People Before Profit blog

Will The Voice replace American Idol?

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:21:00 +0000

Watch out American Idol, there's a new singing show in TV town, and it's called The Voice. Idol may have met its match in NBC's new singing competition, which featured raw unmatched talent and a heavy hitting pop star multi-genre musical cast.

Yes, it's true, Idol made a much-needed comeback in its last season with a noteworthy judges table that included Aerosmith rocker Steven Tyler, veteran Randy Jackson and the lovely Jennifer Lopez. The show did well and was popular in TV ratings.

However The Voice reigned supreme in summer TV, which doesn't offer much. The new show crowned Javier Colon its inaugural winner after audience members and viewers at home cast their votes. The results were revealed this week in its season finale.

Voice used a new spin on TV singing competitions early on in the season, which had its star judges/mentors listen to contestants in blind auditions. During each audition, on a grand stage, the four judges had the choice to recruit the singer on his/her team by only listening to each singer's voice, with no visual contact. If the judges liked what they heard, they were allowed to turn their chairs around and put a face to that voice and then try to recruit that contestant to their team. If more than one judge, who later became the contestant's personal coach, picked the same singer, the judges then needed to convince that singer to choose his/her team.

Ultimately, if the singer had more than one option, he or she made the final decision as to which coach they wanted to be led by. Four teams of eight were created, and each singer faced off in singing matches week after week under the direction of their team's coach. Their performances and ability to move from one round to the next was decided on by the majority votes of viewers at home. The show ended this week with four remaining finalists, and neither of them disappointed.

Team coaches included popular artists Cee Lo Green, Christina Aguilera, Adam Levine (from Maroon 5) and country singer Blake Shelton. The team leaders definitely encompassed a variety of genres. Each seemed to really like their roles as advice givers, given their success in the music business. All of them grew fond of their mentees and expressed great satisfaction and pride in how much their protégés grew over the weeks.

In the end Levine's team, with its finalist Colon, walked away victorious. Both Levine and Colon sang Michael Jackson's "Man In The Mirror" at the show's end. And they absolutely killed it. As a matter of fact, it's safe to say that Colon sounded better than his coach.

Colon, a husband and father, has had his ups and downs in the music industry over the years and has been turned down in record deals. He was hoping for a big break, and he certainly achieved that goal. Colon has amazing range and can reach high notes and rock a steady, soothing, soft yet crisp tone that most music ears would welcome. He will receive a $100,000 prize and a recording contract.

That's not to say the other finalists weren't at the top of their game.

For example, Green's finalist Vicci Martinez was exceptional. The two sang a duet of Pat Benatar's "Love Is A Battlefield" and rocked the house wearing over-the-top costumes accompanied by kid dancers in an extremely well choreographed routine that was mind blowing. Their vocals were not so hot but the performance as a whole was spectacular, something Green fans can always expect from such an original artist and music producer.

Other finalist included Aguilera's Beverly McClellan and Shelton's Dia Frampton.

Although Aguilera has had her recent slumps in the movie business, she still has a powerful vocal range and a load of experience. It was encouraging to see her bring attention to McClellan's personal journey, which culminated in TV stardom.

Critics say what was especially unique about The Voice was that it highlighted the fact that finalists McClellan and Martinez are both openly gay. This welcoming fact is something American Idol has not been able to address with some of its past performers, some of which only revealed their sexuality after the season ended. Both McClellan and Martinez represent a historically underserved constituency on TV, and their coaches Aguilera and Green openly celebrated their orientation.

For the most part, singing competitions on TV have done well among viewers. But in the age of overwhelmingly bad reality-TV, there is little room for originality and good taste. Yet The Voice may have made a dent in that sphere. Time well tell if viewers at home have found yet another talent-searching and live singing show worth their time and support.

Photo: Javier Colon performs Feb. 5, 2004, at his alma mater, Bunnell High School, in Stratford, Conn. (AP Photo/Connecticut Post, Andrea A. Dixon)

Thank you, Governor Walker

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:25:00 +0000

MADISON, Wis. - Although it may seem much longer than it really is, given all that has happened, it's been just six months since Governor Scott Walker was sworn into office.

Presently, the political climate in Wisconsin is quite volatile. Be that as it may, it is a good time for progressives, communists, liberals, socialists and Democrats, including many of those who are best described by a number of these locutions, to take a moment to join together in offering Gov. Walker a heartfelt "thanks." Being from Wisconsin myself, and the proud wearer of all the above-mentioned hats, along with the small fact that his inauguration took place on my birthday, I want to lead the way.

I do so by listing - David Letterman-like - the Ten Top Reasons for thanking the honorable Governor of Wisconsin.

And here they are:

Number ten: For rousing so many people from their political complacency

Number nine: For the great turnout in Wisconsin's spring election

Number eight: For his part in the unprecedented recall election of six Republicans later this summer

Number seven: For the single recall election that will take place a few months after that

Number six: For showing that dialectical materialism is a reality

Number five: For his role in the coalescence of so many liberal and progressive factions from so many parts of the world under one banner

Number four: For reaffirming the correctness of progressive philosophy

Number three: For not screening his telephone calls, especially when the caller says he's a Koch brother

Number two: For being such an easy target

And the number one reason for thanking Gov. Walker is (drumroll please). . .

For clearly showing us all that Marx was right!

Happy six-month anniversary Gov. Walker! May you next six months be your last in office.

The "right" not to join a union

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:09:00 +0000

Dean Zarras, of the Civil Society Trust, has made a momentous discovery, a philosophical leap of world-historical importance that will crush the labor movement once and for all and ensure a peaceful future of corporate hegemony. Or that's how he tells it, anyway.

In a recent column, Mr. Zarras revealed the one simple question that will crush any union drive and confound any organizer:

"Do you support workers' rights, specifically the right not to join a union?"

The insistence with which he repeats the question throughout his column suggests that he is pleased as punch (but not the red kind!) to have discovered this magic union-busting bullet. If he were a "labor boss," Mr. Zarras claims, he'd have no counter-argument. I have a response, though, and since Mr. Zarras challenged his readers to grapple ideologically with the question, I thought I'd share it.

When we talk about rights in America, we usually mean the right to do something (to speak freely, to assemble peaceably) or the right not to have something done to us (protection from warrantless search and seizure, or from cruel and unusual punishment).

Reformulating Mr. Zarras's question as a positive right or passive protection would look something like this:

"Do you support a worker's right to work longer hours for less money, with no job security and no say in his or her working conditions?"

Or perhaps:

"Do you support a worker's right not to have someone fight on his or her behalf?"

How generous, how utterly altruistic, of our corporate benefactors to secure for us these elementary liberties! Heaven forbid that some tyrant forces upon us the totalitarian hell of paid sick leave, vacation time, health care and job security. As a free people, we will not allow anyone to goose-step us into having a voice or standing up for ourselves.

If the anti-labor crowd wants to defend our right not join a union, there are a few other basic rights they might consider adding to their platform: the right to eat contaminated meat, or use uninspected drugs; the right not to have the EPA preventing us from drinking toxic industrial run-off; the right not to have a government that represents the interests of the working people who make up the vast majority of this country's citizens.

This is not, as Mr. Zarras seems to think, a question of individual liberty, of independence, of the right to "control one's own compensation through one's own effort and results." It is a question of the right of the working class to organize its own protection from the rapacity of a powerful, wealthy and organized capitalist class. In the end, in its simplest form, behind all the empty noise about initiative and freedom, his question is this:

"Do you support a worker's right to have no rights except those graciously bestowed by management?"

No, Mr. Zarras, I do not.

Photo: Workers and their allies celebrate union rights. PW // CC 2.0

Heavy Metal's progressive journey

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:54:00 +0000

"Metal is expanding and becoming more diverse. It's becoming global and it's becoming a tool for social and political commentary."

