People Before Profit blog

Are women breaking for Republicans?

Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:31:00 +0000

If the recent New York Times poll is right, women are breaking for Republicans in the midterm election.

While the paper of record doesn't explicitly break down the race or ethnicity of the women polled, it can be a safe bet that the polling shift comes mainly from white women.

Women, as a group, have been voting for Democrats over Republicans since 1982 - the year exit polling started breaking down voters into groups. It's usually the nonwhite women combined with a large minority of white women that pushes that group to the Democratic side.

White women, in general, have been voting Republican for a while, but not in as large numbers as their male counterparts. Barack Obama won 46 percent of white women's vote and 41 percent of white men. Al Gore won almost half of white women's vote with 48 percent.

So what is motivating white women, an important part of the loose-knit Obama coalition, to go Republican this year in larger numbers? Is it the anti-Obama rhetoric, which is infused with racism?

And perhaps more difficult to answer, why would any woman vote for candidates who are in direct opposition to policies that could benefit women, like minimum wage, a woman's right to reproductive health, breast cancer research, protections for the disabled, civil rights, job creation or pay equity?

Or why support candidates that attract campaign workers who would throw down and brutalize a woman because they don't agree with her? Like what happened to a female MoveOn.org supporter when she exercised her First Amendment rights at a Rand Paul event in Kentucky.

But that doesn't seem to be on some of the poll respondents' minds. The New York Times conducted a follow-up interview with respondent Judy Berg, an independent from Morton Grove, Ill. She said she voted for Obama in 2008 because she was "looking for a change." But she doesn't agree with Obama's kind of change.

This year Berg, who is a registered nurse, said she likes the Republicans better because she is pro-life. Plus, she said, "I'm also looking at the immigration issues and the tax issues. I like the Republican agenda on these issues better than the Democratic agenda."

For some reason, perhaps the always present yet always elusive idea that you will get rich, the tax hike on millionaires and billionaires has lost some popularity, according to The Times. Perhaps Berg is reflecting that in her comments about "tax issues" or it could be the state of Illinois budget crisis as well.

But it's the immigration issue that - more than others - could be fueling the white women shift to the right. The tea party/Republicans have been clever in recruiting other white women to go on the offensive on this issue: Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Michele Bachman, Christine O'Donnell, Linda McMahon, Jan Brewer, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, to name a few.

According to the Times, more than 25 percent of respondents said they were willing to back a candidate with views that "seem extreme."

Sharron Angle is the face of the most extreme and racist take on immigrants and Latinos to date.

Julianne Hing of colorlines.com writes, "Grainy, high-contrast images of thuggish Latino-looking men wearing baggy jeans and doo rags mug at the camera, while innocent white babes squeal in their kindergarten classrooms like defenseless prey. All the while a menacing voiceover worthy of a summer-blockbuster trailer spells out the threat: Those scary immigrants, whose presence in the country is enabled by Democratic Sen. Harry Reid."

Joy Behar of "The View" had a throw down on national TV with Angle's racism - twice.

Getting some flack for calling Angle a "bitch," she didn't back down, telling the audience, "You know what's offensive? Watching those ads, and watching people who work for a living made to look like villains. That's what's offensive. Not what I said. Let's get that straight, America."

Rachel Maddow of msnbc travelled to Nevada and compared the atmosphere of racism towards Latinos similar to the legal segregation of Black people in the Jim Crow South.

She said, "When we as a country look back on the 2010 elections we will look back at Sharron Angle vs Harry Reid...and we will not believe this is really 2010 and this was really Nevada and this was not 1964 in the Deep South."

Now Angle's campaign is accusing Reid of plotting to steal the election with "ACORN-style tactics" (more racist fear-mongering).The campaign gives not one shred of evidence to support the claim. But they are raising money to deploy "literally dozens of election law attorneys and poll watchers to combat these tactics."

Translation: lawyers and other thugs challenging every black or brown voter, every college student or person with a union logo on their clothing. Other GOP candidates are planning similar vote suppression schemes.

Meanwhile, this tea party/GOP/corporate cabal is ganging up on a number of women politicians, targeting them for defeat, like Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, along with House members. And perhaps the most vilified woman in the country is history-maker House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

These anti-women candidates, including Angle, are being back by a host of billionaires and Wall Street interests. Interestingly enough, NPR recently uncovered another profit-making entity backing anti-immigrant legislation: private prisons. The industry actually helped to draft and pass Arizona's infamous Senate Bill 1070, from which they stand to gain hundreds of millions of dollars.

Polls are just a moment in time. The real poll will take place Nov. 2, and hopefully women voters will reject the racism and fear-mongering.

Photo: Women union members make calls to get out the vote in Illinois at a labor phonebank. (John Bachtell/PW)

Wealth buys health

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:28:00 +0000

The title above is part of a headline from a recent article in Science Daily. Nobody should be surprised to learn that in a class society wealthy people are going to be healthier than poor folks. But the complete title of the article is actually "Wealth Buys Health - Even in China."

Lets see just what this is supposed to show. Science Daily says we have long known, by scientific studies, that the "health gap" between rich and poor exists in the U.S. and that the gap "gets worse as people get older." The article then asks: "But is this because the U.S. is a capitalist society?" An interesting scientific question. The answer they propose is: "Apparently not."

North Carolina State University has recently released a study made of the health gap in China between people with high and low socioeconomic status (SES) and the study shows "the same is true for China" as for the U.S. But is it really the same? The study found "In China, the overall health gap across generations is getting narrower - and it's getting wider in the U.S." A strange use of the word "same."

What the study seems to show is that in any society there is going to be a gap in the health between people of high and low SES. But can we infer that the type of economic system has nothing to do with this? China is not a capitalist society. It has a mixed economy and capitalism is being engineered in China, under state control, to develop the economic resources of the country, but not for the sole benefit of finance capital and big privately owned industrial monopolies.

The Chinese Communist Party can direct the economic development of China precisely because the economy is not subject to an unregulated and out of control "free market." It is for this reason that the health gap is growing smaller as China develops and it continues to grow larger in the capitalist U.S.

The present U.S. administration has tried to somewhat reverse this gap with health care reform ("Obama care" - so called by the enemies of social progress in the U.S.) that would extend health benefits to 35 million people of lower SES. This reform is threatened and could be repealed if reactionary forces take over the government or make major inroads into it. Chinese people, not living under monopoly capitalism, do not have to fear the reversal of their narrowing health gap.

Here is one of the conclusions from the authors of the North Carolina State study: "Even accounting for the fact that more recent generations are younger [in China] the health gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged has shrunk with each successive generation. This is the exact opposite of what has been found in studies of the U.S. population, where the health gap has been shown to widen with each generation."

The researchers say it is not clear why this is so. What can the reason be? They plan more research and tell us, "We suspect this narrowing of the health gap in China is due to significant social and economic changes over the past 20 years, including changes in health behaviors and access (author emphasis) to health care."

I think their future research may find this to be the case. As for the question about the growing health care gap in the U.S. - is this because the U.S. is a capitalist country? - I think the answer is: "Aapparently yes."

Photo: In the U.S. there is always the danger that hard-won health care gains could be reversed if reactionary forces take over the government.

Investing in clean transportation could create 3.7 million jobs

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:59:00 +0000

A new study from the Apollo Alliance finds that comprehensive energy and climate policies, and a focus on infrastructure spending on clean transportation, could create 3.7 million jobs in the U.S., including 600,000 in manufacturing over the next six years, if their recommended Transportation Manufacturing Action Plan (TMAP) is passed.

The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of labor, business, environmental and community leaders advancing a vision for the next American economy centered on clean energy and good jobs.

United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard joined the alliance at a news conference last week, and said: "This is an opportunity to rebuild the important transportation infrastructure of this country and to put it in a first class system, The additional benefit we can call the triple bottom line. We get to create good family-supporting jobs, we get to spend dollars in a way that is going to grow the economy but just as importantly, we take carbon out of the air."

Inaction on President Obama's already proposed infrastructure plan, and associated bill, has already cost 88,000 jobs this year in Missouri alone, the alliance noted in an earlier press release.

