People Before Profit blog

Female student wins right to wear tuxedo to prom

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:10:00 +0000

CHICAGO - Belinda Sanchez, 18, is a senior at Proviso East High School, located just west of here, in the suburb of Maywood.

Sanchez, an open lesbian at her school since freshman year, said she was looking forward to wearing the tuxedo her father had bought to the prom. But the school principal, Milton Patch, told Sanchez she could not wear the suit and that she should consider wearing a dress.

"I was shocked," Sanchez said in a press release. "I didn't know what to say. I felt like crying out of anger. I didn't expect it from him."

The school has an active gay-straight alliance and is very supportive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, said Sanchez.

So Sanchez contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which sent a letter to the school district in support of her constitutional right to wear a tuxedo to prom.

"This sends a negative message to other students that they can't express who they are," said John Knight, director of the ACLU's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Project to the Chicago Tribune. "It's a first amendment right, a free speech right, and that includes her right to send a message through wearing male clothing that she doesn't think women should be restricted to traditional female clothing."

Soon after the Proviso Township school district replied saying Sanchez will be allowed to wear a tuxedo to prom after all.

District official TaQuoya Kennedy said the decision was actually made before the ACLU sent their letter. In an email to the Tribune, Kennedy wrote that Sanchez has opened "up a new, very interesting and healthy dialogue in terms of our prom review procedures. We support our students in all of their differences and we encourage them to express themselves in various ways as long as it is not disruptive to the school environment. The principal gave his initial determination based on his interpretation of the policy, and the student asked that it be reconsidered. After looking into the policy - it was."

Sanchez plans to wear a white tuxedo with a black bow tie.

"I'm happy," she said. "I didn't just stand up for myself. I did this for everyone who's in a position like I'm in."

The young student hopes to become a civil rights attorney one day and has already won her first victory.

All seriousness aside Sanchez says the whole ordeal, including the positive outcome, was "like a fairy tale gone totally fairy."

“We Are One” actions honor King and Chavez

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:27:00 +0000

The struggles led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar Chavez reflect what public workers and immigrants are fighting for today - their collective bargaining rights and a voice on the job, say Ana Avendaño and Jennifer Angarita of the AFL-CIO.

As hundreds of thousands join nationwide actions on April 4 under the banner "We Are One" to advocate on behalf of all working people, they will honor two dates: March 31 (Chavez' birthday) and April 4 (the day in 1968 when King was assassinated).

Ana Avendaño is originally from Chile. She left Chile with her parents after the military coup led by dictator Augusto Pinochet, which brought down the democratically elected administration of socialist President Salvador Allende in 1973. Avendaño, a U.S. citizen, came to the U.S. via Canada to attend college during the 1980s.

Today she is director of Immigration and Community Action for the AFL-CIO, working closely with the federation's president, Richard Trumka.

"We're living in a time of deep inequality and the recent response by GOP state lawmakers to take collective bargaining rights away from working people only adds to that inequality," Avendaño said in a phone interview. "And inequality is really the root of our economic crisis."

The wealthy are getting wealthier, millions are unemployed and living in poverty, and conditions for immigrant workers are getting worse, she said.

"But we have a lot to learn from the early 1960s," she noted. "The main lesson about Cesar Chavez is that social change starts from the ground up. We have to force the change we want. The fight for public workers, and really all workers, is directly related to the fight for immigrants. They're not separated. We are one."

There is a wonderful wave of social activism being waged in states across the country, and that's what Chavez taught us and we need to learn from that, Avendaño said. There is also a link to the philosophy of King and Chavez that ushered nonviolent, peaceful demonstrations for change on a mass scale, she said.

As labor, faith-based, civil rights and community activists prepare to take to the streets on April 4, Avendaño said the Latino community has been at the cusp of the growing social movements. In 2006, Latinos and the immigrant community rose up for justice and today are fighting for the same agenda, she said. "As Latinos, we should be very proud that we have been at the forefront of these struggles."

Another young leader in the AFL-CIO is Jennifer Angarita, 22, whose parents migrated to the U.S. from Colombia. Angarita is a media outreach fellow with the labor federation. She said her immigrant background and seeing the struggles of her parents shaped her union activism.

"Every worker deserves collective bargaining rights and a voice in the political process," she said. "Workers and immigrants are under attack by the corporate-funded right-wing GOP agenda."

Forty-three years ago 1,300 city sanitation workers were fighting for their collective bargaining rights, which brought King to Memphis, Tenn., Angarita said. "Today we are still honoring that struggle, which he gave his life for."

In the same vein we see immigrants under attack like public workers then and now, she noted. Immigrants and workers are not at fault for the economic crisis, she said. "Wall Street and their corporate greed caused the recession."

Organizing between now and April 4, a wide coalition of labor and progressive allies is building on the legacies of King and Chavez and their struggle for economic justice, said Angarita.

Latinos, the fastest growing segment of the labor force, continue to face tremendous challenges - poverty, home foreclosures, and high school dropout rates, she said.

"But unions exist so we can work together to raise the living standards of the middle class and give working people a voice," she emphasized. "Latinos in particular stand to gain and learn a lot from the labor movement."

Workers' rights are fundamental in every aspect of our daily lives, Angarita said. "We have to continue fighting for immigration reform because if we really want a good economy that works for everyone then it's absolutely essential that any approach toward reform value and respect the humanity of immigrant workers."

There is a lot at stake for Angarita's generation of young people, she said. "Issues that are being fought on behalf of workers and immigrants today will have a huge effect on us for years to come."

Learn more about local "We Are One" actions from now through Monday in your area here. www.workerstakeaction.org.

Image: Cesar Chavez, head of the United Farm Workers of America, is shown in his office in Keene, Calif. He announced the end of a seven and one-half years boycott against the California lettuce and and grape industries on January 1978. (AP Photo)

California Senate approves “card check” bill on Cesar Chavez’ birthday

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:53:00 +0000

The California State Senate honored the legendary labor leader Cesar Chavez on his birthday, March 31, by approving "card check" legislation for farm workers seeking union representation.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama declared March 31Cesar Chavez Day in honor of the late farm labor leader's birthday. Chavez would have been 84 yesterday.

Ten states already commemorate Cesar Chavez Day, including California, Arizona and New Mexico.

Outside the Senate floor, after the vote, United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez, flanked by dozens of union members, broke into cheers and chants of "Sí, se puede."

Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, the bill's author, accompanied by union members, then hand-delivered the bill to Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, also a Democrat.

"This is a simple, sensible, righteous piece of legislation that does not eliminate secret ballot but gives farm workers another option to choose a collective bargaining representative," Steinberg told the Sacramento Bee.

The action by the Democratic controlled state senate to expand collective bargaining rights for farm workers stands in sharp contrast to Republican efforts in Wisconsin and elsewhere to eliminate such rights for public employees.

Senate Bill 104, which passed on a party-line vote 24-14, would grant workers the right to unionize by having a majority of them sign and submit petition cards to the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

The legislation would also impose steep penalties on employers seeking to prevent workers from unionizing and engaging in unfair labor practices.

With "card check" legislation, California is on course to pass a new law that would give farm workers in the state union rights that have so far eluded the labor movement seeking comparable legislation at the national level for workers generally, through its campaign for the Employee Free Choice Act.

