People Before Profit blog

Illinois Woman’s Press Association honors People’s World writers

Wed, 27 May 2015 14:44:00 +0000

On May 16, the Illinois Woman's Press Association hosted its spring awards luncheon, celebrating the association's 130th anniversary. The IWPA is believed to be the nation's oldest organization of women writers, established in Chicago in 1885, it is also the founding mother of the National Federation of Press Women, which was established in 1937.

Tracing their roots to the women's club movement at the turn of the twentieth century - as well as the suffragette movement - the association was linked with other professional and women's groups including the National Editorial Association and International League of Press Clubs. It was an auxiliary to the Illinois Woman's Alliance which included 24 local communities, religious and professional organizations whose goal it was to establish a labor union for working women.

People's World writers won six first place awards in various categories, one second place, two third places and one honorable mention. Go here for the full list: http://peoplesworld.org/people-s-world-receives-top-honors-from-illinois-woman-s-press-association/

PW co-editor Teresa Albano received the IWPA's Silver Feather Award, and freelance writer Beth Dugan won the association's top award, the 2015 Communicator of Achievement.

The following brief remarks were made by Albano after receiving the Silver Feather Award.

I want to thank IWPA for this honor. The association has an incredible history and its leaders today are building IWPA in new ways, not an easy task given the changing communications' field and the new challenges women face in the industry.

Thank you to IWPA President Becky Sarwate and contest Chair Diane Bushemi, the board and new officers, for the work and joy you put into building and sustaining the association. And congratulations to Beth Dugan, 2015 Communicator of Achievement - and storyteller extraordinaire.

IWPA and PW share some commonalities. People's World traces its founding to 1924 when the first issue of the Daily Worker rolled off the press. Since then we have been combining journalism and social activism. Reading about IWPA's history, it seems we share that foundational mission, including, promoting labor unions among women. Plus we share the challenges of taking long-standing institutions and re-tooling them for this century, not always an easy task, but a necessary one.

While this Silver Feather Award has a single name on it, writing takes a team and I have a great team here at this luncheon: PW staff and volunteers Barbara Russum, Hyacinth Morris, Jacqueline Dick, fellow award winners Andrea Perkins, John Dick and co-editor John Wojcik, plus my dear daughter Winona and especially my ever-supportive husband John; as well as our writers and co-editors not here and, of course, our readers and financial supporters. Everyone contributes.

I would be remiss if I didn't include in the team, IWPA membership director Tim Libretti, without whom none of us from People's World would be here. He did his job promoting IWPA. He was the one who read my article from Ferguson and urged me to enter it, and for that I thank you.

But perhaps the most crucial part of our team is the people we write about. In my story, this means the people of Ferguson, Mo., especially the youth. If it weren't for them -- black youth in the first place -- taking a stand and telling the nation that black lives matter, that Mike Brown mattered, there would not have been a story. They and thousands of others in New York, Baltimore, South Carolina and right here in Chicago, and in towns and cities across the nation have begun a new chapter in the struggle for civil rights.

I draw inspiration from a 19^th century philosopher and adapted one of his more notable lines to try to capture the kind of journalistic motto we follow: "Journalists interpret the world in various ways, the point is to change it." Thank you IWPA for recognizing and affirming that this kind of journalism has an important place in today's media-driven world.

Photo: From left to right: People's World co-editor John Wojcik, volunteer writer Andrea Perkins, co-editor Teresa Albano, volunteer writer John Dick show their awards from Illinois Woman's Press Association. For a listing of the award-winning stories and writers click here: http://peoplesworld.org/people-s-world-receives-top-honors-from-illinois-woman-s-press-association/ (PW/Jacqueline Dick)

At Jeb Bush event, 19 year-old eats media’s lunch on Iraq spin

Wed, 27 May 2015 14:08:00 +0000

When 19-year-old University of Nevada at Reno student Ivy Ziedrich confronted assumed presidential candidate Jeb Bush, during an event staged by his Orwellian-named Super PAC Right to Rise, she taught us all what it means to put the people in "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Ziedrich, interviewed on MSNBC, stated that the Bush organized Super PAC event was staged in a way to attract or assemble a friendly and supportive audience. She just happened to get word of it and decided to attend. When she heard the Bush false narrative about how Iraq evolved regarding ISIS and violence and instability, she decided to confront him after his speech and challenge his lies, misinformation and misrepresentation of history and facts.

She told him, "your brother created ISIS."

Ms. Ziedrich reminded us that there's more on the line in our presidential election sweepstakes than who will appeal to voters in the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire primary. This college student's opening shot challenged the lowering of our political discourse and media-induced historical amnesia. In questioning Jeb Bush's narrative that Iraq is more unstable today due to President Obama's decision to end the Iraq war and withdraw combat troops, Ziedrich demonstrated that critical thinking and having the courage to stand up to a moneyed candidate heightens the country's discourse. Take note, mainstream media, a 19 year old just ate your lunch!

All she did was point out historical facts: that Jeb's brother, W, carried out a de-Ba'athification policy that led to the firing of the Iraqi Army, where 500,000 soldiers lost their jobs, pay, pensions, and, oh, allowed to keep their guns, leading to an immediate pool of insurgents (al Qaeda, ISIS, etc

Jeb pushed back with the false narrative that Obama could have left troops in Iraq. But that answer ignores other facts, such as the inability to renew the SOFA -- the Status Of Forces Agreement (initially negotiated by brother W and expired in 2011) between the U.S. and Iraq -- namely that there is not one because Iraq wouldn't give U.S. troops immunity from prosecutions by local Iraqi laws. That made leaving any troops behind impossible.

Then there is the "inconvenient truth" that the Bush administration supported former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who contributed to widening the divide between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish Iraqis, leading to, in particular, Sunni disaffection with the government.

All this comes on the heels of his embarrassing response to the question: knowing what we know now, would Jeb invade Iraq? Yes, he said, only to revise later through a series of political contortions.

Possibly the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history, W's Iraq invasion led to the death of nearly 4,500 U.S. troops, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, millions more displaced and an unstable, divided country, reeling in chaos and violence - with a bill still being paid in the $1.5 to $3 trillion dollar range.

Jeb Bush's loyalty to his brother over the country was supposed to allay questions about presidential decisiveness and help to obfuscate cherry-picked intelligence, twisted into lies. What was his alternative? He would have to admit that his brother lied, violated international law, and unleashed terror and suffering on a country and its people. As the old saying goes, Bush isn't qualified to run for dog catcher.

Well, most likely, Jeb wouldn't and won't have to delve into any of those arguments because these Super PAC staged events depend on, first, a well trained and complicit media, and secondly, rarely allow for spontaneous interactions with critical thinking 19-year-olds who hunger for truth.

But will we be able to depend on those idealistic, concerned, politically aware youth who use education to learn, understand, achieve and act on the world? Chances are becoming slim. Average yearly student debt continues to climb to an accumulated $1.2 trillion. Jeb Bush and Republican's toxic policies regarding education (perceived to be a Jeb Bush strength) have cut Pell Grant funding, covering 76 percent of student college costs in 1980, to just 30 percent in 2014. States across the country with Republican governors such as Wisconsin and Illinois are cutting higher education funding to the bone.

Photo: Ivy Ziedrich confronts Jeb Bush. | YouTube screenshot

Memo to Mayor Emanuel: System needs fixing, not the kids

Fri, 22 May 2015 15:41:00 +0000

Mayor Rahm Emanuel's second inaugural address focused on Chicago children in poverty, values, and bad choices.

More than a quarter of Chicago's children live in poverty. Twenty thousand public school students are homeless. And it's true that their poverty conditions are a result of bad decisions, poor values. However, the mayor neglected to mention that it was not the supposedly poor values of these children and their parents that created this poverty. No, it was corporate decisions and pro-corporate government policies that led our city's children to this human catastrophe.

The real cause of child poverty

Thirty years ago, I was one of tens of thousands of Steelworkers - white, black, and brown - living on Chicago's south side. We worked hard, making a decent living, making a product that our nation needed; our children grew up in vibrant neighborhoods with confidence in a future, and a sparkle in their eyes. Then our jobs and the futures of our communities' children - especially African American and Latino children - were swept away in a tidal wave of plant closings.

Who made those decisions? What were their values? It was the set of values of corporate investors, who decreed that it was worth it to wipe us out to make a higher rate of profit overseas. Good choices for them, bad choices for the kids. Those devastating bad choices were made on Wall Street and LaSalle Street, not on 79th Street. Why do the millionaires who cashed in on these bad choices get to lecture the victims?

I guess that's why the way Emanuel addressed children in poverty in his inaugural address rubs me the wrong way, even though his speech seems well-meaning. In sympathetic terms, he describes the impact of poverty on youth. He says he wants to shine a light on "preventing another lost generation of our city's youth. We all know who they are ... Many are born into poverty. Many come from broken homes. And many have been on their own from early on. As a result, many of them drop out of school and are jobless. Many of them lack the spark of hope in their eyes that we would never accept in our own children."

Emanuel goes on to promote some very good programs that direct resources to these children and their communities. He cites the example of a good Samaritan who raised the money to pay for dental surgery so a young man could smile again.

But doesn't a mayor need to go beyond charity and mentoring to address a systemic problem? He mentions values five times, once to thank his parents (a backhanded way of congratulating himself) for giving him good values, and four times to imply that poor children would benefit by having people like himself share their values.

Is poverty about values or money?

Emanuel mentions jobs only once. So, I'd like to ask, "Is the issue of poverty one of values or is it one of money?" Rich people seem to always want to teach poor people values, while they hang on to the money.

He's talking about teaching young people to cope with poverty. Shouldn't our mayor be talking about ending it?

There are solutions to poverty, but they're bold ones and they involve focusing on fixing the system that creates the poverty, not fixing the kids.

The money is there.

Chicago is still one of the wealthiest cities in the richest nation in the history of humanity. Its fiscal crisis is not the result of lack of wealth. It is the result of deliberate policies that withhold the wealth from the people who created it. That is where the talk of values should be focused.

A tax on stock transactions could generate enough money to put the young people he feels so strongly about on jobs like teacher assistants, in healthcare fields, housing renovation, all with a job training component. I predict that a good paying summer job learning a valuable skill would put the sparkle in most kids' eyes.