Missouri is just one of many states that would greatly benefit from the president's re-articulated call for a complete "infrastructure overhaul," also announced last week. It includes a $50 billion investment in roads, bridges, railways and electric grids that Obama says are "woefully" inadequate.

The president's comments came Oct. 18 after a meeting with Cabinet officials, governors and mayors, where they discussed a new government report that says a significant infrastructure improvement effort could help create jobs and boost economic output. Obama proposed a six-year plan that would rebuild and modernize hundreds of thousands of miles of roads, bridges and rail lines as well as overhaul the way the government funds such projects.

The government report also has some new thinking about public-private partnerships to expand the total amount of directed infrastructure investment.

Placed in the context of possible paralysis in the next Congress on additional stimulus, the government report's emphasis on mobilizing more private capital to meet the scale of infrastructure improvements required is timely, but also complicating. Which "green" technologies, which mix of short- and long-range interests will be promoted over others? The choices may be strongly influenced by the private partners.

It's not surprising that some resist, even extremely so, anything to do with "clean" or "green" technology subsidies, or mitigating the human impact on climate change, or for that matter anything threatening the monopolistic, private, corporate structure of the current energy industry.

Privatizing some of the capital inputs into public or quasi-public utilities and infrastructure may help speed the desired overall technological re-allocation of capital by overwhelming the resistance of the old with opportunities for the new. With more room to expand, there may be fewer overall losers letting off steam.

It may be the only way to go, but a price will be paid. In a sense the government will be placing a very strong bet on the markets. But the government initiative will be vulnerable to capture by the monopolies it is trying to restructure. Public transparency will be required in order to minimize this danger.

Both the Apollo Alliance and the government report to the president call for a National Infrastructure Bank, a big step toward a transparent, real national industrial policy that can mobilize both public and private resources.

The government report says: "Not all infrastructure projects are worth the investment ... The establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank would create the conditions for greater private sector co-investment in infrastructure projects. A National Infrastructure Bank would also perform a rigorous analysis that would result in support for projects that yield the greatest returns to society and are most likely to deliver long-run economic benefits that justify the up-front investments."

The bank's job is to insure against expensive roads to nowhere

For all the current complaints heard from some quarters about China's "unfair subsidies" to their industries, there is a complementary argument that stronger and smarter subsidies of the Chinese variety are necessary here to secure our own sustainable future through what is clearly a deep and structural crisis in class and industrial relationships within U.S. society.

Publicly sponsored or partnered capital projects (like rails, airports, roads, etc.) can return in value many times their cost. Both the Alliance and government reports document the major positive impact of "smart" investment in transportation, health care, and "green" industries on the cost of living for working families. Transportation/commuting costs in particular are the number two expense for most families, just below housing, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Thus bonds (debt) sold to fund capital transportation investments are a pretty good bet to pay off in substantially reduced transportation cost per family, and thus should raise wealth and reduce long-term debt.

The establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank would certainly require congressional action. The truth is: the Republicans will oppose it on principle as "more socialism." They would be right. It is "more socialism." The alternative is continued instability, aggravated inequality rivaling India or Pakistan, and continued relative decline in U.S. economic performance and standard of living.

Unfortunately, until something is done in the short range about 10-percent-plus unemployment, there is not likely to be a lot of long-range thinking predominant in Washington, or anywhere else. There are three possible approaches:

1. Cut through the red tape and make as many of the infrastructure projects "shovel ready" as possible. Focus on funding these. But it won't be enough to dent short-range unemployment sufficiently. For youth and seniors - including those laid off within a few years of Social Security, millions of whose pensions and retirement savings have been lost - the government must become the employer of last resort through national, state and local service programs. Those programs also should also undertake contributions toward infrastructure, as they did in the 1930s, where the products are public goods or necessary goods and services which markets can't or won't provide. These WPA-style programs do not create deficits, nor are they inflationary. At the same time they substantially improve the bargaining power of workers in all labor markets, especially in times of high unemployment.

2. Adopt the Republican approach: "the hungry dog hunts harder." End unemployment extensions. Cut the minimum wage. Privatize Social Security. The "market" will find the appropriate minimum wage. You want to retire? Save on your own - why should we help you? This is the class warfare proposal.

3. Attempt to maintain the status quo: pass the unemployment extension, play defense on the Republican attacks. Ten percent or worse unemployment remains. Unfortunately this could be the road to nowhere.

The first choice seems the best. It simply gives us the stability to focus on infrastructure, on a sustainable future. As poet Naomi Nye says, "It's late - but everything comes next". From where we are now, infrastructure is the road to anywhere, and everywhere.

Photo: Light rail line in Phoenix. (Phil Sexton/John Hall & Associates cc 2.0)

Capitalism sucks, unless you are very very rich

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:02:00 +0000

Capitalism sucks, unless you are one of the 74 wealthiest Americans who made profits five times bigger than the previous year, while most working-class people were catching hell in the Great Recession.

If you are one of the gilded Americans whose earnings were more than $50 million a piece last year, you actually saw your average income "skyrocket from $91.8 million in 2008 to a mind-boggling $518.8 million in 2009."

These guys - the group of 74 - made more than the combined total of the 19 million lowest paid workers in the country.

These findings and more are based on statistics recently released by the Social Security Administration and analysed almost exclusively by David Kay Johnston, a Pulitzer Prize winning former New York Times reporter.

At the height of the election campaign, it's a surprise, even startling, that the media has said scarcely a word about this.

Johnston comments, "Not a single news organization reported this data when it was released October 15, searches of Google and the Nexis databases show" - a curious silence indeed given the debate in Congress on extension of the Bush tax cuts.

The superprofits raked in by the 74 added up to a combined $38.4 billion in 2009, up from $11.9 billion earned by 131 individuals with wages above $50 million in 2008, according to Social Security Administration data, writes Bloomberg news.

Keep in mind, the data, based on Medicare payments only, pertains only to wages and salaries and not investment income.

While the rich are growing fabulously richer - a fivefold increase in fact - wages for most of us fell, Johnston points out. Equally significant, he says, "Every 34th wage earner in America in 2008 went all of 2009 without earning a single dollar."

This massive transfer of wealth, he contends, began in 1981 when there was "an abrupt change in tax and economic policy. Since then the base has fared poorly while huge economic gains piled up at the very top, along with much lower tax burdens."

Thus it was Reaganism and GOP policy that set these forces in motion, a process that has had a devastating impact on the working class both economically and ideologically. "This systematic destruction of the working class and middle class has come during an era notable for celebrating the super-rich just for being super-rich," Johnston writes. "From the Forbes 400 launch in 1982 and Robin Leach's "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" in 1984 to the faux reality of the multiplying "Real Housewives" shows, money voyeurism has grown in tandem with stagnant to falling incomes for the vast majority. There has also been huge income growth at the top and the economic children of income inequality: budget deficits and malign neglect of our commonwealth."

It was hoped that the Obama election two years ago signalled the end of that era of unprecedented capital accumulation that resulted in the Great Recession. That is precisely what's at stake next Tuesday.

Why Glenn Beck is wrong on evolution

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:18:00 +0000

It seems that if you want to find out the truth about something, all you need to do is listen to Glenn Beck. Take what he says, switch that statement to its opposite, and then you've got the facts straight.

While this isn't exactly the scientific method, Beck's recent foray into evolutionary biology at least proves this approach is useful.

"I think [evolution's] ridiculous," Beck said Oct. 20, on his radio show. He went on to make a number of statements to bolster his claim that Darwinian natural selection is nonsense - but his claims showed only how little he knows of the subject.

First, he asked, "How many people believe in evolution in this country?" One's "beliefs" has no bearing on whether or not evolution is real. At certain points, most people believed the earth to be flat, and slavery to be good. Both times, the vast majority of people were wrong.

Evolution is an undeniable fact - even if no one believed it the evolutionary process would still exist.

Beck's anti-evolution claims are argued by those who want to replicate them in public schools.

