People Before Profit blog

It’s always Passover: Freedom is a process

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:39:00 +0000

This is the season of Passover, the Jewish holiday of freedom from slavery in Egypt. Even if never substantiated as a historical event, it nevertheless has inspired liberation struggles all over the world.

A few weeks ago, I visited South Africa with a friend. At first, we heard a great deal about rampant corruption by high officials in government. We heard fears about South Africa on a slippery slope toward failed nationhood, and frustration that the monumental sacrifices of the anti-apartheid struggle were being squandered. It was hard to discount those early impressions.

Meeting two university activists from the Young Communist League in Durban helped to put some of this criticism in perspective. They complained about a media culture that celebrates crime, violence, sex, and corruption. They didn't deny that such things happen now, almost 20 years into the government run essentially by a tripartite coalition between the African National Congress, the South African labor federation COSATU, and the South African Communist Party (SACP).

But, they asked, didn't corruption exist under apartheid as well? And did the media harp on that then? No. The media, most of it white- and corporate-owned, delights in highlighting shortcomings of the government, sowing disillusionment, cynicism, and the idea that things are no better now than under apartheid, and maybe worse. Criticism is appropriate, they said, but raised in the proper forums at the right time, coming from respected leaders.

An SACP t-shirt they gave me reads "Hands off our government" on the front, and "Hands off our state president" on the back. Considering the vicious, racist attacks on our own president, I could wear such a shirt myself!

The comrades asked how I felt about Obama. I said, "He is the president of the United States of America. He did not get elected to overthrow capitalism and imperialism. He has no capacity to do much more than some liberal reforms. Which are welcome, of course: Health care reform, GLBT and women's rights, ending the wars, judicial appointments, all these are not insignificant! We gladly celebrate and honor the tremendous advance his election represents: It does make a difference, and we are committed to using this platform on which we now stand to expand the democratic possibilities his election opens up, which would have been completely shut off by the election of anyone else. Forward progress will always depend on a vigorous popular movement from below." And then I went on:

"If I may say so, Obama reminds me somewhat of South Africa: Because of the gargantuan efforts the apartheid régime invested in keeping that system intact, with U.S. and other imperialist aid, and against the sentiment of the entire rest of the world, the struggle to topple it absorbed every ounce of energy the South African people could summon up for almost a century. How many lives were lost and damaged in that heroic confrontation with evil! And yet, when it all came down, what do you have now? Yes, politically a democracy for the first time in the majority's hands, but an economy and social system still largely controlled by Western corporations, and now a local bourgeoisie that is 'postracial.' It's no longer the fight against apartheid, but rather a fight to expand democracy and, as in the U.S., to advance the socialist aspiration. That turns out to be just as difficult, but in different ways."

Liberation is not a single event, the dismantling of apartheid, the election of a president. The future presents problems every direction you turn: Obvious solutions such as nationalization of mines, land, or industry, create a whole constellation of issues, such as compensation, loss of professional expertise, and international repercussions, that cannot be disregarded in the haste to build the new socialist paradise. The stages of history cannot be rushed past the goalposts that the whole South African people must establish themselves.

Considering the rich multi-cultural history that led up to the modern Republic of South Africa, it stands to reason that the land throbs with powerful fault lines of tribe, race, region, class, religion, language, gender, and nationality. In the end, however, I came away with the strong feeling that most people do seem to want this bold social experiment they call their "Rainbow Nation" to work.

The exodus from Egypt was followed by 40 years of wandering in the desert. Freedom doesn't just happen. It's a mindset, an attitude, a culture. Passover marks a passage, but not the end of the story. A luta continua. The struggle continues.

Photo: The shantytowns of Soweto still exist (PW/Eric Gordon)

Immigration reform must be all-inclusive

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:41:00 +0000

Various proposals for a new comprehensive immigration reform law are being put forward. The high tech industries want more visas for highly educated people. Agribusiness wants more low paid labor. Anti-immigrant groups want to limit the degree to which present day undocumented immigrants can be legalized, and put restrictions on family-based immigration in the future.

The immigrant communities themselves, and their allies in organized labor, the churches, and the African American, Latino, and Asian American communities, are speaking out on what they see as essential: The inclusion under legalization of the largest number of people possible, and, until legislation is passed an implemented, an end to the current fast pace of arrests and deportations, via a moratorium.

Though we must oppose it, it is highly likely that a bill will include a trade-off of legalization of the undocumented for tough repressive measures at the borders and internally.

If such measures pass, and if any considerable portion of the undocumented population is left out of legalization, their situation will be radically worsened for them. Undocumented immigrants who don't qualify for legalization will become even more vulnerable not only to deportation, but to unscrupulous employers, rapacious landlords, gouging merchants, criminal elements, fake "immigration attorneys," and other bottom feeders.

To survive, undocumented workers will have to accept even lower pay and even worse working conditions. This is contrary to the interests of all workers in the United States.

Who might end up being left out of a legalization program? In some of the discussions we have heard, especially in the Senate conclave, nobody who is not now employed would qualify: you would have to be working for wages or salary and be able to prove it. That would leave out anybody who has lost his or her job, has been forced to work "under the table" for cash, or whose employers, fearing a fine for having employed undocumented workers, refuse to cooperate with the paperwork needed to prove workers' employment statuses.

Every day we hear about cases of people falsely accused of crimes who are only exonerated decades later, or of malfeasance by police and prosecutors or negligence by criminal defense attorneys. We cannot be confident that people convicted of crimes in this country are really guilty. The implementation of President Obama's "Prosecutorial Discretion" initiative has shown how ICE personnel interpret what is and what is not grounds for deportation. In the first place, anybody who has been kicked out or left and has come back is considered a criminal who will not be given a break, even though their return in many cases was for urgent family reasons (e.g. that the family was in dire economic straights because of the absence of the breadwinner, or because of personal or health crises of family members either in the U.S. or the country of origin). People who have used false documents to work will probably be excluded, even though it was impossible for them to pay their taxes unless they took jobs that require such documents. And of course if they cannot prove they paid taxes, they may be in trouble for that.

Finally, people who have been arrested for simple drug possession or for offenses like driving without a license (people who don't have another way to get to work but who also cannot get a drivers' license because they are undocumented) may well be excluded. This jeopardizes people who, years ago, decided to plea bargain instead of defending themselves against a criminal charge. Plea bargain or not, the conviction is on their record and will come up when they try to legalize themselves.

Such people will not "self deport;" the problem of undocumented immigrant labor will continue. Full inclusion is essential in any legislation that is passed.

Once someone has been kicked out of the country, even by mistake, they have little or no legal recourse for returning. The fact that they have a spouse and U.S. citizen children in the United States will not be likely to move the U.S. government to let them return legally. The family left behind in the U.S. will likely be destitute. They will default on the mortgage of the house, and will be more likely to need help from public and private charity. This is cruel, and is not in the interests of the people of the United States.

A second issue is what to do until the immigration reform bill is passed. The government has been deporting people at a fast rate. It claims it is focusing on serious criminals, but the statistics show otherwise.

It is morally and ethically indefensible to deport people, with all the trauma and disruption that that involves, who are likely to qualify for legalization once immigration reform legislation is passed. It is especially repugnant to break up families with minor children to do so. It is also expensive, and serves no practical purpose.

Furthermore, the high rate of deportations pressures the immigrants' rights movement to go along with any old legislation, whether it is in the general public interest or not-anything to stop repression and the fear it causes. The demand for a moratorium on deportations counters this pressure, and, in addition to ethical and humanitarian reasons, this is why all progressive people should support it. This should involve, also, the ending of the Secure Communities and 287 g programs that deputize local law enforcement to do immigration enforcement for which they are ill suited.

Photo: Chicago, children's march for immigration reform 3/26/13. PW

Marriage equality promises "a more perfect union"

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:05:00 +0000

Monumental. That's how legal experts and human rights activists describe this week's two cases before the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. Monumental indeed as the court's decisions promise to define the nation, which claims the mantle of democracy - based on rights and laws, for generations to come. Are all Americans equal regardless of who they love and choose to marry? Or are these inalienable rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" only for heterosexuals? This daily news website, which prides itself in fighting for economic, political and democratic rights for all, joins with the majority of Americans who resoundingly say "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second.

There are more than 1,000 protections and rights - financial, legal and otherwise such as making medical decisions - that go with marriage. Same-sex couples are denied these rights and protections. For working people, marriage equality matters. Like the motto of the labor movement: an injury to one is an injury to all!

Opponents to same-sex marriage argue the institution is solely for a man and a woman, and has been throughout time. Any materialist-based observer of history would differ with that. Frederick Engels, a colleague/comrade of Karl Marx, wrote that the institution of marriage came about as private property emerged, and with it the need of the wealthy owners to have a state that recognized their progenies' (mainly sons) legal right to continue that ownership - to keep it in the family so to speak. Hence the name of Engels' seminal work: "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State."

