People Before Profit blog

New Haven marches for immigrant rights

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:12:00 +0000

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - The magnificent outpouring of over 200,000 people in the nation's capitol, often whole families, many young but all generations, many Latino but all racial and nationality groups, for comprehensive immigration reform on March 21 will have a profound impact across this country.

The expanding voting power of Latinos could be seen and heard. Delegations were present from nearly every state in the country. Groups had traveled many miles from California, Iowa, Georgia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, New York and Connecticut.

Families who had come to this country from Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Colombia, Indonesia and many other countries filled 16 buses in the pre-dawn hours of March 21 at Gateway Community College in New Haven.

They traveled to Washington, DC with union and community groups and city officials in response to discriminatory practices hurting their lives and the life of the whole community including incidents of unpaid wages and wage discrimination on the job, denial of in-state tuition rates for high school graduates, lack of translation services in public education, family separation through deportation and much more.

New Haven understood the power of the March for America because it was the first city in the country to organize for and enact a city ID available to all resident regardless of immigration status, which is valid as a library card, park entrance and for other services. Shortly after it was introduced three years ago, ICE conducted a brutal raid in the City which was contested.

As we gathered on the National Mall, the echoes from the 1963 civil rights march led by Martin Luther King Jr. were striking. I had the opportunity to attend that march as a teenager and it impacted my life deeply. It was evident that this rally and march is and will have a similar impact on the participants and on the future of our nation.

Handmade posters with pictures of King were among the signs being held through the crowd. A packet for march participants detailed the history of the civil rights movement in the 1960's and projected the movement for immigrant rights as carrying it on in the 21st Century.

One group of young people snaked through the dense crowd chanting, "We are the Dreamers, the Mighty, Mighty Dreamers," adapted from a union picket line chant.

Speakers included the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other civil rights leaders, union leaders and elected officials. Cheers filled the National Mall when President Obama appeared via video. The multi-racial crowd, immigrant and native born, was sending a message to Congress and the President to respond to the pressure from below and make comprehensive immigration reform a reality.

The presence and solidarity of the labor movement was a significant feature of the day. AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker declared, "Nothing in this country is more powerful than people united for change. And do we ever need change. We are here, as a united labor movement to tell Congress that we must pass comprehensive immigration reform."

She went on to explain, "The broken system is benefiting the very same corporate giants who destroyed our economy. It is allowing those corporations to exploit workers by underpaying them, or not paying them at all, simply because of their immigration status. As long as employers have a pool of workers who are too scared to complain, those corporations will continue to profit and workplace standards will continue to go down."

The rally projected the significance of immigration reform for all working people with the slogan, "Immigration Reform for New Americans -- Economic Justice for All Americans." At a planning meeting in Mayor John DeStefano's office in New Haven the question was asked, "Why include the issue of jobs in the slogan, why not just immigration?"

In reply, the regional organizer explained that the economic crisis in our country cannot be solved as long as the issue of depressed conditions for immigrant workers remains unresolved.

That exchange took place at the first planning meeting in New Haven, just two and a half weeks before the event. The mayor asked the organizations gathered around the table how many people they thought they could bring. The total was ten buses. By the time of departure 16 buses were filled and waiting lists remained. It was a remarkable and overwhelming response from union members, church members, city officials, community agencies, and immigrant families organized by immigrant rights groups in the city.

Lead organizer John Jairo Lugo of Unidad Latina en Accion filled five buses together with the Peoples Center. He said, "It was a very important day for the immigrant community because taking New Haven as an example, the only way we will win this fight is through unity among the different communities."

In the days following, parallel rallies were held around the country attracting hundreds more participants, and in Los Angeles as many as 50,000..

Participants were well aware that the massive rally making history outside the capitol was taking place at the very moment when history was being made inside the halls of Congress as the health care reform debate played out. Some who had come to Washington to express support for health care, like one woman from Maryland holding a poster, "Catholics for Health Care Reform," took time to stand for immigrant rights as well.

On the bus ride home, as midnight approached, cell phone calls and text messages from friends and family kept everyone up to date with the latest vote count in the House.

Participants were tired, elated and busy as they traveled back to New Haven. They called their members of Congress and made plans to visit them during the Easter recess break to urge that immigration reform be acted upon swiftly.

The next big rallies will take place across the country on May Day, Saturday May 1. In many cities like New York, the labor movement and immigrant rights organizations are joining forces, reflecting a new level of unity for this and other issues.

At the National Mall, Arlene Holt Baker concluded her speech by outlining the unity principles of the AFL-CIO including: "legalization for the undocumented; an independent commission to assess and manage future immigration based on real needs and real labor market shortages; a secure, effective - and fair - worker authorization mechanism; rational control of U.S. borders; improvement, not expansion of temporary worker programs, limited to temporary, not permanent jobs."

As with the struggle for health care, differing proposals are being drafted for the House and Senate to consider. The March 21 rally sets the tone for the level of grass roots organizing needed to achieve positive change.

Photo: Luis Cotto

Health care reform: One battle won, more battles to come

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:50:00 +0000

The signing into law of the new health care reform package has all the earmarks of a historic victory in more ways than one.

It was not all that any of us wanted - but neither was Social Security to earlier generations when it was first enacted into law. It was in the course of subsequent battles that it was improved.

Similarly, health care reform will take many more fights and a radically changed political environment before it becomes fully enshrined in the Bill of Rights, as an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing free health care for all as a basic human right.

To those who attack the law I say:

Ask a person with pre-existing conditions who cannot get medical care at a reasonable cost, or at all, what they think. Or ask the working class family, whose income falls between the poorest who are entitled to Medicaid and the rich who need no help, what they think.

The law is the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since President Reagan 30 years ago began the offensive to redistribute wealth in favor of the large corporations and the rich.

Big chunks of the money to pay for the law come from payroll taxes of households earning more that a quarter of a million dollars and from cutting medical subsidies for private insurers.

Unfortunately, some pitted single payer, in which the private insurance carriers are put out of business, against this legislation in its changing permutations.

These folks fail to appreciate the importance of struggling for partial demands that can be won in the short run because they are broadly supported while pressing for more advanced demands that may not yet have wide support but that can be won in the course of struggle.

Even if single payer were widely supported by the public, as some claim, that certainly was not the case in Congress, especially in the Senate.

That we could not win the public option despite majority public support for it was mainly the function of the present balance of forces in the Senate, where it was blocked by a rock-solid Republican opposition and weak-kneed conservative Democrats.

Unlike the new health care law, Social Security and Medicare were initially passed with majorities that included a substantial number of Republicans in both houses of Congress.

In 1935 Republicans in the House voted in favor of Social Security 81 for, 15 against; in the Senate 16 for, 5 against.

In 1965 House Republicans voted for Medicare, 70 for, 68 against; in the Senate 13 for, 17 against.

Instead, last week Republicans gave health care legislation a big zero in both houses of Congress.

The Republican Party of today has evolved into the political home of the most reactionary sections of big business and of the far right.

To me, today's health care battle points to two things:

One, that it was a formidable opposition that had to be overcome, making the victory all the more significant.

Two, if we expect to improve on this piece of legislation or not lose ground on it, we'd better do everything in our power to defeat more Republican members of Congress in November and, where possible, replace more conservative Democrats with more liberal if not progressive ones in the primaries.

One of the significant things about the health care victory is that it's re-energizing the coalition that elected President Obama, especially at the grassroots.

At the same time, it is disorienting the Republican rightwing opposition.

Despite the nay-sayers, President Obama, progressive and even moderate legislators, organized labor, the people's movements, and a majority of Americans who backed the main tenets of the health care package deserve a big hand for a job well done under heavy political fire.

With the wind at our back, a more confident labor and people's movement can now move to the next major fight - bank and financial regulation, jobs and immediate relief for the people - on the way to the crucial midterm elections.

People's movement asserts new power

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:40:00 +0000

I think we all can agree with Vice President Biden. Passing the health care reform bill was "a big f-----g deal!" The fight absolutely is not over, but the people's movement has just captured a pretty big hill! While it is not the expansion of Medicare to all that many of us had set as our goal, it is a massive victory, one that will bring relief to millions in our depressed capitalist economy. It is, in fact, the biggest step forward for health care in our nation since the passage of Medicare 45 years ago.

At that time, President Lyndon Johnson was able to ride the wave of the civil rights and free speech movements to get that bill through Congress.

Just a month ago national pundits had health care reform and the Obama administration dead, and were more than happy to begin tossing dirt on their graves. Only a tremendous mobilization by supporters of reform saved the day.

It appears that the grassroots movement that helped elect Obama and the Democratic Congress has reemerged. Even the president himself hit the road, mobilizing folks. The health care movement and organized labor helped. Much of the upsurge was spontaneous, as regular folks had reached the end of their patience with Republican/corporate obstructionism.

