People Before Profit blog

Sanctions against China?

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:51:00 +0000

Once again, Paul Krugman is calling for sanctions against China. He tags as "a joke" the recent pledges by China to raise its currency. It amounts, he says, to making a 2 percent adjustment. In a previous column in May, Krugman quoted a Peterson Institute study saying a "20 percent to 40 percent" adjustment is needed. The huge spread in estimates as to how much or little the Chinese currency is overvalued make designing a sanction policy seem like pure guesswork.

Trade sanctions would raise the price of Chinese imported goods, and give "domestic" producers more room to compete. But without a U.S. industrial policy much more coherent than the primarily military-based one that we DO have, there will be no way to determine how much, if any, of the higher prices will result in U.S. jobs. Many "domestic" manufacturing firms are in fact multinational corporations who will apply savings to their most profitable use, anywhere in the world.

I fail to see how trade sanctions on Chinese manufacturing - Krugman's, and most of the labor movement's, recipe for fixing U.S.-China trade imbalances - will do much to help U.S. workers and jobs. Workers will be the ones who feel it FIRST, and MOST at the Wal-Mart checkout counter. The waves of protection granted various industries throughout U.S. history have a sorry historical record in improving the lives of the workers in those industries. Textile, steel, machine tools, auto, agriculture - in most cases the tariffs simply subsidized (socialized) some of the costs of a long-term, irreversible decline. And the bosses got all but the crumbs of these "social programs." Further, sanctions could risk much increased instability because of the many unintended side-effects that economic warfare elevated to state policy can have.

On the other hand, the rise of labor evidenced in recent Chinese strikes demonstrates the best antidote known to mankind for raising domestic demand in any country, including China - and the ultimate answer to restoring trade imbalances.

In this writer's view, a powerful labor movement has to be the flip side of China's vast and important experiment in market socialism - managing a robust, mixed capitalist path of development for an underdeveloped country, within a socialist framework and legal system. If you unleash market forces - especially if the modes of production are primarily in transition from agricultural to industrial (and some post-industrial too) - you must unleash social-democratic forces as well - trade unions especially. Otherwise the rapid development that markets can bring may easily degenerate both economically and politically if the rich can hoard their wealth and workers are denied the fruits of their steadily increasing productivity. No trick or technique or policy has been found that replaces a vibrant and powerful labor movement in getting this done.

Professor Krugman is no advocate of retreat from globalization. Nor am I. Perhaps world war could reverse it. But I see no peaceful future that does not adapt to embracing it. However, for working people, the key part of the embrace of globalization must be an advance in their global empowerment. If there are to be effective sanctions, let them be international, and let them be directed at enforcement of the ILO charter on labor rights. Raising the bargaining rights of the world's workers is the true path to global and balanced social progress.

Of course, in that context, calls from the U.S. for China to liberate its labor movement will be obliged - in order not to be called a joke - to address the fact that U.S. labor law itself is not in compliance with the ILO charter; and to address further the virtual collapse of U.S. workers' bargaining power over the past 40 years, including the devastating impact that collapse has had on overall inequality, median income, financialization, and instability.

America Speaks: Hijacking democracy

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:13:00 +0000

On Saturday, America spoke clearly: Tax the rich! Cut the military budget! Tax Wall Street!

But the message that will be delivered to the President's Deficit Commission will likely be: Cut Social Security! Cut Medicare! And the message to Congress will be sacrifice the unemployed, education, and jobs to reduce the deficit.

Billionaire investor Peter Peterson financed America Speaks last Saturday -- simultaneous "town meetings" in 60 towns and cities. Peterson has poured $1 billion into the Peterson Institute, whose goal is building popular support for cutting Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. I attended the event in New Haven, CT.

False Premises

All of the cities followed the same script. But the whole discussion was based on false premises:
1. The greatest threat to America's future is the long-term deficit
2. It is possible to talk about the deficit in isolation from the rest of the economy

The script presented an alarming picture of a growing deficit that threatens to swallow the entire economy. But it did not present the context. A few of the things they left out:

1. The long-term budget problem is really a problem of health care costs. It is the health care system that needs being fixed.

2. Inequality has reached record levels in the last 30 years. The richest 1% have doubled and tripled their wealth, while the other 99% have stagnated or lost ground. Taxes on the wealthy have fallen while taxes (including state and local) on the rest of us have risen.

3. Social Security has its own funding stream (our payroll taxes), is running a surplus, and will be able to pay full benefits for at least another 25-30 years without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

4. The ability to meet government expenses depends on a strong economy, including a well-educated and healthy population, a strong infrastructure, clean environment, clean reliable energy supply, a more equitable distribution of income, and production of useful goods and services, not speculation and luxury consumption.

Limited Options

The participants were divided into small groups and asked to cut the deficit in 2025 by $1.2 trillion. We were not allowed to challenge the goal or the premises, or to raise other urgent problems to be solved in the next 15 years. We were presented with 40 options for reducing the deficit, with less than 2 minutes to discuss each option, and no way to suggest other options.

The 3,500 participants across the country agreed on measures to tax the rich, the corporations, and Wall Street, to cut military spending, and to enact a carbon tax to aid a shift to clean energy. These were also the conclusions reached by the small group I participated with. There was a class-conscious current that crossed party lines. A man who plans to vote for the Republican Senate candidate was outspoken that the rich need to pay more, "and none of us at this table make that kind of money," he said.

But my group also went along with the other participants nationwide in agreeing to raise the Social Security retirement age to 69, and to cut Medicare/Medicaid spending by 5%-10%. In the two minutes allowed for each option, there was no time to explore these issues in depth. But in some cities, participants refused to follow the script, and insisted on being allowed to vote for "single payer" health care reform. This would be an essential step to controlling the costs of the entire health care system, avoiding cuts to Medicare/Medicaid.

When confronted with the question, should the government concentrate on solving immediate problems or long-term problems, my group all agreed that it is a false question; that solving immediate problems like creating jobs in education, clean energy, rebuilding infrastructure is essential to solving long-term problems. But this was not an option we were allowed to vote on.

Stacked Deck

The "town hall" meetings were presented as an opportunity for ordinary citizens to have input to deciding national priorities. Most in my group expressed appreciation of the opportunity to speak out, and a sense of obligation to be part of the discussion. Locally, the meeting was organized and conducted by academic researchers and groups like Community Mediation, which are interested in bringing together people from diverse backgrounds to solve problems.

But we were playing with a stacked deck. Even though we came up with some surprisingly good proposals, the immediate impact of these "town hall meetings" will be to validate the faulty premise that the biggest economic priority is immediate action to cut future deficits. This premise has already been used as an excuse by Senate Republicans to kill extended unemployment benefits and deny aid to state governments. As a result, over a million people have already lost all their income, and another 7.5 million will be kicked off by December. State governments are facing new budget crises and 300,000 teachers are on track to be laid off on top of last year's cut-backs. How can this help the economic future of the country?

Photo: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

Immigration: The legislative picture

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:01:00 +0000

Things are getting desperate in immigrant communities in the United States. While as many as 14 other states consider legislation like Arizona's noxious SB 1070, the prospect of a comprehensive immigration reform to provide legalization for the 10.8 million undocumented immigrants gets harder. Instead of cutting back on arrests and deportations of ordinary undocumented immigrants (the vast majority, who are neither gangsters nor terrorists nor drug smugglers), the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been stepping up the pace Repressive laws and vigilante justice besiege immigrant families while a promised legislative solution, the vaunted comprehensive immigration reform for which millions have been marching, appears to evaporate.

Now the administration has decided to send 1,200 National Guard soldiers to the U.S-Mexico border. Although there is some speculation that this is being done so that President Obama can tell the Republicans that he has secured the border and that they should respond by supporting comprehensive immigration reform, others point out that there is no agreement on this.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi says she supports comprehensive immigration reform, but wants the Senate to move on it first. The Democratic Party leadership in the Senate and the White House say they support reform, but want to make sure that legislation is bipartisan, with no filibuster, so they want a commitment from Republicans before moving on it. But the Republicans are in full anti-immigrant cry, and are not likely to give the Democrats the gift of political cover in an election year. The right-wing populist section of the GOP, represented by the organizers of the Tea Party movement and figures like former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, have decided to make immigrant-bashing a major part of their strategy for November. Republicans like Arizona's Senator John McCain, frightened by this, are joining in the attacks.

Last month, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer released an outline of a possible Senate bill which would make many concessions to Republicans and business interests in exchange for a slow and difficult legalization process. It was supposed to have the support of at least a couple of Republicans, but this seems to have evaporated for now. Schumer's plan has not even been submitted as a bill.