This state - as in the United States of America - has a compact with its citizens that guarantees equal rights for all. Yet since its inception this compact has been a point of fierce class and social struggles to define who is considered a citizen, what those rights are and how they are expressed. The struggles to end slavery and pass the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments to the Constitution and the struggle for women's suffrage and to pass the 19^th amendment are just two often-cited examples. But history is filled with many more, and continues to present day struggles - from immigration reform to marriage equality.

Gay and lesbian couples, their allies (including unions) and the mass movement for LGBT rights have helped to expand democracy, which should be seen as a positive for all people. Yet in that struggle - invested ruling powers are threatened. Long held ideologies, gender and cultural constructs, which help keep those powers ruling, may go the way of the belief in a flat Earth. So they fight to hold onto this power, no matter if it's undemocratic. The far right wing in America, especially the far right of religious institutions, is the most threatened. At least five of the nine Supreme Court justices represent this cabal, yet political and social movements, which influence public opinion, in turn influences legal opinions.

Because of massive shift in public opinion in favor of marriage equality, the court may rule (narrowly) that both California's Proposition 8 and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act are unconstitutional. That would be a great victory for democracy. But it wouldn't end there, as the struggle to implement the democratic gains will continue. That's part of the promise of a "more perfect union."

Photo: Supporters of marriage equality gather on the steps of the Supreme Court, March 26, as arguments in the case involving California's Proposition 8 are being heard. (tedeytan/CC)

Public health care saved my wife's life

Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:42:00 +0000

MARTINEZ, Calif. -- In September of last year something dreadful came to my family. During a self-examination my wife discovered a lump in her breast. The world stopped. Adding to the anxiety my family had no healthcare insurance. It was a grim time. Like millions of others we experienced the sense of isolation and fear that comes when our family or ourselves face the specter of potentially life threatening illness with no access to medical care.

We found, online, a notice for free breast exams at a public health care facility, Contra Costa County Health Services. We went and from that point everything turned around. My wife was scheduled for a mammogram as well as more advanced forms of digital imaging used in the detection of breast cancer. We were seen in less than a week. The staff at the Contra Costa Health service and Martinez General Hospital was amazing. They contacted my wife every other day, sometimes twice a day to keep her apprised of developments as the tests results came in. In less than ten days she had seen a specialist and a surgeon. By December she received treatment. Fortunately, the cancer was caught early. She was declared cancer free on December 28, 2012.

The professionalism and humanity of the healthcare providers at Contra Costa County Health Services was such a comfort, that we were able to be confident and calm. It was clear we were in excellent hands, medically, but also in dealing with the trauma.

It was another example of how effective a public healthcare system can be. Even when we were both working and had excellent healthcare insurance with a private hospital they never performed with the speed and concern shown by our local county health services.

Next time anyone tells you a "public option" would lower the standard of care tell them to talk to me. Public healthcare saved my wife's life, and in a way that showed true humanity. The struggle for the public option is not only political. For me, now, it's personal.

Photo: Wearing pink, Georgia spectators cheer their team during breast cancer awareness day, at a college gymnastics meet in Athens, Ga., Feb. 16. David Tulis/AP

Sick and tired of austerity

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:46:00 +0000

When Obama offered "concessions on entitlements" to House Republicans he was hosting at the White House, my worst fears -t he worst fears of a person on Social Security and Medicare, and only by the luck of the draw not on Medicaid - washed over me like a wave of chemotherapeutic nausea.

I tried to fight back the fear with the thought that since Obama seems to be hanging tough on demanding "balanced" tax increases from the 1 percent, maybe I did not have too much to worry about.

After all, it's clear that the wealthy backers of the "tear down every advance for working people since the New Deal" crowd have lots of phony arguments about debt and austerity.

But when push comes to shove, they appear to have only one real beef: "I'm rich and I refuse to pay more taxes!"

Added to earlier "entitlement reform" proposals from both Republicans and some Blue Dog Democrats to raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare, there is now another retreaded concept from the 90s: "Chained CPI."

This is not a new concept, but it is now making the rumor rounds as a "reform" the president could endorse. The move to a chained Consumer Price Index would reduce benefits to retirees by some $135 billion over 10 years, according to The New York Times, and far more in later decades because of compounding.

Proponents of switching to a chained CPI contend that it is a technical fix in the interest of greater accuracy, not a benefit cut per se.

But, as The NY Times editorializes: "that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. The chained index is in many ways a better method of tracking price changes for the broad working population, but there is no compelling evidence that it is better for computing the Social Security COLA. What is known is that elderly households tend to have lower incomes and lower expenditures than younger households, and that more of their purchases are for needs that cannot be met by switching to products and services in unrelated categories."

Ever since Obama chose Alan Simpson, former Republican senator from Wyoming, and Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Clinton, to chair a presidential commission on balancing the budget, the nausea has never fully retreated. These geniuses came up with cutting Social Security and Medicare by raising the eligibility age as a good idea.

Social Security has nothing to do with the current budget deficit. Nothing.

And while it may be true that the rich and the well off are living longer, the folks that really need Social Security and Medicare are not!

Every major study, except those by bought-and-paid-for corporate shills, names high unemployment first, Bush tax cuts and wealth loopholes second, the military third, and the private parts of Medicare fourth as the chief budget busting culprits.

Simpson and Bowles address some of the tax giveaways, but offer nothing on employment, the military or the privatized parts of the health care industry.

Obama's poll numbers have been dropping ever since the sequester debacle. And they are not likely to improve while searching for some "Grand Bargain" with the too-big-to-fail- backed new fascists in Congress. The latter will make no bargain, grand or otherwise.

They have clearly resolved to nullify and bring down government, not improve or even stabilize it. Its like bargaining with an insane person armed with nuclear weapons. Interests that refuse to bargain have to be removed from the bargaining table.

We're in a fight with the .1 percent over who is going to run the country, and for whose benefit: them and theirs, or we the people of the United States. There must be a winner, and a loser.

The current balance of power between social classes in the United States is unsustainable.

The president was not elected by folks who agree with Simpson or Bowles. Most of those folks voted for Romney. Cuts in income for working people, either retired or working, will NOT move us forward, only make us sicker. No to cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits! Expand Medicaid to everyone under 138 percent of poverty! Jobs, jobs, jobs!

Photo: (#jobsnotcuts via Thunderclap)

Republican "wacko birds" unite!

Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:31:00 +0000

In her self-help books from several decades ago, "The Dance of Anger" and "The Dance of Intimacy," Harriet Lerner talks about the way many relationships are a two-way street, and that when one partner starts to change, a likely first reaction from the other partner will be to escalate efforts to return to the previous balance, even if that balance was not very good for either of them.

This provides us one way of looking at the current situation in the Republican Party. Since the racism, anti-communism, and sexism that helped them win elections for the last few decades have stopped getting the same results, the response of most Republicans is to increase their attacks on workers, escalate their "War on Women," intensify their appeals to racism. The strategies that they have used to "win" for much of the last 40 years are no longer working the way they used to, but instead of stepping back, reevaluating, and making sensible changes the way a few Republican operatives are urging them to do, most Republicans are doubling-down on their old ways of doing things.

While a few so-called Republican intellectuals argue for changes in the policy proposals that Republicans make (I'm looking at you, David Frum), and a few elected officials make half-hearted gestures on one or two issues (I'm looking at you, Marco Rubio), most are claiming that the only problem they have is in the packaging of their rhetoric. They believe that if Republicans just put on a happier face and choose their words more carefully without altering anything of substance (they are looking at you, Todd Akin and Richard Murdoch), they can reverse their electoral defeats on a national level.

Most conservatives, not just in the base but also among elected officials, are becoming even more right-wing in their speeches (I'm looking at you, Ted Cruz). In his recent speech to the 2013 CPAC gathering, Cruz says that if holding onto his convictions and speaking them loudly and obnoxiously makes him a "wacko bird," then he is happy to be a wacko bird.

Even as other elected officials slap him down for his rudeness in the Senate (I'm looking at you, Diane Feinstein), Ted "Wacko Bird" Cruz promises to get louder, ruder, more obnoxious, and more confrontational. This is not a personality flaw (or at least not only a personality flaw), it is an attempt to get the same electoral victories the right wing has gotten used to by increasing their vitriol and obstruction. This continues to give Republicans a bad name, even among many who have voted Republican.

Efforts to school Wacko Bird Cruz in the proper protocol for senatorial behavior (I'm looking at you, John McCain) will undoubtedly fail. He is immune to pleas to be more conciliatory, since his success comes from rejecting compromise.