"I don't think we came from monkeys; I think that's ridiculous," Beck said. "I haven't seen the half-monkey, half-person yet. Did evolution just stop?"

This is perhaps one of the most widely-repeated fallacies, the idea that, if evolution is true, there should either be no monkeys, or that there should be some bizarre human-monkey somewhere. But to believe this, you have to misunderstand evolutionary theory. Evolutionists don't say we come from monkeys, at least not any that we see in today's world.

What we do know is that humans and monkeys, as well as other primates, share the same ancestor. At some point, far back in time, there was some species that is the many-times great grandparent of all primates. Its descendents, over the course of millions of years, and based on where they lived and the conditions they faced, branched off into the differently-evolved primates, including humans, that are around now.

"And they've never found the ... species that developed from ape to man?" asked Beck's co-host.

This is a reference to the "missing link" question. The idea is that there must be some creature that is bridges the species of our ancestors and us. The problem with this question is that there is at once no missing link and a seemingly infinite number of them.

We are Homo sapiens. The species before us was Homo erectus. If you were to revive a Homo erectus and put him next to a modern human being, it would be easy to tell the difference, which was which. However, if you were to revive all of our preceding generations, and put one member of each in line, until it reached the generation of our recently-revived ancestor, Homo erectus, you'd have a problem of classification. It would be virtually impossible to mark where Homo erectus ended and where Homo sapiens began. Each generation would be slightly more like the next species than the previous. Evolution is a process of gradual change - very gradual - over thousands of generations; it's not as if a Homo erectus gave birth to a Homo sapiens. Every single generation is, in a sense, intermediate.

It's precisely because whole generations are missing that we are able to label the different species; otherwise, we'd have no idea where to draw the line between humans and our ancestors.

But, as Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists have pointed out, this doesn't appease creationists. Whenever a new intermediate species is found, for example if something between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens were found, many creationists would argue: "Look! You've got more gaps than before! Now there is a missing link between us and the new intermediate species, and between that and Homo erectus!

Beck went on to ask why people cared so much, why he was supposed to care about evolution, why supporters of evolution get so worked up. The answer is simple: Creationists are constantly attacking public education; they try to force schools to teach that evolution and "intelligent design" (creationism through the backdoor) are both equally plausible theories. They're not, and we shouldn't be misleading kids.

Also, the attack on evolution is part of an overall attack on science, on the idea that we can and should study the world around us and make logical deductions based on what we learn.

Glenn Beck uses his show to spout nonsense. Therefore, it's no surprise that he doesn't see the other reason evolutionists get up in arms: because truth is important. It is worth fighting for, and should never be twisted and bent into some ideological framework.

Image: Glenn Beck trying to think Gage Skidmore // CC BY-SA 2.0

Unemployed workers face the Grinch

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:00:00 +0000

As the holiday season approaches, it's Grinch time for unemployed workers and their families.

In votes this year, congressional Republicans were almost unanimous in their opposition to extending unemployment benefits; Democrats almost unanimous in their support. The outcome of the election November 2 will determine congressional response to two threats faced by unemployed workers.

The 99ers
The first threat is fate of the 99ers. These are unemployed workers who have exhausted their 26 weeks of regular Unemployment Insurance benefits, 34 to 50 weeks of Emergency Unemployment Compensation and 13 to 20 weeks of Extended Benefits - a total of, at most, 99 weeks of benefits.

In the twelve months through August this year, at least 1.4 million people have exhausted all benefits, with another million likely to join them by year's end, and more to come. The months with the highest number of layoffs were December, 2008, through June, 2009. Those workers are just starting to reach their 99-week limit, and will be exhausting their benefits over the next six months.

Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, whose state of Michigan has the second highest unemployment rates, introduced legislation for additional 20 weeks of EUB for the 99ers. It was blocked by Republican Senator George LeMieux.

The 26ers

It is not only the 99ers who are in trouble. Any benefits beyond 26 weeks have to be approved by Congress in times of high unemployment. The EUC and EB programs were expanded and funded by the Stimulus Bill (ARRA) passed in February, 2009, but funding was only provided for a year. For 51 days this summer, Republicans were able to block renewal in the Senate, cutting off aid to 2.5 million families. Finally, the EUC/EB renewal passed (though almost all Republicans still voted against it). The price for the few swing votes included a cut of $25 per week in jobless benefits and elimination of COBRA subsidies that provided health coverage to as many as 2 million families.

Now, the 5.5 million families depending on EUC/EB benefits face a new crisis, along with many of the 4.5 million collecting regular UI who are approaching the end of their six-month eligibility. The EUC/EB program was only extended until November 30, and Congress will only be in session for a few days after the election. If it does not act, 1.2 million workers (in addition to the 99ers) will be cut off from benefits during the holiday season. By April of next year, about 5 million workers who would otherwise be eligible for EUC/EB will be cut off.

The hungry dog hunts harder

When Republican Senators held up renewal of EUC/EB earlier this year, temporarily suspending payments and throwing millions of families into crisis, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said, "Continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for Governor in Pennsylvania, stated, "People don't want to come back to work while they still have unemployment [benefits]... If we keep extending unemployment the people are going to sit there."

The champion of heartlessness might well be Republican Sharron Angle, in a tight race for the Nevada Senate seat. Her state is suffering the highest unemployment in the country, at 14.4 percent. Explaining why she opposed extended benefits, Angle said, "You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that's an honest job but doesn't pay enough. In a radio interview, she said, "We've put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry."

Glenn Beck, de facto spokesman for much of the Republican Party, said that 99ers should be ashamed to call themselves Americans. "Go out and get a job," said the multi-millionaire. "You may not want the job. Work at McDonald's. Work two jobs."

Reality Check

Average unemployment benefits are less than $300 per week, and at best are half of a worker's wage. With most families barely getting by even when they are working, calling half-pay a "disincentive" to work is a cruel joke. The joke is even bitterer in states like Sharon Angle's Nevada, which have far more than the national average of five job-seekers for every opening.

Meager as benefits are, they kept 3.3 million people above the poverty line in 2009. And the $78 billion in extra benefits went to support local neighborhoods and local economies. Because of these benefits, families were able to keep their homes, pay local taxes and shop at local stores. The Congressional Budget Office reports that, of all federal spending, unemployment compensation provides the most economic benefit because it is immediately spent in the economy.

To anyone who has been out of work in hard times, Sharon Angle, Glenn Beck and the rest of the Republican crew may sound clueless. But they are not. Read what they say again. Sharon Angle says to take a job that doesn't pay enough to live on. Glenn Beck says, work two jobs. They want working people to be so desperate they'll work for minimum wage and less. They want older workers to compete with their children and grandchildren for fast-food and low-wage retail jobs.

At the start of the Great Depression of the 1930s, employers repeatedly cut wages of the workers who were lucky enough to have jobs. It took a while, but the workers organized, formed unions, fought back, and laid the basis for three decades of rising living standards. The same formula - unite, organize, fight back - can win in this crisis, starting with election day November 2.

Image: twicepix // CC BY-SA 2.0

2010 elections continue 1960s battles

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:20:00 +0000

I just returned from two weeks of travel around the U.S. At one stop on my journey someone asked me where this election fits into the scheme of things.

Here is what I said.

With a narrow-angled lens it is the latest round of a political clash triggered by the election of the first African American president and the economic meltdown in 2008.

One of these momentous events might have been enough to set into motion a clash of contending forces. But when both occurred nearly simultaneously the ferocity of this clash became tsunami-like.

It hasn't ebbed, and, in fact, with the midterm election around the corner, the rage of the right is surging to a new level.

And if you are hoping that the politics of rage, obfuscation and obstruction will ease in the election's aftermath, think again. These politics are deep in the political DNA of right-wing extremism - it won't give up something that works, at least so far!

In any event, one side will gain momentum on Nov. 2, while the other side will have to regroup to one degree or another.

But with a wider-angled lens, this election and the rage connected to it (racist and anti-immigrant especially) are traceable to two periods.

One is the so-called "culture wars" of the 1960s - which were in reality a period of unprecedented social upheaval and struggles, not since matched - over poverty, racial equality, student, women's and farmworker rights, the Vietnam war, and other issues. These powerful and overlapping movements arose to challenge the status quo of that time.