These words were spoken by anthropologist and filmmaker Sam Dunn in a report by MSNBC. Dunn directed Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, a 2005 documentary that studied the cultural aspects of metal, as well as opinions on it and the supposed controversy surrounding the music genre. The film debuted at the 2005 Toronto Film Festival.

On nearly every fathomable topic, heavy metallers have made progressive sociopolitical commentary at one point or another. An underground and admittedly extreme genre, metal is also severely misunderstood by concerned parents and religious groups. The music continues to contribute to the progressive movement through its artists today - perhaps now more than ever.

A particularly strong voice in the metal community for peoples' rights is that of Otep Shamaya, front man of the L.A. nu metal band Otep. A lesbian, Otep faced prejudice and adversity growing up, and uses her music to reach out to fans going through the same injustice. Her website even dedicates part of its message board to help fans cope with everyday challenges and deeper problems, in an area called "U Are Not Alone." Otep is an advocate for civil rights and causes, such as LGBT equality and women's rights, and has become dedicated to eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity.

In 2010, Shamaya was nominated for Outstanding Music Artist at the 21st Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Media Awards, an award ceremony that honors films and musicians that support the LGBT community.

In an interview with Revolver, Otep said, "It's always hard for me to read or learn about someone going through difficult times. But what I can do is be authentic and true to my artistic spirit, and be a voice for the voiceless and defend the defenseless. This is a responsibility that I carry as a badge of honor. I want to stand up for people."

And Otep's band is just one of many.

Lamb of God's songs criticize American foreign policy; Cattle Decapitation are vegetarians who use explicit artwork and lyrics in order to speak up for animal rights; Iron Maiden's "Run to the Hills" was an angry reaction to the displacement of Native Americans; and Six Feet Under vocalist Chris Barnes wrote "Amerika the Brutal" - a powerful anti-war song - after his cousin was deployed to Iraq in 2003.

According to Blabbermouth, Barnes received positive feedback in response to his song from American troops in the warzone.

Moreover, Cattle Decapitation recently made waves when they heavily condemned the meat industry.

Frontman Travis Ryan told PETA, "I know of plenty of people who have changed their diets because of the overly [shocking] nature of our lyrics. So I think it does a lot of good, our imagery. People react much more vibrantly to the offensive."

According to the Associated Press, Ryan's band's fusion of aggressive music with a socially conscious message draws in a diverse crowd composed of nearly as many animal rights activists as metalheads.

In 2006, 20 artists displayed art inspired by Cattle Decapitation's 2004 album in an online exhibit. Proceeds from sales of the art were donated to animal rights causes.

Moreover, metallers like The Agonist and The Dillinger Escape Plan have also gotten together with PETA in order to rally fans to their cause.

Donna Gaines, a sociologist who wrote Teenage Wasteland, which analyzed working-class metalheads in New Jersey, concluded that headbangers everywhere have passionately "responded to the culture and politics of the day; this is another generation rising."

Photo: Otep, a civil rights activist, appears in a promotional photo, on her official MySpace page.

Majority favors taxing rich, ending war to cut deficit

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:37:00 +0000

In a sign that most Americans favor a progressive social agenda, a recent public opinion poll revealed that a solid majority of respondents want to curtail military commitments abroad, raise taxes on the rich and close tax loopholes for large corporations.

At the same time, the survey shows that the Republican political establishment is out of sync with the views of the Republican base on these and other questions.

According to results of a survey released by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press earlier this month, in order to reduce the national debt and deficit:

66 percent favored increasing taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year
65 percent favored reducing military commitments overseas
62 percent favored limiting tax deductions for large corporations

The attitude for decreasing military presence abroad corresponds with the public view - held by six-in-ten - that the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars has contributed greatly to the national debt, more than any other factor tested.

This public sentiment was no doubt an important factor in President Barack Obama's recent decision to scale back troop presence in Afghanistan.

The findings also reveal that the Republican political establishment appears to be at odds with the majority of the Republican base. Sixty-two percent of Republicans approved limiting corporate tax deductions and 56 percent favored reducing military engagements abroad.

While Republican leaders in Congress stand firm against raising income taxes (for the rich), Republican respondents were evenly divided (49 to 49 percent) on whether to support increasing taxes on income over $250,000 to reduce the national debt.

Meanwhile, the poll finds widespread opposition to measures being promoted by Republican Congressional leaders aimed to reduce the deficit and national debt:

73 percent of respondents overall (64 percent of Republicans) disapprove of cutting funds for the states for education and roads
73 percent overall (70 percent of Republicans) disapprove of taxing employer-provided health insurance
59 percent generally (51 percent of Republicans) oppose gradually raising the Social Security retirement age
54 percent generally (43 percent of Republicans) oppose reducing programs that help low-income Americans. Of the four, this is the only issue on which a majority of Republicans (52 percent) goes along with Republican political leaders.

Despite the Republican propaganda machine's best efforts, the figures demonstrate that clear majorities understand what is in their and the nation's best interests.

The study also reflects the positive impact on public opinion of issue-oriented campaigns led by labor and other popular movements in conjunction with center-left politicians and political figures in the Democratic camp, including the president on several issues he has championed.

The survey further showed that public concern for the budget deficit increased since last year. May 25-30, when the survey was conducted, 28 percent cited the budget deficit as the economic issue that most worries them, up from 24 percent in March and 19 percent in December.

This appears to demonstrate the influence that the powerful Republican propaganda blitzkrieg - coupled with the acquiescence of some Democratic politicians - is having on people's thinking.

However, the job situation remains the number one concern for even more Americans - 38 percent said they worry most about jobs, up slightly from March (34 percent), though down from 47 percent in December.

While the March and May figures suggest a somewhat (albeit anemic) overall improvement in the job situation, it also shows the need for a more robust movement for jobs - all the more so given the increased likelihood of a double dip economic downturn.

Massive jobs' creation is a sure way to bring down the federal deficit because it will expand the tax base.

Contrary to Republican claims, increasing taxes on the rich, closing tax loopholes of the large corporations and transferring monies from a reduction in foreign military engagement - all of which enjoy widespread public support as the poll indicates - would go a long way in reducing the deficit and financing a jobs' program.

Real patriotism and the 4th of July

Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:00:00 +0000

I like the Fourth of July. Almost everyone does. Friends and neighbors gathered in parks and backyards throughout the nation, sharing food and drink and happy thoughts in a festive atmosphere. What's not to like?

Well the patriotic claptrap, of course. That I could do without.

I'm not talking about patriotism. Acts of citizenship and service honor this country's traditions. I'm talking about the empty speechifying, often by politicians wearing faces gleaming with corruption, which passes for patriotism these days.

And the flag-waving. I'm not big on flag-waving.

Not that there's anything wrong with the flag, of course. It's a beautiful symbol of the things we value. But too often it is waved in order to substitute emotionalism for rational behavior.

War, for example. How many times have nations been led into truly stupid wars behind a flowing flag? Does the word Iraq suggest anything to you?

But I digress. I was talking about the Fourth of July. My favorite Fourth of July speech is the one the great 19th century orator and civil rights leader Frederick Douglass delivered to a Rochester, New York, audience in 1852. The former slave said:

"What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.

"To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymn, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.

"There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and more bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour."

That was Douglass' most significant contribution to our "patriotic" holiday - the truth.

We eliminated slavery, of course, and it was a heavy lift that left some 625,000 dead and hundreds of thousands more wounded. We have a right to pat ourselves on the back about that. I don't recall any other nation fighting a civil war on behalf of an enslaved people.

