggesting that holding the Olympics in downtown London is a bit more tricky than in Salt Lake City, or as Cameron called it, "the middle of nowhere." Romney then told NBC that we would have to wait to see if Britons would "unite" for the Olympics, again offending Cameron and many other Brits. London's eccentric Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson publicly mocked Romney to a crowd of 60,000 Londoners. In light of all this, maybe it is easier to understand why members of the UK's Conservative Party expressed that their "heart" is with Obama.

Romney continued upon this collision course with the UK by publicly acknowledging that he met with the United Kingdom's highly secret intelligence service, MI6 - an acknowledgment that is considered a major gaffe in Britain. Then, he made the British press wonder if he even bothered to learn Labour leader Ed Miliband 's name after he referred to Miliband as "Mister Leader." Romney's foreign policy advisors outraged many on both sides of the Atlantic when they told the British newspaper The Telegraph that Romney would be better for Britain because of a shared "Anglo -Saxon heritage" that Obama did not share.

The British press had a field day with Romney, who evidently united the UK's political spectrum against him. The Telegraph, a center-right newspaper, called Romney "utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive." The UK's Channel Four News awarded Romney "the Golden Gaffe" award. The Daily Mail called his trip "humiliating." The Guardian stated that he was "worse than Palin" and The Sun referred to him as "Mitt the Twit."

Thankfully however, Romney managed to squeeze in some fundraising while in the UK, including about $1 million from executives at Barclay 's bank. Barclay's has recently been in the news for its role as a key player in the scandalous LIBOR -rigging controversy* which is easily one of the largest contemporary examples of corruption within the financial industry- not an easy feat given recent history.

Moving on to Israel, Romney made news when he discussed health care costs. He praised the Israeli system for its efficiency in keeping costs low while maintaining high patient outcomes. He suggested that it was a model that the United States should follow. Israel maintains what Romney and his GOP allies vigorously oppose: an individual mandate to buy health insurance. Furthermore, as the Jewish Daily Forward notes, in Israel the government is both the key funder and regulator in health care. For a final touch of irony, Israeli health care is run by nonprofit organizations set up by labor unions.

Romney also broke with decades of American and international policy when he declared that Jerusalem is "the capital of Israel." While this is the position of the Israeli right-wing government, it is generally rejected by the international community as well as the Palestinians who claim the eastern half of the city. It goes against the policy of U.S. presidents as far back as Republican hero Ronald Reagan.

Perhaps the defining moment of his Israel trip came at a fundraiser for Jewish donors in Jerusalem, with billionaire casino magnate and GOP funder Sheldon Adelson at his side, when Romney told these donors that their culture and cultural superiority, in part, was the reason for their economic success compared to the Palestinians. He failed to mention that the Palestinian Authority only has limited self-rule and that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank stifles economic growth and limits the ability of Palestinian businesses to move or sell products - a view shared by both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Needless to say this remark angered Palestinians, but also some Israelis who viewed it as just another stereotypical association between Jews and money.

Romney's visit to Poland was another disaster. Although he was not invited by the Polish trade union movement, he tried to give the impression that he was by meeting with Lech Walesa, one time leader of Solidarnosc, a Polish trade union. Walesa is no longer connected to the union however, and Polish unions have expressed unanimous opposition to Romney's anti- union positions. Also, as Romney left the Polish Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, reporters tried to ask him questions, which prompted a Romney spokesman to tell them, "Kiss my a **!"

However, one cannot blame the reporters for trying, especially given Romney's dearth of contact with the press during his trip. While a press corps is traveling with Romney, he only answered three of their questions while in London and has since ignored them. This led Fox News's Greta Van Susteren to call the tour press corps "a modified petting zoo."

While Romney's camp calls his trip "a great success," it appears to have been anything but successful. In a trip that should have been a breeze, he has succeeded in angering our closest ally, as well as liberals and conservatives alike.

Libor -- the "London Interbank Offered Rate" -- is an important benchmark interest rate used in financial markets.

Photo: London newspaper The Sun headlines "Mitt the Twit" over comments regarding the London Olympics made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, July 27. Charles Dharapak/AP)

The House must follow the Senate's lead

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:49:00 +0000

It is urgent for everyone to contact his or her House representative urging that he or she vote this week for the House Democratic Bill which would end the Bush tax cuts for the richest people in America.

Lat week, the Senate passed a bill by 51 to 48 that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for one year, but end the tax breaks after the first $250,000 in household income which benefit only the richest 2 percent in the country.

By Thursday of this week the House will vote on two different bills. The Democratic measure is almost identical to the one approved in the Senate and to the tax plan backed by President Obama. The Republican measure would extend the tax cuts for all Americans, including the rich, for one year. That measure was rejected 54 to 45 in the Senate.

When compared to the Democratic bills, the GOP Senate and House bills extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich would add $50 billion to the deficit. The GOP bills would also raise taxes on 25 million middle and lower income families by an average of $1,000 by reducing several refundable tax credits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and the American Opportunity Tax Credit which helps make college affordable.

The GOP bills expose the hypocrisy of GOP lawmakers who masquerade as opponents of tax hikes but are perfectly willing to raise taxes on millions of poor and middle-class people as long as the rich don't have to pay a penny more.

The GOP House bill that comes up for a vote this week gives the $1 million-a- year- or-more people a tax break of $150,000 more than the Democratic plan.

The claim by Republicans that the Democratic plan hurts small business is an outright lie. Less than 3 percent of small-business owners make more than $250,000 a year.

Renewing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy makes it much more difficult to stimulate the economy. Study after study shows that, unlike tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the working people and, even more important, money invested in public benefits, generates economic activity way above and beyond the original amount invested.

While a one-dollar tax cut for the rich generates less than 35 cents in new economic activity a dollar spent on infrastructure, for example, generates $1.44 in new economic activity. Continuing the tax cuts for the rich makes such investment of public funds much less likely.

Ending the tax cuts for the richest two percent is simply asking them to pay their fair share into the funds needed for such public investment.

Continuing the tax breaks for the rich means we won't be able to improve infrastructure, we won't be able to create jobs, we won't be able to support schools, we won't be able to strengthen Medicare and millions of families will have a more difficult time just getting by.

Continuing the tax cuts for the rich means we'll have to borrow more money to pay for those cuts thereby adding to the deficit Republicans claim they want to reduce. We cannot afford tax cuts for rich people who don't need them and for rich people who, in most cases, haven't even asked for them.

Call your congressional representatives now. Ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is the critical first step that must be taken if we are ever to have a fair tax system in America.

Photo: At a 2011 tax fairness rally in St. Louis. PW

NCAA's Penn State punishment raises questions

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:12:00 +0000

The criminal conviction of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky and the allegations in the Freeh Report that the highest echelons of the university administration covered up Sandusky's horrific sexual abuses rightfully outraged the nation. Joining in that outrage was the governing body of college sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The NCAA chose to punish Penn State by fining it $60 million, banning the football team's participation in a bowl game for four years, vacating all football team wins since 1998, a reduction in recruitment scholarships and a five-year probation.

The penalties levied against Penn State were shocking -- because many people wanted even more punishment of Penn State, and because the NCAA failed to acknowledge its role in the damaging culture it sought to attack.

The reputations of Penn State and the officials involved in the alleged cover-up are in shambles. The university is facing the possibility of massive fines from a Department of Education investigation into whether the school violated the Clery Act by not reporting Sandusky's offenses. Many of the top officials involved in the alleged cover-up are facing criminal charges. Civil lawsuits will also be filed by the victims of the scandal. The combination of social stigmatization, embarrassment, criminal court cases and civil court suits should be sufficient to penalize the school.