Similar legislation has passed several times in recent years both California legislative chambers, where Democrats hold majorities, only to be vetoed by former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Newly elected Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has not indicated whether he would sign the bill, according to the Bee. But, Brown, who owes his election largely to the state's labor movement, would be hard put not to sign.

The California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which created the labor relations board, is a landmark statute establishing collective bargaining for farm workers in the state, signed into law by Brown himself in 1975 during his earlier tenure as California governor.

The law is a product of the farm workers' cause that Chavez championed in the 1960s and 1970s, which drew broad national support and inspired legions of Americans to social activism.

Throughout this week, Chavez' legacy was celebrated in numerous actions across the nation.

In Sacramento, California's capital, more than 400 people braved wind and rain Saturday in a march that drew a diverse crowd from union workers, teachers and school children to low rider groups and the homeless, the Bee reported.

"The issues of the 1960s are the same, but even worse, today," said march organizer Al Rojas, who had worked with Chavez in the fields in 1961. "Right now, workers are feeling the loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of benefits and the loss of education of their children."

"Cesar's legacy is about not just remembering what he did in the past but continuing his work," Rojas concluded, according to the Bee.

Image: A San Francisco mural depicting the iconic Chavez, along with Che Guevara and Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata. Franco Folini // CC BY-SA 2.0

“Odd couple” backs BUILD Act for jobs

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:07:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donahue are an odd couple on Capitol Hill, urging Congress - and the private sector - to approve hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild the nation's bridges, highways, schools, power grid and other vital public infrastructure while also creating millions of well-paying jobs.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas invited Trumka and Donahue to a joint press conference March 15 to introduce the "BUILD Act of 2011" to create a new federal Infrastructure Bank. BUILD is an acronym for Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-Term Development.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, joined by Rep. Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, and others introduced a companion measure in the House last Jan. 24.

Kerry hailed the bipartisan, labor-business coalition that is supporting the BUILD Act. "Experts say we will need to invest $250 billion for each of the next fifty years just to meet our nation's surface transportation needs," Kerry told the news conference. "And it will cost more than $2 trillion to bring our country's existing infrastructure to an acceptable level."

The Kerry-Hutchinson bill would appropriate $10 billion in federal "seed money" that would be used to leverage up to $600 billion in private investments to pay for hundreds of urgently needed public works projects, many of them "shovel ready.

Donohue told the news conference, "I'd also like to recognize Rich Trumka. A few weeks ago, Rich and I appeared before Sen. Barbara Boxer's [Democrat of California] Environment and Public Works Committee united in our support for adequate infrastructure investments. We're seeing so much of each other lately we begin touring next month in the newest production of 'The Odd Couple.'"

Donahue cited the abysmal grade of "D" by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the nation's physical infrastructure. "Poor road conditions are a factor in one-third of all traffic fatalities," he added. "As we fall behind, our competitors are racing ahead, building superior infrastructure that will attract jobs, businesses and capital ... Americans wonder why our government doesn't act."

Hundreds of billions in pension funds, private equity funds and mutual funds are available for investment in high quality, low risk infrastructure projects, Donohue added, "And not just for highways and bridges but for energy, ports, inland waterways, dams and levees, expansion of the electrical grid and other infrastructure."

Donahue also urged Congress to approve the transportation bill, long stalled by the Republicans, that would pump hundreds of billions of dollars into highway and bridge projects preserving and creating tens of thousands of jobs.

Trumka told the news conference the U.S. is investing "less than 40 percent of what is necessary to meet the nation's infrastructure needs. That is unacceptable and unsustainable." The Kerry-Hutchinson Senate bill and the DeLauro House bill "help reach our shared goal of a better life for all Americans" while creating millions of public works jobs, Trumka said, adding that the bill "lays a strong foundation for growth." The AFL-CIO, he said, will work to insure "strong wage protection for workers," benefits and union bargaining rights in the program.

These odd couples, Republican and Democrat, labor and business, are a striking contrast to the rancorous partisan gridlock whipped up by the tea party Republicans who block any bipartisan measure that could pull the nation out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Instead, the Republican right is intent on terminating or privatizing the safety net, including Medicare and Social Security in the name of "deficit reduction."

The Republican right wing claims this is necessary to "create jobs" but the cutbacks have generated a tsunami of 450,000 public employee layoffs that has nullified nearly all the gains in private sector job creation. These layoffs, in turn, have worsened the crisis by reducing tax revenues leading to more layoffs in a downward spiral.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich warned recently that the nation is at severe risk of a "double dip," sliding back into a second, far worse recession unless the federal government acts boldly to create millions of jobs. Instead, the Republican leadership is preaching austerity, claiming the nation is "broke" and cannot afford federal job creation programs. Reich points out that Wall Street banks profits soared to $426.5 billion last quarter and the banks are sitting on three trillion in capital, much of it generated by the TARP taxpayer bailout. Restoring the tax rate on banks and corporations to the rate imposed until the Reagan era would generate hundreds of billions in tax revenues. A hundred billion or more could be deposited in this federal Infrastructure Development Bank.

DeLauro told a news conference back in January that the Infrastructure Development Bank "creates good middle class jobs at a time of unacceptably high unemployment and spurs economic growth.

Ellison said, "Priority number one for this congress must be creating jobs and lowering unemployment. A National Infrastructure Development Bank is designed to simultaneously rehabilitate our crumbling roads and bridges and put America back to work."

Image: People's World

Obama outlines plan to reduce U.S. oil use

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:55:00 +0000

With gasoline prices edging towards $4 per gallon and a new military excursion underway in Libya, President Barack Obama took time Wednesday, March 30, to outline his administration's goal to radically reduce U.S. dependence on oil and fossil and fuels.

In a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, President Obama said, "I'm setting a new goal: one that is reasonable, achievable, and necessary. When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third."

In a move that will likely irk environmentalist sections of his coalition, the president called for increased production of oil, including offshore exploration "as long as it's safe and responsible." His plan emphasizes the need to implement safety features to prevent recurrence of the BP oil spill.

He pointed out, however, that the U.S. can neither depend on foreign sources of oil nor will it ever produce enough on its own to cover its needs. Therefore, renewable alternatives are an absolute necessity.

He urged rapid development of sources of natural gas, renewable biofuels (including cellulosic ethanol), as well as the infrastructure to ensure that consumers can access these fuel alternatives.

He is pushing for higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, making breakthroughs in the production of electric vehicles.

In addition to transportation needs, the president called for incentives for building upgrades to reduce home-heating costs.

The president wants to increase the development of clean energy sources such as wind and solar energy. He said that within 25 years he wants to see 80 percent of U.S. electricity come from clean energy sources, including wind, solar, "clean coal," and nuclear power.

This latter point will likely be least convincing for most Americans, but the president emphasized the need to ensure that nuclear energy is safe and secure, promising a comprehensive review of the country's nuclear energy facilities, which create some 20 percent of the electricity used here.

In short, the president called basically for extending the unprecedented new investments implemented under the recovery act.

In support of President Obama's speech, senior administration officials joined with several mayors from across the country on a press conference call Wednesday, March 30, to express support for his stated goals.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told reporters that the administration understands how high gas prices are hitting working families. The solution to high gas prices lies in the U.S. becoming less dependent on oil, which seems to be tied to fluctuations in foreign policy concerns in the parts of the world.