But we shouldn't pat ourselves too hard. A few weeks ago we commemorated (or rather, failed to commemorate) the 90th anniversary of the Tulsa race riot, a shameful chapter in our history that we conveniently forgot about for nearly a century.

On May 31, 1921, a black man in Tulsa was arrested on charges of sexually assaulting a white woman (a charge never validated, by the way).

He was taken to jail where a lynch mob made up of white men began to gather. Soon a group of armed black men showed up to protect the suspect.

Predictably, a gun battle broke out and the black men retreated to the "colored" side of town. The Tulsa police chief deputized hundreds of white men who gave chase.

In the hours that followed, the African-American section of town was burned to the ground. As many as 300 people, most of them black, were killed. Thousands were left homeless.

Did you ever read about that in your history books? I didn't think so. You didn't hear it in any Fourth of July speech either. Frederick Douglass had passed away decades earlier.

So I say to you, enjoy your Fourth of July picnic and feel joy that we live in this wonderful country, albeit one with a tragic past.

But don't forget to keep it real.

We've come a long way but we've got a long way to go. Have a happy Fourth.

Donald Kaul lives in Ann Arbor, Mich. This article was distributed by Other Words, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Photo by Steven // CC 2.0

Collective bargaining is a right, not a privilege!

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:53:00 +0000

Today, We Are Ohio, a coalition of unions and other supporters of worker rights, filed nearly 1.3 million signatures to force a repeal referendum on Ohio Gov. John Kasich's anti-collective-bargaining SB 5.

Earlier this week Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed his bill that eliminates the right of public employees to collectively bargain, taking away a right that had been guaranteed by law in his state for more than 50 years.

In an interview this week Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that collective bargaining is not a right, but rather an expensive "entitlement."

The governor must not have read U.S. labor law. The National Labor Relations Act, which has been the law of the land since 1935, says it is the policy of the government of the United States to encourage collective bargaining.

The governor certainly didn't "get" the hundreds of thousands of workers who jammed the streets of Madison and are now pulling off one of the biggest recall elections in the history of the United States. The demonstrations were clearly carried out by people intent on defending their rights.

Walker claimed the workers got in such an uproar because he didn't fully explain himself. He said he should have built his case sooner.

In fact, Walker devoted his entire election campaign to avoiding any mention to the voters of his anti-worker intentions. He spent plenty of time greeting people with children at shopping centers and eating at picnics and street festivals. But he never told the people that his first major push as governor would be to take away their collective bargaining rights.

He was much more straightforward, however, in his dealings during the campaign with his corporate and big business backers, among them the Koch brothers. To them he promised that after the election he would "take down the workers and their unions."

The day the demonstrations against him broke out in Madison, Walker told the press the protests would fizzle out within days. Instead, they grew into a workers' uprising of historic proportions.

This week Walker again told the press that people will soon forget the whole uproar. We don't think so.

The right of workers to bargain collectively with their employer over their basic conditions of work - the right to have a say on equal terms - is a 76-year American tradition, a deeply felt one. It's not a privilege that Walker, Kasich or any other politician can simply revoke. The public won't allow it, as the people of Wisconsin and Ohio are showing.

Photo: Andrew Samis/We Are Ohio

Big Tobacco targets minority youth

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:46:00 +0000

According to a recent Stanford University Medical School study, described in Science Daily, the big tobacco companies are trying to lure minority youth into smoking menthol cigarettes. Even thought these companies know many of the these young people will eventually die from smoking their product, and they claim not to be targeting young people, the evidence uncovered by the Stanford report makes it clear these companies are out to make a profit by selling as much death and disease as they can to minority youth.

The Food and Drug Administration is on the verge of banning menthol in cigarettes. The report's lead researcher, Lisa Henriksen, PhD, says, "The tobacco companies went out of their way to argue to the Food and Drug Administration that they don't use racial targeting. This evidence is not consistent with those claims."

Menthol is used to makes cigarettes less harsh and is said in company ads to bring about a feeling of "freshness." The major users of these kinds of cigarettes are teenagers, minorities and the poor ("low-income populations"). The FDA tasked the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee to study the health hazards of menthol cigarettes, and the committee concluded, "Removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States."

This is not very startling, since removing all cigarettes would benefit public health. Naturally, we didn't need a special committee to know that banning menthol cigarettes would be beneficial. The recommendation is non-binding anyway. The committee is going to meet again in the middle of July to write up a final report. Let's hope it is more specific than the quote in Science Daily.

The FDA should ban menthol cigarettes just to stop the industry's predation against middle and high school students. The committee, which has the Stanford report, should really come down hard on the industry. It was charged. Dr, Henriksen said, "with considering a broad definition of harm to smokers and other populations, particularly youth. We think our study, which shows the predatory marketing in school neighborhoods with higher concentrations of youth and African-American students, fits a broad definition of harm."

The report reveals an increase in cigarette use by youth between 2004 and 2008, and that of people ages 12-17, 71.9 percent of African American youth prefer menthol brands (the figures for whites was 41 percent and Hispanics 47 percent). Comparing the actions of Newport (menthols made by Lorillard) with Marlboro Reds, the report shows that Newport offers special price reductions around schools that have a large African-American enrollment. Other brands were also studied.

The study found that ads for menthol cigarettes increased by almost 6 percent near schools for every increase in the proportion of African-American students of 10 percent, and Newport cut the price of a pack by 12 cents for each of those 10 percent increases.

In the surrounding neighborhoods, Newport seemingly checked out the proportion of youth ages 10-17 (!). For each 10 percent increase in their proportion, they increased ads by 11.6 percent, and the odds were 5.3 percent higher that Newports would sell at discounted prices. Marlboro Reds had no ads or price changes related to the presence of youth or African-American students.

We now know that despite the industry claims African-American teens are being especially targeted. Stephen Fortmann, MD, who also participated the study, said, "When kids are exposed to more cigarette advertising, they are more likely to start smoking, which will undoubtedly lead to dire health consequences. Our study finds that tobacco companies are trying to make smoking more attractive to teens, when we as a society should be doing just the opposite. Adding menthol to cigarettes makes it easier to smoke and harder to quit, so the public health community strongly supports an FDA ban on menthol flavoring."

My prediction: The FDA will vote for the ban, and the Supreme Court will overturn it as a violation of free speech. Libertarians and tea party folks will be against the ban as an infringement of personal liberty.

What 10 year old doesn't want a Newport to suck on while playing a slice 'em and dice 'em video game?

Photo: Andrij Bulba // CC 2.0

Does it matter which party wins?

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:30:00 +0000

It is obvious that there is a growing feeling of frustration and even anger among supporters of the Democratic Party with its performance over the past two years.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, speaking for the labor movement, strongly expressed this unhappiness in some recent speeches.

I am disappointed too with some aspects of the Obama administration's domestic and foreign policy.

But I don't forget that this administration governs in a very hostile political environment in which the right is laboring overtime to wreck its initiatives at every step of the way.

In addition, there are the structural pressures of governing in a capitalist economy and state.

Then there are conservative pressures coming from some congressional Democrats and members of the administration.

Everything can't be explained away by the objective context, however. The president and his administration can be faulted for a number of policy decisions.

But the main question from a strategic point of view is this: Does it make any difference, from the standpoint of the class and democratic struggles, which party gains political ascendency?

Some - though not the labor movement nor other mass organizations of the American people - say no, it doesn't.

Some even go a step further and say a Democratic victory creates popular illusions, which in turn weaken the people's struggles. And the only way out of this vise is to form a third party now.

Communists don't agree with either one of these views. In our view, the differences between the two parties of capitalism are of consequence to class and democratic struggles.

Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren't identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people's agenda.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008 the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people's movement - labor in the first place.