Yet, it was confounding that people wanted more punishment, especially a flawed and incomplete punishment from such a flawed institution as the NCAA.

In doling out the punishment, NCAA President Mark Emmert attempted to ground it in the importance of education for students and confronting the "win at all costs" sport culture that helped contribute to the cover-up of Sandusky's offenses. However, these rationales fall apart upon closer examination.

If the NCAA believes in making education a priority, then why is it taking away scholarships from up to 80 student athletes over the duration of the penalty? Prospective recruits who had nothing to do with the scandal will be denied educational opportunities under the guise of "punishment."

Equally as disturbing are the NCAA and President Emmert overtly and implicitly advocating an agenda of making football and/or basketball a top priority on campuses. Schools across the nation have seen coaches receiving top dollar compensation and millions being spent on construction of new athletic facilities while tuitions have increased and budget cuts abound. For the NCAA to not acknowledge their participation in this toxic relationship is to lie by omission.

It is also unfortunate that the punishments have made media spend even more time focusing on the football team and how these penalties will affect the team, the university and the community.

While it may feel just for the NCAA to flex its might in penalizing Penn State, it is worrisome on all these levels.

The punishments are also incomplete. Any investigation that punishes football players a decade after the fact but exempts people like Tom Corbett -- the Republican governor of Pennsylvania but attorney general when the Sandusky allegations began -- is problematic. There are questions about whether Corbett's use of his prosecutorial discretion to not pursue the allegations was influenced by his planned gubernatorial run, and by his accepting money from a Sandusky-affiliated charity and several Penn State supporters.

There is no defense of Sandusky's horrific crimes and the alleged Penn State cover-up. While people thirst for justice and punishment, it is important that we analyze the systems of power to make sure the punishments will meet the intended ends and that the correct parties are targeted.

Photo: Penn State senior running back Michael Zordich, left foreground, and senior linebacker Michael Mauti, right foreground, give a statement in support of their team, as other players look on, July 25, in State College, Pa. Nabil K. Mark/The Centre Daily Times/AP

A cook’s thoughts on food and more

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:41:00 +0000

I started cooking when I was ten; that's 55 years ago. Cooking for friends and family, and for larger groups at fund raising events, has always been enjoyable. Even the current challenge of producing meals that are delicious, nutritious, and in under budget doesn't bother me - in a way that just adds to the fun!

But I am growing very worried over many aspects of the food we eat. There is a major drought this summer in the U.S. affecting our food crops and livestock feed, and adding to the cycle of the degradation of arable land.

Also, I find several aspects of the scientific and technological revolution in farming quite troubling.

Why don't I trust the hugely profitable big businesses raking in the dough for chemical fertilizers, pesticides, genetically engineered seed (yes I'm talking about you Monsanto), unnecessary hormones injected or fed to livestock, enormous pig and chicken outfits with their huge piss ponds, enormous cattle feed lots (all that piss goes somewhere, like into our water supply), highly mechanized whirling poultry processing plants, and humongous fish farms on the ocean coasts? Yikes!

And whether you shop local or drive to a huge market, eat in or eat out, there are large numbers of low paid workers providing your needs along the way. Many of them are not organized into unions and have no benefits either. I'm talking about all the workers in the fields, the loaders on to transport, the truckers, the store clerks, cooks and kitchen crews, clean-up workers, and kids and seniors working the quick & fast places.

Workers are dying in the fields from heat and pesticide spray. Workers at big meat and poultry processing plants (many of whom in the additionally risky situation of not having "papers") are losing fingers or arms in the fast moving "disassembly" lines. The people along the way who are responsible for the food we eat every day are not getting justice! Many are not getting a living wage and basic benefits like health care.

And what has advertising done to the diet and health of all of us from children to seniors? Yes advertising of useless over-sweetened cereals, machine-built snacks, bottled drinks with nothing but high-fructose corn syrup (thanks a lot Archer Daniels Midland) and so-called meals - really, happy meals? - that by no stretch of the imagination could be called meals at all.

I was thinking back to my early childhood living on a farm and to subsequent visits to relative's farms over the following summers.

Breakfast on a working farm was a main meal for women and men who were doing hard physical labor: In addition to oatmeal, some kind of fresh fruit depending on what was ripe (mmm, fresh peaches!), sliced tomatoes, scrambled-up fresh eggs or cold fried chicken or ham from the night before, a quick-bread such as biscuits or cornbread, boiling-hot coffee for the grownups and fresh milk for us children. This early morning meal held you for hours!

Lunches and suppers were comparatively light but always included lots of vegetables and fruit. And there was always some fruit and bread and butter on hand for a snack. Most of the food came from the farm's vegetable garden, fruit trees, and livestock. Or maybe from a nearby farm not more than 10 miles away. The concepts of "seasonal produce" or "locally grown" or "fresh-picked" or "organic" were not advertising gimmicks. Nor were they characteristics of expensive restaurants or high-priced markets.

When did good food become such a luxury? Should we all go vegan for our health and to help save the planet? Should we all be growing vegetables in our yards (the way they have been in Cuba for years) instead of lawns? Should apartment dwellers pitch in on community gardens? Should we all be composting and recycling and bicycling everywhere? Is it safe to drink cows milk? To eat fish from the Great Lakes? To drink the water? To breath the air?

Like others these days I am searching for ways I personally can try to live my life not only doing the least environmental damage, but also doing what's best for my own health and well being. Why is this so very difficult to do in this modern age when information is so readily available?

For starters, I blame the tea party Republicans and their billionaire advisors. They say global climate change doesn't exist so there is no need to have any plans for dealing with the consequences. They say poor people have it too good anyway so that eliminates anything that would improve their health or income. And they say industries can control themselves so no use trying to have any inspections or enforcement agencies. They say government agencies cost too much and are not needed. So that would bring us back to the bad old days of Sinclair's "Jungle."

This brings up the importance of making part of the environmental fight - and the food fight ;-) -- the fight to get rid of tea party Republicans, stop and reverse voter suppression, defeat Romney, get out the vote!

Finally, as a cancer survivor with many family and friends who now have babies, I will do what I can to keep myself healthy and make this a better world for the young ones. To me this will mean changing from the capitalist economic system to a socialist one. Soon.

Photo: Puget Sound Food Network

New FBI report slams corporate crooks and ‘cookie jar’ accountants

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:05:00 +0000

If anyone doubts there is extensive rot in the so-called U.S. capitalist system, we have an invitation for them: Read the FBI's latest report on corporate criminality - and that's before recent big settlements with Wells Fargo and other malefactors.

The Financial Crimes Report, which covers Oct. 2009-Sept. 2011, details corporate felonies that will curl your hair. And it makes us consider that skullduggery in executive suites is the rule, not the exception. First, some of the basics:

"As the lead agency investigating corporate fraud, the FBI focused on cases which involve accounting schemes, self-dealing by corporate executives, and obstruction of justice...At the end of FY 2011, 726 corporate fraud cases were being pursued...several of which involved losses to public investors that individually exceed $1 billion." In the last two years, there were 242 indictments, 241 convictions, $2.4 billion paid in restitution, and $16 million in fines.
There are some 1,800 pending cases of securities fraud at the end of 2011, and that doesn't count the biggest settlement of all, in Dec. 2010. Then, the FBI rounded up "343 criminal defendants nationwide." And more than 120,000 victims had "losses attributable to alleged criminal activity of more than $8 billion."

Healthcare fraud. Here's where you find the big drug companies, and that's not even counting this year's $3 billion fine against GlaxoSmithKline for illegally promoting some of its drugs. But the total collected is huge: "Through FY 2011, 2,690 cases investigated by the FBI resulted in 1,676 indictments and 736 convictions of HCF criminals; and it should be noted that numerous cases are pending plea agreements and trials," the report says. In just fiscal 2011, which ended last Sept. 30, the government got $1.2 billion in restitutions, levied $1 billion in fines, seized $96 million, gained $320 million in civil restitution, and picked up over $1 billion in civil settlements.