Such efforts to moderate Wacko Bird Cruz and his ilk will continue to fail, because they take him at his word, instead of understanding that the proclaimed reasoning behind his pronouncements has nothing to do with whether it makes sense, whether it corresponds to reality, or whether it will win votes in the Senate. His loud and blustering attitude comes from an acute understanding of his political base and what they want to hear.

To tell the truth, Republicans are caught in a death spiral of conflicting necessities. Unless they change, they can never win the upcoming generation of voters, who are decidedly more liberal on gay marriage, immigrant rights, abortion rights, and pocketbook issues like increasing the minimum wage, to mention a few issues where the Republicans are firmly on the wrong side of history. But if they change, they will lose the base they have, the older, whiter, more conservative base, the Limbaugh listeners, the Beck blusterers, those addicted to the Ailes illness called Fox News.

Another false notion creeping around the commentariat is that Republicans at the state and local levels are doing just fine, and some of them are very popular because they are moderate. But looking at actual Republicans engaged in actual governance in the states, most are escalating attacks on women's health, on voting rights, on union rights, on taxes on the rich. From Kasich in Ohio to McDonnell in Virginia to Walker in Wisconsin to Brownback in Kansas to Jindal in Louisiana to Haley in North Carolina to Snyder in Michigan, these Republicans at the state level are not moderate at all, but rather the worst kinds of right-wing anti-people politicians.

Sometimes these politicians hide their policies behind rhetoric that sounds moderate, and that fools some of the people some of the time, but that doesn't mean that they are moderates in real life, they just play ones on television.

Measured by the volume of their anger, the wacko birds play a much more dominant role in our politics than their numbers and support would justify. But they are fighting losing battles, and we need to help them on their way.

Time, memory, math, and common sense are not on their side.

Cliff diving – new normal for Pennsylvania higher ed?

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:04:00 +0000

There is an adage that goes, "once is an accident, twice is a trend." With regards to the cliff funding - the proposed flat funding of public higher education for a second consecutive year - that adage is being perpetrated by the governor's office and being accepted by the leadership of the State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) and the four state universities. Governor Tom Corbett's history of cutting higher education is no secret, and the fight to restore those previous cuts was pretty obvious.

In 2011, public outcry reduced a proposed 50 percent cut in higher education funding to a cut around 20 percent. In 2012, public outcry was once again responsible for staving off proposed cuts between 20-30 percent and restore funding for higher education to 2011 levels when the Pennsylvania Senate passed its 2012-2013 budget plan.

When the announcement came that the cuts were taken off the table in 2012, Corbett gathered the leadership representing the 14 PASSHE institutions and the four state universities to have a nice photo op. Last month, a week before his budget, the governor brought the leadership of the same institutions to embrace cliff funding for another fiscal year. During his press conference, the governor said, "I think both sides understand that a young man or a young woman's future should not begin with a mountain of debt," and "our young people appreciate the investment Pennsylvania taxpayers make toward their education."

If this were the case, the governor would follow his colleagues from around the country and begin to reinvest in public higher education. According to Kevin Kiley from Inside Higher Ed, 31 states during the 2013 fiscal year began to reinvest in public higher education. But two states in particular, which have Republican governors and an abundance of natural resources, have made it through the Great Recession with budget surpluses and commitments to investing in public higher education. The report says Wyoming and North Dakota "are seeing large increases driven by natural resource booms," but both of these states have a much smaller population than Pennsylvania. Other Republican-controlled states that are increasing higher education funding are Nebraska and Nevada. In his budget address, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval asked for a $135 million increase in public education spending, and he proposed to extend a tax package that would send an extra $649 million to the state's general fund; most of which would be spent on public and higher education and Medicaid.

If Corbett's cliff funding of higher education becomes "the new normal" the burden will slowly be felt by those attending a publicly funded institution. For instance, if we accept the 2011/2012 funding level as the bar for public higher education spending - or an investment that students should appreciate from the taxpayers - the PASSHE system will actually lose money due to inflation. When adjusted to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, the state system of higher education has lost $8.25 million a year for the past two years.

If there is a chance in advocating for reinvesting in public higher education, that opportunity was extended last week when Interim Chancellor Peter Garland and PASSHE representatives were in front of the state Senate Appropriations Committee. At the hearing, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Jake Corman, R-Center County, thanked the PASSHE representatives for keeping tuition increases at a minimum over the last few years, especially with not receiving any funding increases over the previous budgets, and the Senate leader proceeded to throw a lifeboat to the interim chancellor and the PASSHE representatives by repeatedly asking if there was anything that the committee can do for the state system.

The senator then explains the importance of the university system, especially in the northern tier where there isn't much access to community colleges. He reiterated that these schools provide higher ed access for those residents, especially commuters who can't afford to live on campus. He ended his comments thanking the PASSHE leaders, but also making the point that the state needs to give more than moral support, and he puts the onus on PASSHE to explain the budget ramifications. After Corman spoke, Sen. Vincent Hughes, D-Phila./Montgomery Co., addressed the same points and added that maintaining schools are costly.

Reversing the trend of the "new normal" and reinvesting in public higher education will need to be sparked by the collective citizenry of the Commonwealth. If Corman and Hughes and the other members of the Appropriations Committee are throwing this lifeline to PASSHE leaders, it is an opportunity for the public, parents and students to be the third party at the table. Over the next few months, we'll be looking at what can be done in Pennsylvania, what can be done nationally and how student groups have successfully fought back against budget cuts and tuition increases.

Sean Kitchen is the assistant editor for the Raging Chicken Press, a progressive, activist media outlet focusing on Pennsylvania politics.

Photo: (No Corbett at Millersville/Tumblr)

10 years later, Iraq war holds big lessons

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:30:00 +0000

Ten years ago today, despite heroic, massive protests by peace forces around the world, President Bush launched a war that defied international and U.S. law; a war based on lies, a war that directly killed nearly 4,500 U.S. troops and at least 121,000 Iraqis, wounded over 33,000 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqis, and left hundreds of thousands more Iraqis dead of sickness, hardship and starvation.

If that isn't horrifying enough, it is a war that has presently cost $1.7 trillion, with another half trillion in benefits owed to war veterans. These are figures from a Brown University report, which also estimates that the costs could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades. Talk about saddling generations to come with an unpayable debt! That is money that could have been spent in so many more productive ways starting with education, job creation and clean energy development.

A decade after it began, the Iraq war has urgent lessons for today.

One is that it is perilously easy to start a conflagration based on lies. The highest levels of the Bush administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed nuclear weapons, that it had ties with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, that it posed a direct threat to the United States - all of which later proved to be completely false.

Another lesson is that launching a war sets off a host of unintended consequences. Despite all the propaganda about bringing freedom and democracy, the war has left that country with a devastated infrastructure and economy, sectarian strife, an impoverished population and vast numbers of refugees both within and outside the country.

And hundreds of thousands of U.S. families will continue to feel the war's impact for the rest of their lives, as returning veterans struggle to cope with physical and psychological injuries, and with joblessness and other issues of readjustment to civilian life.

Though President Barack Obama officially ended the war and most of the U.S. troops are gone, Washington still keeps a big footprint. Some 16,000 State Department contractors and civilian employees, along with CIA and Special Forces operatives and others, are staffing the huge U.S. embassy and two consulates.

As efforts to wind down the even longer war in Afghanistan continue, new drumbeats about Iran are growing in strength. Among these, the claim that Iran is driving toward building a nuclear weapon has an eerie similarity to the allegations about Iraq a decade ago.

Despite growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran says is for power and not for arms, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress Jan. 31 that the U.S. intelligence community believes Iran has not yet decided whether to restart a program to design a nuclear warhead.

Meanwhile, danger signs are popping up. Among them: a growing and bipartisan group of senators is backing Senate Resolution 65, which declares U.S. support for an Israeli military action against Iran in "self-defense," thus tying the U.S. to a future attack by Israel against Iran.

The most significant lesson of the Iraq war is to make sure history does not repeat itself.

Photo: Coffins draped in the American flag, representing U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq, surround the Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C., as part of a 2004 antiwar protest. (kevinthoule/CC)

Activist Caroli Mullen dies in Baltimore

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:40:00 +0000

Caroli Mullen, a life-long activist for peace and civil rights, died March 8 in Baltimore after a two-year bout with cancer.

Born in Bethlehem, Penn., in 1942, Caroli's family moved to New York State and later settled in Palo Alto, Calif.

As a youngster, Caroli was "always the organizer," according to her sister, Nancy Siegel. Caroli created a "Tom Sawyer Detective Club" at seven, and in 10^th grade she challenged her high school dress code by wearing sandals to school ... and won!

Together with singer-activist Joan Baez, she organized the "Palo Alto Youth for Peace" with the aim of banning nuclear weapons. At 16, she traveled to Wyoming to protest a nuclear test site. When the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) held a hearing in San Francisco to investigate "communist influences" in the peace movement, Mullen was among scores of young people arrested for protesting at City Hall, when police used water hoses to clear the hallways.