As for the wisdom of a third party, we have always advocated the formation of an independent people's party at the core of which are the working class and labor, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight, etc. It is essential for any deep-going social change. But its realization depends on more than our desire, more than our political-ideological attitude. Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion.

Moreover, to separate ourselves at this moment from these forces would be contrary to our strategic policy of building maximum unity against right-wing extremism now and in next year's elections.

Now that doesn't mean that we give up our advocacy of an independent people's party, but we also understand that its formation is dictated by concrete political realities and strategic necessities. Nor does it mean that we hit the mute button when the Obama administration takes positions that we don't agree with. Just as we show no hesitation in supporting, and fighting for, the administration's progressive initiatives, we should have no compunction about taking issue with the administration when it takes positions that we don't agree on.

Which is what we have done.

When someone says we are not critical of the administration what they usually mean is that our criticism isn't as sweeping and categorical as they would like.

We make criticisms, but we do it in a certain context and with a certain strategic objective in mind. We are keenly aware of the fact that the agenda of the far right is to bring this administration and country to its knees, with a heavy dose of racism, lies and economic sabotage, setting the stage for a full blown return to power of the most reactionary, racist, anti-labor, anti-women, homophobic and militarist grouping in U.S. politics.

We want no part of that. We don't have any illusions about the Democratic Party, but we don't have any illusions about the Republican Party either.

Furthermore, we are also aware of the undeniable fact that no other party besides the Democratic Party stands a chance of beating the GOP next year.

Photo: Night-thing CC 2.0

Bernie Sanders goes into action for real shared sacrifice

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:01:00 +0000

Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont and self-described socialist, has been a steadfast supporter of the working class since the beginning of his career. From supporting universal health care and increased Pell Grants to opposing tax cuts for the wealthy, Sanders has consistently and aggressively promoted progressive policies. It should be no surprise, then, that when Sanders heard that Republicans were opposing any notion of balancing the budget on anyone's back besides the working class, he sprang into action.

One might recall Sanders' December 10 eight-hour-and-37-minute filibuster against President Obama's deal with the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich in order to also extend unemployment benefits. His filibuster was so popular that it temporarily crashed the Senate's video server.

Sanders attacked Republican hypocrisy for demanding tax cuts for the super-wealthy - which increases the national debt - in exchange for their agreeing to extend unemployment benefits - which they had opposed due to the cost. He also criticized Democrats for agreeing to extend the tax cuts, which he noted only furthered the widening income disparity in the nation. For those who are interested, his entire speech was made into a paperback, the proceeds of which benefit charities in his home state of Vermont.

Now that deficit cutting is in vogue in Washington, Republicans are demanding that all deficit reduction come out of spending. In fact, they are demanding massive cuts prior to raising the debt limit. From Speaker of the House John Boehner, to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the GOP is flatly refusing any revenue increase.

Even after the Democrats had agreed to around $2 trillion in cuts (over a decade), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor stormed out of the talks last week when discussion turned to revenue increases. What proposals set off this tantrum? Democrats proposed to end tax deductions and loopholes for those who make over $500,000 a year, tax subsidies for oil companies, and tax breaks for corporate jets.

Where do Republicans demand cuts? Their proposals have ranged from benefit reductions in Medicare and Medicaid, which would place additional burdens on seniors and the poor, to (of course) lowering taxes on corporations.

As Sanders sees that Democrats on a whole have yet to create a line in the sand on deficit talks, he is showing his backbone and standing up to protect the middle and working classes from having to shoulder all the burden of deficit reduction.

In a letter to the president, which he has opened to the public to sign, he urges Obama not to "yield to outrageous Republican demands that would greatly increase suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society." His letter asks Obama to stand with the middle and working classes, and not with "with the millionaires and billionaires who have never had it so good."

Sanders agrees that the deficit is a problem, yet he opposes fixing it by "savage cuts in desperately-needed programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, our children and the poor" while avoiding asking anything of the rich who have only continued to prosper. Instead, he argues that the nation has to share the sacrifice, rather than asking those with the least to sacrifice the most.

He asks that President Obama consider the will of the majority of Americans who want to increase taxes on the wealthy before cutting the social safety net. He asks that at least 50 percent of the deficit reduction occur through revenue increases by ending tax breaks for the top income tier, and ending corporate loopholes that only serve to funnel wealth to the top. Additionally, he proposes that significant cuts come from the nation's military budget.

Bernie Sanders, in essence, is helping mobilize that public opinion, asking that Obama, and the Democratic Party, put the needs of the working class and middle class over the luxuries of the wealthy. His initiative builds momentum to oppose any efforts that would further burden the less fortunate, while only serving to widen the already obscene income gap that is facing this nation.

You may sign Sen. Sanders' letter here.

Photo: Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a Senate hearing on hunger among seniors, June 21 in Washington. sanders.senate.gov

New York same-sex marriage law takes giant step for civil rights

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:49:00 +0000

New York took a jump into the 21st century as Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill June 24 legalizing same-sex marriage.

Tens of thousands of people - gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight - poured into Lower Manhattan yesterday, bringing more excitement and joy than usual to the annual Pride Parade and celebrating this huge step forward for civil rights.

And that's what this was: Not a gay issue, not a Republican-Democratic issue and not a simple "social issue": It was a question of fundamental civil rights. The new law allows a minority section of the American population the same rights as the majority.

The people yesterday in New York weren't celebrating some sterile political ruling; they were rejoicing at their right, or their friends' or fellow New Yorkers' right, to marry the person they love, whether they are of the same or opposite sex.

Still, politics does matter. While a few Republicans crossed over and voted for the bill, and one Democratic state senator tried to deny New Yorkers their human rights, it's clear that, had New York not gone from Republican to Democratic leadership over the past few years, thousands of people would still be without the fundamental right to build a life with whomever they want.

There was compromise in the bill, and some say it may set a standard going forward. To neutralize opposition from the Catholic Church and some other religious groups, the bill's sponsors added a provision allowing churches and similar entities to decline to perform same-sex marriages. This gave wavering politicians cover to vote for the bill.

No matter what the compromises made, it's clear that the bill would not have passed wihtout the active, popular pressure put on legislators. Thousands of people from around the state called their lawmakers to demand that they do the right thing. Unlike in California, where voters came out against gay marriage, the movement in New York was organized enough to win.

But while this is a tremendous victory, no one could honestly say that LGBT rights are won. There have been big steps forward in recent years. New York was preceded by Massachusetts, the first state to allow same-sex marriage, as well as Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and even Iowa. And, finally, the military's discriminatory "Don't ask; don't tell" policy was ended. Still, LGBT people can't get married in most of America and the federal government won't recognize these state marriages. On top of that, LGBT people still face violence from fanatical homophobes.

There's a long way to go in this fight, and a lot of work to do. Most importantly, the Republicans have to be defeated in 2012 - can anyone imagine what would happen to LGBT rights in a nation led by tea party extremists? And we need to build unity for fundamental civil rights: Every working person in America will benefit by guaranteeing civil rights and freedoms to all.

In New York, much of the labor movement understood that the fight for LGBT rights is their own. That's why SEIU took a stand and helped to organize for them, as did the labor-backed Working Families Party and other groups.

This is the way forward.

Oh, and congratulations to all the soon-to-be newlyweds.

Paid sick leave good for us all

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:42:00 +0000

SAN FRANCISCO - The latest figures show that some 44 million workers in private employment - more than 40 percent of the private sector workforce - do not have paid sick days that they could use to recover from illnesses, including contagious illnesses such as the flu, or worse.

It should be of particular concern that those occupations that are currently least likely to provide paid sick days include occupations most likely to have regular contact with the public, most importantly and most disturbingly, food service and food preparation.