Mortgage fraud. Unscrupulous firms took advantage of "underwater" mortgage holders, whose home values plummeted in the Great Recession. There have been "1,223 indictments and 1,082 convictions of mortgage fraud criminals" and in FY 2011, the FBI regained $1.38 billion in mortgage fraud restitution, $116.3 million in fines, seized $15.7 million in fraudsters' assets, and garnered $7.33 million in forfeitures.

Bank fraud. In 2010, 157 banks failed, and the number dropped to 85 last year. But there are almost 500 on a federal watch list of problem institutions, the FBI says. "During FY 2011, cases pursued by the FBI resulted in 521 informations and indictments, and 429 convictions of financial fraud criminals," the report says. That year, the government got $1.38 billion in restitution, levied $116.3 million in fines, and seized another $15.7 million in bank assets.

Now, some particularly outrageous thefts by corporate criminals:

In what the FBI called "cookie jar accounting," executives at Beazer Homes, a former Fortune 500 company in Charlotte, N.C., "encouraged false information to finance and sell homes and to manipulate corporate earnings. "That let Beazer cut its net income during flush times and smooth its earnings during the housing crash. In 2009, Beazer signed a deferred prosecution agreement "acknowledging corporate culpability in this complex fraud. "It also paid $50 million in restitution. Last year, its chief accounting officer was convicted on seven counts of fraud, and awaits sentencing.

Washington, D.C.'s Colonial Bank and TBW, a major U.S. mortgage originator, conducted a several-billion-dollar accounting fraud by back-dating loans and creating fictitious loans "which inflated loan asset values," all while manipulating the subprime mortgage market, the FBI said.

Remember, it's the collapse of those unpayable mortgages and the bad debts they caused that triggered the financial meltdown and the Great Recession.

The FBI caught the Colonial-TBW fraud. It also prevented the two from taking $553 million federal Troubled Asset Relief Program money. TBW's chairman is serving 30 years for bank and securities fraud, its president is in for 40 months, and the bank's senior VP is in jail for eight years.

Luis Belevan, owner of The Guardian Group of Phoenix, pled guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and mail fraud in 2009-2010. "Belevan and his co-conspirator defrauded at least 1,800 distressed homeowners out of a $1,595 upfront fee each for bogus promises of assistance in avoiding home foreclosure," the FBI said.

Belevan pocketed the money. DOJ didn't say when he's going to prison.

Of course, what the Justice Department is prosecuting is law-breaking. What we in the union movement call corporate criminality is different, and often not prosecutable. It's the schemes of corporate plutocrats to strip workers of pay, pensions, and rights.

That crime covers firms as varied as Verizon, Massey Coal, Delta, FedEx, and Wal-Mart. Their execs shouldn't be sitting in plush chairs - they should be sitting in jail cells.

Photo: Miners' helmets and painted crosses at the entrance to Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch coal mine. The memorial represents the 29 coal miners who were killed in an explosion at the mine. The financial crimes of big executives result in the death of workers. Jeff Gentner/AP

Houston celebrates birth of The Liberator – Simon Bolivar

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:21:00 +0000

HOUSTON - Almost 200 progressives here celebrated South American liberator Simon Bolivar's birthday, July 24. Bolivar was born on that day in 1783. Similar celebrations were held in more than 100 cities in the United States and around the world.

Bolivar is considered one of the continent's greatest generals and is called the George Washington of South America. His victories over Spanish colonialism won independence for Bolivia, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. He is also called El Liberator (The Liberator).

The program honored Bolivar along with present day fighters for liberation and against imperialism, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Venezuela's official name is the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, having changed it after Chavez's 1998 election and the launch of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Speakers included a representative of Venezuela's consulate general, along with local union, peace and civil rights activists.

The Venezuelan speaker explained the country's revolution and how the poor and working masses were taking back their country from the capitalists bit by bit. He talked of the up coming elections and how important it was to the lives of the poor and oppressed.

We heard of struggles past and present against tyranny both here in Houston & in Venezuela.

Two activists who just came from a march to raise the minimum wage told the crowd more than 1,000 union members and supporters turned out.

In addition, despite arrests the striking janitors of the Service Employee Union continues with daily support marches.

It made me think of how the U.S. struggle against the 1 percent was the same as the people of Venezuela and of all working people of the entire world.

It was an inspiring day, and the organizers did a terrific job.

Photo: Jorge Andres Rodriguez Toro // CC 2.0

Bernie Sanders, 2012, and fighting the oligarchy

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:02:00 +0000

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders is the people's tribune. In a recent appearance before a Senate committee where he spoke about the current assault on democracy, that quality of Sanders was on display. But before I elaborate on his speech, a few general observations on democracy are in order.

Democracy is a contested idea and practice. It was never a gift bestowed on the multitude by the top layers of our society, either at the country's founding or in its subsequent history.

Historically speaking, the boundaries of freedom and democracy have been fluid. Gains in popular democracy secured in one period and thought to be permanent more than once were rolled back in the next period.

The movement toward a more inclusive democracy was never a smooth stroll forward. It always met resistance from entrenched power blocs, fixated on maintaining the status quo and the privileges therein.

In these battles each side attempted to appropriate and give content to the idea and practice of freedom and democracy (freedom for the slave, freedom for the slaveholder, etc.). Even those opposing inclusiveness claimed to be advocates of democracy and freedom.

The outcome ultimately rested on which side could amass enough power - political, economic, ideological, and sometimes military - to scatter, demoralize, and push back its opponents. In other words, force, not necessarily in its violent form, became the final arbiter in settling the conflict over the political content of democracy.

Compared with earlier pre-capitalist class systems, capitalism opened up some democratic space not formerly afforded to exploited classes of earlier times. But at the same time, its over-arching, unending, built-in drive for capital accumulation and profit-maximization inexorably and from the beginning gave rise to structural and social constraints on democratic development, including the democratic character of the state.

And yet, as restrictive and class-determined as the democratic space and institutions of capitalist society were and are, it would be a mistake either in the past or present to take a standoffish attitude toward them. Indeed, it is imperative for the forces of popular democracy to turn those democratic spaces and institutions that are available into a platform for expanding their limited content and narrow bounds. That ultimately includes getting rid of the capitalist shell in which democracy is now confined and restricted.

Which brings me back to Senator Bernie Sanders' appearance before the Senate committee. In his speech, he warned the country of the increasing dangers to democracy in today's political and economic climate.

" ... we are now facing the most severe attacks, both economically and politically, that we have seen in the modern history of our country. Tragically ... we are well on our way to seeing our great country move toward an oligarchic form of government - where virtually all economic and political power rests with a handful of very wealthy families."

How true!

He went on to say, "This is a trend we must reverse."

Indeed, we must! But the vexing question is: how and where to begin?

In my view it won't happen if the democratic movement does nothing but complain about the Obama administration and abandons the electoral arena of struggle in the name of political purity.

The stakes are too high to do either.

Let's face it. The outcome of the November election will not simply determine who will occupy the White House and Congress.

This election is about more than that.

It is about the balance of power between the class and social forces of democracy and those of anti-democratic reaction. It is about which side gains the initiative and leverage in the post election period. It is about which outcome will best position the people's movement to struggle against the economic crisis and for democracy and equality in the years ahead. And it is about striking an absolutely necessary blow against right-wing extremism - the main organizing vehicle of the oligarchic trend in U.S. politics.