There is a bill in the House, HR 4321, which embodies much of what is needed in immigration reform. The bill, introduced back in the fall of 2009, is sponsored by Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and has 97 cosponsors, mostly from the Hispanic, Black, Asian and Progressive Caucuses. It would provide for the legalization of the vast majority of the undocumented over a period of time. It abolishes 287 (g), the federal program that has made situations like that of Arizona easier by facilitating the deputization of state and local police as immigration enforcement agents. It does have some enforcement dimensions, but most of them are things that are already being done anyway. It does not have a major new guest worker program, which is why it is supported by both the AFL-CIO and the major Change to Win unions. It incorporates the DREAM Act, which legalizes undocumented youth who are able to get into college or who are willing to serve in the military or some sort of service corps. It also incorporates the AgJobs Act, to provide seasonal visas for migrant agricultural workers.

But HR 4321 is being ignored by the Senate, the White House and the major corporate media. It is also being attacked by some on the left because it is not radical enough: It does not give unconditional amnesty without tradeoffs. The stance of some is that we should go back to pure protest politics and civil disobedience. "All or nothing", however, generally gets you nothing.

Yet another idea is to go forward with the DREAM and AgJobs acts. But these programs would help only a small minority of undocumented immigrants. And the G.O.P. would likely demand big concessions to agree to even these things.

There is no option but to push hard for the most progressive legislation possible, which is HR 4321. It is an uphill fight and we may not win this year. But if we create a lot of visibility and pressure, chances for the next Congress will be better. If we don't fight of it, we won't achieve anything.

This does not mean not marching and protesting. We need more of that, but we can't abandon the whole legislative field to the enemy.

Readers can look up whether their representatives are already on board cosponsoring HR 4321 by using the search engine at http://thomas.loc.gov. If they are, they should be encouraged and thanked. If they are not, they should be lobbied and pressured

Photo: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

Public spending at issue as G-20 meets

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:53:00 +0000

TORONTO - The G-8/G-20 summit of finance ministers and heads of state gets under way this week in Toronto. With the ongoing threat of a double-dip recession, the coordination of economic recovery policies is at the top of the conference agenda.

The economic crisis of the past few years has given special importance to the meetings of the G-8/G-20 as governments have worked together to clean up their financial systems and prevent economic collapse. The Toronto summit, though, could represent a crossroads determining the future of global economic recovery, as the U.S. and Europe take up opposing positions on spending and budget cuts.

With the recent election of right-wing governments in a number of countries across Europe, it seems the Obama administration will be playing the role of defender of public spending. These new circumstances will mean new challenges for any future recovery efforts.

At last spring's G-20 meeting in London, there was broad consensus on developing an international strategy focused on increasing public spending to reignite economic growth and reverse the recession. In the U.S., this resulted in the first Recovery Act, investments in public infrastructure, and help for homeowners. When the G-20 met at that time, the U.S. economy was still shrinking. It has now begun a slow increase, though unemployment remains high. On a global scale, trade increased 20 percent over the year.

In an open letter to the other G-20 heads of state last week, Obama cautioned leaders not to become obsessed with budget cuts that could threaten the tedious recovery. Curbing spending too quickly would likely prolong or worsen the economic crisis for millions of people around the globe.

The highest priority for the G-20, Obama said, is to strengthen the recovery and he urged other leaders to "learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships and recession."

These comments are especially directed at the new right-wing European governments. Leaders like Britain's David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have taken advantage of the debt crisis in Greece and the threat of similar meltdowns to push for slashing budgets and cutting stimulus. Merkel says she will be stressing the "importance of budgetary consolidation" to Obama. Canada's conservative prime minister and the conference host, Stephen Harper, has also jumped on the budget cut bandwagon.

Obama's fight at the G-20 is similar to the one he's facing with Republicans and conservative Democrats at home. The Senate recently blocked a bill which would have put $120 billion toward job creation.

But the G-20 leaders will not be the only ones meeting in Toronto this week. Activists, academics and politicians have set a full schedule of workshops, meetings and protests to draw attention to the ongoing needs of working people. A weekend "People's Summit" brought out several hundred to discuss struggles for more democratic economic and foreign policies, for gender equality, and against the big bank bailouts. Thousands more are expected at demonstrations over the course of the summit.

The activists oppose any turn toward austerity and the imposition of more neoliberal policies, both of which Canadian and European leaders have been pushing for. They are also critical of the undemocratic nature of these meetings, which often exclude poorer countries as well as input from the public.

"I'm not against countries meeting, but what we are seeing is the government colluding behind closed doors with business leaders," said Jen Hassum, a Toronto student.

"It's a corporate agenda because the public is kept out of the process completely, with our government spending over $1 billion dollars on security to keep people out," she added. "If the G-8/G-20 meetings were democratic, talks would focus on how to build equitable economies that foster good jobs, clean environments, health and education services."

The head of Canada's leftist New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, challenged the leaders to put global poverty and climate change on the summit agenda. He also criticized the nearly $1 billion spent by the Canadian government on security for the conference, saying, "The security barriers that will surround the G-20 and G-8 leaders are visual reminders of our greatest fear for these meetings - that wealthy countries will further isolate themselves and ignore their commitments to developing ones."

Layton also spoke in favor of a global financial transactions tax, which Canadian Prime Minister Harper has been arguing against among his fellow leaders.

Few observers are expecting there to be broad consensus at this meeting of the G-20 since the U.S. and Europe have publicly stated opposing positions concerning stimulus measures. Agreement on a global financial regulatory system has also been put in jeopardy with Europe's shift to the right and Harper's campaign in favor of Canada's big banks. Whether the conference will produce any substantive results remains to be seen.

Photo: A session at the G-20 summit of finance ministers and central bank governors at World Bank headquarters in Washington, April 25. (AP/Cliff Owen)

No other way to get there

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:28:00 +0000

More and more, people are looking at socialism as that "better world" that's possible and necessary. But there's no direct path, no express train, to get there. At every new stage of struggle, the question is asked: what is to be done? Everybody has his or her opinion and, not surprisingly, I do too.

The main task in my view is to further build and unite the working class based, multi-racial coalition that came together to elect President Obama.

Only this coalition - this many-layered, multi-class and multi-racial people's coalition in which the labor movement plays a growing role - has the political strength to complete and consolidate the victory against right-wing extremism.

If another path exists to a consistently anti-corporate government and ultimately a socialist future, I have yet to hear it.

A defeat of the right - signified by larger Democratic majorities, the growth of the progressive wing in Congress, a higher degree of trade union organization and struggle, a decline in the influence of right-wing ideology, a higher degree of multi-racial unity and anti-racist consciousness, greater unity and vision of the all people's coalition - will profoundly alter the political landscape, including weakening the capitalist class as a whole, not simply its most reactionary sections.

Imagine what the past year would have looked like if the right had been fully dethroned from its positions of power in the last election! No, it wouldn't have meant fair skies and clear sailing for the people's coalition, but it is realistic to think that the health care bill would have been stronger, the stimulus bigger, unemployment lower, resistance to military spending and escalating the Afghanistan war greater, relations with Cuba and the rest of Latin America better, and financial reform tougher.

In other words, a decisive victory over the right will set the stage for a period of sustained, deep-going anti-corporate democratization and reform. Far from hiding the class struggle, the defeat of right-wing extremism will bring to the surface, clear the ground, and create a more favorable terrain for a more open struggle against finance capital, corporate power, neo-liberalism, and imperial rule.

We don't pick the ground of struggle on which we fight. It depends on the balance of class forces and the level of political consciousness, organization and unity of millions.

It is incumbent on us, therefore, to make a concrete and sober analysis of what the main obstacle to social progress is and what social groups have to be assembled in order to move to the next stage of struggle.

Subjective wishes, no matter how strongly felt and no matter how righteous, are a poor guide for political strategy.

I would argue that much of the confusion, impatience, finger-pointing, narrow tactics, and insistence that the process of change be hurried along faster than conditions allow since Obama's victory stems from a lack of such an analysis.

Granted the injustices of everyday life are obvious and outrageous. Case in point: at this moment I am participating in the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit - a city that is not only the epicenter of a protracted economic crisis (the present crisis is on a crisis continuum that goes back to the early 1980s), but also filled with countless stories of human tragedy that cry out for immediate solution.

And yet, moral outrage and impatience, as necessary as they are, are no substitute for a sober and clear-headed analysis of where we are and what has to be done to move the democratic and class struggle forward at this moment.

Which brings me back to the further building of a broad popular labor-led multi-racial coalition against a weakened right. In completing that task the ground will be laid for a more far-reaching and radical struggle against corporate and military power. It may seem roundabout, but there is no other way to get there.

Supernatural Western may spook conservatives

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:59:00 +0000

Movie Review

"Jonah Hex"
Directed by Jimmy Hayward, starring Josh Brolin, John Malkovich, Megan Fox
2010, 80 min., PG-13

Have you ever seen an anti-war Western film? If the answer is no, I recommend you start with "Jonah Hex." Released on June 18 and based on the graphic novel of the same name, this is neither a campy nor a superhero-related comic adaptation. Call it a supernatural action film or a gritty Western - this movie doesn't quite know what to be, genre-wise, and that's a good thing, because it raises the bar for originality.