LaHood sugarcoated the issue. "The President wanted to talk about the future rather than the past," he said, preferring to ignore the U.S. role in destabilizing the Middle East in the past decade (at least), which result in the present upward pressure on gas prices. Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the national average for a gallon of gasoline stood at about $1.30 per gallon.

Ironically, the Bush administration had erroneously justified the invasion by claiming it would reduce gasoline prices by expanding the supply of petroleum products.

LaHood emphasized the unprecedented efforts on the part of the administration to invest in, research, promote, and develop alternatives to oil. "We're not just going to talk about the problems," he said. "The administration has a plan; it's all hands on deck."

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa optimistically added, "For forty years, presidents have talked about moving away from a reliance on foreign oil. President Obama actually put a plan forward to get us away from an addiction to that foreign oil."

Image: Obama speaks on oil. Courtesy of the White House press service.

Leaders demand GOP condemn Cantor call to abolish Social Security

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:13:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. , and leading senior advocates demanded at a press conference here today that Republican lawmakers condemn Majority Leader Eric Cantor's call to abolish Social Security and Medicare.

On Tuesday Cantor said, on a taped interview for NPR's "Morning Edition," that, "Just from the very notion that 50 percent of beneficiaries under the Social Security program use those monies as their sole source of income, we're saying we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we are to have the kind of America we want to have."

Schakowsky, who co-chairs the Congressional Seniors Task Force, said she is "not surprised that Eric Cantor would call for eliminating a program that has lifted millions of seniors from poverty because the House Majority Leader is the co-author of a book that promotes privatization of Social Security and replacing Medicare with a voucher system.

"These are outrageous plans that are designed to enrich Wall Street at the expense of seniors who worked hard and paid all their lives into Social Security," she said.

"All of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, must be put on record regarding where they stand on Eric Cantor's completely out-of-touch call to destroy Social Security."

The Illinois Democrat asserted that "all reputable polls show huge majorities of the population - Republicans, Democrats, Independents and even tea party members - back Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Even Medicaid, the least popular of the three programs, is backed by an overwhelming 67 percent of the population."

Ed Coyle, executive director of the 4-million-member Alliance for Retired Americans, said he was "glad Cantor has finally come out and put his cards on the table. Now we know what we have to do for the 2012 elections.

"Twelve states will decide who is elected president and who will control both houses of Congress," Cole said, "and in each of those states seniors will be a deciding factor. Thank you, Eric Cantor, for clarifying what millions of seniors will be doing in the 2012 elections. You and your Republican colleagues will be hearing from us between now and then."

Eric Kingston, coordinator of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of 270 organizations, blasted Cantor for "thinking he can reach into Social Security as if it were a piggy bank to fund tax cuts for the rich and bailouts for Wall Street institutions."

A reporter from one news outlet said, during the press conference, that he was "receiving emails from the Majority Leader's office saying that Mr. Cantor may have misspoken" during the NPR interview and that "Social Security will not be cut for current recipients in the current Republican budget."

"Don't think that Republicans are going to give Social Security a pass," Schakowsky warned.

She characterized the NPR interview as a clear signal by Cantor to right-wing extremists that "they shouldn't worry. Even if we can't kill the program right now, we will get around to it.

"Their real intentions have always been clear and ending cost of living increases indeed hurts current recipients. But even if there were no cuts at all to the program itself seniors are suffering. Social Security used to be part of a three legged stool," she explained. "The other legs were a defined benefits pension and a decent life savings. For millions of people those other two legs are no longer there."

Photo: (John Bachtell/PW)

Small Wal-Mart action led to big sex discrimination suit

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:58:00 +0000

PITTSBURG, Calif. - It all started with something Betty Dukes didn't do in 1998 at a Wal-Mart store in Pittsburg, Calif. She didn't come back late from lunch.

But her manager said she did and initiated retaliatory coaching for the veteran greeter at the store. But there were no such warnings, or punishments, for male co-workers who did come back late, she noticed.

And Dukes, now 61, a dignified, well-spoken African-American woman distinguished by a ready smile, a steely will and wire-rimmed glasses, started noticing other things at her Wal-Mart, too. She wanted training for managerial vacancies, but was never told of opportunities. When vacancies opened, they went to less-qualified men. And she got demoted - and her pay cut - after the "coaching." Men did not.

Then she started asking questions: How much were the men paid? How much were the women paid? Who got the higher ratings - and who got the management jobs? And all those questions, banded together with similar questions from other woman workers at other Wal-Marts, led Betty Dukes and her colleagues to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 29.

There, as Dukes, Edith Arana, Deborah Gunter, Christine Kwapnoski, Stephanie Odle and other female Wal-Mart workers looked on, their attorneys argued the class-action suit they and almost 1.6 million other present and former female Wal-Mart workers filed should go forward. The suit covers from 1998 until the present.

Wal-Mart attorneys argued it shouldn't. Wal-Mart argued Dukes, Kwapnoski and the others should sue it - the world's largest private enterprise - one by one.

In an interview after the High Court hearing, Dukes says she shouldn't have to do that.

"I was aware of gender and racial discrimination and I was falsely accused of violating a policy" that wasn't even on Wal-Mart's books, she said. That's when Dukes started talking to female co-workers. They discovered men were paid more, despite women's better evaluations and more experience, and that promotions were skewed.

"So I started looking for legal help and while talking to the lawyers about what happened to me, I also mentioned to them the other discrimination that was going on."

What was going on was pervasive, company-wide sexual discrimination, lawyers for the women say. Drawing on depositions from the women who have been willing to step forward, they described a corporate culture at Wal-Mart of lower pay for equal work, of refusal to post vacancies but instead reserving them for men, of lack of promotions and of sexual condescension.

That includes the fact that women with the same qualifications and experience as men consistently earned $1,100 less per year, each. That includes the fact that even though Wal-Mart's workforce is majority female, only 33 percent of low-level managers are women and that number sharply shrinks the higher you go in the Wal-Mart hierarchy.

Kwapnoski, of Bay Point, Calif., said the sexual condescension, discrimination and harassment was the same at her Sam's Club. Kwapnoski had a back-office no-contact-with-customers entry-level Receiving Office Manager job, which she finally got after the class-action case began in 2001. Her general manager gave her "advice."

"I was told to 'blow the cobwebs off my makeup' and 'doll up,'" Kwapnoski said. But it wasn't just make-up; it was something more.

The manager also told her that men were being promoted and getting raises - while she was not - because "they have families to support."

"Well, at the time I was a single mom with two kids. I, too, have a family to support," Kwapnoski says.

The case has gone on so long that one of the women, Odle, who now lives in Norman, Okla., showed reporters a picture of her daughter, at age 3, when it began.

"I made a promise that she wouldn't have to go through what I had to go through. And here we are," Odle said, gesturing at the 14-year-old girl beside her.

Wal-Mart's defense in the High Court, said the attorneys for the women, came down to two arguments: That it's too big to sue and that because it has an employee handbook that outlaws sexual discrimination on the job, that should be enough.

And in their press conference after the High Court hearing on whether the class-action case should go forward to an actual trial, Wal-Mart attorneys trotted out a female manager who said she got her position in fewer than four years after being hired.

That doesn't surprise Dukes or her colleagues: They told reporters that in recent years, Wal-Mart has changed some policies, such as posting managerial vacancies. In a way, Dukes said, the women suing Wal-Mart have already won.

"It started as Dukes vs. Wal-Mart," she said. "Now, it's Wal-Mart vs. Dukes."