To say that it makes no difference who wins in November is to take leave from reality. It amounts to substituting the politics of self-gratifying outrage and broad generalizations for solid class politics - that is, politics that makes a careful and concrete assessment of which political grouping is the main danger to democracy and class advance, given the balance of class and social forces at this moment.

Bernie Sanders, I suspect, is well aware of the dirty laundry on both sides of the aisle and of the motley character of the two-party system, just as he is undoubtedly fully conscious of the exploitative and oppressive nature of the system of capitalism and the 1 percent that it serves.

But he has also made it clear that he knows who the main political obstacle to social progress is in this era of unprecedented wealth-taking, and has no intention of sitting out this election on the basis of some "higher" political-class-moral principle. Neither should anyone else who is concerned about our country's democracy and future.

Photo: America's Power // CC 2.0

Today in labor and peoples history: Seminole Wars begin

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:28:00 +0000

On this date in 1815 the first Seminole War began with the attack on a fort held by runaway slaves in Florida.* Some sources credit Colonel Edmund Gaines as leading the attack; others credit Andrew Jackson with assaulting the fort in 1816.

The fort held by the rebel slaves was destroyed when a cannon attack exploded a munitions pile, killing over 200 men women and children. The war set the stage for Florida coming into the union in 1819.

*(Wikepedia credits the beginning of the Seminole Wars to 1816 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_wars)

"Cultures of Resistance": Art can be powerful stuff

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:05:00 +0000

When we think of "resistance," what mostly comes to mind is guerrilla warfare: Vietnamese closing in on the besieged French at Dien Bien Phu; Angolans ambushing Portuguese troops outside of Luanda; Salvadorans waging a war of attrition against their military oligarchy. But resistance doesn't always involve roadside bombs or military operations. Sometimes it is sprayed on a Teheran wall, or rapped in a hip-hop song in Gaza. It can be a poem in Medellin, Colombia - arguably one of the most dangerous cities in the world - or come from a guitar shaped like an AK-47. In short, there are few boundaries or strictures when it comes to the imagination and creativity that people bring to the act of defiance.

That art can be powerful stuff is the central message that Brazilian filmmaker Iara Lee brings to her award-winning documentary Cultures of Resistance. Her previous films include "Synthetic Pleasures," about the impact of technology on mass culture, and "Modulations," on the evolution of electronic music. Her most recent film is "The Suffering Grasses," about the civil war in Syria.

Lee began Cultures in 2003, just before the Bush administration invaded Iraq, and her six-year odyssey takes her through five continents and 35 cities: Burma, Brazil, Rwanda, Iran, Burundi, Israel, Nigeria, the Congo, and Liberia, to name a few. In each case she profiles a grassroots movement that embodies the philosophy of non-violent resistance to everything from political oppression to occupation.

Lee, a co-founder of the Cultures of Resistance Network, is a social activist in her own country, where she has aided Amazonian Indians resisting the destruction of their lands and organized against the reign of violence - from both criminals and the police - in Brazil's slums or Favelas. She is also a member of the Greenpeace Foundation, a member of the advisory board of the National Geographic Society, and a part of the worldwide campaign to ban cluster munitions.

She was also on the MV Mavi Marmara in 2010, the Gaza-bound Turkish ship boarded by Israeli commandos. Nine human rights campaigners were killed in the confrontation, and Lee managed to smuggle out video footage of the incident. However, U.S. media outlets refused to air it. Lee's view of the world is not the sometimes distant lens of many documentarians, but the prism of an activist.

"Cultures" is a surprising film. Lee is a strong supporter of non-violence, but "Cultures of Resistance" is hardly about how hugs will free us all. She recognizes that resistance in the face of oppression - or indifference - can spark anger. The film begins with a remarkable segment on the Amazon's Kayapo tribe resisting the construction of the Belo Monte Dam on the Xingu River. At one point the Indians' frustration boils over and they attack an Eletrobras official - the company is the largest utility company in Latin America - with clubs and fists, tearing off some of his clothes and sending him off in bloody retreat. The unspoken point of the segment is that if non-violent resistance is ignored, things can turn ugly.

This is a lovely film, but there is darkness in it as well, some of it quite disturbing. Racks of skulls line a hut in Rwanda, where some 800,000 people were massacred in 1994, and a deserted church in that country is filled with piles of clothes, invoking the memory of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. But the message of the segment is not death, but life, and how post-genocide communities are coming together to rebuild.

Many of the profiles come from Africa: Nigeria, where local people are up against international oil cartels and their own corrupt government; The Congo, where a civil war over minerals has killed more than five million people; Liberia, where former child soldiers are being integrated back into post-civil war society.

But Lee casts her nets widely. The "Teheran Rats" are graffiti artists who wage clandestine war with spray cans in Iran. Hip-hop artists in Israel say they "sing rap for people who don't listen to rap." Poets from around the world gather in Colombia: "Poetry does not overthrow governments, but it does open consciousness and hearts," one poet says.

Lee has an eye for beauty and drama. "Cultures" has a clear point of view, but it is not overly didactic, preferring to use juxtaposition and interviews - and lots and lots of good music - to make its points. A simple black and white shot of a very young child holding a semi-automatic pistol does a much better job of highlighting the problems of violence in the favelas than would some expert pumping out numbers. Not that the numbers are not there, just that Lee first gets the viewers attention through the art: information follows.

One of the films messages is that cultures of resistance - those that have the audacity to say "no" - have things in common. Leadership is not something that resides in one group of people or in a given country, but is everywhere that people dig their heels in and fight back. The Buddhist monks that challenged the military dictatorship in Burma share common ground with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Israelis opposed to the occupation of Palestinian lands, and Palestinians resisting the spread of Israeli settlements, meet in the medium of rap.

"We don't have planes, missiles or white phosphorous," Lee told journalist Lisa Mullenneaux, "but we have our freedom to resist oppression. To sing, dance, and express how we feel about world politics. Global solidarity is the only thing that can promote real change."

In a sense, Lee turns Emma Goldman's slogan "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution" into "dancing can be revolution."

Movie Review
Cultures of Resistance
Directed by Iara Lee
73-mins., Caipirinha Productions

This article originally appeared in Dispatches from the Edge, the author's blog.

Today in history: End of military segregation

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:23:00 +0000

On this day in 1948, President Harry Truman ordered the desegregation of the United States armed forces.

Truman's Executive Order 9981 stated, "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale."

The also created the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, which was to examine the "rules, procedures and practices of the Armed Services" as well as to "confer and advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Nave, and the Secretary of the Air Force, and shall make such recommendations to the President" to ensure that the orders provisions were carried out.

The executive order was in response to public demand for an end to segregation. In 1947, A. Philip Randolph and Grand Reynolds formed the Committee Against Jim Crow in Military Service and Training, which later became the Non-Violent Civil Disobedience Against Military Segregation.

The last all-black unit in the U.S. military was disbanded six years later.

Photo via Wikipedia.

Living history in “Anne Braden: Southern Patriot”

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:37:00 +0000

I thought I knew about legendary civil rights activists Carl and Anne Braden before I saw this remarkable documentary, "Anne Braden: Southern Patriot," by Anne Lewis and Mimi Pickering. I was very wrong.

The documentary features Anne Braden speaking near the end of her life before college classes, and commentaries by her biographer, Catherine Fosi. It also includes scholar civil rights/civil liberties leader and former Communist Party USA vice presidential candidate Angela Davis; Vincent Harding (leading scholar of African American history) and others whose lives Anne Braden touched and and enriched. It connects beautifully the personal with the political to tell the story of a woman whose life intersected and addressed the major issues confronting modern U.S. society.