The film's plot is thus: during the Civil War, main protagonist Jonah (Josh Brolin) fought alongside the Confederacy until betraying his commanding officer, Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich) in order to save a hospital. Turnbull's son dies in the ensuing crossfire. In an act of vengeance, the antagonist Quentin kills Jonah's wife and son, and badly scars Hex's face, forcing Jonah to live with both the mark and the pain of his loss. Native Americans find Jonah and revive him with a sort of mystical séance, giving Jonah the ability to communicate with the deceased. Along with a gunslinging harlot named Lilah (played by Megan Fox, who sadly didn't get much screen time), Jonah helps the president of the United States take down Turnbull before the villain can execute a massive terrorist attack on the fourth of July.

What lies within this plot is just progressive all around, and all stems from an obvious working class perspective. With Turnbull's men waving the Confederate flag, the villains are clearly outlined, and a line is drawn between right and wrong (a line that becomes worryingly blurred in many other modern action flicks). This film is anti-war and pro-equality (an African American man is - rather than some bumbling sidekick - Jonah's intelligent and efficient armorer, played by Lance Reddick; even Fox's character, rather than playing a subservient damsel-in-distress type role, gets a piece of the action). Also in the spotlight here is President Grant, who is today tragically overlooked and casually dismissed, particularly in film. To say it bluntly, this is a film for smart people. You have to know your U.S. history to really appreciate some of what is offered here, and if you want to explore the message in between the battles and witty one-liners, there's a wealth of knowledge there to dig deeper.

The movie pounds along at a fast pace, wasting no time in getting the viewer acquainted with the characters and backstory, and it does it right. There are enough supernatural and symbolic scenes to strike a quick chord and add an interesting twist before the action picks back up again, giving us what we often want - but never get - from this kind of movie.

This film isn't a mindless shoot-em-up kind of affair. Instead, it sort of has a throwback feel, harkening back to the days of the '80s and '90s - back when action movies actually gave something back to the audience. It's also a good prototype for a 21st century, reinvented style of the Western genre.

Perhaps due to its progressive nature and anti-cliché story, "Jonah Hex" was attacked by critics and pretentious moviegoers, but don't let that fool you. Audiences flocked to see stale sequels and redundant remakes this week - consumerism has sadly been intertwined with our pop culture for some time now. "Jonah Hex," unlike other recent films, wasn't packaged with an aggressive viral marketing campaign - it contained an engaging story and solid acting instead.

"Jonah Hex" is worth watching because it's genuine, relying on its artistic value instead of trying to be a product marketed by some preconditioned idea of what rakes in the money. This is a stand-alone fun film, certainly an enjoyable 80-minute-long ride; you'll be ready for a sequel just so the avant-garde storyline can be continued.And if the movie offers a positive, honest message, so much the better. What an excellent step in the right (or "left") direction!

Photo: http://jonah-hex.warnerbros.com/

God not on side of union-busters, Catholic scholars say

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:20:00 +0000

God may or may not be on the side of unions, but a Catholic scholars group says that being on the other side, that is being against unions, is a "grave violation" of the church's social doctrine. Opposing unions is, in fact, a mortal sin. And should be.

Anti-union actions violate both the letter and spirit of Catholic social doctrine, declared the Massachusetts-based Catholic Scholars for Worker Justice in a document distributed recently by the Catholic News Service.

Specifically, say the scholars, it violates church doctrine to try to block union organizing campaigns, stall in union contract talks, unilaterally roll back wages and benefits and violate existing labor contracts and other labor-management agreements.

Those tactics are far too commonly used against unions by far too many employers, including many who are Catholic and presumably follow church teachings. That's not to mention the lay employers who operate Catholic hospitals and other facilities for the church and are openly sometimes fiercely anti union.

The Catholic scholars make an irrefutable case. As they say, Catholic social doctrine is "forthright and unambiguous " in regard to unions. "It states boldly that they are essential to the universal common good."

The scholars note that in supporting unions, the church is supporting the vital philosophical principle of freedom of association and the vital moral principle of "a just and or living wage."

From the scholars' point of view, it boils down to this: "The right to form unions is rooted in divine law," and man-made law and the enforcement of it should reflect that. Opposing unions that is, opposing the workers' natural right of free assembly and right to decent wages and benefits - harms not only the workers directly involved. It also hurts society-at-large by lessening overall income and social solidarity and thus diminishing the universal common good.

The scholars' statement stemmed primarily from concern over an increase in the use of anti-union tactics in recent years by some Catholic dioceses and Catholic organizations that obviously are not practicing what they preach.

"There are many Catholic institutions that live up to Catholic teachings," said Joseph Fahey, a Manhattan College professor of religious studies who chairs Catholic Scholars for Worker Justice. "But there are some, either by ignorance or by design, that ignore Catholic teaching."

Those who violate workers' rights of unionization, added Fahey, "are involved in the grave matter of mortal sin."

Fahey and his fellow scholars are particularly critical of the sponsors and managers of Catholic institutions who hire "union avoidance firms" to help them block their employees from unionizing or to help employers oust - or "bust" - unions that previously won the legal right to represent their employees on setting pay, benefits and working conditions.

Ousting or breaking unions in that way - or any other way - amounts to "wage theft" and "the theft of the human right of free association," say the scholars.

Whatever your religion, or lack of it, you have to agree they're absolutely correct. You have to agree there's a great need for the spread of unionization to bring about the truly just society that the Catholic scholars, the nation's union leaders and members and so many others of varying backgrounds seek.

Finance reform takes a swipe at “swipe fees”

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:45:00 +0000

Have you ever walked into a neighborhood restaurant, with only your debit card in hand, ready to order lunch for $7.95, but are stopped by the handwritten sign next to the cash register: credit cards, $15 minimum.

Although, this is supposed to be against the rules, small businesses often do it because of high fees.

Visa and MasterCard, the credit duopoly, charge merchants "swipe fees" for using their vast, electronic network. These fees, also called "interchange fees" - some would call it loan-sharking - are huge cash cows for the Visa/MasterCard empire. The credit card companies set the fees, and raise them at will. Merchants are forced to either swallow the cost or pass on the fees to their customers, and they complain they have no ability to negotiate with the titans of plastic.

As part of the finance reform package in Congress, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., got an amendment through the Senate to curb these fees on debit cards. He has now negotiated compromise language in the House-Senate committee that is working on reconciling the Senate and House versions of the bill. The House version, passed earlier, contained no such curbs.

Most of the opposition to curbing these fees comes from the Visa lobby. Visa and MasterCard control 80 percent of the market and fear any kind of regulation. They can use their profitable fees to push consumers to get more credit cards and take on more debt.

Retailers - large and small - favor the regulation as do consumer groups.

Georgetown law professor Adam Levitan explains that fees are charged based on the transaction amount, not the cost of the transaction to the processor. "This means that it costs a merchant $4.15 to accept a $200 debit transaction - twenty-two times as much as the 45¢ it takes for a merchant to accept a $20 debit transaction," he says, even though the processing cost is identical.

If stores see a reduction in the fees, retailer associations claim they would pass the savings onto consumers. Cynics may doubt that claim. But according to Levitan, when similar regulations went into effect in Australia, "merchants passed on significant cost savings to consumers: around $1.1 billion a year." The U.S. has the highest swipe fees in the world.

Underlying this fee fight are divisions between the credit/finance industry on one hand, and the merchant class - large and small - on the other. Retailers are seeing their profit margins shrink. It's a sluggish economy with huge numbers of unemployed. In order to survive stores need more consumers of goods. That means more customers using credit and debit cards. But the fees merchants have to pay cut into their profit margin and their ability to lure consumers with discounts.

The Merchants Payments Coalition, which according to their website represents 2.7 million "Main Street stores across America," took aim at Visa's attempt to "gut the swipe fee deal." They said card fees cost them $20 billion in the last year alone.

Visa and MasterCard pass on 80 percent of the processing fees to the banks that issued the cards. Fee caps would apply only to debit cards issued by banks with more than $10 billion in assets. That group of about 120 of the largest banks controls roughly two-thirds of debit card transactions.

This retail coalition may agree with the finance/credit industry on other issues. For example, they both oppose the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for workers to organize themselves into a union and bargain collectively. But on fee regulation the retailers and the finance industry have different interests.

It underlines the fact that the "ruling class" is heterogeneous in its interests, and multi-class coalitions can be formed for this or that reform fight. And it especially underlines the splits over the financialization of the economy, over the deep penetration and almost total control Wall Street/finance capital has over other sectors of the economy. Because of this, significant ruling sectors are lobbying for government regulation!

For this fight, the merchants are aligning themselves with small businesses and their customers in calling for government regulation. Interestingly enough, a great majority of customers are working-class people who would benefit greatly from a higher level of unionization, which the Employee Free Choice Act would advance - another kind of government regulation that the merchants group opposes.

Photo: inkyobaka/CC

José Saramago, Nobel author, Communist, mourned in Portugal

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:04:00 +0000

José Saramago, militant Communist and Nobel Prize winning author, died last Friday at his home in the Canary Islands.