The other is the sharp turn to the right a decade later. If the "culture wars" of the '60s were the opening round of a new era of struggle, the 1980 ascendance of Ronald Reagan to the White House (and the decision of then Federal Reserve Bank chairman Paul Volker to spike interest rates to nearly 20 percent and thus induce a deep recession) signified a reconfiguration, intensification and extension of this struggle to a broader swathe of the population, especially the working class and labor movement.

With the transfer of the main levers of political power to Reagan and his hit-men, the barbarians of the right initiated an all-out class war from above. It was ideological and cultural as well as political and economic. The gloves came off. There was no place for compromise.

Right-wing extremists and the most reactionary sections of monopoly and financial capital ganged up against the working class, racially oppressed, women, youth, seniors, and other social groups.

And guess what? This turn to supercharged class warfare, steeped in racist appeals to white people, largely succeeded.

The wealth of the top income tiers ballooned, while income for the lower tiers either stagnated or plummeted.

Neoliberalism, deregulation and financialization became the new economic orthodoxy.

The use of force became the option of first choice in matters domestic and foreign, and the organizations of the working class and people beat a retreat.

But a retreat isn't a rout. Though weakened, the working class and people lived to fight another day, and another day, and another day ...

Much time has passed since the "culture wars" of the '60s and the turn to the right a decade later, but the distant voices of George Wallace, Bull Connor, Richard Nixon, Phyllis Schlafly, Ronald Reagan and Reverend Jerry Falwell can still be heard. The past, as someone said, is never past. The intensification of class and democratic struggle that occurred then continues today, combining the old issues, protagonists and rhetoric with the new issues, protagonists and rhetoric.

Most strikingly new is the election of President Obama, and the massive and spontaneous surge of democratic-minded people and movements that backed him. This loose coalition of diverse forces, broader than anything before it, is the main vehicle that will drive the nation to a more just and decent future.

It won't be easy. The 2008 election tipped the balance of forces in the direction of democracy and progress, and pushed the right onto its heels. But the blow wasn't a knockout.

The right regrouped, faster than most anticipated, and turned obstruction, division and demagogy into a vicious and powerful weapon.

Next Tuesday, Election Day, the right hopes to continue its journey back to political dominance.

But if it does make gains, let's remember that gaining a momentary advantage is miles from reclaiming the main levers of political power and even more miles from bringing a final resolution to this longstanding conflict - a conflict that in my view can only be settled when one side vanquishes the other.

The differences are irreconcilable. Each side has a diametrically different vision of what America should look like.

One vision - the vision of labor, minorities, women, youth and other social groups and movements - believes in an America that raises living standards and guarantees jobs at livable wages, expands opportunities and rights to the disenfranchised, alienated and marginalized, embeds human equality and diversity into the social fabric, and seeks peace through mutual understanding and cooperation, establishes robust regulation of the economy and democratic public and cooperative ownership when necessary, aggressively addresses global warming and environmental degradation, respects all forms of life on our planet, and embraces the cultures and peoples of other lands.

The other vision - that of right-wing extremism, the tea party, sections of corporate capital, groupings of medium and small businesses, and their grassroots constituency - is exclusionary, fears outsiders, worships a dog-eat-dog unregulated capitalism, insists on global dominance, subordinates people of color and women, turns same-sex relationships into a sin and psychological disorder, blames the poor for poverty, possesses a strong anti-Semitic strain, poisons the environment, and cynically manipulates our nation's most noble freedom moments and traditions.

Which vision will come out on top and when that will happen is not clear.

Nevertheless, and regardless of what happens on Election Day, the possibilities for progressive advance are real and palpable. With unity, outreach and persistence, the movement that crystallized two years ago and rallied in Washington in early October can expand on the legacy of earlier periods of struggle and meet the new challenges of the 21st century.

But right now, every democratic-minded American should go to the polls on Nov. 2 and mobilize others to do the same.

CPUSA leader: Vote and build the movement

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:50:00 +0000

DETROIT — Jarvis Tyner, national executive vice-chair CPUSA, spoke here recently on the need to for left and progressive minded people to help insure a huge voter turnout for the midterm election.

Stunning films from China to Wall Street

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:07:00 +0000

With over 300 titles from over 80 countries of the world being screened at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival last month, it would have been impossible to see all the more important films. But squeezing 40 of them in 10 days was not a bad accomplishment. Here are some of the remaining titles in my final report from the festival that I would highly recommend for those seeking relevant films for the progressive community. (See my earlier reports here, here, here, here and here.)

The highest grossing film in Chinese history, "Aftershock" is a thrilling disaster movie about the real earthquakes that shook the city of Tangshan in 1976 and Sichuan in 2006. The Chinese ability to gather the masses to create amazing works of art is mindboggling in this unbelievably moving recreation of the tragedy. The personal story that follows one family through the tragedy is heartbreaking and gripping. Special effects, acting, music and cinematography are stunning in this first big IMAX movie created outside of the U.S. It's amazing how far Chinese cinema has come in a short time. It surpassed the success of "The Founding of a Republic," which earned $62 million the previous year. "Aftershock" is dedicated to the people of Tangshan and the memory of the 240,000 Chinese who lost their lives in the earthquake.

ANPO is Japanese shorthand for the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty that has kept the U.S. military in Japan since World War II. "ANPO: Art X War" is a movie that defines the popular resistance to U.S. presence in Japan throughout the last 60 years, shown entirely through paintings, photography and film. The film gathers emotional power about a subject little known in the West.

"Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer" is another penetrating study from prolific progressive director Alex Gibney, known for "Enron, The Smartest Guys in the Room," "Taxi to the Dark Side," and "Casino Jack and the United States of Money." And he is currently working on a doc about Lance Armstrong. Gibney's list of producing credits is even more awe-inspiring, with "No End In Sight," "Who Killed the Electric Car," and "The Trials of Henry Kissinger," to name just a few. "Client 9" is a brilliant exposé of the reasons for the fall of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. The film is loaded with rare in-depth interviews with those in power driven to bring this "Sheriff of Wall Street" to the ground. Catching him on his weakness for call girls allowed Wall Street to continue its plundering of the economy that resulted in the criminal bailout and disastrous economic downturn. However, now it looks like the title should actually read "The Fall and Rise..." instead, watching Spitzer's amazing comeback.

Another political character that grabbed the headlines for years was the world's most famous lobbyist, according to Jack Abramoff. Not to be confused with the Gibney documentary of the same subject that will also be coming out shortly, this is a Hollywood-style tribute to the insanity of people in power. Stealing large sums of money from Indian casinos and paying off congressmen is just in a day's work for this unscrupulous lobbyist, broadly portrayed by the skilled Kevin Spacey. "Casino Jack" is an entertaining thriller for any film lover, but especially those who like politics.

Although I was unable to view "Inside Job," it was described as the ultimate analysis of the recent global financial crisis and a powerful call to action. It's definitely on my list of films to see.

Cuba has been underrepresented at the Toronto Film Festival for the last few years, explained by the economic pressures on the small struggling island. But it still manages to turn out a few feature films, and helped co-produce "Half of Oscar" which appeared at the festival this year. And Spanish director and jazz aficionado Fernando Trueba ("Calle 54," "Belle Epoque") created a most amazing tribute to the early days of Cuban Latin music and its marriage to American bebop jazz. "Chico and Rita" is based on the true story of legendary pianist Bebo Valdes and his travels through the world of music. For Latin jazz fans, it is a colorful recreation of the early days of bebop in Cuba and New York, when the likes of Dizzy Gillespie, Miles and Monk were on the scene. Pre-Castro days are colorfully represented and signs of American dominance are apparent everywhere. The music score, centered on the classic "Sabor a Mi," is wonderful in its richness. But what makes the film most unique is that it's digitally animated, and after a few minutes, you feel you are actually watching the real characters!