Anne, to borrow a key concept from Karl Marx's "Capital," lived her life fully with and for its "use value," confronting the contradictions of the time and enriching community and society - rather than a life lived for its "exchange value " that is, to accumulate personal wealth, status and fame, indifferent to community and society

Anne Braden grew up in relative privilege in post-World War I Alabama. She didn't begin confront the central question of her society, what she later saw as the dehumanizing institutional racism of the "Southern police state," until she became a newspaper reporter following events in a Birmingham, Ala., courthouse during World War II.

The U.S. was at war with Hitler/Axis/fascism, which she came to realize was also a war against "our [meaning the segregationist South's] ideology."

In Birmingham 70 years ago she saw an African American man sentenced to 20 years in prison for the way he looked at a white women. When an African American waitress asked her later what had happened in the courthouse, she said it was "just a colored murder," and watched with guilt as the waitress trembled before her.

This was the "ordinary racism" of the Southern police state.

Anne also came to realize that without understanding class relations, "classism," one couldn't either fully understand or overcome racism. Like her later friend Martin Luther King, she was always a Southerner, never rejecting the language, literature, food, music, of the culture into which she was born and raised.

In 1947, she left Alabama for Louisville, Ky., and met and married Carl Braden, who came from a working class American socialist family. Together, they worked in the following decades for worker's rights against brutal coal mine operators; risked their lives in 1954 in Kentucky to try to sell a home to an African American family; endured terrorist threats, arrests and imprisonment, published while they could The Southern Patriot; and through organizations like the Southern Conference Education Fund (SCEF) became valued allies of civil rights activists like the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth (who appears in the documentary) and his close associate, the Rev. Martin Luther King.

In the process Anne and Carl Braden influenced many people who came into contact with them through a reasoned and responsible progressivism.

Anne and Carl were red-baited and of course worked closely with real "card carrying" Reds all of their political lives. Who else would they work with? Anti-Communist liberals who spoke about the need to end segregation in order to win the Cold War in the "Third World" while they supported loyalty oaths and political purges in the U.S.?

One might say that the Bradens were as much a part of a larger "Communist-led" resistance movement as the Viet Minh during and after World War II in Vietnam, the partisan forces in wartime Yugoslavia, Greece and Italy, fighting against a dictatorship that used racism and police terror to sustain its power.

"Anne Braden: Southern Patriot" deserves to be seen on American public television and perhaps, MSNBC, the commercial cable network that reaches out to media's most neglected market, the broad American left. It deserves to be ordered by college and high school libraries through the country. It even richly deserves to be banned by right-wing dominated Texas and Arizona school boards and education departments, which would probably help its general circulation, since today that is a badge of honor.

Finally, it deserves to be shown at the White House by President Obama, as Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt once showed films and documentaries with serious social content.

At least, readers should find purchase the documentary in DVD form for home use and encourage friends and local libraries to purchase it.

More information is available at the film's Facebook page.

As a companion piece, readers might also purchase Catherine Fosi's excellent biography, "Subversive Southerner: Anne Braden and the Struggle for Racial Justice in the Cold War South." With a forword by Angela Davis, it is a sophisticated and sensitive analysis of Anne Braden's life and times and their larger meaning.

Photo: Braden with megaphone, via the film's Facebook page.

Native American joblessness is slow genocide

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:00:00 +0000

In early May, an op-ed column in The New York Times by two prominent economists, Dean Baker and Ken Hassett, entitled "The Human Disaster of Unemployment," characterized long-term joblessness as "nothing short of a national emergency." Well, long-term unemployment has been a human disaster for Native Americans for decades , but this has been ignored by just about all of the rest of America and definitely by both major political parties. This has been an ongoing emergency for generations for Native Americans.

Small wonder that U.S. Native peoples are beset with a blistering, hideous panoply of social and health ills hardly seen elsewhere in this world. This is quasi-genocide: unemployment kills!

The dire social and material statistics of Native America - on some reservations the suicide rate is the highest in the Western Hemisphere (particularly among teenagers), and there are greatly elevated levels of alcoholism, drug use, diabetes, tuberculosis, and domestic violence - coincide with crushing joblessness.

The problems of Indian America cannot be effectively solved without a fundamental lowering of Native unemployment. It is no coincidence that Indian Country has the greatest social and health problems coupled with the highest unemployment rate in the U.S. This juxtaposition goes hand in hand. That these odious conditions have not collapsed Native societies is due to the tremendous strength, resilience and traditions that have enabled Indian people to survive in the face of seemingly horrific, insurmountable odds.

Unemployment generates a deterioration in all aspects of the life of a people. Just a cursory look at history abundantly illustrates this point.

Example, 1930s Germany: Masses of the unemployed were living on the streets and roads of the country. Sociological studies found that unemployment destroyed people's self-respect and collapsed their status and their role in a nation where esteem, recognition and even identity itself was based on the job they held.

Prolonged unemployment generated despondency and depression. The longer people were without a job the worse the gloom that enveloped their lives. This spread throughout entire families as children lost all hope of a better life. Young people stole to make a living, organized gangs fought each other and often clashed with police. German society was on the cusp of a descent into a quagmire of dejection and criminality.

Another example, 1930s United States: Unemployment as early as 1931 (just two years into the Great Depression) was destroying an entire way of life; it was having a tremendously destructive effect on the daily lives of the mainstream American population. Early on there was a dramatic spread of disease and malnutrition. Studies of schoolchildren found that one-fourth suffered from malnutrition, new patients in tuberculosis clinics nearly doubled and the families of jobless workers sustained 66% more illness than the families of the employed. Family ties weakened under the ravages of poverty, desertions and divorce rates rose, birth rates dropped, crime rose, drunkenness soared and the suicide rate spiraled. This was with just two years of massive unemployment.

To combat Native joblessness , the Obama administration in the February State of the Union Address proposed a program of "Building a Fair and Stable Economy for Indian Country." This economic blueprint included "infrastructure funds dedicated to Indian reservation roads, bridges and transit service," and included a 10% increase from 2012 funding levels for "tribal non-profit organizations that provide employment and training services ...." Mirroring his jobs bill for the overall U.S., Obama apparently felt that, mainly, job investment in reservation infrastructure was the magic bullet that would slay the dragon of unemployment.

But, quite frankly, for too long the Obama administration has acted too indifferently not just to Indian unemployment, but to U.S. joblessness as a whole. Obama has been content to simply wait on the economy to resurge on its own. This will not happen. In the meantime, millions suffer. The president was given terrible economic advice by his advisors, which he followed with great alacrity. He needs to make a correction.

The answer to begin to address the decades of social and economic genocide devastating Native America is a massive jobs program, going far beyond the hackneyed proposed infrastructure solutions. What is needed for Indian Country and the nation as a whole is a massive jobs program similar to the New Deal employment programs of the Great Depression era: a massive jobs program for all reservations, a massive jobs program for all urban Native Americans; a massive jobs agenda composed of good jobs. This will be a starting point to remedy the hundreds of years of loathsome injustice purposely and maliciously imposed to perpetuate genocide.

Photo: Forlorn entrance to the cemetery at Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota symbolizes the dire conditions faced by Native Americans there and elsewhere in the U.S. Susan Webb/PW

"The Dark Knight Rises" above expectations

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:38:00 +0000

Many will doubt this film's ability to trump the success and artistic integrity of 2008's The Dark Knight (generally considered to be the "Godfather" of superhero films). And it's true - this installment can't quite outshine it. And yet, it's nothing short of brilliant; there was, after all, a "Godfather Part II."

The final piece in director Christopher Nolan's trilogy (which started with 2005's Batman Begins), The Dark Knight Rises sees philanthropic billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) having retired from life as Batman. It seems fitting, as the fictional Gotham City is experiencing peacetime thanks to the Dent Act - legislation that granted the police extraordinary powers to fight the mob.