Demanding health care reform

The right-wing teabaggers also issued calls for mobilization. The corporate media chimed in. All hope for changes our people need so badly was to be drowned in a sea of insane racist, right-wing anger.

Here in Ohio, according to the media, we were to catch the brunt of it.

Like schoolyard bullies, the teabaggers in Columbus, Ohio, announced their intention to show up at freshman Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy's office and deliver a message of intimidation, demanding that she vote "n"' on the health care bill. Show up they did, screaming insults, calling women "bitch" and "whore," spitting and yelling at sick people. They did all they could to provoke confrontations. They reminded me of those arrogant, strutting bullies in bad old TV movies.

Like in the old movies, we had good guys riding to the rescue, but this time it was different - the good guys were the newly energized people's movement.

First, there were a few e-mails from individuals, then a couple local progressive groups forwarded the messages, urging folks to show up and "Stand up with Mary Jo," supporting her stand in favor of health care for all. The mobilization seemed to come from nowhere. Actually, much of it came from the huge movement that had helped elect Obama, but had been mostly dormant since.

Instead of intimidation, what we had were dueling demonstrations. Separated by police lines, each numbered about 300. But that was where any similarity ended.

On the pro-health-care side, many were not activists: young folks just getting involved, older people who have caught hell from the insurance companies, quite a number of folks who worked in the health care field or for insurance companies and saw the crisis up front and personal. A good group of union folks: a bunch of IBEW guys, pipefitters, retired steelworkers, SEIU, some public workers with AFSCME. Some students came out, and the folks who'd been involved in this fight were there also. It was a hopeful, concerned group, happy, but also very determined!

In contrast, the teabagger side reeked of hatred. Screaming racist insults, spitting on people, they were, quite literally, the spitting image of the racist mobs of the civil rights movement days.

Teabaggers' ‘Bull Connor' moment

However, their attempt at intimidation is proving, like Bull Connor's hoses in Birmingham in the 1960s, to be pretty embarrassing for them.

A reporter for the conservative Columbus Dispatch captured on film a crew of these folks spitting on, throwing money at and threatening an older man sitting in the street with a sign that said he had Parkinson's disease and needed the health care bill to pass. This film found its way to the Rachel Maddow Show. The next day, Rep. Kilroy spoke about the incident on the floor of Congress and placed the video in the congressional record. Jon Stewart's Daily Show and Chris Matthews' show aired the film. It was seen by millions on YouTube. This was the face of a truly ugly side of our nation.

Like the shocking violence of the real Bull Connor, the actions of these present-day thugs seen up close on film is provoking a wave of justified disgust on the part of thousands, possibly millions of Americans.

It appears that the right-wingers, in and out of Congress, may have overplayed their hands. We've won a major victory, and some on the right are trying to figure out how they can get out of the box of isolation and marginalization that they've so firmly stuffed themselves into.

The biggest thing happening is that the thugs no longer control the dialogue. The people are standing up and demanding that the long road to a better, more just society has to begin, here and now.

New political moment

In Canton, Ohio, an estimated 1,000 people demonstrated in front of Congressman John Boccieri's office, calling on him to reverse his previous "no" vote and vote for the health care bill. A day later, he announced he would do just that.

At Rep. Dennis Kucinich's Lakewood, Ohio, office, people showed up to urge him to vote for the bill. Supporters of HR 676, the single-payer health care bill that Kucinich had co-sponsored, were also there urging him to continue to vote against the reform bill. But in the end the two groups left as friends and Kucinich, citing thousands of calls and hundreds of discussions with constituents, announced he would also switch his vote from "no" to "yes."

Meanwhile, in D.C., the projected "huge" "Code Red" rally against the bill fizzled. Expressing frustration, right-wing New York GOP Rep. Steven King issued veiled threats of violence.

"We still have our votes," he said, "but if that doesn't work, the situation could dissolve into violence in the streets, like in other dictatorships!"

In Washington, the "baggers" created another Bull Connor moment, assaulting African American and gay members of Congress with the ugliest racist and homophobic epithets. Not since those bad old days of the actual Bull Connor and his ilk has there been a national political movement that would so openly identify itself with such blatant racism and homophobia.

There are reports of death threats against members of Congress, and the president. An extremely dangerous development is the "gun rights" rally scheduled for D.C. on April 19. The date was chosen to commemorate the date that Timothy McVeigh murdered over a hundred public workers in Oklahoma. Many are planning to attend carrying firearms.

We should not take these threats of violence lightly. But clearly the tide has begun to shift. And local mobilizations across our nation - not just in big cities but small ones too - show they are a key part of it.

A year ago, the people's movement was exhausted and frankly, taken by surprise. After years of fighting the corporate Bush regime, struggling for survival, then pulling out an amazing historic electoral win, they were not ready to open another battle. The insurance and other corporations, with the ultra-right Republican Party, were ready and willing to heavily finance a dangerous movement of the most marginal, extreme right-wing, racist, homophobic, anti-women and anti-labor elements. Sensing a threat to their ill-gotten wealth, they saw this as a way to poison the political waters and attempt to suppress the people's desire for reform and a more just society. It is a classical fascistic design by the most right-wing elements of the corporate ruling class.

It worked, for a while. The health care debate was poisoned by claims of "death panels" and "government takeovers." People were confused, then disgusted. Many just wanted it all to end, polls showed. However, the day after the health care bill passed a new consciousness began to take hold. A new Gallup poll showed a big shift, with a 49%-40% majority now supporting passage of the bill.

One period appears to be ending, and a new period of people's involvement, militancy, may very well be taking its place.

Labor steps up

Now revving up is the massive new coalition for jobs/relief led by the AFL-CIO. With over 80 allied organizations, the labor movement is setting up coalitions across the nation, calling on Congress to address the growing crisis of unemployment, poverty and inequality in our nation.

Led by militant new AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, formerly of the United Mine Workers union, this young movement began this month by holding demonstrations in many cities, demanding jobs and relief for our suffering people. It organized demonstrations against the Wall Street banks that caused the economic crisis, demanding that they start loaning money to individuals and businesses, instead of hoarding the bailout monies. Demonstrations are being called for every month by the new Jobs for America Now Coalition. Demands include direct federal spending to create jobs and put our nation back to work, relief for those who can't get work, aid for education and training, stopping foreclosures and developing new green energy jobs.

Danger - and opportunities

Certainly none of us have crystal balls, and our job isn't to just sit and predict the future anyway. This new movement needs all of our help, our interest and our efforts on its behalf.

This is a dangerous period, as the fascist-like ultra-right appears ready to resort to violence. It calls for the people's movement to widen and strengthen our levels of unity, as well as increase our vigilance.

Some on the fringes of the left are focusing on attacking the administration. This is diametrically opposite from what is called for.

Huge opportunities are now open to pass an array of progressive legislation, to advance the people's agenda. Our job is to make certain that this happens, to drive a stake through the heart of the right-wing machine, and help our people fight their way toward a better, more just and progressive future.

Photo: Ben Sears

How capitalist health care lets women die

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:13:00 +0000

A yearlong debate on health care reform centered on costs and on methods for extending insurance coverage. Lobbying, congressional posturing, and media focus on deal making were boundless. Missing was any notion of health care serving people rather than interests.

In particular, the issue of staving off of death was left for another day. The fact that the U.S A. ranks 46th in the world on infant mortality and 34th in life expectancy sparked little interest in the centers of power.

On March 12, nine days before the House of Representatives passed its health care reform bill, Amnesty International (AI) released a report on skyrocketing death rates affecting U.S. mothers during pregnancy and childbirth.

According to "Deadly Delivery, The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA," 101 pages long, the United States ranks 41st in maternal mortality. Between 1987 and 2006, the U.S. rate doubled, from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 births to 13.3 deaths. The Washington, D.C rate is 34.9; that for Black women in New York City, 83.6.

The maternal mortality rate (MMR) reflects the number of women per 100, 000 births dying during pregnancy, or shortly thereafter. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that half such deaths are preventable.

The rate of one in 47,600 Irish women dying during childbirth is the world's best. The comparable U. S. figure is one in 4,800. Of more than 536,000 maternal deaths worldwide in 2005, 99 percent occurred in poor countries. One Millennium Development Goal calls for a three-quarters reduction in the MMR between 1990 and 2015.

The AI report howed close to death episodes from pregnancy-related complications increasing by 25 percent over 12 years. Since there is no federal requirement for reporting childbirth deaths, the numbers of U.S. women dying may have been underestimated.

That means life threatening conditions like hypertension, diabetes, heart conditions, and fetal abnormalities often go unrecognized. Lack of prenatal care, which applies to one third of African American and Native American women, quadruples maternal mortality.