A mayor truly concerned with the poverty of children must speak for the whole population of the city, not just the investor class he comes from. He must address the root cause of that poverty. Instead of corporate subsidies, how about directing revenues to direct job creating programs that pay above poverty wages, including summer jobs? For example, wouldn't the $10 million subsidy from Chicago taxpayers given to build a new Hyatt hotel in Hyde Park have done more good funding 2,000 summer jobs for teens in the same neighborhood? And how about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour this year, not five years from now.

Who is the mentor?

When it comes to mentorship, I think the mayor should also start a program for some of his corporate colleagues. Let them study under a mom who starts her day before dawn, hustling onto a bus with her sleepy-eyed toddler in tow to an inadequate day care situation and then shuttling between two or more minimum wage job, fielding homefront crises from her cell phone without a prayer of putting a nutritious meal on the table for her kids after school. Let them learn about values from her sacrifices for her family.

Let's think about the mayor's values too, especially when he has closed 50 schools, and left scores of other schools without libraries, sports, music and athletic programs. What kind of system of values welcomes for-profit corporations to soak up millions of tax dollars designated for education? Who can mentor the mayor on the value that most working class families treasure: children are more important than profits!

I'm sure the mayor practices this value when it comes to his family. His kids attend a private school where standardized testing is shunned. There's a teacher student ratio of 10 to one, with 13 science labs, four art studios, a five-lane pool, 19 Advanced Placement classes, four computer labs, a dance studio and three libraries. I guess such a school would be enough to put a sparkle in the eyes of any kid.

I agree with the mayor that it is not the job of government to teach values. It is the role of government to act on our values.

Let's do it, Mr. Mayor.

Photo: Chicago Public School children and parents. Progress Illinois.

Streets of New York - the subway

Thu, 21 May 2015 14:21:00 +0000

When I go to New York I ride the subway. I'm an Oakland boy, and we have our BART. But that's not a real subway, even when it goes under the Bay or Market Street. New York has a real subway. It always seems like anywhere I want to go is walking distance from a station. There are 421 of them, so it figures they're close to almost anywhere along its 656 miles of tracks in four boroughs.

The subway is kind of old, that's true. The first station opened in 1904. It makes a lot of noise - not like the subway in Mexico City, which runs on rubber wheels. When the train comes into the station, pushing a wall of air before it, a deafening roar bounces off the concrete and tiles. It's hard to talk in most of the cars, although some people don't seem to notice. Even when it's cold outside, the cars can be sweltering, and the seats are hard - not like BART.

But the great thing about the subway is the people. New York is so diverse - it feels like you're seeing people from everyplace on earth in just a few subway cars. People who aren't from New York make a big deal about how dangerous it is. But I don't see it. I see people tired from work, having trouble keeping their eyes open, or sometimes just asleep. I wonder how they know when to wake up so they don't overshoot their stop.

People read newspapers and talk to each other in a dozen languages. When there aren't too many people, they spread out across the seats. Mothers and fathers hold their children. Lovers lean into each other while everyone else just looks away. And looking away is so religiously observed that when someone actually meets your eyes it feels rare and strange.

After 9/11 the police tried to forbid taking photographs in the subway. Luckily for me, they were overruled. These photographs [see all on his blog] are the result, my love letter to the subway.

Reprinted with permission from The Reality Check, Stories and Photographs by David Bacon

Blues never die: B.B. King reigned but music lives on

Thu, 21 May 2015 13:41:00 +0000

LAS VEGAS (AP) - B.B. King believed anyone could play the blues, and that "as long as people have problems, the blues can never die."

But no one could play the blues like B.B. King, who died Thursday night at age 89 in Las Vegas, where he had been in hospice care.

Although he kept performing well into his 80s, the 15-time Grammy winner suffered from diabetes and other problems. He collapsed during a concert in Chicago last October, later blaming dehydration and exhaustion.

For generations of blues musicians and rock 'n rollers, King's plaintive vocals and soaring guitar playing style set the standard for an art form born in the American South and honored and performed worldwide. After the deaths of Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters decades ago, King was the greatest upholder of a tradition that inspired everyone from Jimi Hendrix and Robert Cray to the Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton.

King played a Gibson guitar he affectionately called Lucille, with a style that included beautifully crafted single-string runs punctuated by loud chords, subtle vibratos and bent notes, building on the standard 12-bar blues and improvising like a jazz master.

The result could hypnotize an audience, no more so than when King used it to full effect on his signature song, "The Thrill is Gone." After seemingly make his guitar shout and cry in anguish as he told the tale of forsaken love, he ended the lyrics with a guttural shouting of the song's final two lines: "Now that it's all over, all I can do is wish you well."

His style was unusual. King didn't like to sing and play at the same time, so he developed a call-and-response, and let Lucille do some of the talking.

"Sometimes I just think that there are more things to be said, to make the audience understand what I'm trying to do more," King told The Associated Press in 2006. "When I'm singing, I don't want you to just hear the melody. I want you to relive the story, because most of the songs have pretty good storytelling."

The blues is a lifetime gig and King kept at it even as his health declined, playing more than 100 shows a year well into his 80s. He believed touring extended his lifespan. "I got a chance to ride today on a very nice bus and from my window I can see how beautiful this country is and how nice it is to be alive," he said once. "That to me is like extra vitamins."

From 1950 to 1970, he traveled about 300 days a year and spent the remaining days in the studio. In 1956, he and his band played 342 one-nighters. By 1967, he had made 30 albums and 225 singles. Even in 1989, he was away from his Las Vegas home about 300 days, but it was no longer mostly one-night stands.

Keith Richards would recall touring nonstop with the Rolling Stones during the mid-1960s, then adding "That's nothing. I mean, tell that to B.B. King and he'll say, 'I've been doing it for years.'"

King enjoyed acclaim and considerable commercial success, acting the gentleman onstage and off. The blues was born of despair, but King worked in many moods, and he encouraged black youngsters in particular to make positive choices.

"Most of the time when people say blues, it's pretty negative," King told a Houston audience in February 1992. "But I'm here to tell you, blues is a label that people put on a music that was started by black people, and you can choose between the negative and the positive."

King was named the third greatest guitarist of all time by Rolling Stone magazine (after Hendrix and Duane Allman, who died in their 20s, an age when King was just getting started). He won 15 Grammys and sold more than 40 million records worldwide, a remarkable number for blues. He was inducted into the Blues Foundation Hall of Fame and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. His album "Live at the Regal" was declared a historic sound and permanently preserved in the Library of Congress' National Recording Registry.

His playing style influenced performers from Otis Rush and Buddy Guy to Clapton, Hendrix, John Mayall and Mike Bloomfield.

Musicians even named a section of the guitar's neck after their blues idol, dubbing it the "B.B. box." Usually located from the 10th to 12th frets, depending on the key of the song, it's where King twisted and scorched many of his signature guitar licks.

"Mr. King's electric guitar can sing simply, embroider and drag out unresolved harmonic tensions to delicious extremes," The New York Times wrote in a review of a King appearance in June 1992. "It shrinks and swells with the precision of the human voice."

Among his Grammys: best traditional blues album: "A Christmas Celebration of Hope," and best pop instrumental performance for "Auld Lang Syne" in 2003; best male rhythm 'n' blues performance in 1971 for his "The Thrill Is Gone"; best ethnic or traditional recording in 1982 for the album "There Must Be a Better World Somewhere." A collaboration with Clapton, "Riding With the King," won a Grammy in 2001 for best traditional blues recording.

Riley B. King was born Sept. 16, 1925, on a tenant farm near Itta Bena in the Mississippi Delta. His parents separated when he was 4, and his mother took him to the even smaller town of Kilmichael. She died when he was 9, and when his grandmother died as well, he lived alone in her primitive cabin, raising cotton to work off debts.

"I was a regular hand when I was 7. I picked cotton. I drove tractors. Children grew up not thinking that this is what they must do. We thought this was the thing to do to help your family," King said.

His father eventually found him and took him back to Indianola. When the weather was bad and King couldn't work the fields, he walked 10 miles to a one-room school. He quit in the 10th grade.

A preacher uncle taught him the guitar, and King didn't play and sing blues in earnest until he was away from his religious household, in basic training with the Army during World War II. He listened to and was influenced by both blues and jazz players: T. Bone Walker, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Lonnie Johnson, Django Reinhardt and Charlie Christian.

His first break came with gospel - singing lead and playing guitar with the Famous St. John's Gospel Singers on Sunday afternoons from the studio of WGRM radio in Greenwood, Mississippi.

But he soon split for Memphis, Tennessee, where his career took off after Sonny Boy Williamson let him play a song on WKEM.

By 1948, King earned a daily spot on WDIA, the first radio station in America to program entirely by African-Americans for African-Americans, as "the Pepticon Boy," pitching the alcoholic tonic between his live blues songs.

Until then, he had been known as Riley King. He needed a better nickname. The station manager dubbed him the Beale Street Blues Boy, because he had played for tips in a Beale Street park. Soon, it was B.B., and it stuck.

Initial success came with his third recording, of "Three O'Clock Blues" in 1950. He hit the road, and rarely paused thereafter.

King made his first European tour in 1968, played in 14 cities with the Rolling Stones in 1969, and made TV appearances, from "Sesame Street" to "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air." In 1989, he appeared in "Rattle and Hum," a film about U2, and toured with that band.

Music brought him from Mississippi's dirt roads to black-tie meetings with world leaders. He gave a guitar to Pope John Paul II, and had President Barack Obama singing to his "Sweet Home Chicago."

In 2005, the Mississippi House and Senate declared Feb. 15 to be B.B. King Day. The blues great said he had never set foot in the Mississippi Capitol until then. He wiped away tears, and described it as his most proud moment.

"I tell you I was in Heaven. I was so happy that I cried. I don't do that often in public, but the water just came. I couldn't help it," King said later.

King lived in Las Vegas, but Mississippi was his home.

In the early 1980s, King donated about 8,000 recordings - mostly 33, 45 and 78 rpm records, but also some Edison wax cylinders - to the University of Mississippi, launching a blues archive that researchers still use today. He also supported the B.B. King Museum and Delta Interpretive Center in Indianola, a $10 million, 18,000-square-foot structure, built around the cotton gin where King once worked.