"The Last Circus" (also known as "Ballad of the Sad Trumpet") by Alex de la Iglesia could be described as the Spanish Civil War on acid. An extremely manic and angry film done in an absurdly comical style, it is a constant visual assault like a rollercoaster ride, a black comedy. Nothing compares to it, except possibly the most extreme parts of "Pan's Labyrinth," also about the Spanish Civil War. Although the film references the conflict briefly in the beginning, the rest of the film shows how the conflict was carried out in the extreme personalities of the main protagonists who are mostly circus performers. Iglesia shines like Fellini, and won the Best Director Prize at the Venice Film Festival for this film. Unforgettable!

One of America's most socially committed directors, John Sayles, found himself in the Philippines this year filming his latest historical drama, "Amigo." Fluent in Spanish, Sayles has focused on Latin American subjects quite often, "Men with Guns" and "Casa de los Babys" to name a couple. It would take someone like Sayles to find the relatively unknown but intriguing story of the American conquest of the Philippines in the early 1900s. At first the Americans joined the Filipinos to drive out the Spanish colonizers, then fought the Filipinos to gain dominance over the island until after World War II when the Philippines finally gained their independence. The film is excellently cast and directed and contains one of the nastiest priests in film history. The motley crew of American soldiers, mostly from the South, and their ignorance of local language and culture, presages the endless examples of U.S. foreign exploitation. A briefing on Philippine history would be helpful before the viewing of this complex film, one of many historical depictions of U.S. imperialism featured at the Toronto International Film Festival this year.

Relevant websites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zog3tkUDRoU ("Aftershock")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mcfoAXyxhE&feature=related ("ANPO")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAQ-9ksRuDk ("Client 9")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMdL4Y5KB6A ("Chico and Rita")
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-last-circus/tiff-interview-alex-de-la-iglesia ("Last Circus")
http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/09/john-sayles-amigo-trailer/ ("Amigo")

Photo: A scene from "Aftershock."

“The Backlash”: eye-opening field trip to the far right

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:05:00 +0000

Book Review

"The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama"
by Will Bunch
2010, Harper, hardcover, 368 pages, $25.99

The Obama administration plans to confiscate all firearms and gold bullion, and herd us into FEMA-run concentration camps! Obama is secretly a communist and his health-care reform package is the first step in a plot to euthanize the elderly! Foreign troops with black UN helicopters are already occupying parts of the country!

Just when you thought you had heard the silliest paranoid urban myth circulating on the Internet, there comes along a book giving you a snapshot of those for whom such rants are the gospel truth. Philadelphia Daily News reporter Will Bunch, in "The Backlash," takes the reader on an eye-opening field trip to the strip-malls, mountain hollows and exurban living rooms where these legends take root and grow.

Written with the vivid sociological detail that helped him win a Pulitzer Prize, this chronicle lays bare a resurgent reactionary populism which has, since Obama's election in 2008, reared itself into the mainstream media. Borne aloft by late night hate radio and given credence by that right-wing infomercial, Fox News Channel, this apocalyptic vision has galvanized an increasingly vocal brand of paranoia.

There has always been a right-wing fringe. The content of their fears is little changed since the days of the Know-Nothing party of the 1840s and '50s or the Palmer raids of 1919-20.

Hostility toward the latest wave of immigrants to land stateside has blighted every generation that bought into the myth of class mobility only to have their dreams shattered by the endemic, cyclic paroxysms of capitalism.

The frustrated attempt by the petty bourgeoisie (not the obfuscated term "middle class" which tries to lump working class wage earners with landlords, middle managers and small capitalist entrepreneurs) to ape the airs of the social class to which they aspire, and the vehemence with which they castigate the working class and the poor, becomes incandescent when a pink slip arrives on the heels of a foreclosure notice. The classic capitalist myth suddenly evaporates in the face of the fact that that the banks have always owned most housing and that a mortgage is little more than rent in perpetuity: the illusion of ownership - the American Dream on layaway.

This uncertainty about the future has generated a bull market for loneliness and fear - and it is this fear, manipulated as a saleable commodity, that draws Bunch's irate analysis. He cites the academic work of Richard Hofstadter (a onetime communist who later went to seed as a neo-con) on why the fear of financial and social failure (falling into the "under classes") provides the animus for the paranoid style in American history. This is called in academic circles "theories of status deprivation."

Hofstadter cataloged earlier epidemics of rampant fear in American history. The major difference, according to Bunch, is that, this time, the Internet and elements of the 24-hour news cycle have made fear-mongering a lucrative enterprise for the unscrupulous: case in point, the phenomenon of Glenn Beck.

Bunch covers Beck the same way he covers the 9/12'ers, the Oath Keepers, the John Birch Society, the Tea Party Express and the Obama "birthers." Like the best of true investigative journalists, Bunch examines the social context and history and the economic tie-ins of those who give credence and voice to these viewpoints. Sometimes he questions them face-to-face, trying to tease out a logic to their often preposterous conclusions. Most of all he just listens and asks them about themselves.

And he watches them as they find others like themselves on the Internet or at machine-gun shootouts, gun shows, book signings and grassroots meetings. Besides fear, their major common characteristic is their loneliness. Heaven help them, but the closest thing they have to a friend is a talk-show host given to crying on mike, dubious history lessons, commissions on gold sales and the ridiculous pronouncements of a former radio "shock jock" who knows his ratings depend on titillating his audience.

Also in keeping with the best traditions of investigative reporting is Bunch's refusal to spin the present movement in terms of a conspiracy like those so dear to the hearts of his subjects.

Anyone seeking a preview to "The Backlash" can check out his very popular Philadelphia Daily News blog on the net, Attytood.

For those on the right who would like to characterize themselves as lead actors in a reality re-run of the soupy 1940s film, "Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington," let me suggest that they are much more likely crowd-scene extras in a work like "Citizen Kane" with Rupert Murdoch's name on the marquee. Or maybe "The Great Gatsby" featuring Bernie Madoff.

Image: HarperCollinscatalogs.com

Poem of the week: Pat Mora's "Legal Alien"

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:08:00 +0000

Pat Mora is a Mexican-American poet and writer who has won numerous awards for her books and poetry. She holds the Kellogg National Leadership fellowship award, the National Endowment for the Arts award, the Southwest Book Award and the Aztlán literature Award.

She was born El Paso Texas, January 19, 1942. Her family settled there during the Mexican revolution. She writes on many topics, from poetry to children's books. She has taught at the University of New Mexico as a distinguished visiting professor. Her most popular books include My Own True Name (1984-1999), Aunt Carmen's book of Practical Saints (1997), and Auga Santa (1995).

Mora also has been a museum director and consultant for U.S.-Mexico youth exchanges. She is now retired and spends most of her time writing and traveling to schools and other events to teach young writers.

This poem, "Legal Alien," captures an important quality of our evolving and emerging multi-national, multi racial, and multi-ethnic culture.

Legal Alien

by Pat Mora

Bi-lingual, Bi-cultural,
able to slip from "How's life?"
to "Me'stan volviendo loca,"
able to sit in a paneled office
drafting memos in smooth English,
able to order in fluent Spanish
at a Mexican restaurant,
American but hyphenated,
viewed by Anglos as perhaps exotic,
perhaps inferior, definitely different,
viewed by Mexicans as alien,
(their eyes say, "You may speak
Spanish but you're not like me")
an American to Mexicans
a Mexican to Americans
a handy token
sliding back and forth
between the fringes of both worlds
by smiling
by masking the discomfort
of being pre-judged
Bi-laterally.

From Chants by Pat Mora, Arte Publico Press
© 1985 Pat Mora, republished with permission of Arte Publico Press

Image: Kate Gardiner // CC BY-NC 2.0

A lot at stake for immigrant rights on Nov. 2

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:30:00 +0000

The Republican Party is spouting vile hatred for immigrants, especially those who have dark skin but don't have papers. The punditry would have us believe that supporting rights for immigrants is "political suicide" in this election year.

One hundred and three members of the House of Representatives, all Democrats, are signed on as cosponsors of HR 4321, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP bill, whose chief sponsor is Congressman Solomon Ortiz, D-TX, and which is supported by most of organized labor and immigrants' rights organizations. You can look up this or any other bill in Congress at

By sticking their necks out for immigration reform, have these 103 valiant souls committed "political suicide?"