He was 87 and lived with his wife, the Spanish journalist Pilar del Río, in exile from his native Portugal since 1992 after political and religious opposition to his book "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ," in which the title character apologizes for the sins of God.

An estimated 20,000 mourners, including Portugal's Socialist prime minister, José Sócrates, and Jerónimo de Sousa, leader of the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP), attended his funeral in Lisbon on Monday.

According to the BBC, "At the end of the service, the coffin, draped in a Portuguese flag, was lifted, to applause, before Saramago was cremated at a nearby cemetery." Notably absent was Portugal's right-wing president, Anibal Cavaco Silva.

At the funeral, Maria Teresa de la Vega, the deputy prime minister of Spain, said Saramago "dreamed of a world in which the strong ones would be fairer and the fair ones would be stronger."

A member of the Portuguese Communist Party since 1969, Saramago won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1998 for his "parables sustained by imagination, compassion and irony," in the words of the Swedish Academy. The Vatican opposed this recognition, calling Saramago - surely to his delight - "an unreconstructed communist." Even at his death, the Catholic Church termed Saramago a "populist extremist" and "an anti-religious ideologue," the BBC reported.

Contrary to this kind of simplistic and reactionary venom, Saramago was an original, critical Marxist thinker, challenging us to constantly develop theory and practice. In a 2008 interview with Political Affairs, for example, he explained, "For many years the error of the Marxist left has been to think that the weapons of the past will always serve to win the battles of the present."

Saramago was born in 1922 into a poor peasant family. He worked as a mechanic, proofreader and journalist for decades before fully turning his attention to writing. Indeed, he only began to receive recognition for his literary work when he was in his mid-50s.

Saramago, like many leftists, lost his job - at the time, as deputy editor of the newspaper Diário de Noticias - after the 1975 coup against Portugal's Communist-led revolutionary government. Saramago once said, "Being fired was the best luck of my life," according to an obituary in the UK Guardian. "It made me stop and reflect. It was the birth of my life as a writer."

Among his most celebrated novels is "Blindness," published in 1995, the story of a nation which loses its eyesight, a metaphor for the greed and corruption of capitalism. A film version was made in 2008 by the director Fernando Meirelles. Saramago's 1984 book, "The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis," set in late 1930s fascist Europe, is widely considered to be his masterpiece. English translations of Saramago's final novels, "The Elephant's Journey" and "Cain," will be published later this year.

From September 2008 to August 2009, Saramago maintained a daily Internet blog called Outros Cadernos de Saramago. It was his wife's idea and, although reluctant at first, Saramago found the Internet "that place where I can most express myself according to my desires." The entries, which covered topics as diverse as the election of Obama, life in Lisbon, and his favorite authors, were compiled and published earlier this year as "The Notebook." In the collection, Saramago famously describes one of his favorite targets, George W. Bush, as "the high priest of all liars."

Saramago was "known almost as much for his unfaltering Communism as for his fiction," as The New York Times put it in its obituary. He wrote regularly on issues of human rights, the crimes of capitalism, and the hypocrisy of religion. In recent years, Saramago was a vocal and often maligned critic of Israel. For instance, he joined many other progressive intellectuals in condemning Israel's war against Lebanon in 2006, a component of what they declared "a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation."

In an official statement, the Portuguese Communist Party said that Saramago's "death represents a loss for the entire Communist Party collective - for the Party which he chose as his own until his final days." It recalled his role as an active participant in the restoration of democracy in Portugal as well as his "remarkable and unique literary work."

"José Saramago's intellectual, artistic, human and civic stature," the PCP declared, "makes him a major figure in our history."

Photo: Jose Saramago at the San Sebastián International Film Festival in 2006. (commons.wikimedia.org)

Oops, they did it again

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:11:00 +0000

For all their presumed political prowess and message discipline, the Republicans have a habit of very bad timing when it comes to policy proposals.

Remember George Bush following the 2004 elections? He proclaimed that he would spend his political capital on privatizing Social Security. With repeated stock market crashes, or "corrections" as the stock analysts euphemistically refer to them, with the bursting of the dot.com bubble followed by the housing bubble implosion, it's no wonder that whatever political capital Bush had vanished. This failure of his highest domestic policy proposal contributed to the public perception of Bush as out of touch and incompetent.

Now, with the BP oil gusher, Republicans seemed determined to double down on their calls for "drill, baby, drill." In the face of the most obvious and now daily reinforced reasons why deepwater drilling is a bad idea, they continue to call for more drilling, more deep water drilling, and also continue to publicly defend the oil companies.

This masterpiece of bad timing is hard for them to run away from. They have been shouting about how more drilling ("drill here, drill now") will solve all our energy problems. There are too many video clips of Republican leaders arguing that offshore drilling is so safe, it is foolish to oppose it. Too many clips of them claiming that drilling technology is so advanced that we should have no worries about a catastrophic oil spill.

And now we have had Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the top Republican on the House Energy Committee, apologizing to BP CEO Tony Hayward. Barton stated that he was "ashamed" of the "shakedown" that BP has been subjected to. Poor BP, all alone in the White House with that evil President Obama, forced to cough up $20 billion for a fund to start compensating the victims of the Gulf disaster. But have no fear! The courageous Republicans will come to BP's defense.

Except in this case the bootlicking obsequiousness was so public and so obvious that the Republican House leadership forced Barton to apologize not once but twice. No such demands for an apology have been made to Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price, who made an identical claim in a statement the day before. However, that wasn't in a highly public congressional hearing with millions watching. So I guess it doesn't count.

There's even a Republican candidate in Florida who speculates that it could possibly be that the government and BP colluded to make the Gulf disaster happen - though such a claim makes no sense at all and has not an iota of proof. But he no doubt is just as courageous as Barton and Price (and Bachmann and Palin) in his willingness to say anything, even something so patently and obviously stupid, to see if right-wing crackpots will flood him with campaign contributions.

So their timing is terrible, as terrible as their policy "ideas."

Next they will be arguing that stimulating the economy is a bad thing because we still have unemployment. Oh, wait, they are already arguing that.

“Ondine” has magic and mystery

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:33:00 +0000

Movie Review

"Ondine"
Directed by Neil Jordan. Starring Collin Farrell, Alicja Bachleda and Alison Barry.
2009, Ireland/USA, 111 min., PG-13

Like most of Neil Jordan's fine Irish movies, this new one, released in the U.S. this year, is a romance wrapped around a crime story. I don't think my movie buddy and I have ever missed one, and we're even bigger fans now than we were this morning.

The characters are fascinating. There's a taciturn fisherman, now sober but still living down his reputation as the town drunk; his dying daughter, radiant from her wheelchair; his drunken ex; his drunken ex's drunken new boyfriend; and a mysterious, almost mute woman, who had the great salt ocean as her last known address. Everyone else in the little fishing town, especially the priest, played by the great Stephen Rea, is downright colorful. Perhaps the biggest attraction of all is the cold Irish sea, which forms the background of almost all the action.

I especially wanted to see this one, because I still remember wistfully the fine Joan Baez version of "The Great Silkie of Sule Skerry." In the song, a tragic sea creature with various magical qualities can walk on land and affect the fates of humans.

A lot of the film has to do with whether or not ordinary hard-working people can work up the courage to accept good fortune. It's not that easy, the priest tells the fisherman. Can the fisherman's luck change? Can the little girl recover? Can misery and alcoholism be overcome? Can anybody find love? Could this complicated movie ever work its way into a happy ending?

We're not telling, but we will say that "Ondine" is a more than satisfying film experience.

Photo: A scene from "Ondine." http://rlsfeed.com/movie/ondine-limited-dvdscr-xvid-bluntrola.html

Why BP’s U.S. operations should be nationalized - now

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:09:00 +0000

Two weeks ago, columnist and public policy scholar Robert Reich wrote:

"It's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped. This is the only way the public can know what's going on, be confident enough resources are being put to stopping the gusher, ensure BP's strategy is correct, know the government has enough clout to force BP to use a different one if necessary, and be sure the President is ultimately in charge."

Since that time, the scope and scale of the Gulf oil leak, and its environmental, economic and political consequences, have steadily grown.

Stopping the spill, and beginning recovery, is beyond the capacity of a private corporation. So why didn't President Obama in his June 15 Oval Office speech call for placing British Petroleum - at least its American subsidiary - in receivership until all claims are processed? Why did he not order that the government clearly and unambiguously assume control and responsibility for the crisis? Especially since taxpayers will be footing a huge portion of the many "bills" that will come due - bills whose scale we can barely glimpse.

As a private corporation, BP's liability will certainly be capped at some limit less than the real cost, and some limit less than that beyond which the company would just go out of business. That's the whole purpose of limited liability law that created the corporation as a legal entity. Society permits, even encourages, ventures and permits limiting liability. If liability is not limited, investors simply do not invest. In addition, only the assets of the corporation, in this case its American entity, can be assessed. This formula, designed in the 19th century, works well as long as the overall innovation and efficiency benefits are greater than the social costs of failed endeavors. The BP spill shows that, for deepwater drilling, the formula is in shreds.