"I want to be able to share with the world the blues as I know it - that kind of music - and talk about the Delta and Mississippi as a whole," he said at the center's groundbreaking in 2005.

The museum not only holds his personal papers, but hosts music camps and community events focused on health challenges including diabetes, which King suffered from for years. At his urging, Mississippi teenagers work as docents, not only at the center but also at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

"He's the only man I know, of his talent level, whose talent is exceeded by his humility," said Allen Hammons, a museum board member.

In a June 2006 interview, King said there are plenty of great musicians now performing who will keep the blues alive.

"I could name so many that I think that you won't miss me at all when I'm not around. You'll maybe miss seeing my face, but the music will go on," he said.

Photo: AP

Suicide sweeping Indian Country is genocide

Mon, 18 May 2015 14:37:00 +0000

I must amplify on a report that appeared in People's World's column, This Week In Indigenous News. The reference opened up a subject, a matter of basic survival, that needs to be addressed by all of America. This is the agonizing issue of suicide among American Indian youth, particularly on the Northern Plains. There have been five youth suicides on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation in South Dakota since December, and many other attempted suicides. The suicide attempts reportedly number 103 in this time frame. This is incredible. The suicide rate of Native young people on the reservations is the highest in the Western Hemisphere.

In February, Oglala Sioux President John Yellow Bird Steele declared a state of emergency because of the youth suicides. Reservation spokespersons at Pine Ridge cite poverty as a major factor for the suicides. All of the other cited reasons are directly the spinoffs of poverty such as family dysfunction, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, emotional and physical neglect of the young.

Hideous racism is also a major factor in this crisis. To cite an example: A 12-year-old December victim of suicide had been among a group of young Indian females on an overnight trip to Rapid City, S.D. While there the group overheard a white woman call them "filthy Indians" as they passed through a hotel lobby. Commenting on this incident a longtime Lakota activist said, "Our kids today just want to die because they are just sick of all this oppression." Poverty and racism is proving to be a deadly combination for Indian young people.

The unemployment rate on Pine Ridge is still 80-90 percent. In particular these young people need jobs. The federal government has it within its power to do so, with jobs programs, but so far just looks the other way.

The alcoholism rate is said to hover at 80 percent. Life expectancy on Pine Ridge is the lowest in the entire United States and is the second lowest in the entire Western Hemisphere (only Haiti has a lower life expectancy).

This is genocide, pure and simple. Genocide engendered by a vicious racism and abject poverty, which the U.S. government takes no effective steps to combat.

The suicides are the product of the policy of extermination against Native Americans followed openly by the federal government until the onset of the 20th century, at which point genocide became more subtle. It continues in this form to the present day. The intergenerational trauma felt by all Native people, but particularly by Indian youth, is the result of the historical policy of genocide exemplified by the endless massacres, the forced removals and military campaigns that continued to the end of the 19th century, culminating in the Wounded Knee Massacre. All of these memories resonate in the minds of our young people in one form or another.

Couple this with the present-day racism most openly shown in the outrageous treatment of Lakota children at a January hockey game in Rapid City, which only reinforces intergenerational trauma, and we have all the ingredients for anger, hopelessness and despair that results in suicide. That for Native people is still genocide. Where is the federal government to take steps for justice for the most innocent of our people, our youngsters, whose dream day that January 24 was turned into an unforgettable, racist nightmare? Apparently, so far, nowhere to be found. This is both saddening and angering.

But the suicides go on - young people hanging themselves at such a rate that a week without a suicide is now considered a blessing on many reservations. These young people are hanging themselves with the rope of joblessness, the rope of racism, the rope of despair, the rope of low self-esteem.

As bad as some would paint reservations there is one thing from which children are shielded there - that is the specter of malevolent racism. On reservations Indian children don't think of themselves as minorities for obvious reasons. There is no racial profiling for obvious reasons. Again, as bad as reservations are painted from cold statistics, this writer has always felt a real sense of security and comfort, not having to be concerned about daily racism, living on reservations.

But, again, suicides have quickened the grim specter of death stalking Indian people. A literal youth suicide epidemic is sweeping Indian Country, with American Indian teens and young adults killing themselves at a rate, at its lowest, of three times that of other U.S. youth; in some parts of the country the suicide rate is 10 times to 19 times that of the rest of American youth. From Alaska to Arizona, tribes near and far have declared states of emergency.

Suicide figures vary somewhat from reservation to reservation, but the most distressing numbers come from the Northern Plains, Alaska and parts of the Southwest. In Alaska the suicide rate of young Indian males is nive times that of other young males in the U.S., while the suicide rate for young Native females is 19 times that of other young females in the U.S., according to the Alaska native Tribal Health Consortium.

The historical trauma felt by Native youth is fueled by generational grief at the loss of land, language and tradition. Researchers have concluded that large numbers of Indian adolescents think daily of historic sorrows. The historical background must be taken into account. Of the 371 treaties signed by the U.S. government with American Indian nations, each and every one has been broken. Needless to say the treaties guaranteed, but did not adequately deliver, health care, education and housing. Indian youth are bearing the brunt of this ignominious legacy.

There must be an end to this poverty and racist-spawned crisis. When will the federal government take action to make a difference in this huge, ongoing disaster?

Photo: Lakota children. Neeta Lind/Creative Commons

What I learned from my good neighbor, Good Joe

Wed, 13 May 2015 13:21:00 +0000

"A year from now we'll all be gone

All our friends will move away

And they're goin' to better places

But our friends will be gone away"

His name was Joe. I called him Good Joe. He was my next-door neighbor. He lived on the west side of my house and my other next-door neighbor, on the east side, is named Joe as well. Bad Joe. Long story about how the two Joes got their names, but needless to say I liked the one Joe better than the other Joe. I didn't just like Good Joe. I loved Good Joe and his whole family. Still do to this day. From the first day I met him and his lovely wife Judy, just moments after signing the mortgage papers to our new house in Royal Oak, Mich., they made me feel like a part of their community.

Where does that word "community" come from? As a wordsmith, I did a little investigation. The Latin word for one is "unum." Latin for with is "cum." So one with, or with one is "cumunum." The Latin word for common is "communi." And so derives the word community, as well as communicate. And that is what good neighbors do. Good Joe was the quintessential good neighbor. Need to borrow a power tool. Just ask Good Joe. Need to ask some tips on growing tomatoes. Just ask Good Joe. Want to jump in the swimming pool on a hot summer day. Don't even ask. Just jump in. Joe and his wife Judy always had a key to our house in case of emergency. Just what community should be; one with and with one.

Judy met Good Joe when she was just 13 years old. Judy told me her mother noticed him first. "Look at this gorgeous boy," her mother would exclaim as Joe walked down the sidewalk. Judy and Joe became pals at first; he was a couple of years her senior. When they first met Joe had a girlfriend his own age, but he and Judy became best friends. Judy says her mother never let her forget how special Joe was. Joe joined the Navy at 18, and the day before he was leaving for boot camp he asked Judy for a kiss goodbye. She replied, "I'm not giving you a kiss goodbye. You've never given me a kiss hello!' Joe replied, "If I thought I had a chance, I wouldn't have wasted all this time." Joe got his kiss and shipped off into the Navy for three years. The young Judy, who had never had a boyfriend until this time, waited for his return.

Joe returned from his service to our country in September of 1962. Joe asked for Judy's hand in marriage in December and they wed in June of 1963. They moved into the house next to where I live now in 1972. Joe joined our town's police force in 1966 and retired in 1992. He was the epitome of those Latin words, "cumunum." One with the community. As a letter carrier, I aspire to be that same part of the community as Joe was as a police officer. Coincidentally, and ironically, Joe had a connection to the same post office where I now work. He became the media liaison for the Royal Oak Police Department just before the tragic events of November 14, 1991, when five people died. Joe handled the media deluge. He was not just a part of the community; he was the communicator.

Joe and Judy raised two sons. From that came grandchildren. The in-ground pool in the backyard was the gathering place for the whole family. As a neighbor, there was nothing that screamed "summer" more than hearing the sounds of that family splashing in the water, smelling the grilled foods, and hearing the heartfelt laughter of three generations. I felt blessed to be a part of it. They made me feel like I was a part of their family. One with; "cumunum."

All good things, all great things, sadly do not last forever. Good Joe passed on this year. He succumbed to the ravages of ill health just weeks ago, and our community is still working on how to go on without him. When I say "our community" I am talking about the family, the neighbors, the children, the grandchildren, and the friends. On the night Good Joe crossed the river to the other side, his family was with him. He was at home, and they surrounded his bed. His grandson Ben picked up a guitar and granddaughter Katie joined him in song. Just high school aged, they courageously led their family in this solemn chorus:

"Rivers and Roads

Rivers and Roads

Rivers 'til I reach you"

Just moments after the last refrain of the chorus was uttered by his grandchildren, Good Joe took his last breath. After years of suffering, that song punched his ticket to freedom.

Ben and Katie sang that song at their grandfather's funeral just a few days later. Their younger brother Adam did a reading as well. I sat in the audience amazed and astounded. And weeping. Not just by the fortitude and resilience of this family; but also by my sense of being connected. I was one with them: COMMUNITY. Neighbors, but more than that. That's the lesson Good Joe taught me. R.I.P., Good Joe. You are gone but not forgotten.

Lyrics belong to "Rivers and Roads" by The Head and The Heart

Photo: Matt Mechtley/CC/Flickr

My story: why Oregon should adopt health care for all

Mon, 11 May 2015 15:17:00 +0000

The Health Care for All Oregon Act, SB 631, is a bill in the Oregon Senate, written by Sen. Michael Dembrow. In brief, it will establish single-payer health coverage for all people residing or working in Oregon. The legislation will remove private insurers from the health care context and replace them with a government-financed plan. It will also establish an appropriate governing board to implement and administer the plan. All medically necessary services will be covered, and providers will be required to accept payments from the plan as payment in full. There will be no copayments or deductibles. The act also provides funding for retraining and extended unemployment benefits as necessary for any workers displaced as a result of the legislation. Here is a link to a more detailed summary of the bill: SB 631 Summary

The state Senate held a public hearing on the bill at the Capitol building in Salem on May 4. The bill is not yet in its final form or ready for passage, and testimony offered at the hearing was intended to introduce it, and to inspire and engage the Senate Health Care Committee in discussions that supporters hope will lead to its passage. In other words, the bill has been introduced and is now in Senate committee. But given the current political climate, it is likely that the bill will not be advanced. The general opinion of members of Healthcare for All Oregon, of which I am a member, is that the bill is unlikely to pass in the legislature. They believe conditions are much more favorable to enact it via a ballot measure. An effort to place the measure before the voters in 2016 is already being discussed.