A good resource for following these things is the Cook Political Report. It rates all the House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in terms of the probability of winning their elections. Look at the "Competitive House Race Chart" on that website, and you will see that of currently Democratic seats that are likely to be lost to Republicans (in Cook's "Lean Republican" and "Likely Republican" columns) there is not one single seat that now belongs to one of the cosponsors of HR 4321. There are a total of 5 Democrats in the "Likely Republican" column, and 17 in the "Lean Republican" columns.

If you look at current Democrat held seats rated by Cook as toss-ups (could as easily go either to the Democrat or the Republican), you will see that only two of the cosponsors of HR 4321 are in this category: John Salazar, of Colorado's 3^rd District, and Ciro Rodriguez, of Texas' 23^rd District. This is out of 38 Democrats in that category.

In the "Lean Democratic" column, which means the Democrat is slightly favored but by no means secure, there are three seats: Those of Ed Perlmutter of Colorado's 7^th District, Martin Heinrich in New Mexico's 1^st District, and Kennedy's open seat in Rhode Island's 1^st District. This is out of 30 Democratic seats in that column.

Finally, there is the "Likely Democratic" column. These are seats that will probably go to the Democrat, but special circumstances could change that. This column is more populated with bigger names in the immigrants' rights struggle: Raul Grijalva of Arizona's 7^th District, Chellie Pingree of Maine's 1^st District, Barney Frank of Massachusetts' 4^th District, Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico's 7^th District and Solomon Ortiz (the bill's main sponsor) of Texas' 27^th District.

All the rest of the bill's cosponsors, 93 in all (five of whom are non-voting representatives of U.S. territories, so let's say 88) are considered to be occupying safe seats. In other words that's eighty-eight safe seats to 10 that are likely or leaning Republican, toss-ups, or likely or leaning Democratic. And many Democrats who have avoided the issue of immigrants' rights like the plague are doing poorly.

Now, we can't jump to the conclusion that Democrats who are doing poorly are suffering for their poor record on immigrants' rights, and those who are doing well are being rewarded for their support for immigrants' rights. A lot depends on, for example, the demographics and ideological makeup of the inhabitants of the congressional district in question, and the state of the political debate on many other issues. In Virginia where I live, the two Democratic Congressmen who are co sponsoring HR 4321, James Moran, 8^th District, and Bobby Scott, 3^rd District, would probably have safe seats anyway, as they represent multiracial and multiethnic urban concentrations with a strong working class presence. And some of the Democrats in conservative areas would be in trouble no matter what their position on immigration was.

But we can conclude that the issue is not necessarily a career killer for those politicians who have a good record and a well organized electoral operation. Taking a principled stand might lose you some votes, but it will likely win you others.

Come what may, it is extremely important for the immigrants' rights movement that any Republican gains be kept to a minimum or stopped, and that they not be allowed to take over either the House or the Senate. If that happens, the door will be opened to the advancement of all kinds of anti-immigrant legislation, which has not advanced under the present Congress. Although pro-immigrant legislation has also not succeeded over the last couple of years, a Republican takeover of the leadership and committee chairmanships of House and Senate would stop any advancement of immigrant friendly legislation.

It is also very important, as a practical matter and also one of honor, that those members of Congress who have worked hard for immigration reform, such as Grijalva of Arizona, receive maximum support.

When Republicans ruled: a 2010 voter guide

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:33:00 +0000

Remember these votes in the House of Representatives?

"At 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in March, the House cut veterans' benefits by three votes.

"At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, the House slashed education and health care by five votes.

"At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed the Leave No Millionaire Behind tax-cut bill by a handful of votes.

"At 2:33 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House passed the Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote.

"At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House eviscerated Head Start by one vote."

These votes all took place in the Republican-run House of Representatives in 2003.

So reported then-Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio in December 2003 in his article, "Democracy crumbles under cover of darkness," in which he detailed the secretive and hyper-partisan nature of the Republican-controlled Congress.

Subversion of democracy

When Brown wrote that piece, the 1994 "Republican Revolution" was in its eighth year and the White House had gone from Democrat Bill Clinton to Republican George W. Bush. There would be three more years to go before the Democrats wrested back Congress in 2006.

The damage done to the political - and judicial - institutions of this country by the Republicans may never be tallied. But Brown summed up acts committed under the Republican-controlled Congress as the "subversion of democracy."

In a late-night November 2003 battle royale, lasting from Friday night to Saturday morning, the Republican House leadership privatized a huge chunk of a most treasured American program - Medicare. They broke rules, bullied and twisted arms of fellow Republicans in an episode that Brown described as an "assault."

They succeeded. And the public knew not a thing about it.

"You can do a lot in the middle of the night, under the cover of darkness," Brown said.

1994: Mean and corrupt

The so-called Republican Revolution of 1994, led by Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay in the House, had a freshman class that included Sam Brownback of Kansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Much of the legislation from their Contract with America, which they passed in 1995, was so extreme that it was even too much for the Republican Senate.

One of the first acts of the freshman class of 1994 was to shut down the government.

The Republican-controlled Congress wanted deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education, the EPA and other government functions. Clinton refused, and the Gingrich, Armey, DeLay leadership forced the shutdown in the late winter of 1995.

Major government departments and agencies stopped work. Passports couldn't be issued. National parks and the Smithsonian were closed. Veterans couldn't access health and other services.

Some 284,000 federal workers lost their jobs during the shutdown. Some 800,000 government workers were furloughed. The shutdown actually cost the government MORE money than if it had stayed open.

Gingrich and DeLay eventually resigned from office in a cloud of corruption.

Armey retired and now leads the tea party movement through Washington, D.C.-based FreedomWorks, an ultra-conservative group that campaigns to lower taxes on the super-rich and corporations and to privatize Social Security.

Tea party/Republicans want repeat

Now the Republican/tea party candidates threaten a repeat.

Joe Miller, the Alaskan tea party/Republican candidate for Senate, said in an interview that he wants get rid of health care reform, Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements he considers "socialist aspects of government." Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported: "Miller went on to say that Congress should have the 'courage to shut down the government,' if necessary, to eliminate government programs."

While Republicans/tea partiers rant and rave at government programs, what they don't publicize are the tax breaks the Republican-controlled Congress gave - not only to the ultra-wealthy but to corporations that laid off workers, cut jobs and outsourced them. Tax breaks for this group of special interests means tax hikes for the rest of us, economists warn.

The Republicans invited in corporate lobbyists to actually WRITE the legislation. They prevented non Republicans from participating in any committee work. The nation was held hostage during endless investigations, culminating in the impeachment of the president, and costing taxpayers millions of dollars, all in an attempt to wrest the White House from the Democrats.

A central part of the GOP strategy was an all out assault on civil rights, unions, women, people of color, gays and lesbians. The political atmosphere was rank with racism and bigotry. Gingrich and Co. took whole parts of a racist and pro-eugenic book "The Bell Curve" and attempted to turn it into a blueprint for legislation.

You can expect the same - on steroids - with a tea party Congress. The recent NAACP report that corporations are funding tea party groups that give "platforms to anti-Semites, racists and bigots" is a warning of what their legislative agenda would consist of.

There is a difference

By comparison, in 2007, the Democrats' first year back in the leadership of Congress, and with George W. Bush as president, Congress passed a minimum wage increase, the House passed the Matthew Shepard hate crimes act - the first time the House brought a gay rights bill to the floor for a vote, and funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program was restored.

Since the election of Barack Obama, the list of legislation the Democratic Congress passed and the president signed into law that will have a positive impact on people's lives is impressive. (For a summary click here.)

Let's not condemn ourselves to repeat the past because of short-term memory loss. This is a "which side are you on" moment. The Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil rights movement leader alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said, "In 2008, we voted to change the guard. In 2010, we have to guard the change."

Photo: Newt Gingrich and GOP cohorts during the 1994 campaign.