The report says, "Discrimination is costing lives... [W]omen face barriers to care, especially women of color, those living in poverty, Native American and immigrant women." Overall, 25 percent of U.S. women of reproductive age lack health insurance, of which half are women of color. African-American women's risk of death during childbirth is four times that of white women.
The reports protests shortages of health care workers in rural and inner city areas. It highlights Cesarean sections accounting for one in three births, twice the level recommended by the World Health Organization. Caesarian sections present three times the lethal risk of vaginal births. Capabilities for monitoring maternal deaths are lacking in 29 states and in Washington D.C.

AI spokesperson Larry Cox denounced a "haphazard approach to maternal care" that is "scandalous and disgraceful." "Mothers die not because the United States can't provide good care, but because it lacks the political will to make sure good care is available to all women."
The report states that "no legislation currently under consideration would realize the human rights standards of making health care available" to all. Reform "primarily focused on health care coverage and reducing health care costs... will still leave millions without access to affordable care," said Rachel Ward, one of the report's authors. Effects of discrimination, lack of government interest in safe deliveries, and neglect of "nationally standardized [preventative] protocols" will prevail.

The United States last year supported a UN resolution establishing safe birthing as a right associated with "the promotion and protection of the human rights of women and girls." The U.N. sponsored Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination charged the United States, however, with failing to eliminate racial inequalities, "particularly with regard to the high maternal and infant mortality rates."

Meanwhile, hospitalizations related to pregnancy and childbirth cost $86 billion annually, a top revenue producing area in hospitals. The average 2008 salary for employed obstetricians ranged between $231,514 and $304,689, according to internet estimates.

Commenting on the U.S. government passing health care reform applying to most of its citizens, former Cuban President Fidel Castro observed that Cuba had attended to health care "for its entire population half a century ago, despite the cruel and inhumane blockade all of its citizens."

Racial profiling of Muslims continues charges speaker

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:00 +0000

Racial and religious profiling and assaults on constitutional freedoms enacted by the Bush Administration have continued unabated under the administration of Pres. Barack Obama.

This was the message of Shahid Buttar, Executive Director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, who keynoted the annual civil rights banquet sponsored by the Cleveland chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Buttar called for broad united action by people of all backgrounds to restore democratic rights and block "the creeping onset of fascism."

Speaking to an audience of 300 including Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and representatives of other public officials, Buttar said Obama has thus far failed to keep campaign promises to repeal abuses established under the Patriot Act.

The law, giving the government unprecedented powers to spy on individuals and infiltrate law-abiding organizations in the wake of the 9/11 terror attack, was renewed in February and Obama signed a one-year extension of provisions permitting warrantless wiretapping and seizing records.

"The National Security Agency monitors all email," Buttar said "and the FBI continues its policies of racial and religious profiling and placing of undercover agents and agent provocateurs in mosques and other organizations."

"You are the canaries in the coal mine," Buttar said. "You must stand up for American democracy."

Buttar criticized the Justice Department for failure to prosecute Bush Administration officials responsible for torture.

"Waterboarding is killing someone and then reviving them," he said. "It is recognized everywhere as torture and it is a war crime." Obama has outlawed the practice by the U.S., but failure to act against those who authorized and committed the crimes allows the practice to continue elsewhere, he said.

But, he added, Obama cannot restore constitutional rights alone. "It will take a mass mobilization. You need to work with Latinos and African-Americans who are also victims of profiling and you need to work with everyone who believes in democracy."

He called on Muslims to "get loud" and be proactive in fighting for new rights in areas of education, health care and equality for women.

Similar themes were sounded by other speakers. CAIR staff attorney Romin Iqbal said he must continually go to court to fight delays in granting citizenship and green card status to Muslims subjected to "background checks that can take years." Muslims also face discrimination in employment and denial of insurance claims, he said.

The audience was shown a segment of the Rachel Maddow show exposing a campaign by four Republican congresspersons for an investigation of CAIR because it issued a memo encouraging Muslims to seek employment as Congressional interns. Cleveland CAIR director Julia Shearson denounced this effort as "McCarthyism."

Brunner presented CAIR with a proclamation commending its efforts on behalf of civil rights and democracy.

"We can't be silent," she said. "As President Obama said when he was here in Strongsville, ‘we need courage.'"

What's next for the immigrants' rights struggle?

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:59:00 +0000

The huge immigrants' rights demonstration in Washington D.C. on March 21 was a triumph in many ways, but the battle has only started.

The central goals of the immigrants' rights movement are the legalization of the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants, the reform of the visa system so that people aren't forced to come in illegally, and generally better treatment for immigrants. But if all this can not be achieved at once, and particularly without trade offs, what should be the priorities?

Some on the left want a bill that legalizes everybody without penalties and contains neither guest worker programs nor internal or border controls. This "all-or-nothing" stance confuses laudable long-term demands with short-term achievable goals.

To pass in the House of Representatives, a bill needs 216 votes. The Democrats have a majority, but there are several dozen conservative Democrats who oppose legalization and want even more repressive policies.

The situation in the Senate is more complex yet, because although the Democrats have a majority, there is the problem of the filibuster. And not all the Democratic senators are pro-immigrant.

So if "all or nothing" were the stance of the movement, nothing would pass, and the 11 million undocumented immigrants, along with their 4 million U.S. citizen children, would be left facing sharply increased repression.

But we should not be in a rush to offer all the concessions that the White House, and Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are pushing for, some of which could actually make things worse.

Recent statements by Schumer and Graham, as well as President Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, suggest that they want immigration reform to be crafted according to the principles which the two senators have articulated.

*Undocumented immigrants must accept to be called "illegal aliens".

*Undocumented immigrants seeking legalization must accept strong penalties, and must "go to the back of the visa line", behind people who have "played by the rules".

*There must be sharp new enforcement methods including biometric ID cards which all workers, not just immigrants, must use in order to get a job.

*There must be a big new guest worker program for business.

*Permanent resident visas must be reoriented toward highly educated workers, not family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

These items mark the Schumer-Graham proposal as being far to the right of HR 4321, introduced last year by Cong. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). Although the Ortiz-Gutierrez bill makes concessions, they are not nearly as extreme, and it also contains some extra positive items.

But the White House, Homeland Security and the Senators are treating the Ortiz-Gutierrez bill as ancient history, not viable because although organized labor supports it, business does not. Even though we have to be realistic about what can be achieved, we should not accept this.

The Immigration Policy Center last week issued a report (Focusing on the Solutions: Key Principles of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, at www.immigrationpolicy.org) which highlights the problems with the Schumer-Graham approach.

To drop the term "undocumented" and to go back to calling people "illegal" would be a big mistake. Everybody is perfectly well aware that they came over the border "illegally". Rather, the point of using the term "undocumented" is to undercut false claims by the anti-immigrant right that the undocumented are "dangerous criminals". In fact the crime rate (not including immigration-related offenses) of undocumented immigrants is lower than that of the general population. To pressure the undocumented to call themselves "illegals" resembles the ancient practice of leaders of a besieged city coming out with nooses around their necks to surrender. Sometimes that tactic worked, but as often, they were hanged with their own nooses. Better to emphasize the positive contributions that undocumented immigrants already make to our society.

Heavy-handed control measures, such as the biometric ID cards will also harm U.S. citizen workers. Probable malfunctions will mean that there will be U.S. citizens who will be told by the government that they are not allowed to work here.

For big business to demand more guest workers is not good public relations in the present economy. Most of organized labor, whose support is vital, will not go for this. It would be much better to push the Ortiz-Gutierrez bill's approach of a new commission, with labor and business participation, to determine future permanent resident visa numbers.

And this business of "going to the back of the line" is nonsense. Each year, the U.S. gives out only 5,000 visas for low skilled workers, even though these are the people most desperate to immigrate, because of the way "free trade" policies have destroyed their homelands' economies. This is why people come without authorization: They were never allowed into the line in the first place.

Tea party’s ugly reality: racism, sexism, homophobia

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:44:00 +0000

Last weekend's final days of struggle to pass the health care reform bill starkly showed the ugly reality that is the "tea party."

From its inception the tea party people have used every dirty trick in the book to try to scare people into opposing heath care reform - from the "death panels" to how "awful" a government-run health care system would be - even though that is not what was proposed and most countries with government-run health care have better health care then we do.

But those lies and distortions could not win the battle for them so they threw in a massive dose of racism, primarily aimed at the president, sexism on the abortion issue, and red-baiting to try to further confuse, divide and panic the people. Media outlets like Fox gave the fullest coverage to these lies day in and day out.

I favored a stronger bill, at least with a public option. But in that atmosphere it is amazing that even the modest final version of the bill passed. Those members of Congress who stood up to the hysteria, racism, red-baiting and threats and voted for the bill are to be commended. In our electoral system it's tough for capitalist politicians to do the right thing when it might mean they will face a well-financed right-wing attack machine this November.

The tea party folks, fearing a big loss was coming, were all over Capitol Hill last Saturday making their final push to defeat health care reform. Just like they did at the town hall meetings last fall, they were in the faces of members of Congress, screaming and cursing.