Georgia activists denounce anti-immigrant bills

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:42:00 +0000

Georgia state lawmakers are considering tough anti-immigrant bills similar to Arizona's draconian and controversial SB 1070, which passed last year.

Georgia's Republican Gov. Nathan Deal supports tough laws on immigration. State legislators are proposing two anti-immigrant bills, House Bill 87 and Senate Bill 40. Both resemble hard enforcement on immigration similar to Arizona's.

For example the "Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011" would require businesses to use the E-verify system to insure employees are U.S. citizens. It also allows police that apprehend a suspect for any crime, including a traffic violation, to check their immigration status. The bill would also make it against the law to "knowingly transport an illegal immigrant" in the state. It also requires any agency administering public help to require proof of citizenship.

Immigrant rights activist say the legislation is racist.

Teodoro Maus, president of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, said the bill would strip people's civil, human and constitutional rights. They all go out the window, he said.

Last week, more than 3,000 people surrounded the State Capitol in Atlanta to rally for immigrant rights and to protest the anti-immigrant bills. Activists say they've already compiled a list of companies, groups and celebrities that have pledged to boycott Georgia if the proposed bills are passed.

(CORRECTION: In a previous version of this article, the author mistakenly inserted information on Duluth, Minn. The part has been deleted and we regret the error.)

Third grade homework: Should U.S. put "illegal aliens" to death?

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:27:00 +0000

A troubling homework assignment at a Georgia school recently asked third-graders, "What is an illegal alien?" and whether the U.S. should put them to death, force them to work in the army or shoot them into outer space.

The controversial "reading assignment" caught the attention of Kelly Avalos after her 9-year-old brother asked for help with his homework.

"The homework assignment was not appropriate," said Avalos to CNN. "The questions and story were disturbing, and I felt offended by what was asked. My brother is in the third grade, and I don't feel he needs to be reading things such as putting another human to death because of their legal status ... the idea upsets me," she said.

The assignment was given to students at the Chesney Elementary School in Duluth, a suburb of Atlanta.

Apparently school officials agree with Avalos and note the mishap. Gwinnett County Public Schools spokesperson Jorge Quintana said the first year teacher, who happens to be Latina, did not use good judgment in choosing the assignment for her students.

"Teachers have the option to use additional and supplemental material for education purposes," said Quintana. "But this particular material was not approved by the school district."

He said the school system has established procedures to review educational materials that teachers select for the classrooms. However, that process was overlooked and the individual teacher obtained the material without approval by school administrators.

After outrage by parents, community and immigrant rights activists, the online publisher, Edhelper.com, where the teacher got the material, pulled the assignment and said it is no longer available.

The websites creators said in a written statement to CNN that they had received "a lot of feedback" about the article. "The question that was discussed, we felt was in poor judgment and has been removed. The main goal of the article was to teach comprehension and also that people need permission before going to another country."

Quintana said the teacher could face reprimand and receive additional training to avoid similar incidents. It's unclear if the teacher will be suspended or if legal action will be sought.

Avalos hopes parents will be more vigilant regarding what their children bring home as homework. Reading assignments like these actually mold children's minds, she said.

Photo: Pepe Lozano/PW

Obama pledges “limited” U.S. involvement in Libya

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:01:00 +0000

In a televised address, President Obama defended U.S. intervention in Libya and promised to hand over leadership of the No Fly Zone and Libyan humanitarian efforts to NATO by today.

Following last week's dramatic bombing campaign - in which some claimed the damage to civilians went beyond the UN mandate - Obama proclaimed the tactical objectives of the UN Security Council authorized No Fly Zone a success. He said the campaign has reversed assaults against rebel-led cities by Gaddafi, who had threatened to show "no mercy" to the popular rebellion against his 40-year rule.

A new historical era opened three months ago with the popular uprisings in Tunisia and then Egypt, the first of the "Arab spring." As the International Peace Bureau says, "these rebellions brought hope to millions and youthful energy to societies suffering decades of repression, injustice, inequality, especially gender inequality and increasing economic hardship. The Libyan revolt was inspired by these largely nonviolent victories."

But the Libyan crisis rapidly became militarized and is now a full-scale civil war.

President Obama defended the UN intervention, which includes participation from the UK, France, Italy and some Arab League partners, on both strategic and humanitarian grounds and summarized the goals: to secure a UN mandate to protect civilians; stop Gaddafi's advancing army; prevent a massacre of rebels and establish a No Fly Zone.

The president emphasized, "We have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge...that America's role would be limited," that troops would not be put on the ground; that responsibility would be quickly transferred to partners.

Strategically, the president argued that a "horrific" massacre of the Libyan opposition would destabilize democratization efforts in both Egypt and Tunisia. It would give a nod to dictators that repressive methods were an acceptable remedy to the democratic upsurge and, that delaying, or failing to act would encourage the "darkest forms of dictatorship".

On the humanitarian side, the president asserted that the scale of carnage threatened by Gaddafi's use of force against his people would dwarf similar repressive efforts noted in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen.

To those who argue that U.S. action is marred by moral (and oil-interest) inconsistencies, the president replied that, in Libya, at this particular moment, international forces were faced with violence on a large scale; that the U.S. and allies had a unique ability to stop that violence: that an international mandate for action had been achieved; that a relatively broad coalition was prepared to join, including the support of Arab countries and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves; and that the coalition had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces without putting American troops on the ground.

The president was emphatic about distinguishing the international effort from "regime change" schemes, which he conceded have had a poor record of success.

Obama admitted that navigating the management of the current complex process without "taking over" a failed state - could be lengthy and uneven.

Following the speech, Secretary of State Clinton flew to London for a conference of foreign ministers of over 35 countries, including Turkey, as well as the top officials of NATO, the United Nations, the Arab League and African Union. The purpose will be to consider an acceptable strategy for maintaining the sovereignty and unity of Libya after Gaddafi. Proposals to assassinate, or "take out" Gaddafi have been rejected. No commitments have been made to supply the Libyan opposition with arms, but that idea is clearly still on the table.

A new twist has been added with the emergence of Al Qaeda as factor in the opposition. This new factor has sparked a fierce debate in Washington on whether to provide arms, reports the New York Times.

The peace movement has condemned the No Fly Zone and all military intervention. They have argued there were unexplored diplomatic alternatives: economic sanctions, electronic jamming or canceled gas and oil sales, for example.

To these critics, Obama argued that all diplomatic efforts were effectively exhausted once Gaddafi reneged on his "cease fire" claim by deploying air power and other atrocities against his own people.

The president closed with a defense of "American ideals" of freedom and leadership. Those ideals are unfortunately marred by the record of interventions that dominated the Cold War years, both Gulf wars and Afghanistan. Most of the dictators in the developing world -including, until recently, Gaddafi - have been "friends" to past U.S. imperial policies.

Nonetheless, President Obama has made a promise to steer a different course, and thus gives hope that we, and the peoples of the world, can find common ground and a more peaceful future.

Image: President Obama delivers speech on Libya. Courtesy White House.

Wide coalition mobilizes for April 4 "We Are One"

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:31:00 +0000

Leaders in labor, faith, civil and immigrant rights groups held a March 29 teleconference to announce coordinated actions nationwide on April 4 to commemorate the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr and stand in solidarity with public workers.

King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, while in Memphis, Tenn., lending support to striking sanitation workers there.