Receivership would give the president full disposal of BP operations and U.S. assets to fight the crisis and pay the victims. But receivership is probably not enough.

BP employs 26,000 Americans, and its workers and engineers, including contractors, are a key resource for mastering and ultimately exploiting the great deepwater oil and gas reserves. The declining proven reserves of fossil fuel in shallower areas of the globe makes deepwater drilling necessary for the immediate future, at least, and probably for quite a few years. But clearly, the risks associated with the very complex technologies required to exploit these resources, or at least with the "human interface" to these technologies, are too high to be entrusted to giant private corporations competing with each other to see who gets the oil out of the deep faster. Anyone familiar with the work pressures on the teams working the deepwater rigs knows that ideal safety procedures will inevitably be sacrificed to beating the competitor.

A government takeover of this technology and process will, it's true, slow down the innovation curve and make it take a little longer to get to the deepwater oil. But until the techniques and safety requirements of this technology are more perfected, we have to go slower, slower on oil. If we try and force giant private multinational corporations to do what's needed on their own, they will fight it every inch of the way, and conspire (in exchange for more regulation) to drive up prices to protect their bottom lines.

Prices are likely to rise no matter what or who runs deepwater drilling going forward. But a public takeover - now - seems the only sane, and the most economical, way to go.

From mystery to history: summer reading suggestions

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:51:00 +0000

What is more refreshing on a warm summer afternoon than a good book! We recently polled some of our writers for suggestions on great reads and their favorite sources for books in these tough economic times. Here are their suggestions:

My favorite bedside book at the moment is Eduardo Galeano's "Mirrors: Stories of Almost Everyone." Mirrors is filled with dozens of very short stories, so it is possible to read just one or two before going to sleep, but let me issue a word of warning: Galeano's historical insights and radical perspectives are so delightful it is hard to put the book down. In Mirrors, Galeano tackles everything from the origins of fire to soccer legends, and along the way pays homage to Communist leaders like Lenin, Fidel and Hồ Chí Minh.

- Dennis Laumann

Now that I am in my 70s, I find myself wanting to reread favorites from my childhood. Sometimes I don't remember title or author, but I have discovered a website forum (part of www.abebooks.com) called "Booksleuth" where you can describe the plot and approximate date of the book you are looking for, and volunteers from all over the world try to find it for you. I've used some of my own expertise as a former children's librarian to help others on this site.

I recently read "Ella Minnow Pea: a progressively lipogrammatic epistolary fable" by Mark Dunn.

This short book is an allegory about resistance to tyranny. Both humorous and serious, it is about a fictional place where the use of certain letters in the alphabet is forbidden, on pain of imprisonment, whipping and exile. Read the main title aloud!

- Gail Ryall

If I see a review of a book that appeals to me, I write it down and order it online from my public library for pickup at my local branch. How convenient is that!

I recently read and liked:

"The Age of Wonder" by Richard Homes about science and culture in the 1700-1800s age of enlightenment - fascinating, deals with astronomy, balloons, mesmerism, Frankenstein, and the miner's safety lamp.

"I Will Bear Witness" by Victor Klemperer, 2 volumes, couldn't put it down - diary of daily life for Jews in Hitler Germany. Complex, quirky and contradictory, I found it compelling and very informative.

"At Weddings and Wakes" by Alice McDermott - family, memory, sadness, life.

- Susan Webb

I joined PaperbackSwap.com about two months ago. It is free, one of several "book swap" websites. Once you have some credits (easy to get), you can order books sent to you free. You, in turn, pay the postage on books you send out to fill requests.

When I have time, I busily post books that I will send out (I have way too many at home), and in turn get other books that I would like to read, or peruse at least, most of which I will re-post to swap, a few I might give away.

There is something satisfying in sending a book to someone who actually asked for it. Some have been sent to large cities, but a large proportion of the members live in small towns, rural areas, etc. where libraries may well be hard to come by, as well as cash for new books.

- Betty Smith

I am a reading addict (it's my self-medication of choice). I use the New York public library's online catalog to find a book I want, order it online, have it delivered to any branch, and return it to any branch. Can't beat that with a stick.

Occasionally, I am SO desperate for a book (after library hours, or something in particular I just NEED) that I'll buy it. I got the latest Denise Mina, "Still Midnight," at 50% off, yay! She is a wonderful writer, can't wait until she writes another.

Looking forward to getting Elizabeth's George's latest, which I resisted buying because it's outrageously expensive, but I am DYING to read it!

- Elena Mora

Gerald Horne has written tons of interesting stuff: "The Color of Fascism: Lawrence Dennis, Racial Passing, and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States," "The End of Empires: African Americans and India," "W.E.B. Du Bois: A Biography." Then there's Michael Parenti. He just wrote "God and His Demons."

I'm way behind, still reading Horne's 2006 book, "The Final Victim of the Blacklist: John Howard Lawson, Dean of the Hollywood Ten."

- Bill Meyer

I'm looking forward to reading "Hitch-22," Christopher Hitchens' memoir, very humanizing for someone known for being quite private. He is one of the few public intellectuals who is at home anywhere. An atheist, or as he says, an "antitheist," when he went on a book tour for "god is not Great," he made a point of going to smaller towns, to Christian universities in the South, saying that he wanted to actually engage people and their ideas.

- Dan Margolis

I'm a big fan of Donna Leone's series of crime novels about police commissioner Guido Brunetti. They're for the escapist in all of us. The mysteries take place in Venice and, as with all good detective novels, bring in political, social and economic issues affecting Italy today.

- Teresa Albano

A cautionary tale

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:49:00 +0000

Sometimes we can learn lessons from our adversaries. I better explain myself before I get in trouble.

No decisive and enduring shift in class relations in our country is possible without a decisive shift of power in the state sphere. Other things are necessary - mass sentiment, grassroots organization, popular insurgency, broad alliances, division in your adversary's camp, etc. - but by themselves these are not sufficient to fundamentally change the trajectory of the class struggle.

Only when combined with control over some, if not all, of the levers of state power (presidency, Congress, governmental agencies, courts, military, and more) does the wish for fundamental change turn into a real possibility.

This understanding informed, as we now know, the priorities and practical activity of right-wing extremism in the 1970s and ever since then. Everything was (and is) done with an eye to winning elective office and filling appointive positions in the governmental apparatus.

Towards this end, the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was a crucial breakthrough, giving a powerful impetus to the long-term ascendency of the right wing of the Republican Party. Once in command, the arc of right- wingers, stretching from Reagan to Gingrich to Bush-Cheney, turned the state into the lead actor in a ferocious capitalist counteroffensive - politically, economically and culturally.

The state's role and functions were not so much downsized as recast. On the one hand, it became champion and facilitator of accelerated globalization, financialization, and redistribution of income (or in Marxist talk, surplus value) to the wealthiest families and corporations.

On the other hand, the state employed its considerable force to crush the oppositional forces - the working class and labor in the first place.

To a large degree, this offensive was successful - union membership declined; wages, benefits, and jobs were lost; the traditional strongholds of working class power were weakened; the social safety net was savaged, and the forward movement for racial, gender and other forms equality was halted. At the same time the power and profits of capital were restored and augmented.

There is a lesson here for those at the other end of the political spectrum. It is simple: the electoral arena is of overriding importance. The notion that electoral politics has little progressive potential, that it is "politics lite," that it pales in the face of direct action (an unnecessary juxtaposition) is mistaken and harmful.

Furthermore, a relationship with the Democratic Party isn't heresy or something to profusely apologize for.

Now, it's true that there is always a danger of losing one's political identity and independence in the mainstream of politics (which is where the left should be), but to turn it into a reason to boycott (or participate only half-heartedly in) the electoral arena is a recipe for marginalization. In fact, I would argue that for the left, a relationship to the Democratic Party at this stage of struggle is a strategic necessity and later on probably a tactical requirement.

In 2008, there was no way to defeat the right without such a relationship. The same can be said about this fall's elections.

What is more, there is no evidence that it backburners the struggle for political independence. In fact, new forms of political independence have developed in recent years in important ways, but differently than most of us on the left imagined. To our surprise, they took shape within the framework of the two-party system, not outside of it, and within labor and other major social organizations, operating under the broad canopy of the Democratic Party.

If an alternative people's party is going to emerge (and we should persuasively make the case for one as we participate in existing struggles), these new independent expressions will be its basis and combine with forms operating outside the two party system, such as the Working Families Party, the Progressive Party, and others.

Finally, the state in our society is a historical product and is structured to produce and then reproduce on an extended scale the profits and power of the transnational corporations and banks. Obviously this is an enormous advantage to the right since it favors capitalism in the raw. But still it doesn't follow that the left should avoid the state like the plague.

Properly organized and united, the working class and people's movement can win positions in government and harness them to shift public policy, institutions and agencies to the advantage of working people and their allies. And in so doing, they will create the practical and ideological conditions for more radical changes.