The story

Wayne is lured back into the hero lifestyle when cat burglar Selina Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), tries to make off with some priceless jewels. But Batman bites off more than he can chew when he comes face-to-face with delusional terrorist mastermind Bane (Tom Hardy), who sees himself as a liberator out to "purify" Gotham - supposedly, by reducing the city to a state of anarchy before attempting to kill everyone in it.

Initially, Bane easily throttles our hero within an inch of his life. Bruce is transported to a prison from which Bane believes he will not escape. But he slowly recovers and does get out, returning to Gotham to try and prevent his adversary from launching a nuclear bomb.

The plot of the film has a connection with the first installment in the trilogy, and allows the series to come full circle, while also throwing thought-provoking questions at its audience.

One small complaint: The first half of the story occasionally suffers from a subtle preoccupation with the same idealistic mysticism that was present in Batman Begins. Much more captivating is the straightforward - if not conventional - storytelling that fills the second half of the film, right up to the rewarding climax.

The cast

Christian Bale gives a solid performance as the Dark Knight, although one might wish he were a little less deadpan behind the mask. Gary Oldman fits into his role as police commissioner Gordon as seamlessly as ever, while Marion Cotillard is great as Miranda Tate (a role that hides a surprise much too good to reveal here). Morgan Freeman's portrayal of Lucius Fox (Batman's armorer) leaves something to be desired this time around.

On the other hand, Michael Caine is superb as Bruce's butler Alfred, though his role in this film was sadly reduced. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, playing a zealous young working class cop, gives an unexpectedly good performance.

Hathaway, for her part, doesn't try to top Michelle Pfeiffer's iconic performance as Catwoman in 1993's Batman Returns. Instead, she plays the role in a much different way, and it really pays off because of that. Her character benefits strongly from subtlety and playful amorality, rather than theatricality. Hathaway's chemistry with Bale is great - much better than Cotillard's, in fact.

But the real actor I found to be absolutely brilliant here was Tom Hardy. Due to wearing a mask that covers most of Bane's face, Hardy as an actor has to work much harder to convey emotion, and he rises to the occasion magnificently. His portrayal of Bane drips with palpable menace. Hardy uses his eyes and body language to connect with the viewer in an impressive way, exuding brutal ferocity in everything from his tone of voice to his mannerisms.

Hardy, of course, could never outdo Heath Ledger's mind-blowing performance as The Joker in The Dark Knight, but he's certainly the next best thing. It's unfortunate he didn't have more screen time.

Some critics declare that Bane represents the "99 percent," and that, thus, Nolan is attacking the Occupy movement. But it seemed to me that Bane is more of an extreme libertarian; a self-important rabble-rouser on par with real-life hacktivist groups like Anonymous.

In conclusion

The Dark Knight Rises depicts numerous acts of blatant terrorism that may hit a raw nerve with the audience in post-9/11 America. An opening scene involves Bane destroying an aircraft, while another shows an unsettling bomb attack during a football game. The uncompromising mayhem could be seen as commentary on real-world terrorism fueled by misguided religious idealism - certainly Bane seems to represent that in full. But the violence could also be seen as exploitative.

The brutality, however, appears also to serve as contrast to underscore the incorruptible and self-sacrificing nature of Batman - great evil depicted only to highlight the importance of greater good. When all the pieces come together and the overall symbolism of the affair is realized, things start to make more sense - none of the chaos seems deliberately gratuitous.

The film ends with a scene that is moving and poetic, and it should absolutely satisfy diehard fans as a conclusion to Nolan's series, and an end to Batman's story - at least in this incarnation of the comic legend.

Moreover, in light of the recent tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, what one can take away from this installment is that, where The Dark Knight saw desperation and an escalation in violence, The Dark Knight Rises sees hope for a positive future.

Unlike its predecessor, Rises may not be able to breathe new life into the superhero genre - but it will certainly keep its heart beating.

The Dark Knight Rises

2012, PG-13, 165 mins.

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Christian Bale, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard

Photo: Batman and Bane, in a scene from the film. Official site

Study says race is driving voter ID laws

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:03:00 +0000

What is really behind the rash of new voter identification laws? We have available a scientific answer, one not distorted by political rhetoric or blatantly ridiculous reasons ("We really only want to prevent voter fraud" - all of a sudden!)

ScienceDaily has recently reported on a new scientific poll undertaken by the Center for Political Communication at the University of Delaware. ScienceDaily doesn't use the term "racism" but instead refers to "racial resentment." People might object to being called "racists" but everybody has something or other that they resent so being "resentful" seems to be a neutral term and nobody's feelings need be hurt.

The poll reveals that the new voter id laws have their strongest support among those "who harbor negative sentiments toward African Americans." Coincidence?

Non-African Americans who took the poll were also asked a series of questions devised to measure "racial resentment" and the results showed that "support for voter ID laws is highest among those with the highest levels of "racial resentment."

One of the two lead researchers, Paul Brewer, is quoted as saying, "These findings suggest that Americans' attitudes about race play an important role in driving their views on voter ID laws."

Just to make it clear, the more racist you are the more likely you are going to be in favor of the new voter ID laws.

The least amount of racial resentment was found to occur in Democrats and liberals. However the researchers still found a "surprising" level of support for the ID laws among Democrats and liberals and this support correlated with the level of "racial resentment" expressed by Democrats and liberals.

The poll found that the biggest racists just happen to be Republicans and conservatives (they have "the highest 'racial resentment' scores"). Unlike the Democrats and liberals, however, Republicans and conservatives in general are all for the ID laws "regardless of how much 'racial resentment' they express."

The poll also supported the views of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that these ID laws are a throwback to the days of Jim Crow. It is especially worrisome to see them popping in the Southern states with a history of Jim Crow and the disenfranchisement of Black people.

What can one conclude from the release of this polling information? It is fair to say that we now have the numbers to show the impact of racism is still wide spread in this country but that it is concentrated in the Republican Party and the conservative movement. This movement's leadership seeks to politically institutionalize a new version of Jim Crow.

The Democrats and liberals have problems with racist attitudes as well but they are personal individual manifestations and not part of the ideological program of Democratic Party.

A further conclusion is that there is more at stake in the upcoming elections in November than just a possible change in which party controls the Congress or the presidency. What is at issue is the nature of the type of country we are going to have in the twenty-first century. The Republicans, the party of racism and reaction, seek to undue all the democratic gains of the civil rights movement, especially the right to vote, and mislead our country in a backwards direction. A Democratic victory will throw a roadblock in front of this attempt and open the way for the American people to struggle to increase and deepen democratic rights in the future.

Photo: Flickr/Creative Commons

Michigan's John Conyers: Tireless champion for jobs and voting rights

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:16:00 +0000

What happens in the 2012 elections could make or break struggling cities like Detroit that have been devastated by the economic crisis.

Spurred by the necessity for strong pro-labor members of Congress and principled, unifying tactics to defeat the extreme right-wing, the Detroit Metro and Michigan State AFL CIO, the UAW and 15 more unions endorsed Rep. John Conyers in the August 7 primary.

President Obama also endorsed Conyers saying he needs a foremost fighter for jobs to work with him in his second term.

Republican controlled redistricting in Michigan led to a crowded Democratic primary field in Conyers' redrawn metropolitan Detroit 13^th Congressional District.

In January, on Martin Luther King Day, the AFL CIO presented Conyers with the Justice, Peace and Freedom Award for his leadership in job creation and voting rights, and for a lifetime of service that has improved opportunities for millions of working class people in his own district and the entire country.

The legislation Conyers courageously championed and helped pass since he was first elected in 1965 is the very legislation that tea party Republicans are now out to overturn and destroy.