Speakers on the call said they plan to honor King and stand alongside civil rights organizations, labor unions and tens of thousands of people from coast to coast under the banner "We Are One" to advocate for working families.

The actions aim to uplift the rights of teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses and caregivers, students and all working families currently under attack in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and others, they said.

Drastic cuts are being proposed in state legislatures that would seriously hit public sector employees and working families.

"This is a critical moment in the lives of working families across the country," said Jonathan Currie, national organizer with Interfaith Worker Justice. "In the face of terrible threats against public sector workers and really all workers, we intend to stand with working people until their rights are secured."

The recent wave of attacks against unions is being led by right-wing conservative lawmakers who want to turn back the clock, said the Rev. Nelson Rivers III, vice president for Stakeholder Relations with the NAACP.

The attacks are especially hard against minority communities and African Americans, said Rivers, who noted King was killed doing "what we are trying to do today" and "we must stand together."

Mario Ramirez said he escaped the civil war in his home country of Guatemala, 23 years ago, when he came to the U.S. Ramirez, a worker at a manufacturing company in Milwaukee, Wis., has been a volunteer organizer with Voces de la Frontera Worker Center for the last 10 years. "To be united is the best way to fight against unjust laws," he said.

Wisconsin's Republican governor, Scott Walker, is attacking union workers and immigrant families, said Ramirez.

"We need justice and fairness and Walker wants to take away our rights."

Also on the call was Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO. "We will need all of our allies in the broader people's community to win this battle and war," she said.

Gov. Walker re-ignited a huge movement of people standing up for justice and worker's rights, she added.

"This isn't about the economy. It's about pay back. They want to weaken the gains and progress made over the years and they clearly lost the fight in public opinion."

Holt Baker continued, "Working people want to be part of the solution to restore balance, create jobs and keep our communities working. And we will stand together and win because all workers deserve the right to collective bargaining!"

Faith leaders on the call said the recent state budget fights need moral leadership, rather than laws that allow worker exploitation and unfair labor practices.

We don't need less freedoms, they said, we need more freedoms.

They should also remember their roots, speakers said, adding King made a promise to workers when he was alive. Something we intend to continue today, they note.

The Rev. Troy Jackson with the University Christian Church in Cincinnati, Ohio, said workers are more vulnerable to mass exploitation if their collective bargaining rights are stripped.

Jackson, who said he represents "white evangelical Christians," said it was Black labor activist E. D. Nixon that involved King early on in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a watershed action in the civil rights movement.

King's dreams were also the dreams of Nixon and all union men and women, he said. "When workers are treated poorly, that matters to us. And it should matter to everyone."

Holt Baker said the bigger picture is about supporting federal and state budgets that are robust and bold. "They should be about creating jobs both nationally and on a state level," she said. It's not right that 15 million people are still looking for work, she said.

"They say the recession is over but we simply don't see it. Not only will we be fighting for the rights of working families on April 4, but we are also fighting for a much more bolder plan nationally to put people across the nation back to work," she said.

Photo: (Pepe Lozano/PW)

Rally at Supreme Court backs women Wal-Mart workers

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:35:00 +0000

Advocates for workers and women's rights gathered this morning for a Stand with the Women of Wal-Mart rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, as the court heard oral arguments in what could become the largest class-action civil rights suit in U.S. history.

The Supreme Court will decide whether a discrimination lawsuit filed by a group of women Wal-Mart workers, a case known as Wal-Mart v. Dukes, can proceed as a class action suit on behalf of all women currently or formerly employed by the company across the country.

The National Organization for Women points out, "The retail giant did not ask the high court to review the actual charges that Wal-Mart routinely discriminated against its women employees. Instead, the company's challenge seeks to halt the case, which represents more than 1.5 million women, before it even gets to trial."

In 2001, Betty Dukes and six other women who worked at Wal-Mart in California filed a lawsuit charging the corporation engaged in gender discrimination by paying women less than men, promoting fewer women to management positions and promoting male employees more quickly.

Dukes, who was hired in 1994 as a cashier at Wal-Mart, told CBS News legal reporter Jan Crawford she repeatedly saw less-experienced male co-workers beat her out for jobs or get more money for doing the same work.

Christine Kwapnoski, a 24-year Wal-Mart employee who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, described on the CBS "Early Show" today how Wal-Mart dodged her interest in getting a promotion. She said, "I trained many, many men over the years that managed to get into management and you know, I asked how I was supposed to do it, and I never had a solid answer of how I was supposed to get promoted." One manager advised her to "doll up," she told reporters at the Supreme Court.

The women's lawyers said these problems stemmed from a company-wide system of discrimination against women, so they moved to make the case a class-action lawsuit involving all of Wal-Mart's current and former female employees.

A lower court has upheld certification of their lawsuit as a class-action suit three times, most recently in April 2010. But Wal-Mart wants the Supreme Court to say no. The company argues that each employee should be forced to file her complaints individually. Wal-Mart claims a group that large couldn't have enough in common to constitute a class.

"Just like the banks that were too big to fail, Wal-Mart's lawyers are claiming the company is too big to sue!" NOW President Terry O'Neill said in an email message today. "The reason there are so many women in the suit is because Wal-Mart's discrimination has been widespread and persistent."

Jocelyn Larkin, one of the lawyers for the women, told CBS, "Just one woman suing Wal-Mart cannot possibly have the resources and make the difference that having women stand together can. When the women stand together, you can see the patterns of discrimination that are holding so many of them back."

Brad Seligman, lead attorney for the women, said, "In every one of Wal-Mart's 41 regions, women get paid less than men in every single job - even though they have more seniority and they're better performers. That's what the record shows."

"Wal-Mart would like to fight these lawsuits one by one," he said. "But Wal-Mart with their $450 billion of revenue, you know, challenging an $8 an hour sales worker, that's why we need a class-action case, and you need a class-action case because that's how you get the evidence."

AFL-CIO Now Blog's James Parks writes, "If Wal-Mart succeeds in keeping these women from joining together, the already uphill battle for women to fight pay discrimination will get even worse. But if the women prevail, their case will become the largest class-action civil rights suit in the nation's history, with some 1.6 million female Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employees."

The court's ruling is expected in June.

Today's rally was sponsored by a coalition of women's, workers' and religious groups ranging from the Coalition of Labor Union Women to the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.

Photo: Zol87 CC 2.0

Republicans reject climate change

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:42:00 +0000

Earlier this month, while passing a bill that would curtail the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, House Republicans rejected three amendments stating that global warming is real, poses a threat and is caused by humans.

The vote was strictly along party lines.

"This just shows us how politicized science can become, especially if there's policy implications," said Michael Shermer, executive director of the Skeptics Society and a columnist for Scientific American, via telephone.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, offered an amendment reading, "Congress accepts the scientific finding of the Environmental Protection Agency that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations in increases of global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.'"

It failed: 20 voted for, 31 against. Every Republican member of the committee voted no.

Taking issue with this amendment, however, requires an extreme form of denial. Even many who argue against mainstream theories of global warming argue that climate change is real - but they say it's not caused by humans. The relatively conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set up by the UN, took years to put forward a strong conclusion. Still, in its March 2007 report on the subject the IPCC said that there is no question that the earth is becoming warmer.

The IPCC was only slightly less certain about the cause: it said - with just over 90 confidence - that the reason for the increase in the earth's temperature over the past century is due to human activity.