In Illinois, vote "no" on recall and defend democracy

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:11:00 +0000

It's been nearly two years since then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached by the state Senate on accusations of corruption and abuse of power. None of the allegations had been proven in a court of law, although in the recently concluded trial Blagojevich was convicted on one charge, perjury to an FBI official.

Blagojevich will be the third Illinois governor to go to jail for corruption. ( End corruption - take corporate money out of politics )

But while the hullabaloo around removing Blagojevich has died down, one of the byproducts of the uproar is a measure on November's ballot to amend the state constitution to allow for recall of a governor by voters.

Proponents say it's an added check and balance. Sounds democratic, but is it really?

Aside from the cost of recall, which according to the Secretary of State would run at least $100 million, the bigger problem with the measure is the real danger in the ability of powerful interests to overturn the will of the majority and depose elected officials who come in conflict with corporate and right wing interests. They could embroil state politics in internal wrangling for years.

The proposed amendment to Section 7 of Article III sets up the following procedure: The first step would be an affidavit filed with the State Board of Elections announcing intent to seek a recall. That affidavit needs endorsements from 20 state representatives and 10 state senators - no more than half from the same political party in each group.

After the affidavit is in, there are 150 days to circulate the petition. The number of signatures must equal 15 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election - close to 520,000 signatures, based on the 2006 race - and must have names from at least 25 counties.

The recall special election would happen within 100 days of certification of the petition. If the governor is recalled, another special election would be held to elect a new governor.

The best example of what can go wrong is the experience in California. Remember when Democratic Gov. Gray Davis was reelected in 2002 with the broad support of labor, and the Mexican American and African American communities and women? A lot of progressive legislation was passed by the Democratic controlled California General Assembly during his tenure.

But with the state in the throws of an economic crisis, with Enron manufacturing an energy crisis after Republican Gov. Pete Wilson led the way with deregulation, Gray's popularity flagged. Right wing and corporate interests used the crisis and resulting widespread anger to undo the progressive changes. (California recall has makings of coup )

The Republican right wing and corporate interests launched a massively funded recall campaign in 2003, hiring signature gatherers, including some from out of state. Backed by a corporate media chorus, they succeeded in what amounted to a coup and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor in a special election.

Whatever one thinks about Blagojevich's fate, he was impeached by the state legislature because a procedure for his removal is written into the state constitution.

Voters in fact already have a right of recall and they can exercise it during a regularly scheduled election every four years. That's the proper place to settle these matters.

At another time, recall might not be a bad idea. But these are anything but normal times. The danger to democracy by subverting and bypassing the electoral system, despite its flaws, has increased because of the unrestrained and unaccounted for corporate money flooding the 2010 elections as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. ( Supreme Court goes for 'One dollar, one vote' )

A no vote on the proposed Illinois constitutional amendment will be a vote in defense of democracy in November of 2010.

Photo: Blagojevich waves goodbye http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3fSPdLyXVG4/SYMt1-EwYPI/AAAAAAAAAuk/R8ap_MNyC_o/s1600-h/Blagojevich_Impeachment.jpg

Michelle Obama shows power of women's vote

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:50:00 +0000

NEW YORK -- Speaking to a packed house at the St. James Theater in Times Square here on Oct. 18, First Lady Michele Obama gave a moving speech recounting key achievements of the Obama administration and why "we can't go backwards."

The fund raiser was organized by the DNC's Women's Leadership Forum and Organizing for America, aimed at mobilizing women to help get out the vote (GOTV) on November 2. Present were well over 1,000 women. "Second Lady" Dr. Jill Biden, the incomparable Patti LaBelle and Sex in the City's Sarah Jessica Parker all shared the stage with Obama.

The audience greeted the First Lady with a standing ovation, and her speech was interrupted with applause numerous times.

Speaking as "mom-in chief" and concerned about the future for all kids, Obama reflected the concern about the American Dream "slipping away."

"We all want to leave something better for our kids," she said.

In less than two years, the Obama administration has "accomplished much," the First Lady said. But, she added, "I know things are moving too slow. Barack also thinks they are moving too slow."

She reminded the audience of the feeling we all had on election night and at the inaugural. "We have come much too far to turn back now," she said. "We are building a movement for change. Just putting one person in the White House is not enough. Barack told us that" during the campaign, she said.

To loud applause she said, "I gave you my husband, now you all have to have his back!"

Actress Sarah Jessica Parker drew prolonged ovations when she outlined the victories won in less than two years - victories especially important for women.

Two more women are now sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, she said, referring to Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the first Puerto Rican and person of Latin American descent ever appointed to the high court.

Jessica Parker said passage of the Lily Ledbetter Bill on equal pay, the increase in student financial aid, health care reform and the stimulus act are all victories for women.

"We have to keep our movement in place. We are a movement, we are a team and we are ready!" the movie, TV and stage actress said, and reminded people to get busy for Election Day. "We need people to canvass and to phone bank."

"No one has a bigger stake in this elections then women," she said.

The meeting was a reminder of how powerful the women's vote is -- along with the votes of Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians and youth. These are all groups of Americans who were denied the right to vote, but fought and won that right. As a result, each strengthened democracy for all.

Leaving the event with my wife, I felt this was part of what is needed to mobilize voters and prevent what could be a serious set back for democracy. There was a small army of volunteers in the theater lobby with clip boards in hand signing up people to help GOTV. People walked out buzzing with enthusiasm. I heard one woman say, "I am so proud of our First Lady. She is a fine leader."

Women, along with labor and all democratic-minded voters, could turn around a potentially dangerous setback to the country (Republican victory). That's certainly a fight worth fighting for.

Photo: (White House)

Election stakes couldn't be higher

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:02:00 +0000

Here we go again. Just like they did when President Obama was running for the White House, the Republican/ tea party candidates are throwing the kitchen sink again at Democratic candidates. This November they are after winning a majority in Congress . In November 2012 they are going for the White House.

The GOP is not for an honest debate on the issues: they believe there's a better chance of winning if the debate gets down and dirty. Republicans strategists believe they can win if:

the focus is on personal attacks and slander instead of principal and policies;

they can confuse enough working-and-middle-class voters with bigotry, homophobia, racism, religious intolerance and anti-communism;

they can convince people to vote against their own interests;

people believe that Obama is against white people and only favors black people;

they convince Americans that all Muslims are terrorists;

voters believe same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage;

the electorate concludes doctors who perform legal abortions are baby killers;

workers are led to feel immigrants are the cause of high unemployment;

people believe that the stimulus did not create any jobs;

voters draw the conclusion that because the unemployed are receiving compensation, they will lack the initiative to look for a job.

The GOP is betting on that if they get enough people to push the panic button on deficit spending they will succeed. Indeed, with some of these "tea baggers" any help from the federal government to working people is "socialism" and therefore should be feared and rejected.

They are called "deficit hawks" but in the past they have run up the largest deficits ever. Even their solution to deficits is more deficits.

Somehow their concept of deficits doesn't include war spending ($900 billion annually), tax subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes, research and development money along with thousands of government hand outs to big business. The extreme right is fine with that kind of "socialism".

In this election year we are dealing with a revival of McCarthyism. People should be reminded what that did to our democratic rights.

Red baiting is a defense of the racist status quo. It is designed to wreck the labor movement, stifle dissent and frighten people into not looking at advanced solutions to society's problems. It is McCarthyism that should be rejected. Red baiting is a defense of corporate dictatorship, racism, intolerance and exploitation - it is an obstacle to a future of economic and social justice for all.

The right wing fears socialism because they know it will put people before profits and lead to a more just and democratic society for the vast majority.

Socialism is a natural progression from capitalism and cannot be brought about through conspiracy but can be realized democratically; through the majority will of the American people.

Significantly, in the face of all this red baiting hysteria, recent polls show that the ranks of those in our country who prefer socialism are actually growing.

Notwithstanding this, GOP tactics in the election debate has done a lot of damage to the unity and health of our culture as a nation.

There is a terrible blow-back from the use of overt and covert racism, bigotry, and red baiting.