Conyers introduced the Motor Voter Act of 1993 and was a leader for the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to insure that everyone eligible can register and vote. He introduced the Martin Luther King Holiday Act of 1983 and the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. As chair of the Judiciary Committee he introduced the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009, all of which are now law.

In addition, Conyers is a leader in on-going legislative struggles for HR 676 Medicare for All, for public works job creation and to raise the minimum wage, to protect working families against foreclosures, to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and for the right to form a union. He is chair of the Out of Afghanistan Caucus, and a strong voice for a peacetime economy.

As a founding member and dean of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus, Conyers has upheld the fight for African American representation, racial and gender equality and a shift in priorities to human needs before corporate interests.

Jobs

The city of Detroit, once a thriving industrial center and the home of Motown music, is now struggling for survival. Detroit's Black, Latino and white workers are all facing the pressures of long-term unemployment. But a July 7 report by the Economic Policy Institute indicates a seven point drop in official African American unemployment in metropolitan Detroit since 2010 when it was 25%, to 18% today. White workers' official unemployment is 16.2%, reflecting a smaller gap than the rest of the country.

The immediate need for job creation is at the center of Conyers' work. Acting with the Michigan delegation and the Obama administration to restore millions of jobs in the auto industry recovery, and securing federal funds for several large restoration projects has been a start.

In June 2010 Conyers convened a town hall meeting in Detroit to discuss whose responsibility it is to create jobs, a central question in the 2012 elections.

Tea party Republicans insist that the private market creates jobs and government has no role. Conyers rejected that notion saying, "We have to form the strategy to move our Congress, state and city to create jobs."

In March 2011 he introduced H.R. 870, the "Humphrey-Hawkins 21^st Century Full Employment and Training Act," which would create a new tax on Wall Street speculators placing billions of dollars a year into Workforce Investment Act (WIA) training programs and innovative public and private sector jobs programs.

Three months later, Conyers co-hosted the Congressional Progressive Caucus "Good Jobs Tour" in Detroit to hear from the unemployed and build a groundswell of support for rebuilding America by redirecting money from wars, Wall Street and the rich. Conyers spoke passionately to the large audience about the need for the White House to do more.

"We are going to Washington to tell the President we want him to lead in the fight for jobs. We will tell him we are ready to help," said Conyers.

President Obama responded to Conyers' appeal by endorsing him in the August 7 primary as "a tireless champion for all of Southeastern Michigan's working families, especially the many struggling to get by."

In his endorsement, Obama emphasized, "Republicans want to continue their agenda of working to take us back to the failed policies of the past. We cannot let them succeed, and that's why we all need to work hard to get a real "Pro-jobs Champion", like Congressman John Conyers, Jr. re-elected to keep Metro Detroit and the country moving in a job growth direction."

Voting Rights

If voters across the country elect a Democratic controlled Congress, and if voters in the newly drawn 13^th CD in Michigan elect Conyers, he will once again chair the House Judiciary Committee, where he is now the ranking member. Conyers will then be in a position to uphold democratic rights.

Under Republican control, the Judiciary Committee is attempting to limit democratic rights. Committee chair Lamar Smith, R-Tex., supports states' rights to suppress the vote. He opposes the Department of Justice challenge to the new voter law in Texas requiring registered voters to present a government issued photo ID at the polls.

In a July 13 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Smith said, "I hope that the court will uphold the Texas voter ID law and the rights of states to ensure the integrity of their elections."

It is now known that the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch funded the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) drive to push through voter suppression laws in 30 states, in blatant disregard of Voting Rights Act provisions safeguarding against historic discriminatory and racist practices.

In some key battleground states one in ten registered voters do not have the newly required identification. In addition, many states have curtailed access to voting registration and early voting where that has been past practice.

When the attack on voting rights first became apparent last year, Conyers helped sound the alarm that the laws amount to a new poll tax restricting the voter access of African Americans, Latinos, students, the elderly and disabled.

He joined with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., to co-sponsor the Voter Empowerment Act H.R. 5799, which would ensure equal access to the ballot box, protect the integrity of voting systems and mandate accountability for fair elections. The bill has 140 co-sponsors and growing public support.

Conyers also sounded the alarm about loss of democratic rights from Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's policy of replacing elected government officials in cities near bankruptcy with an "emergency manager." While Detroit struggles to keep afloat, the Republican state government scandalously used federal stimulus dollars, allocated as revenue sharing for Detroit, to fill the state budget gap,

In January, 2,000 people turned out for a rally convened by Conyers and Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson. Conyers warned that the use of managers is a test case being watched by Republicans across the country. A quarter million signatures were collected to place a question on the ballot to repeal Public Act 4 -- Michigan's Emergency Manager law.

The AFL CIO Peace, Justice and Freedom award presented to Rep. John Conyers for his devotion to workers' rights and civil rights celebrates his remarkable decades long leadership. That leadership and vision is much needed today.

Accepting the award, Conyers issued a call for a grass roots effort to reach out as widely as possible to voters this year to discuss the choice our country faces. "We have to educate our brothers and sisters," said Conyers. "Some of the 99 percent are not voting with the 99 percent."

Photo: Michigan AFL-CIO President Karla Swift (left), Metro Detroit AFL-CIO President Saundra Williams (second from left) and national AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker (right) watch as Rep. John Conyers accepts the AFL-CIO's Justice, Peace and Freedom Award. Photo by Herman Greene, Let ME Shoot You Photography.

Today in labor history: Turning point in Homestead strike

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:43:00 +0000

On July 23, 1892 Alexander Berkman took a shot at and stabbed Henry Clay Frick, the steel magnate. Intending to kill Frick he also had a bomb that, had it gone off, would have killed both him and the steel magnate. Frick survived the attack.
Berkman tried to kill the wealthy industrialist to avenge the Homestead, Pa. massacre that took place 18 days earlier. Nine striking workers had been killed.
Berkman's actions were, of course, not condoned by the union and were in fact used by the bosses to paint the workers' historic strike as a lawless and violent action.
The Homestead strike began when the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie reduced wages at his steel mill in Homestead, Pa. and the union workers refused to accept the cut. When they refused the cut he locked out the workers, hired replacement workers (scabs) and 300 company goons responsible for attacking and killing workers determined to fight for dignity and for the right to earn the ability to feed and clothe themselves and their families.
The power of big money eventually won out and the strike, after a few months, was broken. It helped laid the basis, however, for a powerful trade union movement in the steel industry where organization and struggles for justice, not individual acts of terrorism, became the successful method of choice for workers struggling for their rights.

Seeking solutions to a violent society

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:34:00 +0000

On a hot summer evening in Colorado, families and friends gather at the local movie theater to enjoy an evening of light entertainment. That evening is turned into a night of bloodlust and bedlam when a lone gunman enters the hitherto safe confines of the theater, and, with rifle, shotgun, and pistol, kills a dozen and wounds more than four dozen more.

Sadly, it is a scene with which Americans are all too familiar. Disgruntled employees, broken by the strain of the workplace or terrified at the abyss that lays before them in unemployment after a recent dismissal, return to their offices or factory floors with guns.

Alienated students bring homemade bombs to their schools, and confused loners, seeking significance in a society that has cast them aside create their own headlines through mass murder. Self-appointed vigilantes gun down children for merely appearing to be in the wrong neighborhood. Police put 41 bullets into an innocent, unarmed, immigrant peddler, succumbing to a 'shoot-first, ask questions later' mentality.

After each and every incident Americans are left pondering why and wondering what if anything can be done to stop it and also, 'how did this occur, and what caused it?'

Are violent games, movies, and music desensitizing our children?