Speaking about the bill to which the amendments were offered, Rep. Waxman said, "Some Republicans on the committee will argue today that this bill is not a rejection of science, but if they believed in the serious threat posed by climate change, they would have accepted our offer to work together without preconditions to develop a responsible plan for promoting clean energy and reducing carbon emissions."

Texas Republican Joe Bartan replied to Waxman, saying, "My good friend from California tries to make it clear that the science is settled. I would say it's not settled."

Shermer, who was himself a global warming skeptic until being convinced to change course in 2006, said the climate change debate can be broken down into five questions: Is the earth getting warmer? If so, how much warmer? Do humans cause this? What will be the effects? And what should we do about it?

These questions "should in principle be easily answered," he said, but remain up in the air due to the politics surrounding the questions.

Scientific observation shows that the earth is getting warmer, Shermer said, and "there are pretty good arguments that it's human caused, though we have to recognize there are natural cycles."

There is room for skepticism as to how much warmer, Shermer said. "The margin of error tends to widen the further you go out" in time. Also, no one can be sure exactly what the effects of climate change will be. "It's not just global warming. It's climate change. Some places will get better; some will get worse."

The term "global warming" is based on the average recorded temperature of the earth, which has been going up for years. This warming of the globe leads to climate change, which doesn't necessarily mean all areas will become warmer. Due to the highly variable and interdependent nature of the world's weather patterns, warming in some areas could lead to, for example, much colder winters in others.

What should be done, Shermer said, is "off the page of science and purely into the page of politics, of policy decisions."

"I think we should be cautious about bankrupting ourselves over something that may not be as bad as we think. It's worth paying close attention to, planning for, making changes. A lot of the suggested changes are good anyway, such as the suggestion to rely on renewable energy," Shermer concluded.

Opinions of people like Shermer are particularly important to the debate. Very few would be able to call them alarmist. And, say environmentalists, if someone like Shermer could be won over, the science is extremely compelling.

Calif. Republicans list 53 demands, no solutions

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:34:00 +0000

California's Republican legislative minority, March 25, released a list of 53 specific demands in response to the efforts of Democratic Governor Jerry Brown and legislative Democrats to place proposed tax hike extensions on the ballot in a June election.

After weekend negotiations failed to bring progress, the legislature was slated to reconvene March 29.

Brown and the Democrats seek to give voters the last word on proposals to deal with a $26.4 billion budget gap by some $12.5 billion in cuts - mostly devastating slashing of human needs programs - and $14.5 billion in revenues, including a five-year extension of earlier temporary increases in vehicle license fees, income and sales taxes.

Among the Republicans' demands:

• A "hard" cap on state spending, adjusted for population changes and inflation, until budgetary debt is paid down and a reserve fund built;
• Shifting state workers' pensions from guaranteed-benefits to a mixed system including 401(k) accounts, raising risks for workers' retirement benefits;
• Increasing workers' contributions to their health care and retirement benefits;
• Limiting the Democrats' tax extensions to 18 months instead of five years;
• Basing teacher layoffs and reassignments on performance rather than seniority, and other changes affecting their job security.

Some demands clearly had nothing to do with the budget, such as calls to weaken regulations affecting businesses, including environmental regulations, and to change the presidential primary to March.

The governor's spokesperson, Gil Duran, said the Republican demands amounted to "basically trying to ram through an agenda that does not reflect that we have a Democratic governor and Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature." He called on the Republicans to "narrow the scope, be reasonable and move forward on what is possible."

State Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the two parties are now farther apart than ever. He said the Republicans' expanding demands were making it more likely that Democrats would have to push forward on unilateral solutions.

As the deadline for scheduling a June election looms, Democrats are reportedly considering acting with a simple majority, but observers say a court challenge would be certain since a two-thirds majority is needed to act on taxes and ballot measures. Another alternative could be placing an initiative for the tax extensions on the ballot next fall, which would throw the state's finances into chaos in the meantime.

Brown has warned that if the revenue proposals do not pass, an all-cuts budget would be "extremely difficult, even draconian." He has not proposed new taxes, though others have called for an oil severance tax, raising property taxes on corporations, and returning income tax rates on the wealthy to 1990s levels under Republican Governor Pete Wilson.

Photo: Gov. Jerry Brown addresses Labor's 2011 Joint Legislative Conference in Sacramento, Calif., March 21. While talking about the on going negotiations on his state budget plan, Brown criticized Republican lawmakers as being obstructionists. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

Mock border wall separates campus at the University of Arizona

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:08:00 +0000

TUCSON - In what is considered the longest mock border wall in the United States, the faculty, staff and students at the University of Arizona are now finding how inconvenient and inhumane it is to have a wall separating human beings from one another.

The structure, entitled "Wall to Wall -- Concrete Connections/Conexiones Concretas," was constructed to bring attention to the situations along the U.S./Mexico border and in Palestine and Israel.

The "wall" is about 1,000 feet long, stands six-feet tall and has barbed-wire at the top, similar to most barriers that have been used to separate countries and people. The "wall" has divided the campus in two in one of its most traveled sections.

One campus organization participated by hanging 8 by 10 photos of families divided by the walls. One photo shows a lady gently touching her young niece through a border fence, while another has a Mexican wife who has driven three hours just to visit her husband through the fence after being deported.

Other organizations hung banners calling for an end to borders and their militarization. One organization hung a Palestinian flag stating how 3.8 million Palestinians are under illegal Israeli military occupation with a 400-mile wall and 120 checkpoints.

The Chicano/Hispano Student Affairs organization hung photos along with biographies of those Latinos who have contributed to American society such as Cesar Chavez and Congressman Raul Grijalva who themselves are the children of immigrants.

The Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife contributed by showing how walls along borders harm the environment and endanger wildlife.

The "checkpoints" were openings along the "wall" where faculty, staff and students would have to pass through. Many understood its purpose but a few students were questioned it the inconvenience of having to go through the "checkpoints".

The point here is not the inconvenience but rather starting an open dialogue with those in favor of borders, separating familes and walls; and showing them that human beings should not be divided simply because of nationality, political persuasion, religious belief or even because of a line on the sand.

The "wall" sends a powerful message and hopefully a few eyes were opened in the process. Perhaps some will now see the wall just 60 miles from campus has a face, name and a loved one who are sitting somewhere thinking and praying to be together again.

Photo: Alexander Monarrez Maldonado

A new low, even for California Republicans

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:03:00 +0000

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown's attempt to deal with California's budget problems has come to a stop. Two Republican votes are needed in each legislative house, and GOP leaders have announced that any Republican who votes for more taxes will be considered a traitor.

In an attempt to begin to solve financial problems that have been 30 years in the making, resulting in a $26.4 billion deficit for 2011-12, Brown has put together a budget approximately equal in cuts and in revenues: $12.5 billion in cuts and approximately $14.5 billion in revenues. The cuts to health care and human services are truly brutal - as usual, the poor and disabled fare the worst. There are also cuts to education.

Over half the additional revenue is to come from a five-year extension of the temporary tax increases made in 2009, mainly in income, sales and vehicle license fees, and therein lies the problem. The legislature has voted to support the bill, but threatened with being called a traitor, every Republican has refused to vote for the special election that is necessary to allow citizens to vote for the extension of these taxes for just five years.

Since the 2010 election the legislature can now pass budgets by majority vote, a two-thirds majority is needed to put the tax extension measures on the ballot. Democrats control both legislative houses but lack a two-thirds majority in either.