Below is my testimony submitted in written form in advance of the hearing. Other members of HCAO were in attendance. I was not physically present for the hearing due to other commitments.

I'm a self-employed guy who provides administrative and documentation services to a number of clients from my home in Beaverton. My virtual assistant business shrank dramatically after the economic crash in 2008, and even at its best it didn't produce enough income to afford health insurance. I'd heard stories like this for years but never expected to end up telling one myself.

In May of 2013, I was hospitalized with a condition that required emergency surgery. I was less than 48 hours in the hospital. The bills began coming in with sonic speed, almost before I got home. There were some preliminary test charges I knew about and paid, then the hospital bill came and I thought the nightmare was over. But I started getting nickeled and dimed for all this other stuff, including a bill in excess of $450 for some person I'd never seen to spend a few seconds reading the X-rays and CT scans. Then when I thought it was all over, the surgeon's bill came separately, two months later, for another $9,000. The bills totaled nearly $33,000. Even after negotiating for a lower amount due to my limited means, the bills wiped out my modest life savings.

Now, in my mid-50s, with no savings and less than $17,000 a year in business income, I'm left picking up the pieces of my life. The worst part of this is that my story is actually relatively minor compared to the catastrophes others have endured. I at least am still in my home, with some sort of income, and still able to do something to better myself. There are those who have been left homeless and crippled, or with a serious illness that leaves them with no hope of picking up any pieces.

As a Christian and a Communist, I am appalled by the callous attitude of an economic system that treats health care as a commodity to be sold for profit, instead of the fundamental human right that it is. It is recognized as such by the World Health Organization, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as most industrialized - and civilized - nations on Earth.

In the coming years, America faces a choice. She may choose to remain the playground of the filthy rich riding on the backs of the poor and the sick at the expense of working people - and fall when her people have had enough and take her down. Or she may choose to fulfill the ideals of justice and equality embodied in those beautifully worded documents on which she was founded. I hope and pray she chooses justice and really becomes the beacon of freedom to the world that she claims to be. It would be a tragedy to lose her.

Here in Oregon, we have a historic opportunity to set an example of justice, of doing the right thing by our people, the working people who make our state possible. I urge the legislature to demonstrate the common decency and humanity to create better conditions for our people by advancing this bill for universal coverage. No Oregonian, no American, no human being should have to worry about being bankrupted or rendered homeless by an illness. No man should ever be forced to choose between medicine and having food on his table. No woman should ever have to decide whether she buys medicine for her illness or milk for her babies because she can't afford both. No one should have to suffer untreated because he or she cannot afford to see a doctor.

Let's have Oregon be the beacon to America, and maybe the nation will catch our flame and do the right thing for all Americans. Recognize the human right to health care. Let's be a civilized state and join the rest of the world. Single-payer universal health care is a step in the right direction for our state and nation. My dream of a just and socialist future may not happen in our lifetimes, but single-payer health care is achievable and can help our people here and now. Advance this bill, finalize it, bring it to a vote, and pass it. Raise the torch and be an example to our nation.

Photo: Michael Fleshman CC

How advancing technology will change future socialist society

Fri, 08 May 2015 15:37:00 +0000

Ever since humans started using sharp rocks to hunt and craft, advancing technology has driven development. Throughout history, scientific and technological innovations have shaped the dynamics of society. Turning to the future, it is necessary to look at the functioning of new socialist nations not only through social, political, and economic lenses, but through a technological one as well. How will the scientific advances of the next few decades shape a future socialist society?

Ten thousand years ago, the development of plowing technologies and the domestication of animals for labor increased the efficiency of food production, creating a new surplus of food. This allowed for specialization within the society, as every single individual was no longer required to spend their time collecting food; they could become blacksmiths, leather workers, writers, scientists. The very nature of the society was changed from nomadic living to living in small villages or towns. The rate of change of scientific advance increased exponentially, laying down the groundwork for yet more technological advancements.

At the turn of the 19th century, the formation of modern industrial capitalism was driven by the industrial revolution. The transition from feudalism and agrarian capitalism was allowed for by the development of more efficient technologies; industrial processes increased the efficiency of production, allowing for the accumulation of capital and the shift from mercantilists to factory workers and laborers as the drivers of the economy, and giving rise to the class relationships of industrial capitalism. Steam engines increased industrial production levels, made transportation exponentially faster, and led the way to the harnessing of electrical energy. Once again, the very nature of society was shifted by technological advancement.

Thus, it is reasonable to believe that in the future, additional scientific advances in the next few decades will shape how our society functions. Advances in areas such as the theoretical sciences, space exploration, computing, AI, telecommunications, food production, robotics, medicine, and energy will drastically change the functioning of our world. So, in order to form an accurate view of the workings of any future socialist society, one has to take into account advancing technology and its social implications.

Changing rate of technological advancement

Many argue that without the possibility for monetary gain, there will be no incentive for technological development or invention. However, the majority of productive scientific labor is motivated by passion: intellectual challenge, self-improvement, and recognition. There is no need to supply wealth as a motivator, and in socialist society, scientific research will continue. In fact, in socialist society, the development of technology will be accelerated due to the lack of economic barriers to progress.

Research projects require funding: grants from individuals, governments, or private institutions pay scientists and allow their experiments to be carried out. The majority of research is incredibly expensive. The Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland, for example, costs 19 million euros annually to operate in energy expenses alone. In a socialist society, scientists will not have to waste time applying for grants or giving presentations to board members - they can just do the work without having to worry about running out of funding or getting cut off.

In addition, every person fit and willing to go into a scientific field can do so. In capitalism, people from the lower classes have less opportunity to pursue scientific careers: they are required to get jobs during high school, can't afford to go to college, and more often turn to crime, lessening their ability to get a substantial enough education to go into scientific fields. A large percentage of the population that would otherwise go into scientific fields is lost to economic strife. None of that happens in socialism; 100 percent of people willing to go into the sciences will be able to so, regardless of economic background. With more people working in the field, technology will develop that much quicker. The rate of technological development will accelerate in socialist society.

Theoretical sciences

Theoretical fields, like quantum theory and cosmology, will continue to develop, though they will have a smaller social consequence. It is of course possible that massive leaps in theoretical science will pave the way to new eras of technological advancement, sending shock waves through the workings of society, but those sorts of things are both unlikely and incredibly difficult to predict.

However, some things are liable to occur. Cosmology may advance to a point that eliminates the feasibility, or the necessity, of organized religion. Churches will dissolve, and people will be free of the indoctrination they have been under for generations. There will no longer be a secondary force on individuals, telling them what is right or wrong independently of the state. Morality and law will be taken solely from the government, and not from outside influences. Divisions and conflicts between religions will likewise dissipate, allowing for a much more productive and peaceful majority.

Space exploration

In capitalist society, space exploration is necessary (just as colonialism was) in order to expand markets, collect more resources, and find a new place for the human population to go to after our world has been destroyed. Human expansion into space is a given, driven by private enterprise and investment, to create new colonies on far off worlds and to mine asteroids and neighboring planets. The continued rape of the environment by capitalists is being accounted for in drives to find new planets to settle on and new places from which to rip natural resources, making space exploration a necessity.

But what about socialism? Socialism does not require an infinite expansion of markets, an ever-growing collection of resources, or a new planet to which humanity can flee. Much of socialist ideology is about sustainability and collecting resources efficiently and safely, hoping to preserve the environment. So many would say space exploration is unnecessary, and therefore impossible, in socialist society.

But, there is an underlying human need for space exploration, regardless of economics, based on humanity's need to "explore the unknown, discover new worlds, push the boundaries of our scientific and technical limits, and then push further," according to NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. So, space exploration will still occur in socialism, but it will be very different than in capitalism. Without the underlying drive to generate new markets and collect new resources, the underlying force behind space exploration will be almost entirely intellectual, not economic.

In our solar system, missions to Mars, the moons Titan, Europa, and Ganymede will search for life forms out in the void. Missions to the outer reaches of the solar system will help astrophysicists understand the orbital mechanics of Pluto and its many moons. Probes sent to the gas giants will reveal secrets about their specific climates and makeup. No great social upheavals will come as a result of space exploration to the outer solar system, only greater scientific knowledge.

However, around the Earth, space exploration will have a much more tangible effect. More efficient rocket technology will make sending objects into orbit exponentially easier. The quality of space infrastructure will increase dramatically, as the number of satellites around the earth doubles and quadruples, creating much more advanced telecommunications, GPS systems, and even residences for the elderly or the families of astronauts and astronomers in geosynchronous orbit. Worldwide Wi-Fi will become available, allowing free Internet access to everyone on the planet.

In addition, space tourism will become available, carrying serious societal implications. Many have testified to the awe-inspiring power of witnessing the Earth from high above its surface. John-David Bartoe, American astrophysicist and current research manager for the International Space Station, had this to say about seeing the earth during his time on the ISS:

As I looked down, I saw a large river meandering slowly along for miles, passing from one country to another without stopping. I also saw huge forests, extending along several borders. And I watched the extent of one ocean touch the shores of separate continents. Two words leaped to mind as I looked down on all this: commonality and interdependence. We are one world.

The unifying nature of seeing the globe as one sphere, distinct and alone from anything else in the cosmos and without national borders or boundaries, has a profound effect on people, giving them an understanding that we are all one human race on our planet. This realization, felt by the majority of the population as space tourism becomes available to all, will help to completely eliminate much racist, sexist, and nationalist bigotry left over from before a socialist revolution, creating a much more unified human population.