It was a shocking display of in-your-face racism. Congressman John Lewis, D-Ga., was called the "n" word more than once. So were Reps. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., and Andre Carson, D-Ind.

Lewis, the African American veteran civil rights leader who was beaten unconscious on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in the 1965 Selma, Alabama, march, said, "I haven't heard anything like this in 45 years." Clyburn, a fellow member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a veteran of the Southern struggle, called it "absolutely shocking."

But that's not all. When Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.,who is gay, was walking through the halls of the Capitol building which were packed with tea party protesters, he was also verbally assaulted, repeatedly called the "f" word. "It's almost like the Salem witch trials," he said.

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., also black, pointed out the sheer confusion of the protesters. "I have never heard anyone campaign for their freedom to be uninsured. I've never heard anyone campaign against Medicare," said Scott. "That's what you're dealing with."

The protesters carried many signs opposing any inclusion of women's reproductive rights in the bill. In fact, bowing to right-wing pressure, the bill retains the reactionary restrictions of the Hyde Amendment which prohibits use of any federal money to pay for abortions.

The stench of fascism is all over the teabaggers.

Not so long ago those bigoted, red-baiting attacks would have won the day. No matter what might think of the bill, the fact that it was passed despite the most extreme right-wing demagogic, bigoted, ideological attack shows that some significant shifts in mass thought patterns in a progressive direction are taking place today and it is affecting the thinking of members of Congress.

As the struggle goes forward to improve health care (single-payer, for one) and the big struggle for jobs is unfolding, it is imperative that there be a stepped up ideological struggle against racism, sexism, homophobia and anti-communism if we are going move things in a progressive direction.

This is not just the lunatic fringe we are dealing with. I don't care how much Michael Steele apologizes for the racists in his party. This isn't just the "tea party"; it is also the GOP.

Newt Gingrich, who is supposed to be a right-wing idealogue and intellectual, showed his true racist essence when he warned the Democrats that if they passed the health care bill, "They will have destroyed their party as much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years" by passing civil rights legislation.

If Gingrich thinks that defeating health care reform and eliminating discrimination and segregation are not moral and constitutional imperatives for a democracy but rather something to be left alone because it's politically risky, he is morally and politically bankrupt. Is that what the party that says it's for a "color blind" society is all about? If they win control again, is it back to Jim Crow?

The struggle for health care reform showed a lot. It gave us another indication of what we are up against and fighting for. All democratic forces need to be aware that we face nothing less then an epic battle for the future of our nation, and we dare not fail.

Google quits China

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:33:00 +0000

The world's biggest search engine, Google, recently decided to pull out of China, relocating its operations to Hong Kong whose semi-autonomous status allows it to operate outside of prior agreements negotiated with the Beijing government.

Google's decision was initially announced in early January following a hacking of its California servers by a source it claims originated from China.

Contributing to Google's decision were objections to China's requirement that the search engine censor political and sexual content the government found objectionable. China, which potentially has the planet's largest online market, has erected what is called in the West "The Great Electronic Firewall" to keep out what authorities consider objectionable material. Google, in an agreement negotiated several years ago, agreed to comply with Chinese law governing Internet content.

The Chinese Communist Party and government reacted sharply to Google's move, saying the company has politicized its dispute over the hacking. "For Chinese people, Google is not god, and even if it puts on a show of politics and values, it is still not god," said the People's Daily. It continued, "In fact, Google is not chaste when it comes to values. Its cooperation and collusion with the U.S. intelligence and security agencies is well-known."

The Beijing government's foreign affairs department struck a different tone. While calling it a "big mistake" for the company, they separated Google's action from U.S.-China state-to-state relations. "The Google case will not affect China-U.S. relations 'unless someone politicalizes the issue,'" Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said on Tuesday.

The Xinhua news agency continues, "Qin told a regular press conference that the Google case is just a business case and will not damage the image of China. He blamed the move to relate the case to China-U.S. relations as 'making a fuss' and 'overstating the issue.'"

Google stands to lose its place in China's domestic market, second only to Baidu, the country's national search engine, which holds a commanding 58 percent of the market to Google's 35 percent.

Internet users inside China are able to access Google's Hong Kong servers but they have "found access to the new search portal was very unstable," said Xinhua.

Internet access and freedom of the press in China is a complicated issue with more involved than meets the eye. Many observers, while acknowledging China's restrictions, note that there is a fairly widespread ability within the country to express differing points of views, including sharp criticisms of the Communist Party and government.

The western press reported erroneously, for example, that President Obama's university speech and town hall meeting last year was blacked out of China's domestic press. Obama's remarks made mention of the issue of Internet freedom.

Still it is undeniable that China enforces what many consider to be an anachronistic and unworkable Internet policy. Filters on Google searches, for example, can be easily overcome with slightly different spelling of restricted names. Other search engines are also accessible albeit at slower speeds and less reliable connectivity.

More broad, however, is the issue of free speech and censorship itself. Here it should be noted that China is not the only country to censor speech. France and Germany both prohibit Nazi and anti-Semitic speech such as Holocaust denial. Rarely are they taken to task for it.

China, on the other hand, concerned with stability and economic growth and rightly jealous of its national sovereignty, attempts far more to control the flow of information. Indeed this appears to be at the heart of its political model.

Yet is it really at its heart? Attempts at what was called socialism in the 20th century were organized around a forced march in economically underdeveloped countries facing a hostile environment. To those in charge, controlling information seemed essential.

But controlling the flow of information in today's world is a shortcut that is not only impossible, but undesirable. Open debate, engagement, artful communication - these are the only viable options for power and consent in the Internet age. People need to be convinced, not ordered and denied information. Bureaucratic and administrative shortcuts are disarming and ultimately disastrous.

That said, it is up to the Chinese people and leadership to work out these issues for themselves.

Beware of the new racist counteroffensive

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:59:00 +0000

Many people say that racism is simply an attitude or a prejudice of one people toward another people. That allowed Republican senators to make the ludicrous claim that Sonia Sotomayor was a racist, during the hearings on her Supreme Court nomination.

In reality, racism is a historically developed set of practices, institutions and beliefs that systematically subordinate racially oppressed people to an inferior status in every area of life. It dates back to the 17th century and its genesis lies in the practical economic and political requirements of the interwoven systems of predatory colonialism, slavery and nascent capitalism in the "new world" at that time.

These systems of oppression and exploitation in the Americas needed not only an unlimited supply of unpaid or underpaid labor, but also a system of rationalization - racism - to legitimize the theft of lands and resources and the unparalleled subjugation and/or enslavement of peoples of the Americas, Africa and Asia.

Because slavery and other forms of subjugation were tied to a young but expanding system of capitalism, racist oppression and exploitation had a particularly brutal and bloody character. No longer did the subjugated produce for a local market; now they produced commodities for consumers in distant lands and in the context of an expanding world system of production for the sole purpose of accumulating capital and maximizing profits.

With the overthrow of slavery within our borders, a major breech in the system of racist oppression, exploitation and ideology occurred. It at once forced the slave owning/planter class and its supporters to retreat, and created a more favorable terrain for the freed slaves and their allies to secure new rights and recast the struggle against racist ideas.

This moment, however, proved fleeting. Only a decade after the end of the Civil War, a counteroffensive by the old ruling class in the South and its allies in southern and northern states restored them to power and crushed the interracial movement that had advanced democracy in the post-war aftermath.

The system of slavery didn't get a new lease on life, however. The old unpaid slave labor mode of production gave way to a new one, resting on underpaid labor (sharecropping and extractive industries), lynchings and other forms of vigilante terror, and legalized and comprehensive discrimination against African Americans and other peoples of color.

In short, the pre-war reactionary coalition, defeated on the battlefield, was able after a brief retreat to regroup, violently seize political power, and then construct with the continued use of coercion (by state and non-state entities like the KKK) a new system of racial oppression and exploitation - popularly called Jim Crow. While its structural features (political, economic and ideological) were new, its racist essence remained the same.

It wasn't until nearly a century later that the modern civil rights movement upended these legal forms and structures. But, as Martin Luther King said more than once, racism, though no longer legally sanctioned, persisted in day-to-day life.

Moreover, in some ways racism worsened as it took on new material (deindustrialization) and ideological ("reverse racism") forms, shaped by the exploitive pressures and crisis tendencies of globalizing capitalism, the unraveling of the New Deal coalition, and the rise of the extreme right in the early 1980s.

Seen through this optic, the election of Barack Obama constitutes a historic moment and turn in the struggle against racism and for social progress for our nation. It carries the potential to set in train a new era of racial progress, multiracial unity, and overall progressive advance.

Of course, Obama's stunning victory, as significant it was and as promising as it is, doesn't eliminate in one fell swoop the structures and institutions that are the material ground on which racist oppression and ideology rest in the early part of the 21st century. Nor does it mark a withdrawal from political life of the forces of reaction and racism. Proclamations of a post-racial era are exceedingly premature.