That arrest caused Mullen to lose a paid scholarship to San Francisco State University.

In college, Mullen joined the WEB DuBois Clubs USA, a youth group affiliated with the Communist Party. Former People's World editor Tim Wheeler remembers her from 1967 when she served as an intern for the Daily Worker newspaper. "Caroli was like a breath of fresh air, full of life and fight back."

Mullen was a delegate to a World Festival of Youth and Students. While working on her advanced degree abroad, she met Les Roth in London, who was to become her companion and husband of over 40 years. At the time Roth was office manager in the London office of the Communist Party.

Roth described his wife as a free spirit and anti-authoritarian by nature, unafraid to take on unpopular causes and leadership -- even leadership within the movement -- and rankled more than a few feathers. In 1973, she helped establish and contributed to a British Marxist women's liberation magazine called the "Red Rag," reader supported and produced entirely by women.

Mullen and Roth moved to San Francisco in the 1970s and settled in Maryland in 1987. She was an environmentalist and an active member of the Sierra Club of Maryland. In 2009, she was instrumental in facilitating a coalition of health care reform advocates for a large "public option" rally at the historic Senator Theater in northeast Baltimore. In 2010, she was an outspoken voice in the coalition protesting the building of a Walmart store in the Remington community of north-central Baltimore.

Mullen worked as a policy analyst at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a government agency, until her retirement.

At the time of her death she was a member of the Northeast Baltimore Club of the Maryland Communist Party. She rejoined the party a number of years ago after leaving in the 1990s, as a supporter of the Committees of Correspondence.

A memorial service will be held on Sat., April 13, 12 p.m., at Baltimore's Sharp Hall, the Annex to Govans Presbyterian Church on 5826 York Road. A luncheon will follow the memorial.

Photo: Caroli Mullen

Are Missouri Republicans insane?

Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:18:00 +0000

Are Missouri's right-wing Republicans insane? Well, when it comes to Medicaid expansion they just might be.

I ask because, who in their right mind rejects billions of dollars in federal funding?

Yes, the money is earmarked to expand health care coverage for the poor, primarily women, children, people of color and rural folks.

Yes, the earmarked money would create thousands of new middle class jobs, primarily in health care administration, which would also help up-date, modernize and rationalize our broken health care system.

Yes, the earmarked money would save Missouri taxpayers hundreds-of-millions of dollars in health care premiums, as they would no-longer have-to shoulder the burden of industry cost-shifting to pay for the uninsured.

But (and I ask this rhetorically) is that reason enough to reject billions of dollars of federal funding?

I mean, I know the right-wing Republicans hate the poor, children, women and people of color. Though I think they like rural folks a little-bit better, as rural folks are more likely to vote Republican based on wedge issues like "Guns, Gays and Abortion."

I know they only want to pay lip service to creating jobs, while viciously attacking unions and the moderate proposals they make that move us towards job creation. The Missouri legislature has spent most of its time so-far this legislative season debating 'Right-to-Work' (for-less), paycheck deception and gutting prevailing wage, which do nothing to create jobs.

And I know they don't care about tax-payers, unless, of-course, you're a millionaire or billionaire, as they've fought tooth and nail to stop tax increases on the one percent, while holding the rest of us hostage to sequestration, higher taxes and proposed cuts to our hard-earned Social Security.

But seriously, are Missouri's right-wing Republicans insane? The facts speak for themselves.

Conservatively, Medicaid expansion would create 24,000 new jobs and expand health care coverage to an additional 260,000 uninsured people in the show-me-state.

But the right-wing of the Republican Party has repeatedly opted to NOT participate in the Affordable Care Act's mandated expansion of Medicaid coverage.

In fact, over the past few weeks the Republican-dominated Missouri legislature has rejected Medicaid expansion five times, in-spite of thousands of phone-calls, letters, emails and in-person visits from constituents all across the state.

According to provisions in the ACA, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016, while paying at-least 90 percent of the funding thereafter.

But some Republicans, including the Senate budget chairman, Kurt Schaefer, and House budget chairman, Rick Stream, refuse the federal funding because it isn't the "right fix" and because "Medicaid is broken."

Since when is paying 10 percent of the cost of anything the wrong fix? Aren't Republicans supposed to be good at economics!

This is a win-win, Messrs. Schaefer and Stream.

Not only would Missouri residents have billions of their tax dollars returned to them through Medicaid expansion, not only would expansion offset the cost of current uninsured care, which is something all Missourians pay for through higher premiums, but also expansion would also conservatively create 24,000 new jobs.

How is that a bad idea?

Additionally, if Missouri does not expand Medicaid, an estimated 40-50 percent of rural hospitals will be forced to close, while other hospitals will cut jobs and reduce services. And at the same time, families and small business will pay higher premiums, totaling an estimated $1 billion in increased cost to consumers.

The radical (again, I'm being rhetorical) Missouri Hospital Association estimates that rejecting Medicaid expansion will cost the state 9,000 jobs, a net loss of 31,000 jobs - if you include the 24,000 jobs that could have been created through expansion.

How is that the "right fix," Mr. Schaefer? Doesn't rejecting Medicaid expansion just break Medicaid more, Mr. Stream? Or is that the real goal?

Many in the Missouri Medicaid coalition - a coalition consisting of faith, labor, community and disability rights organizations and small businesses, representing hundreds-of-thousands of Missourians - are optimistic, and say that there are still avenues available for passing Medicaid expansion.

A leader in the Missouri Medicaid coalition recently told this author, "We shouldn't read too much into the republican posturing. It has less to do with Medicaid, and more to do with positioning for future elections."

However, he also thinks the current debate around Medicaid expansion is "insane."

So to answer the question: Are Missouri's right-wing Republicans insane? It depends who you ask.

I think they are completely insane. I also think they don't give a damn about ordinary Missourians. They want to break Medicaid, while obstructing job creation and push the burden of paying for their mismanaged economy onto our backs.

And if that's not prudent government, I don't know what is! (Yes, I'm being rhetorical!)

Photo: Tony Harris, a retired leader of the American Postal Workers' Union in St. Louis, making phone calls for the Missouri Medicaid Coalition urging passage of the Medicaid expansion. Charlie Edelen, MO Jobs with Justice.

Celebrating my fellow women postal workers

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:12:00 +0000

I enter the arena. With its muted lighting, my pupils hurriedly adjust to the gangling action. A flurry of whirling dervishes flashes before my eyes and I hear the announcer bellow these names in a cacophony of flourishing tones; Racer McChaser, Roxanna Hardplace, and Peaches N. Creamy. As the bevy of roller-skating raucous races towards where I am standing, a human spill of eight female carcasses streaks across the wooden floor. A whistle is blown and the combatants pick themselves up and prepare for another round of roller rink warfare. My jaw drops in awe; I am witness to my first match of the Detroit Derby Girls.

Freeze that frame. Rewind to 1967. Boston Marathon, an entrant named K. Switzer. On April 19^th of that year, this K. became the first woman to receive a bib number and compete officially in this most historic of running events. K. (Katherine) was a student at Syracuse University and wanted to train with the men's cross country team. Arnie Briggs, a mailman and assistant coach with the cross country team, agreed to take her on. Her goal was to compete in the Boston Marathon, up until that time an exclusively male event. She entered under "K." as a subterfuge for Katherine and ran with a hooded sweatshirt covering her face and long hair. When the hood fell off her head during the race revealing her as a woman, the head official of the Boston Marathon, Jock Semple, jumped off a press truck and yelled "get out of my race" as he tried to rip the #261 off of her outfit. Mailman Arnie, along with her boyfriend and running mate, Tom Miller shoved Semple aside and sent him flying. She finished the race and the photographs taken of the incident made world headlines. In her words; "I started the Boston Marathon as a girl, and finished the race as a grown woman."

These women are tough, and there are many other stories to tell of strong females in the sporting world. In honor of Woman's History Month, though, I would like to share with my readers the history of the women I rub elbows with every day on the workroom floor; the female letter carriers of the United States Postal Service. I am going to use a term that I may have to explain and defend but I am going to use it anyway; bar none, they are the toughest broads I have ever known and if need be I will say that on bended knees with a bowed head.

As a child growing up in the 60's, I have no recollection of any female letter carriers in my neighborhood. Jack pushed his cart down the street and waved hello to me in his jolly fashion. It didn't seem odd at all; that was life in the suburbs in the sixties. Hell, my mother didn't even have her driver's license until much later. Carrying mail, as well as just about all other important functions of society's work, was a man's job. Them was the "Good Ole Days" (a magazine that I still deliver to this day!).