Computing

One of the defining and driving forces behind technological development in the past half century has been computing. The exponential growth of computational ability has been driven by a principal called Moore's Law, which states that computer power doubles about every eighteen months. This principal has allowed for massive growth in the computing industry, turning it into one of the most lucrative and powerful industries on the planet. Today, a single cell phone has more computational power than all of NASA did in 1969. In the future, computer chips smaller and more powerful than the ones we see in the cell phones and laptops of today will reside in every appliance in our homes, becoming one with the environment around us.

Renowned theoretical physicist Michio Kaku's book Physics of the Future predicts the future of technology in the next century. In the chapter about the future of computation, he describes the world of overabundant computer chips:

"Eventually, almost everything around us will become intelligent. Chips will be so cheap they will even cost less than the plastic wrapper and will replace the bar code."

Every device and appliance around us will be intelligent: connected to the Internet and the surroundings, able to be programmed to predict our needs and find its broken parts automatically.

The social implications of such intelligent surroundings will manifest themselves in a society of automated routine. Individuals will find themselves set into pre-programmed schedules in which every single one of their actions is preceded by an appliance or other such amenity predicting that action and carrying out their part necessary to it. All of society will function in individuals' own fixed routines. People will turn to the arts and individual expression to escape from this mechanized, repetitive world.

In addition, the automation of many of today's necessary maintenance will create a gap between individuals and the actions necessary to sustain their surroundings. People will no longer know how to fix leaky pipes or repair holes in their wall, not even how to make their own cups of coffee. Humanity's very existence will lay dependent on our intelligent appliances, relying on them absolutely to even function. Broken appliances will represent a complete breakdown of their world.

Smaller and more compact chips will allow for a proliferation of personal, hands free computer devices. The national equivalent of Google Glass and other similar contact lens computers will proliferate. There will rarely be a time when any person is separate from the totality of knowledge available to the human race via the Internet. Society will become a race of know-it-alls, able to immediately find out anything about anyone.

As a result of such easy access to information, conversation will shift from facts and figures to topics of opinion and subjective distinction. Gossip and celebrity news will proliferate with universal access to gossip columns and blogs. Discussions of recent news happenings and analytical discussions of those happenings will become popular, as well as an increase in conversations about the complex topics of philosophy and morality. Fact will be expected in conversation, never disputed, and so intellectually stimulating conversation will become deeper and more profound than mere facts.

Artificial intelligence

Along with increases in computational power comes the inevitable discussion of Artificial Intelligence, or AI. According to Kaku, there are three basic milestones to achieving full, human level consciousness: pattern and environmental recognition, self-awareness, and an ability to plan and prepare for the future. While it is highly unlikely we will develop a computer capable of all of these things any time soon, especially the latter two, even lower levels of consciousness will have profound effects on society.

Basic pattern recognition and problem solving abilities will open up entirely new areas of computer application. Computers and intelligent interfaces will be able to replace many specialized professions like doctors and dentists. Computers will be able to recognize problems and suggest solutions based on the problem and individual backgrounds. This will create a drop in demand for those fields. Also, since the computers will likely only be able to replace general versions of specialists, very highly specialized individuals of the field will come into higher demand (to continue the doctor example, general care doctors will be replaced by computers while things like gastroenterologists or cardiothoracic surgeons will continue being human).

This sort of intelligent pattern recognition will also have an effect beyond the individual services level. Computers will be able to perform functions akin to those of economists or city planners or other such social servants. Computers will perform the basic planning and logistics of running the society (but the people will decide which projects to carry out, based on the advice of multiple computers and expert opinions). Computers will serve as the functional backbone of society, carrying out much of the intellectual grunt work that goes into functioning civilization, allowing for more free time for individuals to pursue other things.

As for the popularized ideas of Artificial Intelligences growing more intelligent than humans and destroying us all, that is highly unlikely. As already discussed, the likelihood of anything attaining even basic levels of human consciousness is incredibly far off. It is massively difficult to teach computers how to recognize themselves, or to have a sense of the future. Similarly, the amount of time it would take to develop such intelligences will give plenty of opportunity to design safeguards and fail safes, as well as programming the intelligence to not harm or want to harm humans, meaning that AI will not be the end of humanity as we know it.

Telecommunications

In the future, the combination of more advanced satellite infrastructure and much better and faster computing will create a massive shift in telecommunications. Cell phone service and Internet will be available across the world, in every nation and city on the planet. Processing and communicating will be faster and more effective than ever, breaking down the barriers of borders and distance.

With telecommunications reaching its peak, no human on the planet will be left disconnected from the vast realm of knowledge on the Internet. All people will be able to access quickly and easily the vast realms of knowledge available to the human race. The Internet will expand, becoming the universal source of information, communication, and socialization.

With the Internet becoming a worldwide institution (even more so than it is now), the cultures of the world will begin to evolve. English will continue expanding its reaches, becoming ever more the language of the world. A world culture will form, carrying the ebbs and flows of popularity to every corner of the Earth simultaneously. The entire planet will share its fashion, entertainment, and idiosyncrasies.

However, this does not mean the cultures of the world will disappear. The vast knowledge of the Internet will carry the memories of ancient cultures, and local cultures will meld with the global to form unique sub-cultures around the Earth, places where archaic traditions meet with the modernity of the new world. Communities will exist on two levels - one in conjunction with the global culture and one on level with the smaller local communities.

The incredibly fast and effective telecommunications will also allow for an opportunity for productive political use. A worldwide network dedicated to political, social, and economic affairs will be able to be created. Voting, debating, and even things like applying for permits or seeking ideas for new construction endeavors will be routed through this vast network, allowing for every single individual to be intimately involved in the running of society. An even greater form of true, informed democracy will arise, where every individual will be able to instantaneously be involved in political process from anywhere on earth, no matter what.

Food production

Developing technology will influence the efficiency of food production. Just as every previous technological revolution saw a massive change in society's ability to produce food, additional advances in genetic modification and engineering will increase the efficiency of food production in the future exponentially. The totality of human civilization will be able to live in the comfort and level of consumption now given almost exclusively to Westerners, because better technology will deliver massive excesses of food to the people and distribute it fairly.

This spike in food production will be representative of a greater change in the dynamic of society. The ability for massive amounts of excess food to be produced will coincide with a shift in the very philosophy of the people. The world will turn into one of excess, where there is no more need or starvation. Labor will no longer be an act undertaken for the necessity of it, for the production of commodity equal in its utility to some amount of food or other resource necessary for life. Labor will turn away from an act of mandated wealth generation to an act of passion.

All action done in society will not be a means to an end in material resource necessary for survival, a trade of labor for food and water. It will become an action done for the mere indulgence of it: intellectual challenge, a sense of collective contribution. Work will change from an absolute necessity to a hobby, a thing of surplus and enjoyment.

Of course, other things will have to accompany the shift in food production in order to stimulate such profound change, but it is reasonable to accompany such increases in food production with technologies that will aid in the efficiency of other fields such as manual labor and health care. As well as those things necessary for life, increasing technology will also replace human labor in work necessary for the basic functions of society.

Robotics

Developing robotic technology will have perhaps the most immediate and obvious effect on society. Newer, smarter robots, combined with advances in computing and telecommunications technology discussed earlier, will be able to replace much of the labor sector. Manual labor will be done by stronger, faster robots that are simultaneously connected to all other robots so as to be organized as a whole, while being individually self-contained so as to be able to make decisions and solve problems on their own.

Robots will be able to replace almost all menial labor. Things like street cleaners, repairmen, factory workers, and maids will all be robots. Humans will no longer be needed to carry out those sorts of functions. Many argue against socialist society by saying that no one wants to do those sorts of jobs, but in reality no one will have to. Humans will take the jobs that are left, the ones not taken by robots or computers. Creative and innovative jobs will remain human tasks - jobs like inventors and writers and architects will still be carried out by people. Only the repetitive, physical labors will be taken by robots.

Medicine

Increases in medical technology will lead immediately to a much lower death rate. The amount of elderly will increase dramatically as less and less people are dying. Society will tip towards a population of mostly elderly and very few young - a population of dependents, people who cannot produce but can only consume. Luckily, the advent of robotics and computers will provide a constant supply of caretakers for the elderly, and advancing food production will make sure they never go hungry, despite their lack of utility for society.

Advances in genetic engineering will also have profound effects. The ability to clone and create species with favorable attributes will lend itself to the spike in food production, as well as the pet industry. More sophisticated ways to read and write DNA will allow for the revival of previously extinct animals and an end to the extinction of any more. Zoos and the wild will be filled with organisms old and new that will help restore the balance of nature. Modified trees and algae will reverse the runaway greenhouse effect and human-caused climate change.

The ability for human genetic engineering will also become available, with profound effects on class relations. This specific technology is capable of creating very dangerous social developments, and anything between peaceful coexistence, to riots and civil wars may occur between those who choose to modify themselves and their children and those who do not. Religious, moral, and philosophical divisions could cause massive separations between the factions, leading to new breeds of classism, racism, and even enslavement. If ever there is an area of scientific advancement to be wary of, this is it. The utmost caution must be applied to the research and legalization of every facet of this field.

Energy

As technology develops, and without the barriers of corporate lobbyists and the bottomless pockets of the oil and natural gas industries, renewable energy will thrive. New wind turbines, better hydroelectric systems, more efficient solar cells and new types of nuclear fusion will power the earth. Satellites orbiting in the charged particles of the ionosphere will beam back energy to the earth for our use.

This will create a shift in energy production, as individuals will be able to produce the amount of energy they require on their own, and additional power from state owned satellites and offshore power stations will go toward public institutions like scientific laboratories and factories. Humanity will be able to harness and use almost 100 percent of the energy falling on the Earth from the sun.

This milestone in energy will accompany the rest of the technological advancements mentioned earlier and turn society into one of giving. Robots and computers will carry out all necessary labor. Human labor will no longer be a necessity, but a hobby. No one will have to worry about starving because food production will be exponentially more efficient. Life expectancies will be massively high. Internet access will be universal, allowing for complete access to all of society's knowledge. Political decisions will be felt intimately by the populous, and the entire population will make all of the decisions.