In fact, the election of the nation's first African American president has triggered a new racist counteroffensive in much the same way as the North's victory in the Civil War set into motion a racist and revanchist counteroffensive by the former slaveholders and their allies.

The new racist counteroffensive, much like the earlier one, hopes to turn the clock back. It aims to strip away the legitimacy of the first African American president in ways that are both coded and crude (witness the use of the "n" word and other vicious epithets). But it also hopes to obscure the democratic, class, and human bonds shared by tens of millions of American people of all nationalities and colors, introduce racial fissures in the coalition that elected the president, and restore the power of right-wing extremism and authoritarian rule.

My guess is the Republican Party and the teabaggers will not be successful, but only if their racist barrage runs into a powerful anti-racist response not only from people of color, but also from the white majority and white workers.

To no small degree, the success of this anti-racist struggle depends on the ability of white people to understand that racism not only impacts the dignity and life prospects of people of color, but also cuts against their own material and moral well being. Nothing is so corrosive of working class and people's democracy and reforms than the poison and practice of racism. If unchallenged, it could lead to disaster, via a much uglier version of the Bush-Cheney administration.

This possibility should be a wakeup call for all democratic-minded people. At the same time, the fact that a multi-racial movement, in which labor played a special anti-racist role, elected an African American president and, after a pause, is getting back into the swing of things and scoring some victories - the most recent being health care legislation - is reason for confidence, albeit a sober-minded confidence, about the future.

Getting to a doctor versus romanticizing the revolution

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:44:00 +0000

I run a Communist YouTube channel - a vblog - for young people, and I'm noticing something really bad. Okay I KNOW that the health care bill isn't everything we need or hoped for. But it is a start. We finally made it so that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be turned down for health care insurance, expanded Medicaid so more low-income folks like me can get checkups, follow-ups, preventative care. Made it so that if Americans can't afford health insurance, we will be able to get free care at clinics, hospitals and regular family doctors.

Still it's not single-payer. But it is a lot better than how it has been. Up to now, people could be turned down if they had a pre-existing condition, could be cut off from their health insurance if they got a serious ailment, people could not see a regular doctor for checkups or preventative care, and poorer people with low income would have to pay out their yin yang for emergency room care. All of this has changed. Is it perfect? No. Is it single-payer? Hell, no! But what I've noticed is some young people are romanticizing the revolution, but they have lost focus on the proletariat. I hope that you guys remember them: the ones we Communists work for ... the working class.

If you ask a U.S. worker if he or she is Republican or Democrat, he or she is going to say one or the other. These are the masses of people that we have to bring to our side. The exploited workers. Make them aware of our cause.

Now some people have been saying, "You shouldn't feed into the capitalist system" or "You shouldn't have voted for or even helped the health care bill - it just ensures capitalism." Other people are a little smarter then this. We Communists work for the working and exploited masses. Our hearts bleed when we see exploitation of workers, innocent people getting abused by authority, or the capitalist system robbing them of a human need (such as health care.) Marx and Engels said, "The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement." The Communist Party USA along with others wanted single-payer. But it wasn't going to happen this time. What was in the interest of the people then? The health care bill that just passed. This is a great achievement. A lot of working people now will have health care that they couldn't get before.

Communists are the people who study and plan things out in movements so these movements can succeed. But I've noticed a lot of younger people who think of themselves as Communists just want to jump into starting a revolution. They believe that if we just let things get sooo bad, people will jump at socialism. But look at the current state of things. People believe that the capitalist system works. Most workers don't even know they are being exploited and believe in the system, believe the things that are fed to them. It's our role as Communists to make them aware and to help them in their struggles.

"If you want to help 'the masses' and to win the sympathy, confidence and support of 'the masses' you must adhere to the immediate struggles and ease the work load in the momentary struggles." So said Lenin.

Some of the young people I hear from are thinking that we should just let the right wing mess things up and then try to make people aware of socialism. But that would be really really bad. Why? It would be like the totalitarian state in the movie "V for Vendetta." People would be too scared or sick to make an organized movement.

If we see police beating someone who we know is innocent, would we just stand there, and wait for the person to get beat up and hope that the person thinks, "I wish a socialist would help me"? No, we help because it's the right thing to do. This is what our role as Communists is: giving to their struggle adds to our own. It shows that we work hard for the struggles of all people, and for the equality we all long for. That we fight not just for our own revolution, but for all humanity.

It's quite an undertaking. We are revolutionaries. But the second we lose sight of what we are fighting for, the minute we lose sight of the people we are supposed to help, we become no better then our enemies.

Communists knew there was something wrong with the system, took an unspoken oath to defend the rights of the weak and exploited. Just because you call yourself a Communist doesn't make it true. You have to be true to the values of humanity, regardless of whether the person being exploited considers himself conservative, Democrat, or a smurf. Why should we wait to help someone in need?

People who call themselves Communist need to be aware of what the communist struggle really is. It's not just us against them. It's not just a simple road to socialism, or the totalitarianism that the right claims. It's not just the workers banding together. It's a huge complex undertaking.

Young people also need to be aware that revolution doesn't just happen. We don't want violence and war. It's bad enough that too many people think that's what we want. But Communists are nothing without the people, the workers and others. And the movement needs to be planned. We can't just go into a random place, yell "SOCIALISM!" and expect people to follow. Perhaps I make it seem like it's too big of a project - a fight for not just a country but all humanity seems like a delusion. But we can only work in one country - our own. To make a country you need the people. To win the people takes planning. To make the plans ... there are the Communists.

Health care victory

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:06:00 +0000

Almost every sector of American society greeted yesterday's signing of a historic health care law as a major step toward guaranteeing affordable health insurance for all. Labor unions, health care professionals, small business owners, retirees, students, and ordinary people from throughout the country applauded President Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for having the tenacity to push through what's being called the most sweeping health care legislation since the establishment of Medicare in the 1960s.

We join with those who hail this legislation both as a measure that will save lives now and begin curbing the insurance industry, and as a giant first step to further reforms that will provide quality, affordable health care for every person in the United States.

Beyond that, its passage is a major defeat for the far right - the Republican Party, sections of Corporate America, and their fascist-like tea party shock troops. The enactment of this bill is an enormous victory for the broad progressive movement in our country. It will give energy and enthusiasm to that movement as it mobilizes and builds for the struggles ahead to advance a pro-worker, pro-people agenda.

The far right has been left glaringly isolated but perhaps even more dangerously aggressive. These racist hate-mongers fought viciously to block the bill on behalf of the nation's insurance companies and now say they will continue their dirty campaign by trying to repeal it. But it's clear that an energized people's movement will not let that happen.

Even organizations and individuals critical of the bill (because of restrictions on women's reproductive rights, or its exclusion of undocumented immigrants, or because it doesn't go far enough) have acknowledged its importance and far-reaching implications.

The great majority of health care reform advocates, including those who call for a single-payer system, see the legislation as opening up space to further the struggle for Medicare for all. Many note the bill provides a number of immediate benefits.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the bill's passage a "momentous step toward comprehensive coverage" and vowed that labor will continue to advocate for health care that works for working families.

The new law reestablishes the role of government in providing a "safety net" to support ordinary folks against the most outrageous excesses of our health care system. As President Obama put it, "It enshrines the idea that everybody should have universal health care."

The fight isn't over. The corporate-backed far right will continue to use racism, lies and anti-government conspiracy theories to try to scare and confuse people. We got some ugly glimpses of this just as Congress was on the eve of passing the health care bill.

Tea party protesters in Ohio yelled at and abused a man with Parkinson's disease because he was courageous enough to show his support for health care reform. In Washington, others yelled racist and homophobic epithets at members of Congress.

Some call it the tea-partiers' Bull Connor moment. Connor was the racist, pro-segregation "public safety" commissioner in Birmingham, Ala., who used dogs and fire hoses against African American children standing up against Jim Crow in the 1960s.

Just as the American people rejected the Bull Connor segregationists after seeing the fire-hosing of children in Birmingham, the American people will reject the vicious racism and hate-filled attacks of today's Bull Connors.

After almost a year of lobbying, demonstrations, petitions, rallies, health care story collections, town hall meetings, this is a moment to savor a hard-fought victory. And it's a moment to celebrate the persistence and tenacity of the people's movement for progressive change - a good thing since there are many more battles ahead.

Photo: WhiteHouse.gov

Make the peoplesworld.org your home page

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:38:00 +0000

What do Strongsville, Ohio; Pleasanton, California; Jefferson City, Missouri; and the Bronx, NY have in common? All were the setting for stories featured in the peoplesworld.org last week.

The cities and towns mentioned above were the scene of grassroots actions, of ordinary people doing something about the issues that matter: health care, immigrant rights, jobs, union rights, and more.