According to the United States Post Office archive, "the first known appointment of a woman to carry mail was on April 3, 1845, when Postmaster General Cave Johnson appointed Sarah Black to carry the mail in Charleston, Maryland." At least two woman, Susanna Brunner in New York, and Minnie Westman in Oregon, were known to be mail carriers in the 1880s. Mary Fields, nicknamed "Stagecoach Mary", was the first African-American woman to work for the Postal Service, driving a stagecoach in Montana from 1895 to 1900. But despite these exceptions, the letter carrier craft remained nearly all male for many decades.

Women letter carriers made their first appearance on city streets during World War I and World War II, taking the places of men drafted into military service. Almost all of these women carried the mail temporarily, relinquishing their jobs as men returned home from war. By 1956, only 92 women nationwide served as city carriers.

But the times they were a changin'. With events in the forefront such as the ludicrous all male Boston Marathon and the Women's Liberation Movement calling attention to the inequality between the sexes, the United States Postal Service became one of the havens for women to find a job with 'equal pay for equal work.' By 1971, women carriers reached the 5,000 mark. By 1982, women carriers topped 16,000. By 2006, 60,000 women comprised more than 26 percent of the city carrier workforce. Estimates of 2013's carrier workforce push towards 40 percent of women carrying the US mails.

I have worked side by side with these women for the last twelve and a half years. As amazed as I am by the Detroit Derby Girls, or Katherine Switzer breaking the "no female" barrier at the Boston Marathon, I am more amazed by my female coworkers' diligence at delivering the US mails on a daily basis. I know how I feel at the end of a day, and I see women half my size rise up and greet me at the time clock each and every morning. I was so impressed, I married one of you. For you all, Happy Women's History Month!

Photo: Jeannette Lee became Chicago's first female letter carrier in 1944. Postal Museum.

Jobs report indicates "more work" needed

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:04:00 +0000

Last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its employment report for February. Most news coverage used terms like "solid" and "gaining strength", but all is still not well.

The 236,000 new jobs might have been "better than expected," but are still inadequate. More to the point, that number is unlikely to be sustained in coming months.

The average for the last 3 months (including February) is 191,000, only slightly above the average for the last year. January's growth was revised down to 119,000 -- a below-average figure probably due to weather and seasonal adjustments. February's better weather brought relatively good numbers, which boosted the average, especially in construction. Last year, strong numbers in the winter were followed by months of very slow growth. There is nothing to indicate that higher numbers are here to stay.

If we keep up at the rate we have been going for the last year, it will be 2020 before the jobs deficit is made up. Even then, we would only be at the pre-recession level, which left literally millions of people, especially African American and Latino youth, outside the normal job market. Today, the official unemployment rate for ages 18-19 ranges from 19 percent for white youth to 36 percent for African Americans. The real rates range from 39 percent to 62 percent.

The February report also showed unemployment declined from 7.9 percent to 7.7 percent. But much of that is the result of unemployed workers giving up the search for jobs - at which point they are no longer counted as unemployed. This should be no surprise. Long-term unemployment remains at record levels. If you have been out of work six months or longer, the chances of finding another job are slim, and many grow discouraged and give up actively looking.

The February report shows the effect of the creeping austerity policy that has overtaken government since the end of the stimulus in 2010. Another 10,000 jobs were lost in state and local government, bringing the total losses to 750,000 since the start of the recession. In the past, keeping pace with growing population and other needs, government has continued to add jobs during recessions. If previous growth rates had continued, government employment would have gained, not lost, 750,000. The budget squeeze on state and local government, only partly relieved in 2009 and 2010 by the stimulus, has really cost 1.5 million jobs directly, and probably 2 million counting the indirect losses. The result: more crowded classrooms, libraries closed, less efficient government service -- and an overall unemployment rate of 7.7 percent instead of 6.5 percent.

The loss of government jobs and the loss of jobs from private companies doing business with the government will only accelerate as the sequester kicks in. Estimates of these new losses range from 750,000 to 2 million. Along with the payroll tax hike that took effect Jan. 1, we can expect at least 142,000 fewer jobs per month for the rest of the year.

That's bad enough. But Congress is facing an artificial calendar of cutbacks and crises. The continuing resolution, the debt limit, the budget for the coming year -- all these are opportunities for Republicans to blackmail the nation into even further cuts: more pain for working people; a nation weakened by deteriorating infrastructure and education; and more jobs lost. Continuing government cutbacks act as an anchor, holding back any chance of a real recovery.

There are alternatives. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has introduced a "back to work" budget that cancels the sequester and funds infrastructure, education, other public works, and provides aid to states and local communities to rehire laid-off teachers, firefighters and other public employees. All funded by closing tax cuts and loopholes enjoyed by the super-rich and corporations, and cutting military spending.

A similar Progressive Caucus plan offered in February as an alternative to the sequester got majority support in a blind poll. Even a plurality of Republicans favored it over any of the other options.

To deal with the present jobs emergency we need 300,000 - 400,000 net new jobs every month, for several years. That should be the number one economic priority in Congress. There have been many calls for a 21st century New Deal, putting millions to work rebuilding our country and combating climate change. The Progressive Caucus "back to work" budget is a step in that direction.

Photo: Protestors demand "jobs not cuts" at a 2011 demonstration in Hartford, Conn. (PW/Art Perlo)

Chicago parents organize to keep schools open

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:04:00 +0000

Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Board of Education have closed or taken over dozens of schools every year, targeting African American and Latino neighborhoods. These closings take resources that our students deserve, destabilizing our communities and increasing racial inequality at Chicago Public Schools.

The Board of Ed is now considering closing 129 more schools, taking even more from the communities that have lost the most. They plan to close schools, in part, to pay for more privatized "charter schools" controlled by the mayor's supporters, taking away our community's schools, jobs and voice.

McClellan School was recently named by CPS as a school under consideration for closing. McClellan students would be forced to travel over a mile away to attend other schools. CPS does not understand the uniqueness of our school community, the staff's dedication to educating the whole child, the Magnet Autism Program and the experience of family that McClellan offers.

Check out these statistics about the student population at McClellan.

Social economic status:

93 percent poverty rate
21 percent English language learners
26 percent special needs (over the capacity of 20 percent for national average)

Academic status:

75 percent meets or exceeds standards
22 percent exceeds (which is four points higher than CPS average)

Racial demographics:

53 percent Hispanic
22 percent African American
16 percent Caucasian
4 percent Asian
4 percent Multicultural

McClellan has a diverse population; not many CPS schools enjoy the learning experience of multi-culturalism like they do!

These are some of the nonprofit organizations, universities, businesses and agencies that have become partners with McClellan:

Chicago White Sox volunteers read weekly with the students;
City Year painted over 20 murals throughout the school;
Chicago Cares completed a school makeover in 2011-2012 school year;
Southwest Organizing Project parents spend 10 hours per week in classrooms;
Good Sports/Chicago Bulls donated sporting goods;
Dating Matters provides information to middle school students;
Northeastern Illinois University - more than 10 NEIU student teachers trained at McClellan in the past 2 years;
University of Illinois at Chicago - more than 10 student teachers trained at McClellan in the past 2 years, too;
Illinois Institute of Technology provides college tutors who work in the classroom daily;
Best Buy/Target donated to the school through Chicago Cares;
Joffrey Ballet and Ravinia provide arts education to students;
Blackstone Hotel raised $2,700 for McClellan volunteers who organized the entire library;
Free Books donates books.

McClellan has moved from 66 percent of students meeting and exceeding state standards in 2010 to 74 percent of students meeting state standards in 2012. McClellan deserves an opportunity to finish what we have started. McClellan matters!

McClellan has a thriving Autism Magnet Cluster with a sensory room to enhance instruction. Children on the autism spectrum have a difficult time transitioning from one task to another. This sensory room helps them adjust to changes and calm themselves when necessary. McClellan just won a $5,000 grant from Lowe's to furnish it. McClellan matters!!!

CPS set an arbitrary rate of 70 percent occupied to be the threshold for a school closing. Any school under this rate could be on the list. This is based on all classrooms being occupied with 31 students per room. When CPS did the survey at McClellan, they didn't consider our autism students. Under law, classroom size for children with autism is nine for primary age and 13 for older children. Right now, children receive speech and occupational therapy sessions in closets. But CPS says McClellan is at a 64 percent utilization rate.

McClellan challenged CPS on their conclusion and asked for a recalculation. They did recalculate and now McClellan is at 69 percent capacity, just one percent shy of the 70 percent capacity threshold.

The parents of special education children met with a lawyer recently to share information and concerns regarding how the impact of the school closing will affect their children.

To top it off, McClellan has been designated as a "welcoming school," which means it is a school that accepted students from other schools that CPS closed. McClellan has seen a 12 percent growth in the last two years and has been classified as "on the rise," which means the school still meets the same or higher performance level. If McClellan closes this means some students and their families will have gone through multiple school closings in just a few years.