Is the problem that inadequate precautions have been taken to screen and then care for those with emotional problems? Problems that, left untreated, can overtake the better angels of one's own personality?

Is it that America has made a cult of gun ownership and made firearms 'sexy,' using the basest advertising techniques to glorify their ownership?

Is it a foreign policy that equates patriotism to bombing campaigns that left cities from Pyongyang to Hanoi in piles of smoking ruin? Is it that war itself is reduced to a video game as remote control drones kill American citizens whose names appear on a 'death list' that is kept in the Oval Office itself?

A reasonable case can be made that each of these in varying degrees contribute to a poor socialization of the American psyche, leaving it vulnerable to improper and ultimately violent impulses.

The larger question however is what sort of society do we wish to live in, and once that question is answered, how do we go about organizing it?

There is only one problem: There is a road block to the progress of citizens organizing the society. That problem is a dictatorship of finance-capital. Our society is not organized along the lines that the people desire but rather along the lines that the private owners have determined will reap them the greatest profits.

There is no immediate profit in the public care and treatment of those with psychological and emotional disturbances; that costs money and the one percent do not wish to pay. Films, literature, and television that seek to portray working people accurately and that are uplifting are potentially financially risky; much easier to splatter the screen with gratuitous violence to a public taste already deadened by decades of exposure.

The creation of a consumerist society, obsessed with obtaining the appropriate brand name shoes, hats, jackets, cars, and liquor labels lead youth desperate to acquire any outward sign of success and acceptance they will even kill to get it is a long terms sales plan.

While peace and cooperation between nations would produce profit in trade, there is an immediate profit in war. The munitions, the equipment, must be rapidly replaced and the quantity increased. The lawmakers of the land who vote for the expenditures must abide dare they be accused of leaving our boys int he field without the tools they need to get the job done.

The job of multiple simultaneous wars however is too big even for the Pentagon, and so private armies must be hired for additional security, and private companies make profits from taxpayers by being the lowest bidder to do the wash and cook the meals of those on what soon become permanent forward bases as imperialist ambitious grow grander and the thirst for profits is un-satiated. All these decisions are made on behalf of the ruling class; the working class would have none of it if their voices were truly represented in deliberative bodies.

An intelligent debate about the responsibilities that should correspond to the rights of gun ownership is made impossible. The gun lobby, financed by the arms manufacturers who wish only to sell more weapons, regardless of the purpose, be it hunting, competitive shooting, forming your own militia, or robbing the local liquor store shut down the debate before it even begins. Instead some propose that still more guns is the solution so that each and every armed citizen can squelch an unexpected gunfight with his own superior firepower. Proposals such as this are actually taken seriously, as if the Wild West remained untamed and the 21st century were not the present time.

Rather than a society that first seeks war as a solution to geopolitical problems, why not a 'Department of Peace' as some lawmakers had frequently proposed? In 1995, the government of South Africa instituted a 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' to deal with the human rights abuses that occurred in their society during the Apartheid period.

No such commission exists in the U.S. to seek resolve for all the monstrous crimes committed by a capitalist government against it's own people, from the enslavement of an entire race, to the genocidal slaughter of another. No official government body seeks to find the root causes of why a government would suppress the desire for workers rights by using automatic weapons against families in Ludlow, Colorado. We do not as a society confront the crimes of the wholesale murder of the incarcerated in places like Attica State prison. We wish only to bury and not confront the institutional racism that prompted and excused the most ghastly medical experiments and forced sterilization of human beings.

There is a great deal to do if we are to take positive steps in taming the savageness of man and make gentle this world. It is not the ruling class that will provide the solutions, it is the 99 percent, but first they need the power to do so.

Perhaps no society will ever be immune to a certain pathological personality, determined to do evil, but those who have been fortunate enough to visit socialist societies, both of the past such as the USSR and of the present, such as Cuba, will have observed something different from the experience a capitalist society produces. They will have noticed a kindness, a joy, a spirit of cooperation, of mutual support and caring. They will have also seen a great interest in the development of youth, as well as a purposefulness to culture, art, literature, and film.

This is not to suggest that we should strive to replicate, imitate, or mirror these societies, but rather to indicate that given the opportunity, the people will create a society much different than capital will. Americans, given the chance, would organize themselves into a society brimming with opportunity and reflecting the unique values, customs, and traditions that this nation can be proud of.

Given the chance, the people will once and for all remove the corrupting profit motive that has poisoned a culture, left a workforce at loose ends, and praised and accepted anything, even violence, in the pursuit of private gain. Given the chance, working people would build an America that was truly 'kinder and gentler' and would seek real solutions to put an end to the violence that has cut short so many American dreams.

Photo: Two flags are placed near a memorial by the Century 16 theater, where 12 were killed - and many more injured - during a vicious shooting by a young gunman. Alex Brandon/AP

Hollywood hokum conquers all

Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:28:00 +0000

My movie buddy and I recently enjoyed three of the trashiest movies in recent memory. They bridged the gap between completely unbelievable and utter nonsense, but they did it with admirable verve and commitment.

Envelopes please.

In the category of slightly believable and somewhat interesting characters, "Savages" takes home the prize. It's about two ritzy drug dealers and their junkie girlfriend who are assailed by the even-worse Mexican mob. The blood, gore, and miscellaneous body fluids flow in quarts. As for the "The Dark Knight Rises" (Batman XVIII or so) and "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter," nobody could possibly care for any of their characters and wouldn't want to. Batman gets a little bit of gratuitous sex; in "Savages," they get a lot of it; Abraham doesn't get any, but makes up for it by making everything in the film gratuitous.

In the category of special effects, nothing since "Avatar" has measured up to "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter." The great battle between the vampires and Honest Abe on top of a moving train, with 3-D sparks flying around them and into the audience, was, between yawns, completely breathtaking. Batman's computer generated pyrotechnics probably exceed the other dozen-or-so film versions, but it's nothing we haven't seen. Savages relies a lot more on its ridiculous plot and over-the-top sex and violence than anything as superficial as computer graphics.

Abraham Lincoln takes the golden statue, too, in the political significance category. The profoundness of "Savages" is that drug dealers are really heroic and people to envy. "Batman's" message tells us that the status quo is really oh so much better than monsters who empower the poor and put the masters of the power grid on trial. Actually, that's the only really unbearable aspect of any of these movies.

Batman's new nemesis, "Bane," is intent on destroying Gotham City and plants a nuclear bomb in it. But he goes way out of his way to pretend to be some kind of liberator, so the movie's clear intent is to make liberators look monstrous. Bruce Wayne is, after all, a billionaire industrialist, so the movie might have been subtitled, "Billionaires to the Rescue!" I had my movie buddy re-explain this crazy plot on the way home, and she reassured me that I hadn't misunderstood.

We liked the hoakie message in "Abraham Lincoln;" Lincoln started the Civil War on purpose because vampires were growing so strong by bloodsucking the slaves of the South that they might take over the entire country. During the war, and they actually portrayed this in the movie, President Jefferson Davis makes a handshake deal with the leader of the vampires to save the Confederacy! Lincoln has to rush special weaponry to Gettysburg to overcome the supernatural vampires in grey!

As southerners, we liked this version of the causes of the Civil War much better than the version imprinted on everybody's minds by the 1939 film, "Gone with the Wind" and all the subsequent movie glorifications of the slaveholders' cause. We had to wait 53 years, but we finally have a movie answer to those southern icons, Rhett Butler and Scarlet Ohara.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

105 min.

Directed by Timur Bekmambetov

Benjamin Walker, Rufus Sewell, Dominic Cooper

The Dark Knight Rises

164 min

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman

Savages

131 min

Directed by Oliver Stone

Aaron Johnson, Taylor Kitsch, Blake Lively

Photo: Savages official website.