That raises serious health problems, especially in these tight economic times, when workers need to stay on the job as much as they can, no matter how ill they are, to earn as much money as they can. Which, of course, endangers the health of those who come in contact with them, as well as delaying their recovery from their illness.

Public health experts note that the fewer the number of workers who are able to stay at home when sick, the more likely it is that diseases will spread. In addition to the increased suffering of the public and other workers that causes, it also causes significant economic losses.

Laws have been proposed in several states and in Congress that would require employers to grant paid sick leaves to their employees, but it seems unlikely that the measures, however much they are needed, will pass any time soon - if at all.

But there has at least been a start, however slight, toward what's broadly needed. That's a paid sick leave law that was adopted by the city of San Francisco five years ago - the first citywide such law in the country. If nothing else, the San Francisco ordinance proves that such laws are quite feasible, and not the "job killers" that anti-labor forces contend they would be.

San Francisco business groups fought fiercely against adoption of the ordinance and thankfully lost big time. The ordinance was approved by 61 percent of the voters in a citywide election in 2006.

Under the ordinance, workers in businesses with fewer than 10 workers can earn up to five paid sick days a year, while workers in larger businesses can earn up to nine paid sick days. Workers accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work. They may use the sick time to recover from their own illnesses, care for a sick family member, or seek routine medical care.

A recent independent survey of nearly 1,200 San Francisco workers and nearly 700 employers by the Institute for Women's Policy Research came up with findings that the city ordinance was, in the words of the California AFL-CIO, "overwhelmingly positive for workers, businesses and the public."

The labor federation called the study "further evidence policies that help working families meet their responsibilities at work and at home are good for everyone."

The study shows, in short, that the San Francisco ordinance has had a great impact on workers' lives but little or no impact on the city's businesses. They overwhelmingly report that the law has not cut into their profits. Two-thirds of them reported no problems implementing the law.

It seems likely that the reason for the slight impact on businesses business can be attributed to the fact that most workers take sick leave days only when they need them. Even though the law allows workers five to nine sick days a year, San Francisco workers used a median of just three days a year. And one-quarter of the workers didn't take a single sick day.

Even the major opponent of the law prior to its passage, the local, politically powerful restaurant association that led the political fight against the city ordinance, now concedes it hasn't led to employee abuses or hurt restaurants or other business.

Most important, as the state AFL-CIO noted, the survey proved that having paid sick days makes a substantial difference for working families. More than half the workers surveyed said they've benefitted from the law. Among other important things, the law has given workers who need paid sick days the most, including parent and workers with chronic health conditions, the time they need to care for their health and that of their children.

The labor federation reports that it hears regularly "the stories of parents who are forced to choose between their children's health and the financial well-being of their family . . . who have put off visits to the doctor and sacrifice their health to avoid losing their jobs.

Washington, D.C., and Milwaukee have followed San Francisco's lead and adopted ordinances providing paid sick leave for workers. And some states, California, New Jersey and Connecticut among them, have adopted similar though less extensive laws.

But what's most needed is a federal law - a law that, if properly enforced, would grant sick leave pay to all workers, helping them, their families and anyone else who might be exposed to their illness.

It's obviously the sensible and healthy thing to do.

Photo: Kevin Lim // CC 2.0

Third World Mississippi shows failure of conservative policies

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:24:00 +0000

HATTIESBURG, Miss. - Republicans around the country proclaim that conservative remedies, such as repealing "Obamacare," or enacting Paul Ryan's Medicare-warping, tax-slashing budget plan, will solve the nation's health care and economic disparities. However, evidence from Mississippi suggests otherwise.

Mississippi is, by many metrics, an extremely conservative state. In fact, according to Gallup, it is the most conservative state in the union. The governor's and lieutenant governor's offices, as well as both chambers of the state legislature, are controlled by the GOP. Mississippi, according to a report in the Jackson Progressive, has a very regressive income tax, and has one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation.

The state ranks dead last economically, with the lowest per capita income in the country - $30,399 according to the Census Bureau figures for 2008. Compare that to the national per capita income of $40,208. Additionally, as of 2010, 21.9 percent of Mississippi residents lived below the poverty level, and 10.9 percent were unemployed - much worse than the national rates of about 14 percent and 9 percent respectively.

As the poorest region of the poorest state, the Mississippi Delta illustrates the huge income disparity in the world's richest nation. The Delta is a rural region composed of 17 agricultural counties in the alluvial flood plain of the Mississippi River. The region is historically considered to be one of the most economically and educationally deprived areas of the nation.

The Delta region is the flagship of poverty in the state. According to the U.S. Census, 20 percent of the region's population is on food stamps.

The economic problems of the region have been endemic for quite some time. Even back between 2006 and 2008, while the nation had a 6.8 percent unemployment rate, the Delta held at 12 percent unemployment.

Susan Mayfield-Johnson, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for Sustainable Health Outreach at the University of Southern Mississippi, which researches community health in rural Mississippi. Dr. Mayfield-Johnson states that the lack of a viable non-agriculture-based economy in the region has resulted in "stagnant incomes and low-skilled jobs for decades."

The region also experiences significant barriers in education. Only 61.6 percent of adults in the region have a high school diploma, compared to 80.4 percent nationwide. Adults in Mississippi have the highest rate of low literacy in the nation, with 30 percent scoring as "Level 1" on the National Assessment of Adult Literacy conducted by the U.S. Department of Education in 2003. Level 1 literacy is generally defined as less than fifth-grade reading and comprehension skills.

Mississippi also leads the nation in a number of health care problems. It has the highest rate of heart disease and the second highest rate of diabetes in the country.

According to the Mississippi Department of Health, the prevalence of adult diabetes in the state increased by 70 percent between 1994 and 2006. The department also reports that one in three Mississippians suffer from hypertension.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among adults in Mississippi, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In fact, one out of every five adults in the state who die under the age of 65 dies from cardiovascular disease. Its prevalence in the state is 33.6 percent higher than in the U.S. as a whole. In the Delta region it is an astonishing 83.5 percent higher.

ABC News reported this month that the five U.S. counties with the lowest life expectancies for women are in the Mississippi Delta. All five counties have life expectancies for women of less than 74 years, which is lower than the nations of Honduras, Peru or El Salvador.

The study that ABC cited also revealed that the five counties with the lowest life expectancies for men are also in Mississippi, and four of them are in the Delta region. The life expectancies for men in these counties are all under 69 years, lower than countries like Brazil or Latvia.

The lack of health care access in the Mississippi Delta is even more staggering and may be a major factor in the health disparities seen in the state. In fact, the Mississippi Department of Health has designated the region as a health professional shortage area.

According to the Delta Health Alliance, a nonprofit organization aimed at improving health in the region, of the 5,000-plus physicians licensed in the state, only 584 are listed in the 17 Delta counties.

In the entire state there are only 16 diabetes and metabolic specialists, and there is only one in the 17-county Delta region. Of the 12 ophthalmologists in the Delta, only one accepts Medicaid. The state health department offers no chronic disease clinics in the region.

In total, there are 21 hospitals that service the region. The majority of them are small, under 20 beds, and limited in the services they deliver. Three Delta counties - Benton, Carroll and Tunica - have no hospital.

Gov. Haley Barbour's resistance to President Obama's health care reform adds to the region's woes. Barbour claims that the state cannot afford to cover more citizens' health care. "This new law will ultimately force the state to raise taxes, as hundreds of thousands of new people will be added to our Medicaid rolls," Barbour said.

Contrary to the facts, Barbour has claimed, "There's nobody in Mississippi who does not have access to health care." While this is obviously not true (18 percent of the state currently lacks insurance), Barbour has been making the problem worse since he took office in January 2004.