This means Republicans are not just refusing to vote for tax extensions, but are refusing the people the right to vote at all, especially since recent polls show growing support for the tax extensions in order to avoid a budget of all cuts, which would be, in the governor's words, "a budget from hell."

This is a new low, even for Republicans. But it fits with what's happening elsewhere. As a letter to the Sacramento Bee said, "Wherever the Republicans have the power, they immediately try to cut taxes of the corporations and the rich, such as they have done in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, South Carolina and Pennsylvania."

The Republicans have begun a campaign of destruction of the union movement by blaming the economic crisis on "greedy state workers and their bloated pension plans." And instead of using their newfound influence in state and national economic planning to perhaps provide jobs for the millions of unemployed, they restore the Bush tax cuts for the very richest, and then tell us they must cut Social Security to help close the national deficit.

Now, back to California. Assuming that we eventually pass some form of Gov. Brown's hard-times budget, we'll have five years in which to restore corporations' share of taxes to their 1981 level of $8.3 billion.

Other possible measures include bringing in $2 billion through broadening the sales tax base to include services, and adding $4 billion or more by reinstating an 11 percent income tax on the top 1 percent of individuals, who take in more than 25 percent of the income in California. An oil severance tax would bring in $1.2 billion - California is the only oil-producing state without one.

And let's not forget the possibility of a split roll for Prop. 13, so corporations would pay their fair share of property taxes. In 1977-78, California ranked fifth in the country in property taxes. In 2006-7, we ranked 36th.

Thirty years ago, we were the "Golden State." Our educational system ranked among the best in the world. Today California ranks 47th in K-12 spending.

Indiana official quits after scheme for fake attack on Walker is bared

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:26:00 +0000

MADISON, Wis. - The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism has released copies of an email from Carlos Lam, an Indiana prosecutor, to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in which the Johnson County deputy prosecutor suggested a fake attack on Walker to discredit workers protesting at the Capitol here.

Yesterday morning, expecting that the story would break by today, Lam called his boss, Prosecutor Brad Cooper, and told him that, after having been up all night thinking about it, he was resigning.

"He wanted to come clean, I guess, and said he was the one who sent the email," Cooper said.

Until then Lam had been telling the investigative journalism center here that his e-mail address matched the Hotmail address appearing on the Walker e-mail, but claimed he had never written to Walker.

In the email he now admits to having sent Walker, Lam suggests that the Wisconsin governor carry out a "false flag operation" to win the sympathy of the public and portray the peaceful demonstrators as violent.

"If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions. Currently, the media is painting the union protest as democratic. Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support the media may be creating in favor of the unions. God bless, Carlos F. Lam."

Governor Walker today denied that he or anyone else in his office saw the e-mail or contacted Lam.

Walker, of course, has already been exposed for considering illegal tactics against protesters.

In February, a caller pretending to be right-wing billionaire and Walker campaign donor David Koch reached the governor and suggested he plant troublemakers in the crowd to incite violence that could be blamed on unions and their supporters. Walker admitted, "We thought about that."

Lam is now the second Indiana prosecutor to lose his job for suggesting Walker use violence against protesters.

In February, Attorney General Jeff Cox was fired after a tweet he sent that said "live ammunition" and "deadly force" should be used to disperse protesters in Madison.

When he was still claiming that he was innocent Lam told Kathy Golden at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism that he was "flabbergasted and would never advocate for something like this, and would like everyone to be sure that that's just not me."

Asked his views on Scott Walker, Lam said, "I think he's trying to do what he has to do to get his budget balanced. But jeez, that's taking it a little bit to the extreme," he said of his own e-mail's call for faked violence. "Jeez!"

He said he was with his family shopping for a mini-van when the e-mail was sent.

The Wisconsin Center discovered the e-mail to Walker among tens of thousands released to the media last week as part of an open records lawsuit settlement with Isthmus and the Associated Press. It was in a folder produced by the governor's office marked "Pro," full of e-mails supporting the governor's "budget repair" bill. If the governor's claims about the e-mail are true, the person in his office who put the copy of the e-mail in the "Pro" folder did not actually see what he or she was doing at the time.

Before he came clean Lam told the Wisconsin investigators that "the person who wrote this seems to know a lot about me" and that his account "had been hacked in the past. He also told the investigators that on the advice of Cooper he had taken down his Facebook page, changed his cell phone number, e-mail address, passwords, library card, medical records and student loans" and "was afraid for my family's safety."

Lam's blog posts and writings on the Internet reflect those of a committed ultra-right politician.

On a stock investor's site he called Indiana "an unsustainable public worker gravy train bubble." In another, he said "unions and companies that feed at the government trough will fight tooth and nail against anything that un-feathers their nests."

The bad and the ugly in Utah’s immigration alternative

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:53:00 +0000

Last week, Utah's Republican Gov. Gary Herbert signed a package of immigration bills that has drawn criticism from both sides of the issue. However, given the heated debate, some say the new rules are a step forward.

The four laws, approved by Utah's GOP-controlled legislature earlier this month, present a "middle course" on immigration, both good and bad, critics say. But it's a very conservative approach, they note.

One of the bills is an enforcement law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for a felony or serious misdemeanor. Legal challenges are expected from immigrant rights activists on this bill, which is very similar, yet slightly milder, than Arizona's notorious SB 1070.

But another bill creates a guest worker program, which would issue a two-year work permit to undocumented immigrants who could prove that they had been living and working in Utah. Those that qualify would have to pass a criminal background check and pay a fine of up to $2,500. Opponents on the far right call it amnesty.

It's unclear whether the guest worker bill gives immigrants a path toward citizenship.

The other bills allow businesses to recruit Mexican workers and American citizens to sponsor foreign residents who want to work or study in Utah.

Gov. Herbert said the package "is not perfect," but the primary goal is to force a federal solution and engage Congress to act.

The guest worker bill requires a federal waiver and allows Utah until 2013 to negotiate with federal immigration authorities. Under federal law, it is a violation for an employer to knowingly hire an undocumented immigrant. If no waiver is obtained by then, the guest worker program will go into effect anyway.

Utah State Rep. Bill Wright, a Republican, helped write the guest worker bill and said it's unrealistic to think that 11 million people can be deported.

"A lot of these people are intertwined in our society," he told NPR. "They have financial obligations: They have bank notes, they've bought houses, they contribute, they have jobs."

Jim Judd, president of Utah's AFL-CIO, which represents 30,000 active and retired union workers in the state, said there is good and bad in all of the bills. But each could expect constitutional challenges from both sides, he said.

The guest worker bill is problematic, says Judd, because it's similar to the current H2B-Visa program, which takes advantage of undocumented workers.

"These workers already have to pay a significant amount of money to enter the program and can only work for one employer. And their living conditions are poor," said Judd. They get paid the minimum wage or lower and really the whole system is bad for all workers because it brings down wages in the labor market, he said. "It's a legal path for exploitation that creates problems for the labor movement moving forward."

Judd notes, "We need fairness where guest worker programs don't manipulate the process and doesn't oppress workers, otherwise it's just a legal form of indentured servitude." Several thousand apply each year to the current H2B-Visa program, said Judd.

The labor movement wants to make certain that immigration reform treats all workers fairly and that immigrants are not used or intimidated by their employers, he adds.