Humanity's role in the new society will be the role of consumers and creators. Life will be relaxed, with all necessity provided by advanced technology. Labor will be an act of passion, and will no longer be a trade for resources, but a voluntary addition to society. Conversation will be fueled by philosophy as humans commit their time to intellectualism and free thought. The creative arts will thrive as people strive ever more and more to find beauty and individuality in the mechanized, repetitive world. People will depend ever more on their intelligent surroundings. In short, society will look nothing like it does now: driven, as it always has, by technology.

Works cited:

"Current World Population." Worldometers.info. World Population Clock. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

Gliniecki, Ben. "What Will Socialism Look Like?" Marxist.org. In Defense of Marxism, 14 Apr. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

Kaku, Michio. Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives by the Year 2100. New York: Doubleday, 2011. Print.

Poynton, Darren. "The Rise of Capitalism." The Rise of Capitalism. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

"Private Space Companies." The Space Settlement Institute. The Space Settlement Institute, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Strickland, Jonathan. "How the Large Hadron Collider Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

"Why We Explore." NASA. Ed. Jennifer Wiles. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Photo: An Epsilon rocket lifts off from Kagoshima, Japan. | AP

Freddie Gray, burning Baltimore and constitutional rights

Fri, 08 May 2015 14:50:00 +0000

While in police custody, Freddie Gray's spine was "80 percent severed at the neck." The 25-year-old also suffered three fractured vertebrae and a partially damaged larynx -- family members say his voice box was almost crushed. After slipping into a coma, he died a week after Baltimore police arrested him.

It's still not clear that Gray even committed a crime, but it is clear that police violated many of his constitutional rights.

The violation of Gray's rights is not an isolated incident and only adds to a long list of U.S. law enforcement abusing its power over people of color. All this needs to be understood as part of the reason why people fought back against authorities in Baltimore, using both peaceful and more violent forms of protest.

While it's important to discuss the issues of criminality and property rights around the uprisings in Baltimore, we must not forget the initial cause of these events: the violation of Freddie Gray's constitutional rights.

Before we speak on Baltimore burning, everyone who stands for the same rights protected under the U.S. Constitution should also be speaking out against police brutality committed against African Americans, Latinos, people of color and low-income people in this country.

"Get off my neck" ... "I can't breath"

On Sunday morning, Apr. 12, Freddie Gray noticed a Baltimore police lieutenant and ran down the street in the opposite direction. Even though no crime had been committed, the police say that running gave them reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, so they pursued Gray and questioned him a couple blocks later. Officers say that Gray gave himself up voluntarily.

After the police stopped Gray, official charging documents say they "noticed a knife clipped to the inside of his front right pants pocket." Supposedly, this gave police probable cause to conduct a search. However, if the knife was clipped inside his front pocket, how was it visible to officers? This part of the story is not clear.

Gray's family lawyer claims Gray had a "pocket knife of legal size," but the law seems somewhat fuzzy on exactly what is legal to carry in Maryland and within Baltimore city limits. Others say the arrest was based on an antiquated law that makes the actual charge of wrongdoing questionable.

While all the facts are still not known, according to one witness, when officers detained Gray, they put his "body up into... a pretzel type of move where they had the heels of his feet to his back." The same witness said that Gray "was still in handcuffs and then they (police) had their knee in the back of his neck."

Another man in the community said he heard Gray repeatedly yell: "Get off my neck. You're hurting my neck." Hearing the screams, a third witness ran to the scene and asked Gray if he was OK. His response: "I can't breath."

These words ring eerily similar to Eric Garner, whose life ended with an NYPD chokehold. In Oklahoma, the phrase "I'm losing my breath" came from the mouth of Eric Harris after a volunteer deputy shot him in the back. A Tulsa officer replied "F*** your breath," as Harris lay dying.

"Why did Mr. Gray need medical attention in the first place?"

Although the official police report says that Gray "was arrested without force or incident," cellphone video reveals that police did forcibly have Gray's legs twisted and bent behind him. At least two videos show that Gray could not walk on his own when police picked him off the ground.

As officers dragged Gray to a police transport van, he screamed in pain and asked for medical assistance, including his inhaler. Despite repeated requests, authorities did not call medics until almost 45 minutes later. This was after the van made at least two more stops, including one where police placed shackles on Gray's legs in addition to his handcuffs.

By the time Gray arrived at the police station, he was unresponsive. He could not speak, nor could he breath properly. This is when police finally called medics.

Officials have admitted that Gray was not properly buckled in while sitting in the back of the police van. Reports have also come out saying that he was "thrashing about" during the transport. Did police injure Gray while being taken into custody or did he "injure himself" in the van? How could that injury have occurred?

There is the possibility that part of his police escort to the station might have included a "nickel ride" -- where officers are known to purposely bounce shackled suspects in the back of their vehicles while driving erratically at high speeds.

Is it odd that officers would stop the van in order to restrain Gray with leg shackles yet leave his safety belt unbuckled?

Baltimore police deny Gray had a "rough ride" but have admitted that Gray should have been buckled in and that he should have received adequate medical attention in a timely manner. His family's lawyer says this "does not get at the core of this case and that is why did Mr. Gray need medical attention in the first place?"

Where does justice lie?

It's easy for some people to blow off Freddie Gray's experience with police because they know they would receive better treatment. What many don't understand is that U.S. law enforcement continually forces people of color to forfeit their rights in this manner and then dole out physical punishment if those people don't comply.

This is why if you believe in equality under the U.S. Constitution, you should believe in justice for Freddie Gray.

Considering Eric Garner in New York, Mike Brown in Ferguson, Rekia Boyd in Chicago, and many others who have died at the hands of police without legal retribution, it is not surprising that many people felt there would be little justice for Freddie Gray. Proactively, many have protested peacefully to demand accountability for Gray's death.

So far, the Baltimore Police Department has responded that Gray died from lacking a seatbelt, delayed medical attention, and/or his own actions, but not from use of force. Many people seeking justice understand that, at best, information is somewhere being withheld, and at worst, lies are being told that ignore eyewitness reports, video evidence, and what we all know: people seeking medical attention don't try to break their own necks.

Even though all 6 police officers involved in Gray's arrest have now been charged, many are still concerned that a court of law may not hold them fully accountable. This is why protestors are calling into question police protocol and the overall justice system. This is also part of the reason why some people have turned to violence to vent their frustrations.

"The destruction of property" vs. "The destruction of black bodies"

It's understandable that peaceful protestors in Baltimore were upset when some chose to violate property rights by smashing windows or igniting fires, because their movement gained negative attention. Still, not all of the people chastising the youth have been as vocal about ending police brutality. This is where the movement's energy should be focused.

"You can't tell people how to protest," said the HuffPost Show Co-host and CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill in response to the violence erupting in Baltimore's streets. When others criticized the urban unrest in Baltimore and blamed misdirected youth, criminal opportunists and thugs, Hill put things into perspective: "We have to watch our own ethics and be careful not to get more upset about the destruction of property than the destruction of black bodies."

Hill's critical insight is right on.

We need to first remember that police enacted violence against Gray after they initially stopped him without solid probable cause. The police not only searched his body, but they also seized and destroyed it -- a violation of the 4^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

It can also be argued that police disregarded Gray's 5^th and 14^th Amendment rights, that no person or citizen "shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Officers seem to have neglected other 5^th and 6^th Amendment rights of the accused as well.

And evidence shows that law enforcement violated Gray's 8th Amendment right against "cruel and unusual punishments" -- something it does daily across the country.

"All men are created equal... except negroes"

The conversations taking place around Freddie Gray's homicide and other cases of police brutality too often leave out discussing citizenship and constitutional rights.

The deaths of Gray and many others show that systematic police brutality is real and that the violation of these rights supports second-class citizenship for African Americans and other oppressed people in the United States today.

"As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.'"

Abraham Lincoln wrote this in 1855, when fifteen states legally supported slavery. Unfortunately these words still apply 160 years later (even with Obama as president).

When law enforcement commits extralegal killings in our streets on a weekly basis, what does it say about the idea of freedom promoted by the United States today? Maybe that it's just an idea.

Photo: Protest at the Baltimore Police Department Western District building at N. Mount St. and Riggs Ave. (Veggies/CC)

Leaked emails a reminder of comics' anti-woman problem

Fri, 08 May 2015 11:07:00 +0000

Recently leaked emails between the CEOs of Marvel Studios and Sony have generated waves of controversy. The exchange, a conversation between Marvel's Ike Perlmutter and Sony's Michael Linton, was one of the 30,000 documents recently published by Wikileaks from this year's Sony hack. In one email, Perlmutter explains to Linton why doing a female-centric superhero film is a bad business idea. In other words, that it makes no sense to make Marvel movies featuring women in starring roles. The assertion has created an uncomfortable atmosphere, with some fans left outraged.

In Perlmutter's email, titled "Female Movies," he offers evidence to Linton why the idea is such a bad one, by citing three female-led superhero films that were critical and box office failures. First, he says, "Elektra," a 2005 film not currently part of Marvel's shared cinematic universe, was a "very bad idea, and the end result was very, very bad." Next he cites the 2004 DC Comics film Catwoman, starring Halle Berry in the title role, remarking, "Catwoman was one of the most important female characters in the Batman franchise. This film was a disaster." And finally, he reaches back to the 1984 film Supergirl - quite a last-resort example, for reasons I'll soon explain - and notes, "Supergirl was one of the most important superheroes in the Superman franchise. Again, another disaster."

Perlmutter's criticism doesn't quite hold up for a number of reasons. Elektra was a spinoff of a previous film, the Ben Affleck-starring 2003 film Daredevil, which itself was a critical flop and a career embarrassment for Affleck. Catwoman was simply a bad film, mostly due to its director's desire to completely extricate it from the Batman universe and make it entirely different from its source material. These differences ended up being seen as poor artistic decisions, and uninteresting characters and a lackluster supporting cast didn't help it much. And Supergirl, a quasi-spinoff of the Christopher Reeve Superman films, came out at a time when superhero movies were sparse in number, were not taken seriously (critically or by audiences), and were qualitatively hit-or-miss. Citing it as an example in today's radically different climate - one in which comic book movies have tapped into our cultural zeitgeist - does not strengthen Perlmutter's argument, it weakens it.