According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Mississippi cut its Medicaid rolls between 2004 and 2008. Barbour has also taken to cutting the health care safety net to balance the state's budget. He reduced the coverage for 65,000 citizens who qualified for a Poverty-Level Aged and Disability (PLAD) program. The state has also begun requiring unprecedented annual in-person interviews for Medicaid.

Mississippi, dominated by conservative politicians, has health care, income and economic disparities that embody the worst of the nation's ills. And the Delta is the most extreme example. Overall, conservatism doesn't seem to be translating into positive results for the Hospitality State.

Photo: A group of boys play baseketball in Tunica, Miss. Tunica, in the Mississippi Delta, is one of the poorest places in the country, and the county is one of three Delta counties that have no hospital. (AP/James Finley)

A victory for one is a victory for all

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:28:00 +0000

Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium and even G-8 member Italy all have deficit and debt crises. Greece owes $350 billion to Big Capital.

And Big Capital's representatives, the "troika" of the International Monetary Fund, European Union and European Central Bank, are demanding payment through "austerity budgets" - cutting wages, privatizing public enterprises, dismantling pensions and social services.

The financial crises in Europe are directly related to the U.S. 2008 Wall Street meltdown.

When the parasitic financial sector went into crisis mode, taxpayers in Europe and the United States bailed them out.

However, the banks and brokerage houses were not satisfied with the billions in bailout cash. As is the law of capitalism, maximizing the rate of profit and maximum accumulation of capital rule the day. In short, they want more. They are going after public resources to get it.

While the players and language may be different in Europe than the United States, certainly the American people recognize a similar struggle here. We are experiencing the same "austerity" drive by the representatives of Big Capital - the relentless attacks on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unions, Pell grants, teachers, Head Start, public education, minimum wage, civil rights, environmental regulations, fair tax structures and any other program or institution that attempts to serve the public or democratize economic relations.

Before the economic crisis hit the more developed capitalist countries of Europe and North America, there were other victims of debt crises in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The "Arab Spring" are in part a reaction to the havoc wreaked by the global predatory lending/borrowing system, as are the elections of left-center governments throughout Latin America.

If the people of Greece, Ireland, Spain and elsewhere succeed in their struggles, it will send a big message to the economic royalists: The people did not cause this debt crisis, and it should not be used to further enrich any bank or billionaire.

Why should the debt and deficits be put on the backs of firefighters, students, teachers and others who had nothing to do with it? Get the money where infamous robber Willie Sutton said it was - the big bankers! Plus, cut the bloated military budget, end the three U.S. wars, and tax those titans of trillions.

A victory for one makes possible a victory for all.

Photo: John Bachtell/PW

Barack Obama and the FBI

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:22:00 +0000

Raids on the homes of Midwest peace and labor leaders along with investigations of Texas vegetarian activists, Virginia animal rights supporters and Nebraska liberal Roman Catholics are just a few of the more recent outrages by Robert S. Mueller III's FBI.

Yet the FBI, with the apparent approval of Eric Holder's Justice Department, plans new rules changes that would give agents new powers to snoop, infiltrate, strong arm and secretly follow individuals whether or not they are suspected of committing a crime. Taken as whole they represent a serious challenge to constitutional rights and civil liberties.

The proposed new rules are to be included in an updated edition of the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide and will come into effect a month after publication.

The relaxation of restrictions on the FBI - called "fine-tuning" by bureau spokespersons - would allow agents to search government and commercial databases, rummage through trash, attend meetings and religious gatherings, and carry on surveillance against individuals almost without limit.

Current rules requiring agents to open "assessments" and "preliminary investigations" will be eased. Getting rid of the need for assessments will allow limitless search of databases without a paper trail. Shelving preliminary investigations will rid agents of a requirement of finding a factual basis for suspicion before pursuing potential leads.

That the proposals come under the auspices of the Obama administration gives no comfort. Make no mistake: The FBI needs greater, not less supervision.

The agency has long been at the center of political repression, harassment and dirty tricks. It was here that the Big Lie of anti-communism was first invented in our country - a lie repeatedly used against President Obama himself in the tea party's almost laughable attempt to paint him as a socialist.

The FBI's COINTELPRO program, used to disrupt and defame the civil rights, labor and peace movements in the 1960s and 1970s, is infamous, and its legacy, as pointed to above, survives even to this day.

Perhaps the rationale for the rules changes is law enforcement's need for greater flexibility in confronting terrorism.

But the need for greater policing - as opposed to reckless imperialist military adventures - to fight terrorism should not be used as an excuse to undermine democratic rights. In fact, the erosion of those rights will make that battle harder.

Suppressing dissent by unprovoked raids and "fishing expeditions," rifling through garbage in search of dirt to use as a tactic of intimidation, infiltration of labor and religious groups - these are the means of sowing fear and distrust in the body politic.

Such tactics, coupled with the Patriot Act's sweeping definition of "material support for terrorism," are a recipe for a democratic disaster.

The Obama administration, itself born of an unprecedented democratic movement, should take heed. The FBI's new tactics left unchecked will undermine the possibility of the very movement that brought this historic administration into office.

Congress is now considering a two-year extension of Director Mueller's term. Call the White House, Congress and the FBI itself and tell them no way! Insist they reject the new rules changes.

It's a question of rights - yours.

Photo: (John Bachtell/PW)

Miss USA geeks out over evolution

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:31:00 +0000

There was a change in the air at the 2011 Miss USA contest. Miss California, Alyssa Campanella, 21, the new Miss USA, called herself a "huge science geek" and said that evolution should be taught in schools.

During interviews in the preliminary judging, Campanella was one of just two out of 51 contestants who supported evolution. The other pro-Darwin contestant was Miss Massachusetts.

When asked about her view on the subject, Campanella said, "I was taught evolution in high school. I do believe in it. I believe in the big bang theory and, you know, the evolution of humans throughout time."

That wasn't the case with other contestants, 96 percent of whom either "confused the evolution of species with the origin of life," or agreed with what Miss Michigan said - which was that it's "silly" not to know "both sides." On the other hand, Miss Kentucky firmly rejected the teaching of evolution, a viewpoint that ought to make proud the state that gave a $43 million tax break to a religious theme park, while schools suffered for it.

USA Today explained that Miss USA's defense of evolution occurred during an off-air interview with judges; she was not given the opportunity to express these beliefs live.

In a recent article on the Huffington Post called "Rise of the Female Geek," authors 2morrowknight and Paul Steele wrote, "Dynamic females have an unshakable passion for education. The impact of female geeks is often ignored, or intentionally given 'special mention' status." This, said the writers, was unacceptable.

Campanella seems to be the polar opposite of 2009's Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Said Chron, Prejean was a conservative evangelical Christian who discussed her opposition to gay marriage.

Campanella, on the other hand, is living proof of what Richard Dawkins once said, suggested Techie Buzz, which was that since the brain was our primary tool for survival, it was also used to attract mates. In other words, "intellect is attractive." Thus, Campanella's evolutionary support may encourage a renewed sense of respect for women in these types of contests.

Miss California is actually a New Jersey native, and both a proud science nerd and history buff.

This development is another aspect of an apparent "coming out" of female science geeks, who are acting as intellectual role models and better examples for young women who want to achieve fame and do something positive.

Newser mentioned Academy Award-winning actress Natalie Portman, and noted that she was extremely knowledgeable about science. Portman made it to the semifinals of the Intel Science Talent Search, a research competition that has produced Nobel Prize winners. Portman went on to study neuroscience at Harvard.

Portman also noted the importance of depicting women in a positive and respectful way in films. Of her role in the recent Thor film, she said her character was "an astrophysicist. What a great opportunity," she remarked, "to make girls think it's possible" to become successful scientists. "It doesn't give them a role model of 'Oh, I just have to dress cute in movies.'"