At peoplesworld.org you can read about labor unionists picketing banks in Seattle and marching for a fair contract in Detroit. You'll find out that in Illinois, women are protesting state budget cuts and youth are rallying for immigration reform and protesting the elimination of junior varsity sports.

You'll learn that Texas is not just the place that gave us George Bush and Tom Delay - it's also the place where activists hold public hearings and rallies on the jobs crisis, and Black History month is celebrated by the Dallas Peace Center.

The peoplesworld.org is committed to publishing those kinds of articles, which makes it rather unique in the crowded world of progressive online sites.

That alone should convince you to make peoplesworld.org your home page.

But there's another reason, having to do with the quality of the analysis and commentary you'll find there. Of course, there are other sources for political agitation and good old muckraking -- Truthout, firedoglake, alternet, The Nation, Huffington Post - all of these have voluminous amounts of political commentary. They have good writers and a lot of useful information.

But, to paraphrase Forrest Gump, "analysis is as analysis does." In other words, all analysis isn't equally valuable. For activists, a big question is, where does it lead? What conclusions do you draw that have meaning in day-to-day life?

Another great philosopher, Karl Marx, said, "Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it."

What the peoplesworld.org has that these other sources do not is a potent combination, of ideas that lead to action, of action that inspires and leads to change. Information overload can lead to inaction, and it's easy to get cynical in this ugly world where progress is slow and the wrongs seem to outnumber the rights a lot of the time.

To counter that, you need hope. And that's what you'll find in the peoplesworld.org

As I said, make it your home page, your wake up call - it will get you going, and keep you going.

Unemployment, the November elections and the left

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:21:00 +0000

Nearly every economist, including those from the administration and the Federal Reserve, say that unemployment will not be much reduced before the November elections. In addition the chances of a "double-dip" recession have risen as a new wave of foreclosures, possible trade war with China and other threats emerge. A double-dip would mean unemployment may actually rise again before November's mid-term congressional elections. If so, the fate of the Obama recovery agenda will be in the hands of grassroots activists as never before, as it contends with ultra-right forces working feverishly to channel popular frustration and outrage toward destructive and harmful actions blocking reform on every front.

Any success by the right wing will of course mean more paralysis, more dysfunction, in Washington. No surprise. Dysfunction of government is their program. The critical health care vote this weekend was really the first, and also very important, salvo of the November battle for the hearts and minds of voters.

In order to be effective, however, candidates vying to direct populism toward constructive ends must have a keen sense of the urgency and grave dangers of paralysis, as well as the opportunities to make significant structural reforms in finance, education, environmental policy, green public works and infrastructure, and de-militarization.

Making dramatic, very visible moves to put people back to work directly, using national service and other public programs, must be given top priority. This signals the important role that candidacies that run to the left of the president will play in moving the debate deeper into reform rather than stepping away from it. At the same time all must be mindful of the need to defeat Republican efforts to split the Obama coalition in showdown votes. Viva Dennis Kucinich!

There is every reason to pray, for example, that every Blue Dog Democrat will have a progressive challenger in the primary season, and turn the powerful populist outrage emerging across the country into 1) a solid Republican setback, and 2) a caution to Obama not to overplay the "bipartisanship" tactic. I hope I am not one who fails to understand that openness to bipartisan compromises is an important political tactic in the U.S. Obviously, bills passed with filibuster-proof majorities have a stronger national mandate than those passed with 51 Senate votes. But in this era, doing nothing is the worst political result of all. Obama's recent impassioned campaigning on health care, and his (at last) decision to go with 51 votes rather than no health care bill after spending a year of the people's time on it, is most welcome. It would have happened sooner, if the left had been more united and organized.

Which brings up a big question in my mind: What is it that stands between the U.S. left and its ability to unite on a radical - but eminently practical and responsible - left-democratic agenda, at least in the electoral arena? Further, what prevents such electoral campaigns from aligning themselves with some much-increased militancy, kicking things up a notch? - for example with demonstrations, sit-ins, and well-chosen actions of civil disobedience against the vested interests of banks and insurance companies that are behind much Republican stonewalling, as well as some ultra-right foundations, pouring racist and other less than democratic-minded cocktails throughout the land.

Well, there are those, of course, who view the struggle for expanding democracy under the capitalist system as a pointless endeavor, except for exotic propaganda purposes. There's not much hope for unity there, but these groups are really quite small, and most do not vote anyway if one can credit what they write.

The remaining challenges to greater left unity seem minor to me. Foreign policy differences, for example are narrower than they have been in decades, across the spectrum of left-democratic politics, and most remaining differences reflect the whipsawing effects of globalization on different sectors of the population.

Take China for example. We could have a big argument between manufacturing workers desperately seeking protection from Chinese competition and those who depend on its low prices for food, shelter and clothing, or those who view conflict with China (which for anti-poverty advocates plays a positive world role) as the onset of a new Cold War, a threat to peace. But few would place these differences in the top five issues. All would agree that decisions and costs of war should be paid for, at least in part, directly, not all put on the credit card (or not even appear in the budget, as under Bush). All agree that imperial adventures must be restrained and the power to declare war returned to Congress. All agree that soldiers and veterans deserve the highest possible care for their service. And that such service should always be directed toward honorable objectives.

Further, all agree enough on vastly expanded public works, health care reform, education reform, on improving workers economic bargaining power, on progressive taxation, on leveraging the positives of a multicultural, multiracial, multi-national national identity - enough to be able to hammer out a more coherent national left electoral agenda. Perhaps that's asking too much - but regional and local efforts are under way in a number of areas, especially in the hard-hit Midwest and California, and can become much bigger. The situation is dire and the need for united action is felt by all. The key that permits everyone to come to the table and leave with a deal is thinking about moving majorities of working people. There lies unity, and victory. Thinking like Dr. King would be a good moral and ideological guide, right now.

No pat hands in politics

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:13:00 +0000

No organization or institution can long exist in a condition of stasis. Organizations in general and political parties and social movements, in particular, have to adjust to new conditions.

And the reason is simple: change is constant and organizations and institutions must, if they want to remain relevant, change in the face of changing conditions.

For more than a decade, the Communist Party USA has been reconfiguring the way we work and develop our analysis.

Not everything has turned out as we hoped. There were mistakes, false starts, results that fell short of what we expected, and many things still have to be attended to.

On the whole, however, party members and leaders challenged conventional wisdom, gained experience, and adjusted our policies and style of work to new conditions of struggle.

Had the party been imprisoned by past experience, conventional wisdom and old methods, we would have been left in history's rear view mirror. A glance at the past reveals that the political landscape is littered with political and social formations that didn't adapt to new realities.

But, to our credit, the Communist Party chose change and innovation. We eagerly searched for new angles of looking at, thinking about, and reshaping the world.

Such an approach is, not only consistent with, but an imperative of Marxism. Otherwise, this science and art of social change and revolution loses its capacity to assist people in their desire to re-imagine and remake the world - not in some sort of utopian way, but in a way that meets the expanding requirements of a good life at the beginning of the 21st century.

Marx and Engels developed an analytical structure and methodology that enabled the working class to comprehend and change the world, but they never claimed the "last word" on any subject. Theory for them was modified by experience, not something to be memorized and repeated no matter what the circumstances and conditions.

Near the end of his life, Frederick Engels, in an effort to counter a dogmatic interpretation of historical materialism that was fashionable in the socialist movement of that time, wrote: "All history has to be studied afresh."

A decade or so later, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution, wrote:

"A Marxist must take cognizance of real life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only outlines the main and the general, only comes near to embracing life in all its complexity."

In other words, Marxism should have no affinity for lifeless schemes and timeless slogans that squeeze the complexity and novelty out of the process of social change. Repetition of abstract formulas, which are disconnected from the historical process and the real dynamics of struggle, is of no value.

In recent decades, the world has changed in unexpected ways. The collapse of the Soviet Union signaled a historic defeat for the socialist project. The struggle for socialism continues, but in very different conditions.

Moreover, other seismic shifts of a political, economic, cultural and technological nature have created new fault lines across the globe, culminating in a world crisis of capitalism and the decline of U.S. imperialism.

One could say the world is leaving one era of development and entering a new era.

These new realities should turn Communists' theoretical eye, as well as practical activity, toward what is new; toward breaks, as well as continuities, in development; toward fresh forces and inescapable challenges, such global warming and deep poverty.

Keeping a pat hand in poker (that is, playing the cards you are dealt) sometimes makes good sense, but it is a poor strategy for any political party, and especially a party of socialism that aspires to be a leader of a broader movement in a changing world.

Lenin wrote:

"The Bolshevik slogans and ideas on the whole have been confirmed by history; but concretely things have worked out differently; they are more original, more peculiar, more variegated than anyone could have expected.

"To ignore or overlook this fact would mean taking after those 'old Bolsheviks' who more than once already have played so regrettable role in the history of our Party by reiterating formulas senselessly learned by rote instead of studying the specific features of the new and living reality."