The argument, moreover, is a fallacious one, because there have been more male-starring comic book films that have been poorly received than female-centric ones. Cases in point include the aforementioned Daredevil, but also most infamously the 1997 movie Batman and Robin, widely considered one of the worst films ever made and a deep regret for George Clooney, who had portrayed the Dark Knight. Superman Returns was a semi-remake of the series starring the famous Man of Steel, a role in which Brandon Routh was cast. It was mostly seen as a bad movie and a failure, and it took nearly seven years before DC dared try again with the much better reboot Man of Steel. Since then, Routh has moved on to better things, starring as the Atom on the CW's Arrow and making a number of subtle self-deprecating references to his prior role. And 2011's Green Lantern was seen as a "nice try," but still a rather ridiculous film and something actor Ryan Reynolds does not recall fondly. The list goes on, and exceeds - by far - the number of female counterparts.

This needless and continuous dismissal of women in superhero films extends beyond a mere email exchange; it's something that has plagued the comic book community for some time now. The email leak comes on the heels of recent controversy over actors Chris Evans and Jeremy Renner (Captain America and Hawkeye, respectively, in the new Avengers sequel). The two were asked during an interview about how they felt about Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow being romantically involved with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner in the new movie, to which Renner jokingly responded, "She's a slut." Evans laughingly added, "I was about to say something along that line; she's a complete whore." The replies were intended to be in good fun, rather than any sort of negative comment about the actress who portrays the character, but many couldn't help but feel a nasty, unpleasant sort of undertone there. If combined with the fact that Marvel Studios also opposed ideas to make a solo Black Widow film (much to Johansson's disappointment), and these recent emails, it does not paint a pleasant picture of how Team Marvel views women.

Think Progress challenged Marvel's position and quickly pointed out the fact that major action films starring women have broken box office records and been well-received - and these are examples that did not hyper-sexualize or objectify the leads in order to do it. The Hunger Games series, starring Jennifer Lawrence, was a major success, with a total haul of over $2.3 billion to date, and the sci-fi series Divergent has totaled over $561 million.

There are signs on the horizon that things are changing for the better. DC is working on a Wonder Woman film (Gal Gadot has been cast as the titular Amazon warrior), which will share a universe with the upcoming Batman v. Superman. They are currently seeking a female director. And Marvel, in part thanks to nudging from Avengers director Joss Whedon, has plans for a female Captain Marvel movie. While there's no word yet on who will fill that role, fans are loudly calling for Katheryn Winnick, who portrays shieldmaiden Lagertha on the History Channel's Vikings, to be cast.

And females are becoming more prominent in comic book series on television. Arrow is notable for having a strong female cast, while a TV adaptation of Supergirl (certainly destined to be better than the '84 film) is coming this fall, and Marvel is planning a Netflix series featuring superheroine-turned-lawyer Jessica Jones. Over at DC, there's even talk of another Arrow spinoff featuring the Huntress.

As was proven a decade ago for male-driven films of this type, it only takes two or three good movies for Hollywood to get the picture and run with it. Perhaps the upcoming offerings will shift the paradigm on both the executive and public levels. It's unfortunate that this dilemma, as with any other in a capitalist system, is about convincing Marvel Studios execs that taking a risk on a superheroine movie won't hurt their wallets. As for the deeper, underlying anti-women sentiments present in some of these developments, that can only be challenged when enough fans make their voices heard. But if reactions on Twitter are any indication, perhaps that process has already begun.

Photo: Avengers: Age of Ultron Facebook page.

“I’ll sit out the 2016 elections”: really?

Thu, 07 May 2015 10:52:00 +0000

Announcements by candidates running for president are coming fast and furious. So I guess the 2016 election campaign has begun.

I've been particularly struck by reactions to Hillary Clinton's presidential announcement, which range from hostility to indignation to excitement.

In a hilarious take on the visceral hatred the far-right has for Clinton, humorist Andy Borowitz wrote, "RNC chair Reince Priebus called the (Republican) candidates' ongoing evisceration of Clinton 'magnificent,' but expressed his concern that 'no human beings, even an impressive group like yourselves, could possibly sustain such a high intensity of throbbing hatred for an entire year and a half.'"

In fact it's disgusting to see Clinton being ganged up on by a bunch of Republican men who oppose every advance for women's rights. Perhaps this is why former CEO Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson joined the race: to try to make the Republicans look less like a bunch of grumpy old white men. But Fiorina and Carson, far-right, anti-worker, are no prizes either.

Election campaigns - like politics - are all about coalition-building. Whether Clinton is able to assemble a winning coalition or her campaign is mortally wounded by controversy remains to be seen. Other candidates, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, will liven up the debate.

And what a great thing that a self-described democratic socialist is running. It means more radical, substantive proposals will get discussed among millions, including Medicare for all, regulation of Wall Street greed, expanding Social Security, and American style socialism. Sanders can talk about things Clinton can't or won't speak about.

Sanders is setting a good tone: "I'm not running to attack Hillary, but to raise issues that face the working class of this country." This is important for maintaining unity during and after the primaries, in the vital fight to defeat the far-right.

A few reactions to Hillary Clinton's candidacy have made me scratch my head: "I want a woman president, but not this one," "I'll be sitting out the 2016 elections," "I will never support her" and so on. Some have gone so far as to declare little difference between Clinton and the Republican candidates. One person described "Scott Walker vs. Clinton" as "Pepsi vs. Pepsi Light."

Drawing a line in the sand when it comes to Clinton or any other candidate may validate one's sense of moral outrage, but it gets us no closer to developing a viable strategy to determine a positive election outcome.

Inflicting a defeat on the GOP and ultra-right is not possible without assembling a broad multi-class, multi-racial coalition of all the major social forces, including that section of the capitalist class at odds with the extreme right. It includes the broad, loosely organized people's coalition led by labor, comprising many grassroots democratic movements. It means working in and with the Democratic Party and its pro-Wall Street wing, even though they are at best unreliable and inconsistent allies and on occasion the main foe.

And it has to include political independents and even moderate Republicans. It means making inroads in "red" states and districts.

Only this kind of vision and breadth is capable of defeating the extreme right coalition of forces grouped in and around the GOP that includes the energy transnationals and military industrial complex and other sections of capital, Chamber of Commerce, evangelical Christians, Libertarians, neo-conservatives, tea party extremists, rabid racists, anti-LGBTQ, anti-women, anti-immigrant fanatics, global warming deniers and all their ilk.

The gulf between these two kinds of coalitions is as wide as the Grand Canyon, and who wins will have enormous consequences. A victory for the broad small-d democratic coalition would put the people's coalition led by labor in a more advantageous position to fight the ultra-right and neo-liberal offensive being unleashed by the capitalist class, and to win real gains for the 99 percent of Americans.

This is the only path to more advanced stages of struggle, the election of radical democratic reform governments (national, state, local) capable of curbing the power of Wall Street and ultimately putting us on a path to democratic, green, demilitarized socialism. For example, it's hard to conceive of advanced stages of struggle without a bigger, better organized, more united and more politically and class conscious working class and organized labor movement and its broad alliances. This is a prerequisite for social progress. Does anyone seriously think this is possible with a right-wing lockdown of federal, state and local government?

The outlook I have presented rests on the assumption that one views the ultra-right as the main danger to democracy and social progress and that sitting out the 2016 elections, or voting third party given our present two-party setup, are not effective means to advance progressive politics.

Rising right-wing danger

The ultra-right in our country arguably poses one of the greatest dangers to life on Earth. Climate scientists are issuing increasingly dire warnings and calling for more urgent action to stem global warming. If Republicans win the White House, they are sure to undo the Obama administration's actions to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and they will disable the Environmental Protection Agency, block global climate treaties and allow the energy transnationals to write federal policy.

The battle against right-wing extremism has been a prolonged one, since at least 1980, when the extreme right took over the Republican Party and catapulted Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

The GOP victory in the 2014 elections heightened the extreme right danger. It extended right-wing Republican domination of Congress, guaranteeing a House majority until at least 2022. The GOP now controls 11 more statehouses and 31 governorships. The Republicans control 67 of 98 partisan state legislative chambers and has total control of governorships and both chambers of the legislature in 24 states. The GOP can obstruct progressive legislation at the federal level and in at least half the states.

Far from the new spirit of cooperation the GOP promised following their victory, they are gripped with a new level of racist hostility, irrational fury and obstructionism directed against President Obama. In the process the GOP is making government practically unworkable.

This is complemented by an openly partisan reactionary judiciary, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, whose right-wing majority act as "political operatives dressed in robes," committing open obstruction, contemptuous of the Constitution, working in parallel with the GOP congressional majority to roll back rights and undercut progressive policy achievements.

We are witnessing an unprecedented undermining of traditional presidential authority directed at President Obama and any liberal or progressive executive initiatives. This was most evident when the Republican leadership extended an invitation to right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress and interfere in our foreign policy, behind the back of President Obama.

Or the letter signed by 47 Republican senators to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran warning him not to trust Obama and threatening to scuttle the entire framework of the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran even before it was agreed upon.

Or Republican Majority Speaker Mitch McConnell of Kentucky calling on states to illegally ignore EPA efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Or the lawsuit by 26 GOP-dominated states seeking to block Obama executive authority on immigration reform by finding a right-wing federal judge in Texas to do their dirty work.

Or the open collusion of the states attorneys general with the biggest energy corporations to thwart and roll back Obama's green environmental policy. "It is quite new," Paul Nolette, a political science professor at Marquette University, told the New York Times. "The scope, size and tenor of these collaborations is, without question, unprecedented."

The Republican-driven erosion of democratic rights is starkly seen in the enactment of cookie cutter voter suppression laws drafted by the right-wing funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and state courts. It is now estimated that 3 to 5 million people, including 1.2 million in Texas alone, were prevented from voting in 2014. The margin of victory in scores of closely contested races was the margin of disenfranchisement of, especially, people of color, students and those living in poverty.

Because of their sweeping victory in the 2014 elections, GOP officials will control the electoral process in key swing states in 2016.