Meanwhile, Miss USA's opinion may be another step forward for female equality, and could also gather more support for schools teaching evolution.

This support is needed more than ever, particularly in an era where teachers are refusing to teach kids proper science, and teaching "intelligent design" in its place.

Photo: Alyssa Campanella, Miss California and 2011 Miss USA, is a self-proclaimed science geek who was vocally supportive of evolution being taught in schools. Julie Jacobson/AP Photos

Greater unity needed to defend Social Security

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:01:00 +0000

The American Association of Retired Persons created an uproar June 17 when they signaled their openness to accepting Social Security benefit cuts.

Their announcement comes in a politically charged atmosphere as deficit mania has gripped the Capitol and Congressional debt reduction negotiations are intensifying.

Appearing to angle for a "seat at the table," AARP spokesperson David Certner said, "We know that benefit cuts will be on the table as part of a [debt reduction] package. Our preference is to maintain the Social Security benefits; others have different opinions and would prefer to cut Social Security much deeper."

Outrage and opposition outside and inside the organization immediately followed. The move was condemned by almost every comment on the AARP Facebook page and many threatened to quit the 37-million-member organization unless the statement was retracted.

"Americans are overwhelmingly united in their position on Social Security," said Nancy Altman, co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. "Politicians who think they can take cover through elite groups in Washington do so at their peril."

"There is no ambiguity on where the Alliance for Retired Americans stands on Social Security - never has been, never will be. We are against Social Security benefit cuts for seniors," said Ed Coyle, executive director of the ARA. "This is a very real threat ... the horse has left the barn."

The AARP announcement caught many off guard because the organization has steadfastly demanded Social Security not be part of any debt reduction discussions. They argued correctly that Social Security has nothing to do with the nation's budget deficit, because it is funded separately and mandated to spend only what it takes in.

Now it appears they have drunk the right-wing "Kool-Aid."

The uproar comes as Republicans, Wall Street and the network of right-wing think tanks bankrolled by the likes of the Koch brothers are waging a furious political and ideological assault on "entitlement" programs. They are demanding broad austerity cuts for the working class as ransom for raising the debt ceiling.

AARP's announcement means a wedge is being driven in the movement opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicaid when what is needed at this moment is greater unity and clarity.

Sections of global capital seek to further concentrate wealth by handing Social Security lock, stock and barrel to Wall Street and severely downsizing, privatizing or completely eliminating other functions of government that ensure the economic and social security of working people.

Such an austerity program that forcibly and permanently reduces the living standards of the American people fits the "new normal" of 8 percent or more unemployment, and dumps a population that is seen as a burden on society. It will cast tens of millions more, including seniors, into destitution.

This policy will not alleviate the long-term economic crisis, as developments in Greece are attesting. One round of austerity cuts only seems to bring upon another.

The co-chairs of President Obama's National Commission for Fiscal Responsibility and Reform greeted the AARP announcement. Their proposed austerity measures are the broad outlines for negotiations between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressional Republicans.

"It's a big move because seniors trust them, and when AARP says that, you know, this is OK, then it makes it easier for politicians to make those difficult choices," co-chair Erskine Bowles told Bob Moon of Marketplace.

AARP's statement is a retreat in the face of Washington gridlock and the all out right-wing corporate assault. Kowtowing to these interests will not win the organization's leadership a "place at the table," nor will it solve the debt crisis.

The Social Security Trust Fund is solvent at current benefit rates until 2036. If anything, benefits for the 55 million Americans who currently have them and future recipients need to be increased. The average Social Security recipient is getting $14,000 a year in benefits and has not had a cost of living increase in the past two years.

Unfortunately, one proposal being strongly considered in the Biden-Republican talks would fraudulently refigure the Social Security cost of living formula and sharply reduce benefits, especially for future recipients.

But there are ways to defend and even expand Social Security for future generations.

A coalition of organizations defending Social Security against cuts and privatization - Social Security Works, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Foundation, and the ARA released a five-state poll showing that 77 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of independents, and 65 percent of Republicans support "scrapping the cap" on the Social Security payroll tax.

Currently, everyone pays 6.2 percent taxes on income up to the first $106,800. Anyone making above that only pays the tax on that $106,800. Many studies show if all income above that is taxed the Social Security shortfall will be solved.

Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said if the cap was raised only up to $180,000, current benefits could be maintained permanently.

The Social Security Trust Fund could be further bolstered with another robust federal stimulus, including a bailout to the deficit-ridden states and municipalities, that will ensure they can rehire the 450,000 public workers laid off during this crisis and that funds the creation of a new WPA program, putting the 20 million unemployed Americans back to work. These are all workers who will pay into the fund.

This is class war over society's wealth: Will it continue flowing to Wall Street and the super rich or be redistributed to the working class and people? Unity and struggle will be the key.

Photo: Shane Becker // CC 2.10

Wisconsin, the law, and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:29:00 +0000

MILWAUKEE - Three years ago, during a balmy summer night in Madison, Wis., I came across a large house on the lake. I was canvassing for Citizen Action of Wisconsin on the issue of health care reform. I remember how awful the mosquitoes were that night, making it very difficult to talk to the public. Evening had fallen and the Capitol building's reflection on the lake was quite spectacular to behold.

When I got to the houses on the lake, I noticed they were all quite large. Not one of them looked like another, and they all had that "liberal" air. So far the night had gone well, as expected, as I got to talk to and gain support from many people in my "turf." When I knocked on the door of this particularly spacious house, an elderly, petite woman answered the door. I gave her my rap and she listened intently. I remember her kind. intelligent eyes taking in my entire speech. When I finished and asked for her support, she said she would love to help out, but couldn't since she was on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and had to be impartial about political matters. I told her I would keep her name out of things if she would support us, but she graciously declined. She wished me luck and then bid me adieu.

As I left, I noticed her mailbox had six or more containers for various newspapers and periodicals. I muttered to myself that she was certainly eager to keep informed about the day's events. Then I saw her name humbly painted on the mailbox: "S. Abrahamson." It was then that I realized I had just chatted with the Chief Justice.

I remember my feelings at the time: I was disappointed that I could not elicit her support. In my enthusiasm to make the world a better place with health care reform, I didn't take into account the larger issue Abrahamson was exemplifying.

Last week, Justice Abrahamson did not go along with the majority in the state Supreme Court which reinstated Gov. Scott Walker's "budget repair" amendment wiping out collective bargaining for most public employees. The majority overturned a circuit judge's decision that the Republican-controlled legislative committee violated the state's open meetings law when it hastily met in March to push through the highly controversial amendment.

I eagerly read her dissent in its entirety. I was struck by her effort to keep the court pure, which is to say, free and impartial from the other branches of government, and from special interest groups, and it brought me back to that balmy day in Madison.

Over and over again she made the same point, as if she were trying to convince someone deaf to her pleas. Here are some examples.

Only with a reasoned, accurate analysis can a court assure the litigants and the public that a decision is made on the basis of the facts and law, free from a judge's personal ideology and free from external pressure by the executive or legislative branches, by political parties, by public opinion, or by special interest groups.

A court assumes that the legislature says what it means, and means what it says. The words in a statute are not to be treated as rhetorical flair.

Playing by the rules and playing fair are integral to public trust and confidence in our government officials - legislative, executive, and judicial. Public confidence in the integrity of the judicial branch is engendered by a court's issuing a reasoned public decision based on public records after public arguments.

Trust and confidence in the integrity of the judicial branch as an institution is critical at all times but especially when a case has high public visibility, is mired in partisan politics, and is emotionally charged.

The order and Justice David Prosser's concurrence are based on errors of fact and law. They inappropriately use this court's original jurisdiction, make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891.