Currently McClellan is one of 129 schools on the close list. If CPS closes 129 schools more than 6,000 special education students will be moved. Two thousand five hundred eight homeless students will lose their school - the only real stability they have. Schools that fought for reduced class size (by using Title 1 funds) will lose this option.

CPS says there is no guarantee that displaced students will get to attend school near their neighborhood. There is no way CPS can move 40,000 students and ensure safe passage for them.

Many schools will become "welcoming" schools - while not truly having the space for newly displaced students. Overcrowding and loss of space for art and music classes will result. Dozens of closed school buildings will be left empty in already struggling neighborhoods. Mass closings are bad for children and bad for Chicago. You can't improve schools by closing them. We need your support! Please let your voices be heard. Call CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett at 773-553-1500, the Board of Education at 773-553-1600 and your elected officials.

Raise Your Hand is having a press conference on March 19 regarding the closing list with high populations of students with special needs and what school closures will do to special needs children. Thirty-nine of the 129 schools contain a Special Education Cluster Program. Moving children could cause a disruption of their services. Do you think CPS can properly transition over 6,000 students with Individualized Education Plans?

Parents, teachers, school workers, students and community members are also gathering March 27 for a citywide march to save our schools & public education.

It's time to take back our schools. Fight back! Stop ALL school closings and end the privatization of public education. Give all of our children the education they deserve!

The author is a grandparent of two public school students and active in the coalition to keep McClellan and other schools open.

Photo: Parents, teachers and members of the Chicago Teachers Union, students and community groups march against school closings last fall (PW/John Bachtell)

Citizens United, Wisconsin style

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:49:00 +0000

There's a notion being discussed in coffee shops, on the Internet and in public forums across Wisconsin these days. It goes by the ominous name, "The Roggensack Rule," and is generally acknowledged to be an imperative Wisconsinites could gladly do without.

What is the Roggensack Rule? We've all heard of Citizens United, that infamous Supreme Court ruling in 2010 which allowed corporations to be-how shall one put it?-more involved in our electoral process than ever before. Well now we have in Wisconsin the logical extension of that ruling. If adopted, "The Roggensack Rule," named after Justice Patience Roggensack who is seeking reelection this April for another 10-year term, would make it entirely legal for any corporation to make campaign contributions to sitting judges, even when said corporation has a case before the court.

So, if I am the CEO and chairman of ABC Corp., and I am being sued by some annoying environmentalist organization, I can give a rather handsome contribution to the judge who will rule on this case. And I can do this with impunity, or as Roggensack likes to put it, in the name of "free speech."

Now why in the world would I, CEO and chairman of ABC Corp., give a sitting judge up for re-election a whopping contribution? Is it because I am interested in justice? Perhaps it is my devotion and support of the democratic process. Forget the free speech dodge, that's just a red herring trying to divert us from the real motive behind this act; only the most gullible would entertain any other reason than the fact that I want to use my financial clout to influence the outcome of my case. I am, in effect, bribing the judge, and if Roggensack has her way, I am doing so legally.

And why, pray tell, would I want to do such a thing? Is it because I think the arguments of the environmentalists are bogus? Do I feel that they are so fundamentally and morally wrong that I have to resort to such a dire tactic as bribery? Is it because bribery is less offensive to the American people than what those exasperating environmentalists want? Only the most gullible would buy that reason.

No, my only motive to dump large sums of money in this way is that I clearly see a return on investment: my shareholders, that small group of wealthy individuals, will greatly profit by a decision going the "right" way in the courts.

It's almost unfathomable to try to comprehend how a judge with any scruples could move up through the ranks, through the years, and display such contempt for impartiality. Impartiality-that essential component of justice-is the best we can hope for if we want the courts to be fair. Judges have recused themselves, and are expected to do so, if there is even a perception of impartiality. They have shown that it is always best to err on the side of fairness.

But the times are a-changing! With Citizens United and now "The Roggensack Rule," in the light of day judges can be wined and dined by the very party they will be ruling on.

After all, corporations are people, and shouldn't all people have rights?; to wit, the right to be enterprising and take advantage of any situation to make a buck? And so these very corporations have persuaded Lady Justice to put away her blindfold so she can lift her scales-to the highest bidder.

Hugo Chavez empowered and united

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:05:00 +0000

The powerful voice of Hugo Chavez - a voice for economic justice, democracy, empowerment, national independence, continental solidarity, peace, anti-imperialism, and socialism - has been stilled.

While local and global elites sigh in relief and belittle his life in the major media, the untimely death of Chavez is also evoking a heartfelt cry from millions of abused, marginalized, and exploited people across the globe - none more so than in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.

In that cry one doesn't hear a note of despair and defeat, but rather an unmistakable affirmation that the irrepressible spirit, intellectual curiosity, and disposition to action that defined this man's life will find reflection in the lives of struggling humanity in the years to come.

The celebrations in the seats of power of the global elite over Chavez's death are very premature. The "masters of the universe" make the mistake of underestimating the consciousness and capacity of people in Venezuela and elsewhere to carry forward Chavez's legacy of challenging entrenched capitalist power and injustice. This misunderstanding is not unusual for a class that is steeped in notions of racial superiority, patriarchy, and class entitlement, and tucked away in bubbles of privilege and opulence.

Few of us leave an individual imprint on history. For most of us, our ability to affect history lies in joining with others in collective action.

But some individuals do play an outsized role shaping historical events - as part of the wider struggles taking place in society.

Hugo Chavez Frias falls into this category.

He was an early and unyielding opponent of neoliberal globalization - a system of political and economic capitalist domination that grew out of the dynamics and contradictions of capitalism in its current stage of development. This system of governance broke up traditional farming in the countryside and forced vast numbers of peasants off the land. It created massive slums rimming South America's major cities, rolled back social provisioning by the state, degraded the environment, generated ever wider inequalities, tore down trade and financial barriers protecting local economies, decimated and de-nationalized industry, and condemned millions to impoverishment and spiritual hopelessness.

Drawing inspiration from Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro and other revolutionaries of Latin America, Chavez challenged in words and deeds this system of exploitation and oppression.

But his fight was not a lonely one. This great leader of indigenous and African descent (a fact that fueled the hatred of the elites even more) not only gave voice to the impoverished and rootless, but also inspired them to become political actors in their own right. Indeed, Chavez played a singular role in transforming a fragmented mass of people in Venezuela into an organized force challenging the profits and prerogatives of local and global capital.

If we left it here however, we would miss the other side of the dialectic. Chavez, like other great leaders, was as much a product of his times and the people he sought to influence as they were of him. Changing circumstances and an aroused people remade him as much as he remade them.

Chavez was a socialist, and one whose feet were very much in this century. While he was inspired by struggles of the past, he wasn't a prisoner of the received wisdom of earlier times. His socialism - its sensibilities, goals, theory, program, and path - were conditioned by the particular, novel circumstances of the 21st century.

At the core of his worldview and political practice were people's needs, people's empowerment, and people's unity at the national, regional, and global level. His politics grew out of the real movement of people and a sober estimation of the actual balance of class and social forces.

At times, his views raised the eyebrows of those on the left who considered problematic any deviation from what I would call their undialectical and rigid reading of Marxism.

In an interview with Tariq Ali, Chavez said,

"I don't believe in the dogmatic postulates of Marxist revolution. I don't accept that we are living in a period of proletarian revolutions. All that must be revised. Reality is telling us that every day. Are we aiming in Venezuela today for the abolition of private property or a classless society? I don't think so. But if I'm told that because of that reality you can't do anything to help the poor, the people who have made this country rich through their labor - and never forget that some of it was slave labor - then I say: 'We part company.' I will never accept that there can be no redistribution of wealth in society.

"Our upper classes don't even like paying taxes. That's one reason they hate me. We said: 'You must pay your taxes.' I believe it's better to die in battle, rather than hold aloft a very revolutionary and very pure banner, and do nothing ... That position often strikes me as very convenient, a good excuse ... Try and make your revolution, go into combat, advance a little, even if it's only a millimetre, in the right direction, instead of dreaming about utopias."

As you can see, Chavez's theory and practice included intermediate steps and stages of struggle. It embraced the struggle for reforms, even minor ones that would meet in some, even small, ways people's needs, and at the same time act as a matrix for mass political participation, anti-capitalist education, and deeper and broader unity. And it rested on a creative and flexible application of theory to changing reality.

Hugo Chavez will be greatly missed in his home country and worldwide, but the way to honor him isn't to turn him into an icon and his words into sacred texts. We honor Hugo Chavez by embracing his passion and courage, his curiosity about the world, his tireless struggle for unity of diverse forces, his readiness to think independently and develop Marxism in fresh and creative ways, and his belief in the intelligence and power of an engaged people.