Frederick Engels wrote in the autumn of his life:

With this successful utilization of universal suffrage ... an entirely new method of proletarian struggle came into operation ... It was found that the state institutions, in which the rule of the bourgeoisie is organized, offer the working class still further levers to fight these very state institutions. The workers took part in elections to particular diets [parliaments], to municipal councils and to trades courts; they contested with the bourgeoisie every post in the occupation of which a sufficient part of the proletariat had a say. And so it happened that the bourgeoisie and the government came to be much more afraid of the legal than of the illegal action of the workers' party, of the results of elections than of those of rebellion.

Note that Engels doesn't allow the class form to conceal the political possibilities of participation in "bourgeois" politics and institutions and political structures.

With the elections a few months away, we should quickly digest the lesson.

Support for the tea party weakens

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:16:00 +0000

The most important feature of last Tuesday's primary was not the anti-incumbent vote. It certainly wasn't the "Year of the Women" especially for the Republicans.

Rather the primary's most important feature was the decline of the tea party and the emergence of serious divisions in the ranks of the Republicans.

It should surprise no one that two wealthy Republican corporate women could win the Republican nomination for governor and the Senate in California. Meg Whitman spent something like $100 a vote. At least $80 million of the $100 million she spent was her own money. Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewitt Packard won the GOP nomination for the Senate and will run against Barbara Boxer.

On last Sunday's "Meet the Press", Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz who heads the, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rejected the idea that this was "the year of the women" for the Republicans. She pointed out that out of the 104 candidates on the Republican Congressional Committee's "young guns list" only 7 are women.

The Republican right, with most of the media on their side, are pushing the idea that this is an anti-incumbent election year, but so far of the 217 House members who ran for re-election , all but two have won their primaries.

But most importantly a recent Washington Post-ABC News shows a decline in popular support for the tea party.

The June 3-6 Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that from late March to early June of this year, those who had a "favorable impression" of the tea party dropped from 41% to 36% and those with an "unfavorable impression" grew from 39% to 50%.

When asked, "Do you think things in this country (are generally going in the right direction) or do you feel things (have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?)", 60% of respondents said things were going in the wrong direction and only 37% said the right direction.

This shows serious mass discontent with things today.

No doubt unemployment and underemployment, foreclosures and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing people down.

At the same time when asked which party, Democrats or Republicans do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years 32% said Republicans and 44% said Democrats. Now these aren't sharply contrasting number but they show a trend away from the right.

There are a lot of primary races to come and polls are just snapshots of opinions at a given moment. Opinions in congressional races have to be examined in specific congressional districts. However that said, things are not trending well for the extreme right and the tea party. This suggests that with a strong grass roots effort by labor and people's forces to get Democratic minded voters to the polls, the usual midterm losses by the party in power could be a lot less then usual.

Put another way, the extreme right's effort to defeat any measures to tax the rich and help working families could be defeated. Their effort to mobilize a large racist vote around the idea of "taking the government back" from the first the African American president can be rebuffed.

Rand Paul the libertarian who just won the Republican nomination for US Senate in Kentucky characterized Obama policy toward British Petroleum as "un American". This new McCarthyism from the new right must be defeated if there is to be any real progress. That's how fundamental this struggle is.

If this trend continues the predictions that the Republicans will make big comeback in November could prove to be totally wrong.

Photo: Gage Skidmore http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

Long time, no hear - letters to the editor

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:26:00 +0000

The following is a collection of good old fashioned letters to the editor. Since our move online, most "letters" come in the form of comments. But we still receive via post and e-mail letters to the editor, which we will publish as frequently as possible.

Big Brother Inc.

The Intel Corporation recently announced some new gadgets they are working on. First is their "mind reading" software that uses brain scans to determine what people are thinking. Then there is their "dispute finder" technology that will monitor your Internet search habits and phone conversations, to warn you when you have received possibly inaccurate information.

They are of course working on cell phone technology that would use GPS, motion and audio information that would track where you are, what you are doing, and who you are with. And finally they are working on a TV set-top box that would monitor where you go on the Internet, and what you watch on TV.

I am all in favor of technological advancements but we citizens need to limit the power of corporations and governments to track our movements, record our conversations, and monitor what we watch on television. Intel should change its name to Big Brother Inc.

Chuck Mann

From 1971 - on

I was introduced to the People's World in 1971 by Lee Gregovich. He was the cook at a mountain lodge east of San Diego where I worked in maintenance. Later on I worked in an ornamental iron factory and wrote a rhyme called "Time Clock" that the PW published in 1976. Still later, I became a stringer for PW when I lived and worked in Oakland and I wrote a review of a Willie Nelson movie. One of your readers responded that I should be tied down to a chair and made to listen 24 hours straight to the songs of Woody Guthrie to learn about a real troubadour of the people. I've always loved the People's World and the people I met there, and though I haven't subscribed in a long time-I mourn its passing. But going online is not such a bad thing. I've subscribed to your online contribution.

John Wester

Media and Mexico

Who governs Mexico? The answer is not as obvious as one might think. A government by entrepreneurs for entrepreneurs as conceived by Manuel J. Clothier, put into practice by Vicente Fox in 2001 and continued by current president Felipe Calderón seemed to place Mexico's economics in the hands of the country's wealthiest fifty families. But as the economy bottomed out, investigators began to question: Are they really making the decisions? Or are the drug cartels with their wealth, armaments and corrupting of the justice system calling the shots? Or is it the communications monopolies who actually wield decisive power?

The Mexican public's access to knowledge about what actually is happening is limited. Televisa and TV Azteca, granted monopolies by the Mexican government during Fox's administration (2000-2006), control both news and entertainment and own or franchise nearly 95 percent of the country's radio stations. With a few notable exceptions (namely the daily newspaper La Jornada and the weekly magazine Proceso) the media, dependent upon government advertising, prints and broadcasts only what those in power want to relay.

The importance of this media control was demonstrated in 2006 in the southern state of Oaxaca when a group of women belonging to the Popular Assembly took over local television and radio stations after government repression of a teachers strike. Telecasts and broadcasts not only presented different points of view but unveiled government corruption. Control of the media was so important that the government destroyed the transmitting antennas and with federal military reinforcements imprisoned or drove into exile many of the broadcasters. Federal and state authorities have continued this campaign by destroying regional community radio stations.

Robert Joe Stout

Remembering Dr. Corinne Wood

Just to say thanks to a wonderful person, Corinne Wood.

I was so pleased to see your article in People's World. I will never forget the great kindness Corinne showed me. Furthermore I will always appreciate the faith she had in me academically, despite my station in life in 1971. There I was, a British teenager, working for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Just a volunteer for her mosquito cages yet she invited me to come and live with her in California and study.

I now have an many degrees and have published too !

During those long political discussion held in her Riverside home she would say, "Come on David, you can contribute. I know you can." She was like a mother to me then.

It was an incredible time and the people I met I will never forget: Gus Hall, Jarvis Tyner and even Angela Davis.

My deepest affection.

David Prior

Short and sweet

I like to read your articles and really I enjoy that it gives me power. It makes me eager to stand up and struggle for freedom and democracy.

Farid Farjad

On Haiti

I look for you again, HAITI,

land of sun and sweat, of people who dance

and sing smiling, humane and lucid.

I have seen you one day at peace,

while it was still possible

to take subversive risks. I was there when

students were preparing for the struggle,

defending the national sovereignty.

The country's land is fertile and people

worked in agriculture until the Yankees'

sweat shops arrived, and folks had to move

to shanty towns where houses were fragile

and had to cluster together more and more

as poverty was growing.

Then the earthquake happened.

Things go from bad to worse until people

shout "Enough is enough!"

The marines arrived again, and instead

of water, food and medicine, they carried guns

in order to stop the desperate people

from looting markets and food warehouses.

However, there are more people alive than dead;

While they were burying their loved ones

and the few doctors were trying to save others

who were still breathing, the medicine,

beds and hospital equipment were held at the airport

and ships were guarded by the marines

who are worse than the earthquake, than

the run away inmates, than looters.

How sad I feel for the Haitian people!

I wanted to cry again "Yankee go home!"

and support Haitian's struggle for autonomy

and freedom from the sweat shops, charity

and Yankee marines.

Teresinka Perriera

Toussaint L'ouverture Is Here

In Haiti After the Quake

Toussaint L'ouverture is alive here,

as the quake struck into the heart of Port-au-Prince,

the thousands of dead now covered

with plastic sheets or bloodied bags

all across this beautiful island,

The Black Liberator is here

at Pétionville, the National penitentiary, among shattered houses

on Delmas road, near the Karibe Hotel where tourists

and Haitian workers all died regardless

of class, all of them destroyed in an outpost

where the cross roads of commerce and insurrection meet...