By combining institutionalized redistricting with efforts to change the Electoral College rules in key swing states, the right wing aims to make permanent a Republican presidency and Congress, even if Democrats win a majority popular vote.

Voter suppression added to the crisis of disengagement from electoral politics poses new dangers to democracy. Only 28 percent of voters turned out in 2014. With such low voter participation, democratic institutions and rights are at greater risk.

The flood of billionaire money unleashed by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling threatens democracy by allowing an oligarchy to buy elections. The most recent example is reports that the far-right billionaire Koch brothers are planning to spend $900 million to put anti-worker Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker into the White House.

ALEC has also been responsible for introducing thousands of union-busting bills rolling back worker rights - especially "right to work" laws and attacks on public sector unions. It is estimated that this has resulted in the loss of 10% of public sector union membership. They aim to break the power of labor and its ability to form alliances in key "blue" and swing states.

ALEC is initiating new right-wing efforts to take over county and city government and impose local "right to work" (for less) laws.

Politics of hate

The right wing is fostering the spread of the most vile racism and hate that underlies the hostility directed at President Obama, the slew of voter suppression measures, the moves to destroy public schools, the police killings of unarmed young African Americans and other people of color and the military style occupation of communities of color by the police.

The extent of the institutionalized racism is starkly revealed in a recent study documenting that for every 100 African American women not incarcerated, there are only 83 African American men. Of the "missing" 1.5 million African American men aged 25 to 54, roughly 600,000 are locked up in prison, and another 900,000 have died prematurely due to murder and poor health. The biggest gap recorded is in, of all places, Ferguson, Missouri.

The Republican far-right has whipped up racist hatred and fear against undocumented immigrant workers and the Latino community in general.

Racism has been the justification for the long-term erosion of constitutional rights under the guise of the "war on drugs," including eroding the rights to privacy and due process, criminalization of men of color, and racial profiling, resulting in mass incarceration and permanent loss of a range of rights due to felony convictions. All this has been made perfectly legal by Supreme Court rulings (as so clearly illustrated by Michelle Alexander in her book "The New Jim Crow").

This is a national shame and crisis and underscores what is driving the #blacklivesmatter movement and the reemergence of a new civil rights movement.

There is a new right-wing-fueled attack on women's rights, beginning with greater restrictions on reproductive rights in 11 states including banning abortions after 20 weeks and attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, and blocking legislation guaranteeing equal pay.

This all illustrates the critical moment we live in. If the extreme right wins in 2016, we face a qualitatively new threat to democratic rights and the climate crisis.

If we learned anything from the Bush presidency (itself the result of a right-wing "American coup") and more recently the actions of right-wing governors and Republican-controlled legislatures in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida, the right is emboldened in victory, knows how to use power and wastes no time in enacting their agenda.

If the Republicans win the White House, they can be expected to stack the courts with right-wing appointments and impose austerity economics, including a dismantling of our social benefits programs.

We can expect the GOP to rule with racism and embed it in every policy and federal department including the Justice Department.

We can expect the GOP to reverse action on the climate crisis and promote global warming denial to official policy.

We can expect the GOP to favor a confrontationist and militarist foreign policy. Normalization of relations with Cuba or Iran could be reversed and a massive military buildup unleashed. Of Jeb Bush's foreign policy advisors, 19 of 21 were in his father's or brother's administrations.

This is just for starters.

On the other hand, Clinton, Sanders and the other potential Democratic candidates generally favor the continuation of President Obama's policy of normalization with both Cuba and Iran, and of reducing greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act, which Clinton told the League of Conservation Voters "must be protected at all costs."

Fundamental differences between any of the potential Democratic candidates and any of the Republicans exist on nearly every issue.

Actively shaping the outcome

I am not saying mass movements and the left should passively support whichever Democrat is nominated. Nor am I advocating voting for the "lesser of two evils," which itself is a no-struggle concept which doesn't acknowledge the danger of the far-right. Far from it, the strategy I am outlining views the broad people's movement and left as dynamic change agents, actively shaping issues, program and candidates.

Inspiring and channeling the energy and activism of all those who are pouring into the streets to "fight for $15," protesting police murders, marching for action on the climate crisis, marriage equality, women's rights, students for debt relief, those fighting for immigration reform, curbing the climate crisis - in short the broad people's movement led by labor - will be decisive to victory in 2016.

Activism is key to determining what issues will be fought over. The political atmosphere in our country is different today largely because of these movements. Majorities support a higher minimum wage, taxing the rich, marriage equality, action on the climate, progressive immigration reform and even reducing mass incarceration and sentencing reform.

The AFL-CIO is leading the way with their "Raising Wages" campaign that will be a "measuring stick" to judge candidates and hold them accountable.

Here's another example of how these movements affect politics: After the April 15 national strike for $15, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced legislation to raise the national minimum wage to $12 an hour (still not enough) and to end the tipping system for restaurant workers.

If the election terrain is based on issues advanced by the austerity "zombies" or war hawks, the political atmosphere and debate shifts to the right, and with it all the candidates.

However, if the election is defined around income inequality, the climate crisis and other issues facing working families, then the ultra-right will be on the defensive. The bigger and more united the movements, the more favorable the terrain of struggle.

All the candidates will have to adjust. Hillary Clinton shouldn't be viewed statically. The country and the movements are not the same as in the 1990s, nor is Clinton, who is the leading candidate on issues of racial injustice, gender equality and immigration reform.

It's also within this context that more advanced ideas can be raised, for example expanding Social Security and increasing benefits, scrapping the cap on taxing the wealthy, radically reducing the military budget, etc.

Furthermore, the movements have a big role in building broad-based multi-racial unity and activating, educating and drawing into the election process millions of voters including in new and emerging movements like #blacklivesmatter, ending student debt and others.

To break the back of the right wing it will be necessary to extend the reach of the movements, build their influence and engage people in "red" districts and states. It will mean engaging white communities who have been inundated with racist poison.

Such a strategy will create a more favorable post-election political terrain and help the movements emerge stronger, more united and with a deeper political conscious. Far from static, the anti-ultra-right coalition is dynamic, an arena of unity, but also contestation. It can result in strengthening the pro-labor or progressive wing in relation to the Wall Street wing in and around the Democratic Party, and advance the process toward working class political independence.

This is the path to new stages of struggle: radically curbing the power of monopoly corporate rule, creating a labor-led people's party and carrying out a radical transition of our economy and society to a people-before-profits model.

So yes, it matters who is elected and whether or not millions are actively engaged or sitting on the sidelines in 2016.

Photo: Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks with Dreamers about immigration. While all the Republican candidates have moved to the right on the issue of immigration reform, Clinton pledged to fight for a path to citizenship for the millions of undiocumented in the U.S. | John Locher/AP

Judge recognizes personhood of chimpanzee plaintiff

Tue, 05 May 2015 13:08:00 +0000

On April 20, a New York State judge did the right thing in a ruling in the case of two chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo, locked up in the scientific labs of Stony Brook University. The chimpanzees, (through their human legal representatives sponsored by the Nonhuman Rights Project), had petitioned the judge for a writ of habeas corpus so they could be released in an animal sanctuary.

Eventually, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe did not go so far as to grant "habeas corpus" but did clearly recognize the "personhood" of the two plaintiffs. This is rightly being seen as a major step in the advancement of the rights of nonhuman animals, which can lead to further progress.

We've come a long way, we animals. Animal personhood had, in past centuries been recognized only in the negative sense, that non humans could be punished as if they were human lawbreakers, but not treated as persons otherwise. In the Middle Ages in Europe, on several occasions pigs and other animals are said to have been tried and executed for murder. On one occasion, a sow was executed for eating a human baby but her little piglets, though brought up on charges, were found innocent because they were "too young" to be held criminally responsible for their actions.

There are stories about dogs being hanged for witchcraft, including cases from the famous Salem witch trials in colonial Massachusetts, though there are disputes about whether the dogs were seen as practicing witchcraft or merely possessed (scholars of German literature will recall that in "Faust" by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Mephistopheles, an avatar of Satan, infiltrates Dr. Faust's office at Heidelberg University in the form of a cute little "Pudel").

But if non-human animals could commit crimes, does that not mean they are persons? And if they are in any sense persons, do not we human persons have some sort of ethical responsibility toward them?

One of the most important figures in European philosophy, the 17^th Century French mathematician and philosopher, Rene Descartes, thought not. Descartes declared that nonhuman animals were an order of creation different from human beings, because God did not give them souls. The evidence for this was the limited flexibility of their behavior, and especially the fact that only human beings can speak. Descartes conflated the ability to speak with the ability to reason, a dubious proposition which seemed convincing to him and to people influenced by him. Descartes thought that animals were only machines because of this fundamental lack, which was due to God's favoring of human beings over animal creation. So we can eat them without an apology.

As science has advanced and religious dogma retreated, the absolute distinction Descartes drew between rational humans with souls and speech and animal machines without has steadily broken down. Scientists have realized that even though other animals do not have the capacity for language and speech that we have, many species have very sophisticated communications mechanisms that allow them to make rational judgments to ensure their survival. Moreover, a surprisingly large variety of species also show a propensity for mutually supportive social behavior, few more than chimpanzees and other apes and monkeys.

The studies with chimpanzees and the closely related bonobos by Jane Goodall and Franz de Waal, among others, have opened up an entire new field of the study of animal sociality. A key work in this endeavor is Franz de Waal's 1996 book "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" (Harvard University Press). De Waal promotes the thesis that there is continuity between empathetic behavior among different primate species, including humans, and that this is in spite of the language-no language distinction. Since its publication, many other studies have produced similar results.

If Descartes' distinction between the fundamental nature of humans and non-human animals is utterly refuted and long abandoned, then do not humans have an ethical obligation to non human animals, as we do to each other? And is there more to that than "don't beat your donkey" legislation and Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty legislation that exist all over the world? Should non-human animals be recognized as having legal, civil rights? And if so, what should these be?

Many have noted the hypocrisy of bourgeois humanitarians who care more for non-human animals than they do for their fellow humans. However, I don't think that this is an inevitable state of affairs. If we handle this right, advances in the topic of the rights of animals can be part of a strategy for finally getting recognition for human rights - for humans!

Photo: Nonhuman Rights Twitter.