The order and Justice Prosser's concurrence put in jeopardy prior case law that declares that a court may determine whether legislative action in enactment of a law complies with a relevant constitutional directive.

There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.

Some people called her dissent "scathing" or "stinging." I call it a much-needed reminder to play fair, to think and judge without bias, and to use critical thinking skills to the highest degree. Perhaps the only surprising thing about her comments is that she had to make them at all. But I am not surprised that she maintained her integrity, as I witnessed it first-hand. What is so badly lacking in many who sit on the court is this sense of fairness and this respect for the law.

Chief Justice Abrahamson's voice rings out true and strong in the concluding comments of her dissent:

"The majority, by sacrificing honest reasoning, leads us down a pernicious path. The order today departs from fundamental principles. It fails to abide by the court's Constitutional authority and its own rules and procedures and harms the rights of the people from whom our authority derives."

Scathing? I don't see it. Apropos? Indeed.

Photo: Swearing to uphold the law: Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson swears in Scott Walker as governor in the rotunda of the state Capitol, Jan. 3, 2011, in Madison. (AP/Morry Gash)

Budget cuts are really people cuts

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:01:00 +0000

When governments decide to balance their budgets by cutting services to the very young and to the elderly, or by cutting medical care and pension benefits, they are doing more than just saving some money for the current fiscal year and trying to reign in social spending so that they can continue to cut taxes for the rich and increase military spending. They are also bringing about the premature deaths of thousands of people they judge to be a socially useless surplus population unable to produce surplus value for the capitalist economic system. Their deaths are the real savings, as the dead no longer need any services or medical care at all.

I'm not making this up. Science Daily reported that the British Medical Journal has concluded, "Radical cuts to social welfare spending could cause not just economic pain but cost lives." The BMJ article describes the effect of spending cuts in Europe, but it is not too wild to speculate that here in the U.S., where our social safety net has many more and bigger holes in it than in Europe, budget cuts to social and medical services will have even worse consequences for people.

David Stuckler of Oxford University and his team have shown a relation, revealing that the amounts of social spending by governments are "strongly associated" with people's risk of death from heart disease and illnesses linked to alcohol and other like conditions, which Science Daily calls "diseases relating to social circumstances."

The study showed that this association shows up even with health care budgets that have been protected. The science magazine reports that, according to Stuckler, "social welfare spending is as important, if not more so [than health budgets], for population health." It is not hard to figure out what will happen to the poor and elderly if, in the U.S., the big cuts to Medicare go through, along with reductions in social programs.

The Oxford group went over data, which included social programs aimed at families with children, job programs for the unemployed and help for the disabled, from 15 countries collected by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

We should not be surprised by their findings, namely "that when social spending was high, mortality rates fell, but when they were low, mortality rates rose substantially." They also found out that there were two areas where the state could cut spending without killing off the poor and elderly - areas with no "negative impact on the public's health." Those areas were the military and the prisons. But these are the very areas where they want to increase spending, for which cuts in public welfare have to be made.

The study concludes, "This report reveals that ordinary people may be paying the ultimate price for budget cuts - potentially costing them their lives."

You can be sure that what applies to the Europeans also applies to us, in spades.

Food deficits, deadlier than budget deficits

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:59:00 +0000

SEQUIM, Wash. - The United Nations reported recently that global hunger has soared 11 percent from 915 million people to 1.02 billion as consumption of staple crops - wheat, rice, soybeans and corn - outstrips production.

It reverses half a century in which the so-called "Green Revolution" led to a six-fold increase in food production, gradually reducing food deficits around the world. Global climate change, the resulting droughts, floods and other extreme weather, coupled with population growth, are blamed for the resurgent hunger. Food prices in many regions have doubled, touching off food riots and destabilizing nations as far-flung as Mexico, Yemen, Uzbekistan and Egypt.

The New York Times, in a June 5 report headlined "A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself," warned that without prompt action, these food deficits will grow, with the danger of famines that would take the lives of millions.

Living on a farm makes me think long and deep about food deficits here at home and around the world, deficits far more menacing than the budget deficits that lawmakers rant and rave about. The deficits in the stomachs of the poor could turn into starvation - or food poisoning - if Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's draconian budget, with its vicious cutbacks in nutrition programs and food safety enforcement, is approved by the Senate.

Nash Huber, who has raised vegetables, eggs, hogs and now grain on 400 leased acres in this valley since 1979, is certainly part of the answer to food shortages. He was awarded the annual "Steward of the Land" prize in 2008 by the American Farmland Trust. He has recruited a team of young men and women who have chosen farming as their vocation.

They planted wheat on our farm a couple of years ago and it grew into a bumper crop. He sent off a sample for analysis and it came back with a stunning result: 15.5 percent protein, so high he thought it was a mistake. It was not. A few weeks later, local bakeries were selling "artisan bread made from Nash Huber's organic wheat." It is delicious!

Huber made a trip to Europe a few years ago, obtaining seeds for varieties of cabbage and other vegetables long vanished from our monoculture grocery stores. These "legacy" varieties are now growing luxuriantly in this valley, shipped to farmers markets here and as far away as Seattle.

The newsletter of the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society featured an article by Liz Sarno, who came to see Huber's operation for herself. She hailed the young farmers as "energetic, enthusiastic... passionate about what they are contributing ...caretakers for this special piece of fertile soil."

Huber's operation, she wrote, could be a model to "help revitalize and rejuvenate our dwindling rural communities," by attracting thousands of young people back into farming.

Yet Huber and his followers face a daunting struggle. This valley, once a thriving dairy center, has lost 70 percent of farmland to real estate development. Many of the houses now stand vacant in the collapse of the housing boom.

Corporate agribusiness is another ruthless foe. A couple of months ago, about 40 people, many of them Huber's followers, stood on the main intersection in Sequim holding signs like "Stop Monsanto" and "No More Frankenfood." It was part of the "Millions Against Monsanto" campaign.

One protester held a sign blasting Monsanto for its role in driving 100,000 Indian farmers to suicide as the corporation attempted to impose a modern form of peonage, forcing farmers to buy Monsanto's genetically modified seeds rather than setting aside next year's seed corn from their own crops.

Budget cutbacks are crippling agricultural research. Funding for the network of worldwide agricultural research stations set up under the leadership of Dr. Norman E. Borlaug has been slashed by half in the past 20 years, with some of these centers "suffering mass layoffs," the Times reported. These are the research institutions that developed the grains that made the "green revolution."

President Obama pledged $3.5 billion to support this research during an international meeting in A'quila, Italy, two years ago. A total of $22 billion was pledged. So far, though, Congress has approved only $1.9 billion, and the balance is in doubt, given budget deficit hysteria. And much of the $22 billion was not new money but rather nations reiterating pledges made earlier. Politicians who slash research aimed at averting famines "know the cost of everything and the value of nothing."

Over half a century ago, my father, one spring, planted oats on fifty acres of our farm. It grew with remarkable vigor. When the breeze picked up in the evenings that summer, it sent rippling waves across a vast, emerald sea.

The combine arrived in late August and I was assigned to ride in the big box on the bed of our ton-and-a-half Dodge, shoveling the grain into the corners to even the load. The oats poured in a golden torrent around my knees, 140 bushels per acre, as the combine inched along. We harvested about 147 tons of oats from that field. That's enough cereal to feed the population of a medium-sized town for a month or so.

We need farm policies that keep farmers on the land, producing enough nutritious food to feed the hungry and sustain our planet. We also need budget policies that combat hunger by doing the research, making food safe and affordable.

Photo: Nash Huber, left, leads members of the Olympic Orchard Society on a tour of his Dungeness farm. Tim Wheeler/PW