Toussaint L'ouverture with his slave fighters

at Hotel Villa Créole, where doctors treated

the first wounded at the opened gates,

Toussaint L'ouverture has not abandoned Haiti

even as the gentle hillsides are scraped

bare of its shanty houses, even as they tumble

down into the dark ravines,

Toussaint L'ouverture is among the Haitians,

A great torch of Liberation

among the catastrophe-

schools collapsed with orphaned children,

hospitals gone with the infirmed among the broken

telephone lines and x-ray machines, the National Palace now

white, concrete debris...

Toussaint L'ouverture with his revolutionary troops

march like great ghosts

among the greatness and poverty that is Haiti,

Where there is no calm among the enclave in the hills

above Port-au-Prince,

Where peacekeepers lay dead near Christopher Hotel,

There and everywhere you can see

Toussaint L'ouverture, his proud black face

etched with grief.

Luis Lázaro Tijerina

Haiti

Of all the officials flying into Haiti these days, there is one you are not likely to see; although of all people he would be the most welcome by the poor-most of the population.

I refer to Jean Bertrand Aristide, the U.S. ousted president who won the 2000 election with over 90% of the vote.

His absence is not for lack of trying. From his exile in South Africa he has expressed wishes to "be with my people."

With the all expressions of concern emanating from our government towards this earthquake of nature which has devastated Haiti, the Haitian people have long memories of the U.$.- made "quakes" foisted upon them.

U.S. backed coup in 1990 after Aristide won an overwhelming election.

U.S. refusal to release $100 million in aid to Haiti after Aristide was reelected in 2000, thereby denying him sorely needed funds to help the economy and raise the standard of living for the poor.

And then, shamefully, the 2004 flight of America's "other" black hero, then sect. of state Colin Powell, to Port Au Prince to tell President Aristide in effect, "You had better leave Haiti, or they will kill you."

The "they" he was referring to were Haitian thugs led by the criminal Guy Philippe, who had returned from exile in the Dominican Republic hacking and slaughtering people in the countryside. Philippe and his element were the Haitian "contras", not unlike the U.S.- backed contras during the Nicaraguan revolution.

Sadly to conclude, Aristide is still so popular amongst the majority of Haitians that his party was denied participation in the last senatorial elections by the current U.$ backed pro-business government.

So much for American style "democracy."

But it ain't over yet, folks, as history always reminds us.

Lawrence Geller

The political time of day

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:17:00 +0000

When asked what time it was, Yogi Berra responded, "You mean, right now?"

For those who are involved in politics, the question is "What's the political time of day, like right now?" What's happening in this country on the large scale? What's the Obama administration trying to do? What are its internal limitations and its external constraints? And what should progressives be trying to accomplish?

When, during the election campaign, Obama said that he admired Reagan for having captured the mood of the country and shifting the governance of the country according to that mood, I don't believe that he was conveying his approval of the character of the changes. Rather, I think that he was admiring the process of transformation because he envisions his administration initiating a process of change of direction of the nation as well.

Reagan's "revolution" was to distance government on all levels from responsibility for infrastructure, corporate regulation and social safety net, while strengthening the military industrial complex, setting the stage for globalization, breaking the unions, and initiating the most extraordinary transfer of wealth to the ruling classes that this nation had not seen since the 1880s. The slogan, then as now, was free markets and limited government. And that slogan has taken hold; it now represents a deeply held feeling in this country, even among those for whom the absence of government has been crippling.

The Clinton administration, an eight year long hiccup preceded by eight years of Reagan and four of Daddy Bush and followed by eight of Baby Bush, was unwilling or unable to resist the Reagan revolution. Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and happily proclaimed that the "era of big government is over." Even so, the right-wing attack machine proclaimed the illegitimacy of the Clinton presidency. The neocon warhawks, who came to power with Baby Bush, had pilloried Clinton and yearned to implement their plans for U.S. global domination. They accomplished this goal with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So we have had 28 years of growing globalization, shrinking domestic manufacturing, deregulation of just about everything, a massive increase in the prison population, two debilitating wars and a vast increase in the resources of the military-industrial complex. Accompanying and justifying all of this is the complex of right-wing think tanks, media and the like. The right has, along with these institutional shifts, succeeded in changing the thinking of a significant portion of the American people, persuading them to organize and vote against their own economic interests. In the process, they have left the United States a wreck.

In the broadest terms, Obama has set his administration the task of beginning the process of reversing the Reagan revolution and bringing government back to the job of providing for the common good, a return to a contemporary version of Keynesian economics and the New Deal. The difficulty is that although Obama is moving many things in a progressive direction, there is great disappointment among progressives about how far he is willing to go. His problems arise when the "common good" requires taking steps against the prerogatives and interests of large corporations - when those interests stand in the way of the reforms needed to solve the problems facing our society. That's where he vacillates and fails to fight for a truly effective reform program. The refusal to consistently and adequately pursue the "common good" where it conflicts with corporate interests is the main thing separating centrists from progressives. They are trying to ride two different horses.

In the broadest terms, Obama is looking for ways to stand down from the vision of a permanently-engaged U.S. military. I do not think that this should be understood as moving toward a progressive foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States will remain that of hegemony, but Obama's team seems somewhat more ready to adjust to the realities of the world.

Obama came to the presidency with the support of significant sections of the ruling elites, including many who had financially benefited from the policies of the past decades. For progressives to wrap their arms around this complexity, we must try to understand that some rich and powerful people, movers and shakers can simultaneously work to advance and protect their own wealth, and be in favor of changing the direction of this country as a whole.

But he also came to the presidency with the hopes and energy of a people that were disgusted with Republican rule and wanted a different direction.

I would also caution against overstating Obama's mandate for change. Although Obama won a resounding victory in the Electoral College, the popular vote in his favor was a mere 53 - 47. And this was with a Republican ticket that came from a Monty Python show. Obama was trailing McCain until the economic crisis exploded. Were that explosion to have happened a few months later, McCain could very well have won. That's how close the election was. And that's an illustration of the divided mindset of the American people, not only about race, but also about the role of government.

The issue of the role of government is at the core of what the current struggles in Washington, as well as in state and local government, are all about. Since the election the Republican Party has shown itself to be interested in just one thing - bringing down the Obama administration, and its political vehicle has been "big government." I want to emphasize this point. Although progressives were and continue to be strong advocates for "Medicare for all" and the "public option," the resistance of Republicans and conservative Democrats was not, in my view, in the first place to those proposals. Rather, it was resistance to the idea that government had a place in health care at all or should be considered a right.

I think that discussing the Republicans should be a starting point for progressives. To restate what everyone knows, the Republicans have continually moved farther to the right in the past decades to the point that there no longer is any significant entity that could be called "moderate Republicans." Those few who could be so characterized have been captured and are held hostage by the right-wing core of the party. They now have 41 seats in the Senate, making them able to stop most things, unless there is full Democratic unity. That gives conservative Democrats power well beyond their numbers and that power will continue for the foreseeable future unless the Democrats are able to defeat some of the Republicans who now come from quite conservative states. As we have seen, this political and structural reality has dramatic political consequences.

It is important to remember that the Democrats split on issues of globalization during the Clinton administration and that split continues to this day. Clinton Democrats allied with the majority of the corporate (as opposed to libertarian and protectionist) Republicans in opposition to the progressive Democrats to win NAFTA and to loosen financial regulations. The Democrats split over the war in Iraq as well. That means the New Democrats were among globalization's ideological leaders. Major sections of Wall Street, once a Republican bastion, are now firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party, although that may not last as the Obama administration presses for financial reform.

The next big fight, the one that has already started, is over whether big financial institutions should be regulated at all. The Republicans are saying "NO" and the conservative Democrats will pull the debate to the right. There is no doubt in my mind that progressives should be prepared to be disappointed with the specific legislative outcomes of this fight. The same thing will happen with legislation about energy and environment, with workers' rights, with immigration, and with every other issue of consequence that will arise during this administration.

Aside from taxing the rich, military spending is the elephant in the room. The power of the military-industrial complex has increased dramatically in the past decades, not only because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also because of the extraordinary level of privatization of the military establishment during that period.

On all of these issues, the fight that will be fought will be over whether the government should be acting for the common good of all of society or for the narrow interests of the most conservative of the corporate elites. It will not be fought over what is the progressive solution to the problem at hand.

Given all of this, I think that progressives should be giving a continuing shout out and support for the Progressive, Black, and Latino Caucuses that, for the most part, have been at the cutting edge of advancing progressive legislation, often being forced to retreat and regroup, and remaining the core of efforts to achieve peace and justice.

So all of this poses some interesting challenges to progressives, who must hold in mind multiple contradictory ideas and realities while reflecting on these goals:

1. Supporting the shift that the Obama administration represents, moving to have government assume responsibility for the well-being of the country and its people;

2. Advancing progressive solutions to the burning problems of the day;

3. Ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;

4. Increasing the power of progressives in the Democratic Party and build independent progressive movements;

5. Defeating Republicans at the polls;

6. Holding conservative Democrats to account, and pressuring them to support the movement away from Reaganism and support reforms of our corporate culture.