Photo: Fernando Llano/AP

Margrit Pittman: 1919-2013

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:36:00 +0000

Margrit Pittman, a working class journalist and lifelong advocate of world peace, equality, and socialism died Feb. 4 in New York City. She was 93.

Pittman served for many years on the staff of the Worker and its successor newspapers, the Daily World and the People's Weekly World. Her lifelong partner in that endeavor was her journalist husband, John Pittman, an outstanding African American writer and editor. He was co-editor of the Daily World when it was launched in 1968. She served as editor of World Magazine and as editor of the editorial page of the Daily World.

Portside, an online website carries an obituary headlined "Margrit Pittman Presente" which reports that she was born Margrit Adler in 1919 in Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. As a teenager, she experienced the vicious anti-semitism and hatred of the working class unleashed by Adolf Hitler. She was unable to complete her formal education when the Nazis banned Jews from public schools and universities. German Jews were the targets of ruthless oppression, excluded from schools, ostracized, harassed, and publicly humiliated. It led ultimately to "The Holocaust," the vast genocide in which millions of Jews and other victims were herded into concentration camps and executed.

One of Pittman's aunts and her cousins were deported from France, disappearing into one of the death camps. Pittman experienced the solidarity of a teacher and of German friends, including non-Jewish friends, who risked their own personal safety to defend her rights. She joined the Internationaler Sozialstischer Kampfbund, an antifascist underground organization operating throughout Germany that was high on the Gestapo's hit list.

She fled Germany at age 18 in 1938, settling in New York City during World War II where she helped organize the German-American Emergency Conference to Defeat Hitler. She was the managing editor and editor of the youth page of the antifascist newspaper, The German-American. It was the largest circulation German-language antifascist paper in the U.S. Bundles of the newspaper were distributed at German POW camps.

Pittman was denied U.S. citizenship until 1944 when her application was accepted. She then joined the Communist Party USA and later, she met and married John Pittman. In 1955, the couple moved to San Francisco with their young children, Carol, and John Peter. John Pittman served as editor of the West Coast People's World.

In 1959, the family moved to Moscow where John and Margrit covered the Soviet Union for the Worker for three years. While there, they co-authored a book, "Peaceful Coexistence: Its Theory and Practice in the Soviet Union," published in 1964 by International Publishers. They also co-authored "Sense and Nonsense About Berlin" in 1962.

In the late 1970s, Margrit Pittman was assigned to cover the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia while John served as the representative of the CPUSA on the Editorial Board of the World Marxist Review based in Prague. Her writing in that period reflected her belief that the GDR "epitomized the repudiation by the German people of the Nazi past," the Portside obituary reports. She wrote a book "Encounters in Democracy: A U.S. Journalist's View of the GDR" published in 1981.

During the years that she lived in Berlin, the capital of the German Democratic Republic, she played a leading role in bringing trade unionists, including teachers and actors, writers and many others from the U.S. to the GDR to see for themselves what was going on in that country. Because of her efforts many in America were able to get an accurate picture of what life was like in a socialist country.

Pittman was also a grassroots organizer, a leader of Women Strike for Peace in San Francisco, an organizer of events in New York that were sponsored by the U.S. Committee for Friendship with the German Democratic Republic, the Communist Party USA, and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. In her later years living in cooperative housing in the Chelsea community of Manhattan, she was active in neighborhood and tenant associations, and the movement for universal health care as well as Chelsea Standup Against the War in Iraq.

Margrit Pittman is survived by two children, Carol Pittman and John Peter Pittman, and by four grandchildren.

A memorial meeting in New York City is planned for later this spring. Donations in her memory should be made to: Code Pink, Metro New York Health Care for All Campaign, Holy Apostles Soup Kitchen, and Portside.

Photo: The Memorial to Victims of Fascism in Berlin, the capital of the German Democratic Republic, featuring an eternal flame to the victims, was only blocks from an apartment that Margrit Pittman lived in during the 1980's. The flame was extinguished after the GDR was absorbed into West Germany. Wikimedia Commons

The economy: Happy days are here again! For whom?

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:48:00 +0000

Last week the stock market made a great leap forward. "Dow Leaps to Record" the Wall Street Journal blazons on its front page. The news weekly The Week quotes Bernard Condon of the Associated Press: "The stock market is back." Investors and other social parasites living off of unearned capital gains are celebrating getting back the $11 trillion dollars eaten up by the Great Recession. The Week says this is seen "as another sign of recovery." The Wall Street Journal hails it as "a key milestone in the long slog to recovery from the financial crisis."

This remarkable "economic comeback" is even happening under the Obama administration - which the Wall Street Journal and other right-wing prognosticators and prevaricators of presidential malfeasance have been telling us is running the economy into the ground and scaring investors away from the markets because of its anti-business "socialist" proclivities. Paul Krugman in The New York Times quotes the op-ed of one these negative Nellies, Michael Boskin who advised presidents Bush 1 & 2 on economics: "Obama's radicalism is killing the DOW." Whose policies were it now that brought the stock market and the economy crashing down? I think they were those of the presidents being advised by Michael Boskin.

Now to be a wet blanket. The resurrection and coming again of the DOW is only one expression of the economy. The fat cat expression. What about people at the other end of the economic blight - how are they faring. While the bankers and speculators who caused the Great Recession are partying on Wall Street the nation's homeless are increasing in numbers. After reading the front page of the same issue of the Wall Street Journal celebrating "recovery" we find a quite different story on page six: "New York City leads jump in homeless."

New York prides itself with being the leading city in the U.S. and under Mayor Bloomberg it has become first in the nation in homeless families. The city also set a new record for its homeless shelters - 50,000 souls a night in January of this year. Revealing, the WSJ says, "an unsettling national trend: a rising number of families without permanent housing." Higher stock prices and bigger bonuses for bankers do not a recovery make.

According to the Coalition for the Homeless (using numbers from January provided by New York City) one percent of all children in the city are in shelters (over 21,000) which is up 22 percent over last year (corresponding increases for Boston and Washington D.C. were 7.8 percent and 18 percent, respectively). Mary Brosnahan, of the Coalition, said, "New York is facing a homeless crisis worse than anytime since the Great Depression." Some recovery!

Resources to help keep families in their homes have been cut by the Obama administration, advocates for the homeless say, in order to concentrate on the "more visible" problems - i.e., getting those unsightly homeless from sleeping on the streets and in public areas where they can be, god forbid, seen.

So the money goes for shelters after the fact, not to keep people housed before the fact. But this did not start with Obama - it goes back to the Bush years as homeless families have increased 73 percent since 2002 in New York City alone. The city reflects national trends. It has, for example, gotten back, in gross numbers, all the jobs lost since the Great Recession" began, according to the WSJ - but not really, as the the jobs are lower paying than those lost - you don't come out even getting an once of silver for an once of gold just because you still have an once of something. When asked to comment, the Department of Housing and Urban Development did not respond.

For the crisis in New York City the Bloomberg administration said it was the fault of, that abstract beast, "the economy." Seth Diamond, NYC's commissioner of the Department of Homeless Services (a whole department for this!) was quoted in the WSJ as saying, "The economy is very different in the past years, and that is a substantial change. We understand we have an obligation to continue to work with people and provide shelter for those who need it, and the economy is nowhere near where it was."

Was it the fault of "the economy" that the State of New York ended aid to help people who got out of shelters to keep their new housing - thus forcing them back out on the street? Ending that program resulted in a 35 percent increase in families in New York City shelters alone.

Was it the fault of "the economy" that in 2005 Mayor Bloomberg (forgetting his "obligation" to help people) ended a program from the 1990s that had been created to set aside some federal housing units and vouchers managed by the city for homeless people so they could get out of the shelters and live normal lives? We can't accept that being homeless is the "new normal."'

No, it's not the fault of "the economy" it is the fault of politicians that prioritize aiding the rich and well off at the expense of everyone else; of politicians who would rather see children thrown out on the streets than raise, even minutely, the taxes on the bloated incomes of the rich squeezed out of the labor of working people as well as grants and subsidies they get from the Congress corrupted by lobbyists and corporate contributions.

The "Great Recession" is not over and never will be no matter how high the stock market goes as long as homelessness, unemployment, low wages, and the persecution of unions and their members continues. The American people voted for a progressive government and they must now unite to see that the forces of reaction which refuse to recognize the choice of the people are driven from the centers of power and an end put to their obstructionism and attempts to undermine popular democracy. Only then will "happy days be here again" or at least the possibility for them.

Photo: More money in the pockets of Big Business does not help the rising homeless population in the U.S. Gregorio Borgia/AP

Chavez’s legacy

Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:36:00 +0000

Bertrand Russell once wrote about the American revolutionary Thomas Paine, "He had faults, like other men; but it was for his virtues that he was hated and successfully calumniated."