In view of what has occurred over the decades of the 20th century and the first decade of this century, can we do any less than bring a fresh eye and practice, informed by a critical Marxism, to the contemporary world?

American Idol disappoints, so far

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:20:00 +0000

I have to admit there is truly something missing on American Idol this year. Maybe Paula Abdul, who left after last season, really made the difference. I was never really a big fan of Abdul on the show, but the spirit, flavor and energy of Idol this year is lower than usual for me.

Adding comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres as a judge was not a bad move for the show. But sometimes I'm not sure she really knows how to be constructive. DeGeneres is definitely funny, and is usually positive in her remarks. But she has little going for her when it comes to giving good advice. I'm just saying.

Despite that missing element, and although Idol, in my opinion, is not as good as in the past, the show must go on, right?

Now, about those talented hopefuls this season. Well honestly, I'm disappointed in what they have to offer too. Don't get me wrong there definitely is some potential this year and there are some really talented singers in the running, but I kind of hope they pick up their game.

Here's a recap for this week.

The final 12 sang hit songs from the legendary rock group The Rolling Stones and unfortunately someone had to go.

Singers Tim Urban, Paige Miles and Lacey Brown were the bottom three this week.

Brown, who has a great look, unfortunately was voted off.

But I can't believe Tim Urban is still in the mix. He seems like a nice kid, but his singing abilities are extremely weak. He has little going for him vocally compared to the others. I don't see him lasting much longer unless he wows the audience big time, which doesn't seem likely.

I do have my favorites though.

Crystal Bowersox sang "You Can't Always Get What You Want" this week. It wasn't her strongest performance but it was still great vocally. Bowersox's bluesy vocals remind me of Janis Joplin. She has a soulful and earthy tone. She knows how to consistently nail each song she has chosen to perform. I can totally see her making it far. If she keeps up the good work she may even win it all.

Another fave of mine is Michael "Giant Mike" Lynche. This guy is a big man with incredible showmanship and really knows how to connect with his songs. He sang the Stone's hit track "Miss You" this week and pulled it off, using the stage and hitting every note. Last week, he made judge Kara DioGuardi cry when he sang Maxwell's "This Woman's Worth." Lynche has great potential and his story is very appealing. He missed the birth of his daughter while on Idol and says he knows his mother, who died from cancer when he was younger, would be very proud of him.

I'm also rooting for Andrew Garcia and Didi Benami. Garcia made a big impression during Hollywood week when he sang an awesome rendition of Paula Abdul's "Straight Up Now Tell Me." He killed it and stole the show. He did kind of peak early in the season and now he just can't seem to meet the high expectations since then.

Benami, too, is talented but needs to not let her nerves and emotions get the best of her. She shows her talent when she controls the moment while performing, but she is shy and sometimes over controls.

Lee DeWyze and Sioban Magnus also show potential. DeWyze has a raspy but pop voice and could really make it in the business as a rock artist. Magnus, well she's a bit odd and strange at times, but has a great voice. She owns the stage when she performs. She's a natural.

At the end of the day I expect more from the show this season. I hope the remaining 11 really make Idol their arena to shine, and blow us away. There is just something about live singing competitions on national television that continues to draw huge audiences. Given the hard economic times these days many of us just want to escape the reality of bills and financial stress, and see talented young people give it their all and make it big. In a way their success mirrors a piece of our dreams too.

Photo: Crystal Bowersox. americanidol.com

Krugman's attack on China

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:11:00 +0000

Reacting to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's remarks defending the current valuation of China's yuan relative to the U.S. dollar, economist Paul Krugman has called for a "temporary" 25 percent surcharge on Chinese imports to the U.S. Krugman discounts fears that this could result in a trade war where China dumps its large reserves of U.S. Treasury securities. He asserts that devaluation of the dollar would actually be a good thing for U.S. exports, giving us an advantage over our non-Chinese trading partners.

Of course the immediate impact of such a tariff would be a big price shock to those shopping at Wal-Mart and other discount chains - i.e., the U.S. working class.

I am not sure there is a definite point where one has declared a trade war, but a 25 percent surcharge on imports is a very powerful salvo.

Krugman argues that the U.S. imposed a similar temporary surcharge on German and Japanese goods in 1971 that worked. It's true that German and Japanese currencies appreciated (making their imported goods more expensive). But it also resulted in a huge deployment of their capital reserves in the U.S. as their manufacturers built many plants here. German and Japanese market share thus increased. China has been blocked from investing in U.S. firms many times, so it will not have the same options. In addition, trade wars do not always have such salutary consequences - witness the protectionism that arose between World Wars I and II.

It's hard to see how a large surcharge on Chinese imports will not depress overall global production and demand, adding more fuel to the fires threatening a double-dip recession.

In addition, workers expecting a boom in domestic manufacturing from the relief a surcharge may bring against Chinese competition will be sorely disappointed unless it is accompanied by a major shift in U.S. industrial policy.

Currently, except for military production, the U.S. has virtually no long- or medium-range industrial policy. It lags in green industries, and is losing ground in knowledge-based industries as well - the ultimate keys to maintaining and growing high-income occupations.

The huge debts accumulated in Iraq and Afghanistan even before Obama took office are making key steps in restructuring the U.S. economy ever more difficult. Alternatively, major public and public-private investments in the infrastructures and innovations needed to launch the rising tide that can lift all boats are tagged as "socialism" by Republicans who seem to see no farther than the tip of their nose. Well, if there is not a little more socialism in the picture, then a trade war with China will certainly backfire. Exports will rise a little, but investment will continue to head offshore, and rising prices will eat holes in workers' already empty pockets.

Further, how much would an appreciation of the Chinese yuan really affect the balance of trade? Is there not a larger issue in the new structure and saturation of the world market? Does not the shift in the relative balance of economic power globally, the new levels of competition, and the enormous increase in the productivity of East and South Asian workers play an important role? Professor Krugman's recipe seems to be put forward in a very narrow context.

Now, by all accounts China's currency IS undervalued, although the range of estimates is so wide that it is difficult to get a clear picture of exactly HOW much it is undervalued. China has proven that its unique mix of market--oriented socialism is capable of extraordinary and sustained growth. No country has done more to lift up the world's poor. It is clear that China will fight very hard to maintain that growth and remain fixed on its ambition to become a "first world" economy. And it is worth saying more than once that reducing global inequality, especially in the era of globalization, is a premier challenge whose consequences for peace and overall prosperity cannot be understated.

The surcharge is not sure bet either, as China is free to peg its currency at an even lower rate relative to the dollar in response. Underdeveloped nations have virtually no way to grow out of poverty except through exports. Pegging one's currency to the dollar is a way to curb speculation and thus inhibit the currency chaos that has plagued many emerging countries.

We must find the mix of policies that accommodates rising incomes for both Chinese and American workers. For the U.S., investing in the human and fixed capital that does not require Wal-Mart to survive - in public goods like knowledge, culture, education and health - is a surer road than a trade war with China.

Billy Bragg inspires hope and change at farmworker fest

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:57:00 +0000

ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. -- The Harvest of Hope, an event to help migrant workers, was held here in St. Augustine, Fla., over the March 13 weekend. To those who ask, what are the youth doing today to change the world? This event should give us great hope!

My friend and I decided to attend the Saturday night event, because singer/songwriter Billy Bragg was performing. He is of a certain age that one would think young people would not even know who he is. But much to my pleasant surprise, I was wrong. Hundreds of the under-30 crowd received his songs with great enthusiasm.

He started his set with an antiwar song that resonated among the audience. He sang about the "poverty draft" and coming home in body bags.

Bragg was described by UK's The Times newspaper as a "national treasure."

"In the two and a half decades of his career Bragg has certainly made an indelible mark on the conscience of British music, becoming perhaps the most stalwart guardian of the radical dissenting tradition that stretches back over centuries of the country's political, cultural and social history," the newspaper said.

And he did deliver!

In between songs, he asked the audience to think about the future. He told them how much he appreciated their political will and implored them not to be discouraged because the Obama administration has not delivered on all the things they want to happen. He conveyed his own disappointment with Tony Blair and the Labour Party. He held up two hands in fists and said on the one hand, Blair took his country into an unjust war/occupation, but on the other, there is peace in Northern Ireland.

He made it clear to the audience that if this administration is defeated, it would be a tremendous set back for progress, and for them.
His songs demonstrated his class consciousness. He talked about and sang Woody Guthrie's "Deportee" to great applause and cheers! He finished with "I Keep Faith."

"And if your head may tell you/To run and hide/Listen to your heart and you'll find me/Right by your side."

The Harvest of Hope Foundation is a unique non-profit organization that has been providing migrant farmworkers and their families with emergency relief and financial assistance for over 15 years.