However the bills overall are better than what was proposed in Arizona, Judd continues. "We did not want to see the extreme profiling of any worker based on their skin color or national origin."

Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a national immigrant advocacy group, told the New York Times, "Utah is the anti-Arizona." He added, "Instead of indulging the fantasy that you can drive thousands of people out of your state, it combines enforcement with the idea that those who are settled should be brought into the system." Sharry notes the Utah legislation is a very rough draft of what we call comprehensive immigration reform at the national level.

Some say Utah is making a clean break with the hard-line trend in state immigration bills led by Arizona, which passed a strict enforcement policy in SB 1070 last year. Central provisions of Arizona's law were suspended by federal courts pending a lawsuit by the Obama administration. However it appears the tide is turning there as well; its State Senate rejected five anti-immigrant bills last week.

Meanwhile, President Obama is expected to make another push for immigration reform in the coming months. In a recent interview on CNN En Espanñol he said:

I want to be absolutely clear to the American people, we are a nation of immigrants. There is a legitimate role to make sure we have secure borders, that we have a strong process of legal immigration, that we're making sure that businesses aren't exploiting undocumented workers. But ultimately, we're going to have to have a comprehensive approach that also includes taking those who are already in the U.S., living in the shadows, and giving them a pathway towards legal status. And we're going to continue to fight for that.

Photo: May Day march for immigrant rights in Chicago. Pepe Lozano/PW.

“Hello, Communist Party calling”

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:00:00 +0000

ST. LOUIS, Mo. - "You really made my day," said the voice on the other end of the phone, from Austin, Texas. "I'm so happy to hear from you guys." He was on his way to the South by Southwest music festival, but paused long enough to talk to a phonebanker.

That was a typical response from the coast-to-coast call to 1,500 new members of the Communist Party USA and Young Communist League on March 19. All had joined the CPUSA or YCL online recently, and some were getting their first contact.

"It was a great reception. People really want to be a part of the Communist Party," said Jonathan, one of the phone bankers. "Several people were very excited and said, 'I was wondering when someone was going to call me.'"

"The positive response from so many was very uplifting," said Zenobia Thompson. "I look forward to doing this regularly."

The calls were made using a predictive dialer system typically used in election campaigns. Members were asked if they wanted to renew their membership, update their contact info, sign up for the CPUSA's or its press's email lists and pay membership dues or make a financial contribution.

"This is a historic event for us," Roberta Wood, CPUSA Secretary-Treasurer, told the phone bankers during a break. "I don't think even a few years ago we could have pictured the Communist Party calling around the country on an automatic dialer system."

The national call is one of several initiatives the CPUSA is taking to bolster contact with its membership. Lack of contact was in fact the biggest complaint of the new members. Many live in areas that are isolated or don't have a party organization. Getting a call meant a lot.

"What people are concerned about most is how to get involved and we can help," said Tony Pecinovsky, CPUSA organizer for the Missouri-Kansas district. "People were a little concerned about not being contacted as quickly as we would like."

"I spoke with a lot of young people who had signed up on the CPUSA website and were really excited to be having their first conversation with an actual member," said Noah Toler. "Mainly people were interested in what the Party was thinking about this or that issue."

Many were already active with the Party and YCL locally, in their unions, or through local struggles. A lot expressed enthusiasm for developments in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio and the protest wave sweeping the country. They were happy to know the Party and YCL were deeply involved in the fight.

"A lot of people were very happy to hear what we were doing," said Janet Edburg, another phonebanker. "One member was so excited about what was happening in Wisconsin I thought he was going to jump out of the phone!"

The new members joining are one of several indicators of Party and YCL growth. It's all part of the explosion in activism and rapidly changing thinking among the American people. A recent Rasmussen Poll shows 11 percent of adults think communism is a better political system than capitalism. That's roughly 15 million Americans.

"Three people told me they previously had more conservative views. But since the economy has gone south for working people, they are starting to latch on to different ways of looking at things," said Earl Clay. "This indicates to me the country is going through a metamorphosis and more people want to do things to change the direction of things."

In a conversation with a member, Edburg described her activism in building a movement for jobs and against budget cuts to home energy assistance and community block grant programs.

"We'll be marching Friday. We're going to keep on marching and keep on fighting," she told the member who in turn told Edburg how good it felt to hear from her and the Party. "It makes me feel good just to talk to you too," she said.

Image: Noah, a CPUSA member, makes calls. John Bachtell/PW

Maine’s governor assaults the dignity of working people

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:39:00 +0000

I have to admit, I'm infuriated.

I was raised in Maine, the son of a high transmission lineman and a mother and stepmother who were state employees bringing home a paycheck that didn't do much more than make ends meet. (Luxurious living was a stranger in our house, and in most households in Maine, and still is today.) So I find it infuriating that the Republican governor there has ordered the removal of a 36-foot-wide mural in the state's Labor Department building in Augusta that depicts the role of Maine working people from the colonial era to the present.

Supposedly Gov. Paul LePage received complaints from business people and an anonymous fax saying the mural was akin to murals in North Korea that the government there uses to "brainwash the masses."

Give me a break! If anyone believes this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

If this wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious - a good skit for "Saturday Night Live." LePage would be a buffoon, a village idiot. But it is serious.

This is an insult to Maine's working people.

LePage not only aims to cut the wages and benefits of state workers and eviscerate their collective bargaining rights, but in removing this mural, he also wants to steal from working people, their history, their dignity, their sense of self-worth.

No one should have that power - not LePage, not Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin, not Gov. Rick Snyder in Michigan, not Gov. Mitch Daniels in Indiana - no one.

LePage's plan, according to various spokespeople, is to relocate the mural to another site - maybe the national headquarters of the AFL-CIO, maybe the state museum. Of course, either place would be a good home for such a mural, although I think it is better to make a fight of it, to keep the mural where it is. But that isn't my decision, it's up to the people who live in Maine today.

For the past 30 years, working people have been the ground zero of a coordinated attack, orchestrated by the Republican right and heavily laced with racism and sexism. Its purpose is simple enough: crush and divide working people, reduce them to serfs with no rights that corporate America has to respect, take away everything that they have ever won.

This decision by LePage, whose wife was a union steward and who hails from Maine's Franco-American community - a community that has labored in many of the worst occupations and is honored in the mural - is of a piece with this wider assault. Indeed it is emblematic in a very striking way of the utter contempt and undisguised hostility that LePage and this right-wing corporate crowd have for people who labor in the public and private sector.

In their twisted view of the world, they think that they can do anything, literally anything, to working people; nothing can stop them now, in their minds.

But you know what? They got it wrong! A working class counteroffensive against the LePage crowd that dates back to the 2006 elections, and continued in 2008, is shifting as I write into a higher gear in the nation's heartland and beyond.

By next year it's going to be at warp speed and I have only two words for LePage and his fellow travelers - Watch out!

Photo: Panels 7-9 of the 11-panel mural in the lobby of Maine's Department of Labor (slightly cropped). Artist Judy Taylor won a competition in 2007 to create the mural, commissioned by the Maine Arts Commission to depict the "History of Labor in the State of Maine." These panels show, left to right, the 1937 shoe-workers' strike - the largest strike in the state's history; Frances Perkins - FDR's secretary of labor, the first woman in U.S. history to head a federal department; and Maine's version of Rosie the Riveter: Maine women working as ship-builders during World War II. Dirigoblue