For political activists on the left, this is not simply a mind game. It is at the core of what we do. We do want to advance a progressive agenda; we do want the most progressive proposals to see the light of day, we do want the opportunity to win support for a progressive agenda beyond the ranks of progressives, and we do want to challenge the Democratic Party to consider these more fundamental reforms.

At the same time, we want to defeat the Republicans. We really want to do that because we are now seeing what the Republicans really are. And it's very scary.

I think that we are now in the fight of our lives. The Obama victory has provided an opening for the struggle to place government back into the role of being the economic and structural champion of working people. But it does so with the legacy of Reaganism and neo-liberalism having captured the high ground of the political conversation in this country and the thinking of a major portion of the American people.

I am not offering a playbook or a solution, but rather an invitation to complex and contradictory thinking about complex and contradictory circumstances.

I suggest that this is the time of day.

Jack Kurzweil is active in California's East Bay Democratic Party Progressive Caucus. The author says with thanks to Nancy Friedman and Matthew Hallinan.

Young Latino voters -- an emerging giant

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:12:00 +0000

"The Emerging Hispanic Electorate: The Young Giant Awakens," a survey of 1,500 Hispanics, ages 16 to 29, has just been released by Democracia, and contains both good and bad news for big and little "d," democratic politics.

The bad news is the study reaffirmed a long-standing trend among young voters, including Latinos -- they tend not to vote.

In the 2008 presidential election, for instance, there were more than 3.5 million eligible young Hispanic voters but just under 1.4 million (about 39%), cast a ballot. Considering that young people overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama (66%), a larger turnout in this age group would have greatly increased the president's overall numbers.

Roughly half of young Hispanic voters -- those 18 to 24 years old -- were not even registered to vote in 2008.

The good news is the potential for this generation of Latinos to have a huge impact on politics.

For the next two decades, every year, half a million Latinos will turn 18, which the study says could make them "one of the nation's most powerful and reliably progressive voting" block.

How does 500,000 new voters every year figure into the bigger picture?

Although the United States has a voting age population of about 230 million people, voter turnout has been below 60% for decades -- even the historic 2008 presidential election only drew 57% to the polls. For mid-term elections, turnout hovers at around 37 percent or approximately 80 million people.

Therefore, shifts in numbers of eligible voters can have a major impact on politics.

When they register to vote, these young Latinos do so in the Democratic Party by a 4 to 1 ratio. Sixty-two percent choose the Democratic Party and only 16% Republican, while 22% say they are independent.

Opinions on policy issues are clearly in the Democratic camp. Young Latinos strongly favor the public sector, with 63% saying that, "government does a better job than people give it credit for," and 66% say "government should create jobs rather than leaving it to the free market."

In an era of economic crisis and sharp struggles at the federal, state and municipal levels over whether government should provide services and create jobs, clearly these voters have a role to play in determining the direction of the country.
Answers to other questions in the survey show the challenges that political movements face when it comes to winning support among young Latinos.

For instance, when it comes to identifying their political bent, 45% say they don't know, 30% call themselves liberal, 13% pick "moderate, "and 12% consider themselves conservative. And these young people still believe strongly in the attainability of the American dream - 91 % say no matter how poor you start out, you can make it if you try.

Another interesting study of attitudes towards environmental issues was released in April by the National Latino Coalition on Climate Change and the Commission to Engage African Americans on Climate Change, a project of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. This study shows that overwhelming majorities of Latino voters (in Florida, 80%; Nevada, 67%; Colorado, 58%) say they are more likely to vote for a U.S. Senate candidate that supports proposals for fighting global warming.

Big majorities of Latino voters in those three states consider global warming very or somewhat serious, and three out of four say Congress should take action now. Over 8 out of 10 voters in each state reject the idea that fighting global warming will hurt the American economy.

Other polls have documented the preference for Democratic candidates and policy positions among Latinos, who had not long ago been considered a "semi-swing group" of voters.

For example, one study found 68 percent of Latinos approve of the job President Obama is doing, as compared with 48 percent overall and 38 percent of whites. The "Giant Awakens" study of young Latinos put that approval rating at 73%.

Views of the Republican Party are negative and sinking. In one poll, the GOP is viewed favorably by only 22%, and on specific questions, the difference is even sharper.

Latinos believe Democrats would do a better job than Republicans in protecting the interests of minorities (58 percent to 11 percent), in representing the opportunity to move up the economic ladder (46 percent- to 20 percent), in dealing with immigration (37 percent to 12 percent), and in promoting strong moral values (33 percent-23 percent).

Photo: TriciaWang/CC

DREAM Act could curb suicide nightmare

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:25:00 +0000

Suicide cases or the thought of suicide among undocumented youth are shocking. These are young people, who were brought to the U.S. by their parents as children, and have lived here most of their lives. Now they are being threatened with deportation.

These are real horror stories.

A couple of months ago, a 19-year-old Gustavo Rezende made national headlines for killing himself to escape deportation to Brazil. A 17-year-old undocumented student apprehended by police after making an illegal left turn behind the wheel, committed suicide in jail less than 48 hours after the arrest.

Last week Eric Balderas, a 19-year-old Harvard biology student who has lived in the U.S. since he was four, was detained at a Texas airport for hours. He now faces deportation to Mexico.

Balderas says he is the son of a single mother who left an abusive husband. She worked 12-hour days packing biscuits while raising his younger brother and sister in San Antonio, Texas.

Balderas barely remembers Mexico and considers English to be his first language. As valedictorian of his high school, Balderas had been accepted into several small liberal arts colleges but chose to attend Harvard, where he has a full scholarship.

He had previously used a Mexican passport to board planes, but recently lost it and was detained by immigration authorities while trying to travel back to Boston after visiting his mother in San Antonio.

Balderas thought he was immediately being deported and feared for his life. As he sat handcuffed he contemplated thoughts of suicide. He was detained for five hours before he was released.

He boarded a flight back to Boston, the following day, where he hopes to spend the summer conducting research at the university. He is studying molecular and cellular biology at Harvard and hopes to become a cancer researcher.

Balderas has a July 6 court date with an immigration judge, officials say.

Harvard officials immediately threw their support behind Balderas.

"Eric Balderas has already demonstrated the discipline and work ethic required for rigorous university work, and has, like so many of our undergraduates, expressed an interests in making a difference in the world," said Christine Heenan, Harvard's vice president of public affairs and communications in a statement.

We should support Heenan and others who say enough is enough, and call on lawmakers to support and pass the Dream Act.

The Dream Act is a federal bill that would allow students like Balderas and thousands of others toward a pathway to citizenship via college enrollment or military service.

A number of college president at universities such as Brown, Tufts and others support the legislation, including Harvard President Drew Faust.

Balderas and other like him are excellent students and an example of what this country needs, dedicated youth who want to help give back. Passing the Dream Act would throw a lifeline to such talented youth who are already working hard in middle and high schools throughout the country.

Sixty-five thousand undocumented youth graduate from U.S. high schools every year. These are students who are part of this country's beautiful make-up and are valuable assets to American society. Some like Balderas are the best minds this country produces, whose credentials speak for themselves. We should support and nurture such talent.

These children did not have a say when they came to the U.S. And their parents like most here only want what is best for their family's future.

How many countless suicide stories must we read about and imagine how many never make it into the news because surviving family members fear discovery and deportation?

We say not another suicide, not another life taken due to a broken immigration system.

The time is now to pass the Dream Act and Congress must have courage to support comprehensive immigration reform before it's too late.

Our children's lives depend on it.

Photo: Undocumented Harvard student Eric Balderas, 19, in Harvard Square in Cambridge, Mass. June. 11. Josh Reynolds/AP

Cubans march against homophobia

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:13:00 +0000

HAVANA (AP) - Hundreds of gay and lesbian activists, some dressed in drag and others sporting multicolored flags representing sexual diversity, marched and danced through the streets of Havana last month along with the daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro as part of a celebration aimed at eliminating homophobia around the world.

Some of the marchers played drums and others walked on stilts as they made their way down a wide avenue in the capital's hip Vedado neighborhood, where they have held a series of debates and workshops ahead of the May 17 celebration of the International Day Against Homophobia, which participants say marks the day in 1990 when the World Health Organization stopped listing homosexuality as a mental illness.

"We have made progress, but we need to make more progress," said Mariela Castro, a campaigner for gay rights on the island and the leader of Cuba's National Sexual Education Center. She is also the daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro.

Cuba has come a long way in accepting homosexuality. In the 1960s, shortly after the revolution, homosexuals were fired from state jobs and many were imprisoned or sent to work camps. Others fled into exile.

But that began to change in the 1980s, in large part to the work of Mariela Castro's center. Recently, the government has even agreed to include sex change operations for transsexuals under its free national health system, another project championed by the center.

The workshops and debates held Saturday dealt with issues such as adoption by gay and lesbian couples and whether to legalize gay marriages, a step Mariela Castro has been pushing for years, so far without success. The week of celebrations culminates Monday.

Photo: People participate in events leading up to the International Day Against Homophobia in Havana, May 15. (Franklin Reyes/AP)