Photo: Billy Bragg performs at Harvest of Hope. http://www.flickr.com/photos/elawgrrl/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

March For America

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:31:00 +0000

This coming Sunday, March 21, thousands of immigrants and their allies from unions, community and faith based organizations will converge on the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. to call for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.

A progressive immigration reform that protects the rights of both immigrant and U.S. born workers is an essential step towards the resolution of the economic crisis. There are estimated to be between 10 and 11 million undocumented immigrants, at least 8 million of whom are in the labor force. These immigrants want to join labor unions so that they can struggle alongside U.S.-born workers for justice on the job and in the community, yet they can not because their undocumented status gives them no rights. Thus they have to accept lower pay and worse working conditions than would be the case if they had legal status. This undercuts the position of all workers in the country, reduces the consumption power of the working class, and, even though undocumented immigrants do pay taxes, deprives federal, state and local governments of increased revenues that would come from higher earnings. The lack of political rights of these immigrant workers also weakens the whole working class. In addition, there are believed to be about 4 million U.S. citizen children with one or both parents undocumented, who, on a daily basis face the cruel possibility of the arrest and deportation of a mother and father.

The anti-immigrant lobby, rooted in the fascist far right, tells U.S. born workers that the undocumented are "stealing their jobs" and claims that their mass deportation would "open up" jobs for U.S. born workers. They have convinced many, but this is fallacious reasoning. Workers of every kind, immigrant and U.S. born, documented and undocumented, occupy jobs in the economy, but also create wealth by their toil and engage in other activities (as consumers and taxpayers) that create jobs for others. Were that not the case, we could say that every worker in the country is potentially "taking a job" from some other potential worker. The problem is not "taking jobs" but lack of rights, which weakens working-class solidarity.

A recent study by the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Institute, "Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," concludes that the legalization of the undocumented would add $1.5 trillion to our country's Gross Domestic Product over a 10 year period, and generate billions in new tax revenues each year. This translates into many thousands of desperately needed jobs. Legalizing the undocumented will create jobs, not take them away.

This, and basic justice, is more than enough reason to fight for comprehensive immigration reform now.

Photo: Students march for immigrant rights May 2009 in Chicago. Pepe Lozano/PW

Florida Senate bill is attack on teachers

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:18:00 +0000

According to a proposed bill in the Florida state Senate, teachers will no longer have tenure in the upcoming school year, and it would introduce so-called merit pay.

According to the bill, SB 6, "Classroom teachers hired in a Florida school district on or after July 1, 2010, would be employed under the revised probationary and annual contracts. In effect, professional service contracts would not be given to any classroom teacher hired on or after July 1, 2010. This gives school districts greater flexibility in meeting student instructional needs by retaining effective teachers and removing poor performing teachers more quickly and cost-effectively."

What does that mean? Well, beginning July 1, 2010, each new classroom teacher would be hired under a probationary contract that may not extend for over 1 year. The teacher may be dismissed without cause or can resign without violating the contract, leaving the teacher with no legal recourse. After the probationary period, the teacher would then be offered a one year contract under which dismissal or renewal can be with OR without cause.

The bill goes on to state "An annual contract may only be granted for the sixth year of teaching and thereafter to a state-certified classroom teacher who was approved by the school board for a contract and whose performance is rated effective or highly effective in at least two of the preceding three years by the performance appraisal, based on objective student learning gains and Florida's Educator Accomplished Practices. In effect, the school district would make the determination whether to renew an annual contract in its discretion, rather than the contract automatically renewing."

The bill may sound hunky-dory, but the effect of this bill will be devastating to teacher morale and hiring. What makes the matter critical is that pay will be constituted by greater than 50% on student learning gains. In other words, the teacher will be paid based upon how each individual student in that teacher's class performs, instead of at a school wide gain or performance.

As the bill itself states "Districts may not use time-served or degrees-held in setting pay schedules. Instead, student outcomes would have a potentially significant effect on compensation. Effective teachers would be paid more, while those that are unsatisfactory or in need of improvement would be paid less. The State Board of Education would define student learning gains in rule."

In practice this will set teacher against teacher, classroom against classroom and will have the possibility of minorities and lower income classes given to poorer performing teachers.

According to this bill, beginning in 2014-2015, more than 50 percent of a classroom teacher's performance would be based on learning gains of students assigned to the teacher. For other instructional personnel and school-based administrators, more than 50 percent of their performance must be based on the learning gains of students assigned to the school. "Student learning gain thresholds would be set in State Board of Education rule. Personnel may not be rated as effective or highly effective if students fail to demonstrate learning gains."

This bill should be seen for what it is; a union busting bill. A teacher would not get an annual renewing contract until the sixth year, but the school districts make the determination whether to renew at its discretion.

The implications of this bill are clear. Tenure will no longer be an accepted part of the Florida school system and pay practices. Any collective bargaining agreement could be denied. Florida public employee statutes don't seem to help public workers. It "authorizes the public employer to unilaterally control" under collective bargaining: wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment, because of "managerial" consideration.

We must gather together and stand with the Florida teachers and demand withdrawal of this language from the bill and insert positive and affirmative collective bargaining guidelines that can lift up both teachers and students.

Photo: Florida teachers discuss changes that need to be made to improve education during 2008 presidential campaign. http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Bipartisan Senate immigration bill looks like a bitter pill

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:32:00 +0000

Indications are that a new immigration reform bill with some bipartisan support will be introduced very soon in the Senate. But there are going to be some severe problems with the bill, which will be tilted well to the right of the House bill, HR 4321, recently introduced by U.S. Reps. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill..

This week, President Obama met with three different groups of people interested in the immigration reform legislation. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus talked to him about their frustration with health care legislation that, when finished, may stop undocumented immigrants from even buying private insurance from proposed pools with their own money. It would also restrict help with health care financing to legal immigrants who have been in the country for five years or less. The Hispanic Caucus wants a guarantee that there will be an immigration reform which includes the legalization of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Secondly, Obama invited representatives of a number of immigration reform organizations to meet with him in the White House on Thursday, March 11. Press reports indicate that in this meeting, he said immigration reform could not proceed without "substantial" Republican support. The Democrats with independent allies have 59 votes in the Senate, but not all the Democratic senators are in favor of legalization, and there is the issue of breaking a potential filibuster, which requires 60 votes.

Coming out of the meeting, some of the union and community leaders said that they were somewhat encouraged that Obama did commit to try to get a Senate bill before the major immigrants' rights demonstration to be held in Washington D.C. on March 21. However, they also said that Obama stressed to them the political difficulty of doing this. The activists also asked Obama to immediately suspend the deportation of ordinary, non-criminal undocumented people.

The third group with which Obama met consisted of U.S. Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. They have undertaken the task of crafting a Senate bill. So far they have neither introduced it nor given details of what it might contain. There are signs, however, that it is likely to be much more conservative and oriented toward big business than the Ortiz-Gutierrez bill. They plan to include a mandatory national ID card containing biometric data for all workers. Also, they want to re-insert the idea of a large-scale new guest worker program into the legislation, which most of organized labor opposes. Finally, they want to sharply cut back permanent resident visas based on family unity, and replace them with visas based on job skills, stressing people who have higher education and advanced technical skills.

To top it off, Graham threatened that if the Democrats try to use "reconciliation" to pass health care reform, the Republicans will kill any attempt at immigration reform.

All of these things place the projected Schumer-Graham bill well to the right of the Ortiz-Gutierrez bill, and some of them would probably worsen the situation for both immigrant and U.S. citizen or legal resident workers. For example, most undocumented immigrants emigrate because the impact of corporate controlled globalization has eliminated their livelihoods and closed off all other options for family survival. They come illegally because their poverty and lack of advanced education means they can't get a visa. The United States gives out only about 5,000 visas a year to people in that skills category. But a few more can come in legally by being sponsored by relatives legally in the U.S. The Schumer-Graham proposal would seem to cut off even that escape route. Their choice will be: Stay home in an untenable situation, come here as a guest worker with few rights, or come here undocumented with absolutely no enforceable rights at all.

Some on the left are organizing against the Ortiz-Gutierrez bill, because it does not give the undocumented immediate, almost unconditional amnesty, and that it contains trade offs of various kinds involving enforcement. They wish to push the legislation to the left, and ready to mount resistance to the passage of both bills if this can not be achieved.

Looking at the balance of power in Congress and the country, this seems to be a way of ensuring that no legislation is passed at all. If that happens, the 11 or so million undocumented immigrants, about 8 and a half million or so of who are workers, will see their situation degenerate even more, harming the whole working class. The real fight in the coming weeks is going to be over what mix of good and bad elements will be in the legislation, and how this impacts on its possibilities for passage.

Photo: Clarissa Martinez de Castro, with the National Council of La Raza, center, talks to reporters outside the White House, March 11, after meeting with President Barack Obama to discuss comprehensive immigration reform. Alex Brandon/AP