This was certainly true of Hugo Chávez Frias, who was probably more demonized than any democratically elected president in world history. But he was repeatedly re-elected by wide margins, and will be mourned not only by Venezuelans but by many Latin Americans who appreciate what he did for the region.

Chávez survived a military coup backed by Washington and oil strikes that crippled the economy but once he got control of the oil industry, his government reduced poverty by half and extreme poverty by 70 percent. Millions of people also got access to health care for the first time, and access to education also increased sharply, with college enrollment doubling and free tuition for many. Eligibility for public pensions tripled. He kept his campaign promise to share the country's oil wealth with Venezuela's majority, and that will be part of his legacy.

So, too will be the second independence of Latin America, and especially South America, which is now more independent of the United States than Europe is. Of course this would not have happened without Chávez' close friends and allies: Lula in Brazil, the Kirchners in Argentina, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and others. But Chávez was the first of the democratically-elected left presidents in the past 15 years, and he played a very important role; look to what these colleagues will say of him and you will find it to be much more important than most of the other obituaries, anti-obituaries, and commentaries. These left governments have also made considerable advances in reducing poverty, increasing employment, and raising overall living standards - and their parties, too have been continually re-elected.

For these other democratic leaders, Chávez is seen as part of this continent-wide revolt at the ballot box that transformed South America and increased opportunities and political participation for previously excluded majorities and minorities.

Continuity in Venezuela is most likely following Chávez' death, since his political party has more than 7 million members and demonstrated its ability to win elections without him campaigning in the December local elections, where they picked up five state governorships to win 20 of 23 states. Relations with the United States are unlikely to improve; the State Department and President Obama himself made a number of hostile statements during Chávez's last months of illness, indicating that no matter what the next government (presumably under Nicolas Maduro) does, there is not much interest on Washington's part in improving relations.

See article on original website, Al Jazeera English, March 5.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Photo: Venezuelans poured into the streets of Caracas to mourn the death of President Hugo Chavez, March 6. (BarrioTV/via Facebook)

News clips from the world of the wealthy

Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:07:00 +0000

No copyright worries in Disneyland

The next time a rich corporate chieftain whines about higher taxes or says he's "just like you and me," take him to Disneyland. It may remind him how he's not.

There, creative people always build on the creative work of others, and the creative types in the Walt Disney empire, notes analyst Jay Walljasper, have certainly been no exception. They've been turning creative works in the public domain into profitable blockbusters ever since Snow White appeared in 1937.

They've taken - without paying royalties and at no charge-the Jungle Book from Rudyard Kipling, the Little Mermaid from Hans Christian Anderson, and Alice in Wonderland from Lewis Carroll. All these works had outlived their original copyright.

What about Disney's own creations? Disney lobbying has helped extend copyrights on Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to over 100 years, essentially double previous limits. In fact, Disney has not yet "lost" a story to the public domain.

Disney CEO Robert Iger is certainly cashing in on that victory. He took home, Disney disclosed last month, $40.2 million in 2012. That's far less than the royalties Disney will continue to get for years from Mickey's laughs and Donald's quacks.

The right way to pull strings

Then there's the mogul who decides to push his clout out in the open, but only after pulling strings in his favor. Meet Art Pope.

Pope, a billionaire who owes his fortune to a discount store network his daddy built, certainly thinks so. Pope spent over $40 million in recent years gerrymandering North Carolina, and the state now sports a GOP governor, a conservative state Supreme Court majority, and a GOP-dominated state legislature all at the same time-for the first time in over a century.

But Pope isn't resting on those laurels. He had himself appointed state budget director. In February, his budget priorities made national headlines. In North Carolina, a state with America's fifth-highest jobless rate, lawmakers slashed maximum weekly unemployment benefits from $535 to $350, cut the number of benefit weeks allowed, and denied 39% of the state's 438,000 jobless special federal aid.

Buy your own island

Feeling a little cramped by lack of land around your house these days? Then do what Joanne Margossian did: Buy your own island.

A deep pocket who splits her time between the United States and Britain, Margossian outbid competitors from five continents to become the new owner of a luxury private island that sits in a County Mayo bay in Ireland. For just $3.81 million, she gets a 65-acre isle that features a 6-bedroom main residence with a music hall, five other residences, orchards, a boat house, and, of course, a pier.

The previous owner had bought the island for just $1.3 million in 2003 and reportedly spent millions trying to turn Inish Turk Beg-Irish for "small island of the wild boar"-into a luxury travel retreat where on overnight stay would run $12,000. But that owner apparently spent himself into a hole. Receivers put the island up for sale.

Petulant plutocrat of the week

Joe Jimenez probably figured he'd be enjoying the high life when he left the U.S. just over a decade ago to ply Europe's CEO circuit. But things turned a little bumpy of late.

Jimenez, the current top dog at the Basel-based drug giant Novartis, desperately tried to stave off passage of a March 3 Swiss ballot initiative to ban CEO signing bonuses and golden parachutes, require shareholder approval of all CEO pay plans, and jail-for up to three years-any execs who violate the new rules.

The referendum's passage, Jimenez argued would put Swiss firms at a "competitive disadvantage." So did most of his corporate colleagues. But Swiss voters tuned Jimenez and his class out. His 2012 CEO pay, Switzerland's highest, quadrupled the European CEO pay average. Instead, they heeded the initiative's advocate, herbal toothpaste executive Thomas Minder. Polls showed 65 percent of the Swiss public supported the CEO pay limits. That was low: It won 67.9 percent.

Stat of the week:

Who's gaining from the higher productivity of American workers? Not American workers, especially not minimum wage workers. If the federal minimum wage had grown just one quarter as fast as productivity since 1968, economist John Schmitt calculates, the minimum today would stand at $12.25. Today's actual minimum: $7.25. President Obama proposes raising it to $9.

Veteran labor journalist Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much, an online journal of wealth and inequality sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies. E-mail: editor@toomuchonline. org.

Photo: Wealth has been accumulated in Disneyland by adapting classic characters like Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. Juanjo Cristiani/Flickr

Cancel sequester now!

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:16:00 +0000

The term "sequester" hides from Americans the damage being wrought by a GOP-led Congress recklessly bent on slashing programs that help poor and working-class people. A sequester means automatic across-the-board spending cuts. It means 10,000 teachers will lose their jobs. It means 70,000 preschoolers will miss a Head Start education. It means 1.5 million women and their families will be deprived of nutrition assistance. Local fire departments and the most vulnerable seniors will feel the effects. The cuts will hit poor people the hardest, increasing the class-wealth gap, and also mean a greater racial-wealth divide.

A total of $85 billion in automatic budget cuts will take effect between now and Sept. 30. Tea party Republicans beam with glee over such cuts. After all they won't cut into corporate profits. According to The New York Times, "sequestration could cost the country about 700,000 jobs, Wall Street does not expect the cuts to substantially reduce corporate profits - or seriously threaten the recent rally in the stock markets."

The newspaper of record goes on to quote a Bank of America official as saying "the market wants more austerity."

That's what the sequestration is: austerity. The budget cuts are Wall Street's prescription for keeping profits high while the rest of us, the 99 percenters, suffer. The Republicans will keep doing their bidding unless the 99 percenters speak up and force them to act.

But acting cannot include cutting benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The president has offered to put those hard won programs on the table, even though he has admitted that Social Security does not add to the deficit. Social Security is designed to pay for itself, and with a few adjustments - like raising the salary cap - the fund won't be threatened by changes in demographics.

Wall Street and corporate class have been dying to get at the Social Security fund - and Medicare/Medicaid spending for their own profiteering schemes. That is the danger in putting the American people's programs on the table with scoundrels.

Austerity and budget cuts have not worked in Europe. Economy after economy is suffering and the ordinary people with them. The protests and strikes there are an indication of the level of struggle that's needed to turn around the situation.

The real crime here is that Congress can end all of this today. It takes only one simple vote, and the sequester can be cancelled. Republicans say they have to see substantial budget cuts before they can do this. There have, since 2011, been as much as $1.9 trillion in budget cut. There have been only $600 billion in tax increases on the rich and even those were not really increases - they were simply a cancellation of tax cuts the rich should never have gotten in the first place.

As the labor movement says, the economy is suffering from a jobs deficit! The government needs to spend in wise investments in building the country's infrastructure for the 21^st Century, clean energy development, public and higher education, just to name a few desperately needed investments. Jobs create more jobs. People with jobs pay more in taxes and that's how deficits go down.

The time is now for the American people to stand united and demand that Congress do what is well within its power - cancel the sequester immediately.

Photo: About 100 constituents of Sen. Dick Durbin presented 5,000 signatures to his Chicago office demanding jobs not cuts, and no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, Dec. 10, 2012. (PW/John Bachtell)