Hate crimes are on the rise all over the country. For example, the scapegoating of immigrants has encouraged confused and facist-minded people to carry out hundreds of physical attacks against them all across the country. Gay people are being harassed and bullied resulting in suicide in some cases. Gay bashing has become a national past time in some communities across the country.

Criminalizing doctors for performing legal abortions has resulted in murder. Police and civilian racist attacks and murders are up all across the country. New York City spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year settling police brutality cases. A lot of this grows out of trashing President Obama.

The inflammatory rhetoric coming mainly from the right has done incalculable damage to the unity we all experienced back in November 2008 and January 2009 in DC. Our national spirit has diminished as a result of the rhetoric from the right.

It is tragic that the people who are organizing, pushing and financing these right-wing movements and candidates claim the mantel of patriots when in reality it is they who have betrayed all that is honorable and in the real national interest. What is worse they know that is what they are doing and simply don't care.

To those who don't see any thing worth fighting for in this election but claim to be committed to a better and more democratic society, I urge you to rethink your conclusions.

I say, as Sam Webb put it, "don't take a powder". Sitting out this election is like sitting out World War II. The stakes are almost as high. The consequences are almost as great!

"Social Network" is a must see

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:22:00 +0000

Movie Review

"The Social Network"
Directed by David Fincher
Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
2010, 121 mins., PG-13

"The Social Network" highlights the positive and far-reaching aspects of the inevitable online revolution sweeping the world through Facebook. But the film also emphasizes the betrayal, greed, and lonely attributes that came to the network's creator along with the fame and glory.

The movie is not entirely based on facts, some scenes and dialogue were created to depict one view of Facebook's creation, its rise to the top and eventual triumph. It also presents a fascinating character study of founder Mark Zuckerberg.

"The Social Network" is smart, fast-paced and combines fine acting with a brilliant screenplay that has you mentally glued to the screen from beginning to end. I think this film will earn an academy award nomination or two.

Directed by David Fincher, the movie is essentially about Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg) who founded Facebook in 2004 at age 19 as a Harvard computer programming major.

The opening scene is intense. Zuckerberg and his girlfriend sit at a bar over drinks. They go back and forth in a verbal clash of the wits. Zuckerberg comes off as extremely crude and arrogant, traits he consistently displays throughout the film. At the scene's end, Zuckerberg gets deservedly dumped. You almost feel sorry for him. He's desperate, lonely and edgy.

He races to his dorm room motivated by the moment and creates a campus-wide website called "FaceMash" after hacking into Harvard's database. The site allows male students to choose which of two girls is more attractive. Created over beers in one night, the site gets so much traffic it crashes part of the university's network.

Zuckerberg is reprimanded but he also gets noticed by some of Harvard's most "elite" students. Students of a prestigious campus club admire Zuckerberg's hacking abilities and recruit him to program their dating website called the Harvard Connection.

But Zuckerberg misleads them and snubs their pet project. Instead he begins working on his own idea, a campus-wide networking site, which eventually became Facebook.

Facebook and Zuckerberg's rise to the top came at a heavy price - backstabbing, back room business deals, lawsuits, countless attorneys, and million dollar settlements.

The movie dramatizes major lawsuits against Zuckerberg, one from the pretentious "club" students and the other from Zuckerberg's former best friend who at one point owned 30 percent of Facebook's revenue. Each suit claims Zuckerberg deprived them of their rightful share of the site's eventual billions.

The film reveals the characters' extreme highs and lows and just how lonely life can be at the top despite fame and glory. Zuckerberg is noted as a brilliant young mind. In spite of his socially awkward and self-righteous attitude he ends up being the tragic and somewhat inspiring hero.

Facebook today is the biggest social network in countries ranging from Indonesia to Columbia. At least one out of every 14 people in the world has an account and Zuckerberg is on his way to becoming one of the riches persons on the planet, not to mention the youngest billionaire.

Facebook, arguably one of the best inventions of the 21^st Century, has definitely changed the way people worldwide communicate and share information. Yet the online revolution is still very young and the idea of social networking sites is perhaps still in the beginning stages. It seems only fitting that someone as young as Zuckerberg invented a website that allows millions to share pictures, events, causes and stories about daily life.

However, the reality is that nothing in the modern age of global capitalism is actually free and especially something as widely popular as Facebook. It ultimately has a price tag claimed by corporate vultures just waiting to make a super profit.

The fact is ordinary people depend on outlets like Facebook, which really do bring us closer in a world that continues to be dominated by corporate profits and individual financial gain. The question is this: how can we use Facebook and the Internet to reach millions in order to educate one another and truly call this movement what it is, a social revolution?

The "Social Network" is well crafted and is definitely worth viewing. It makes you think about what we can expect in the future as the Internet generation continues to grow and expand. You really wonder what's next. You just hope websites like Facebook, and those that follow, can allow people to truly take advantage of them in order to bring more peace, acceptance and understanding about a complex and diverse world.

Photo: www.thesocialnetwork-movie.com

Right-wing dead serious about killing minimum wage

Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:59:00 +0000

Progressives are correct when they note that minimum wage opponents have almost no chance of a direct win on the issue in Congress or in most state legislatures.

Events of the last few weeks, however, show that the political right is implementing a multi-faceted strategy it hopes will push the country back to the days when there was absolutely no social safety net at all.

Tea party candidates pushing right-wing constitutional theories are one part of this effort by the right to undo a century of social progress in the United States.

Writing about the tea party candidates in Time Magazine, Adam Cohen said this week, "Since minimum-wage opponents have no reasonable chance of prevailing in Congress or state legislatures, they are turning to their last best hope: the judiciary.

"Politicians like West Virginia's John Raese and Alaska's Joe Miller are starting to lay the groundwork. Conservatives like them are looking back to an earlier, pre-New Deal era, from the late 1890s through the 1930s, when conservative courts routinely struck down laws designed to help working people."

One of their aims is to appoint judges willing, just for starters, to do away with the minimum wage law. The idea is that right-wing judges would find unconstitutional whole categories of federal laws including laws guaranteeing the right to join a union, the law that created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and even the law that created Social Security.

Another part of the right-wing strategy to turn back the clock is to use its hoped-for majority in the House to cripple agencies that the Obama administration has turned into instruments for progressive change. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor are two in particular that could be set back by a GOP Congress.

Politico notes, "The GOP Congressional Republicans planning an assault on the Obama administration's record aim to turn [EPA administrator] Lisa Jackson into public enemy No. 1. 'I think she'll be very much in demand on the Hill, at times not of her choosing,' said a former staffer on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 'It will diminish her free time, shall we say.'"

Still another part of the strategy involves elimination of campaign finance laws. Here the Supreme Court has already obliged by allowing a free flow of corporate cash into GOP campaign coffers.

Katrina vanden Heuvel warned in the Washington Post that this election will determine "whether we let corporations own our democracy. This tidal wave of corporate cash - which could run up a $5 billion price tag on the most expensive midterm election in history - is 'the dagger directed at the heart of democracy,' as Bill Moyers said in a speech at Common Cause's 40th anniversary gala. It is increasingly possible, he added, for 'oligarchs and plutocrats to secretly buy our elections and consolidate their hold on the corporate state.' This in the end, is the current front of a historic struggle. Who governs America - the powerful few or the many, money or citizens?"

As if to confirm the warning from Moyers, the New York Times reported Oct. 20 that a secretive network of Republican donors will spend a long weekend in Palm Springs next January, "not to relax after a hard-fought election but to plan for the next one."

The Times said Koch Industries, cited by the EPA for 300 oil spills, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, "develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity."

The invitation goes on to say that the gathering will develop strategies for "countering climate change alarmism and the move to socialized health care," as well as "the regulatory assault on energy."

Image: Republicans want to, among other things, eliminate minimum wage. stuartpillbrow // CC BY-SA 2.0

Patrick Toomey defends tax cuts for the rich

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:24:00 +0000

The race for the U.S. Senate seat open in Pennsylvania pits right-wing Republican, Rep. Patrick Toomey against Joe Sestak, the progressive Democrat who defeated Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter in the primary earlier this year.

There are clear differences between the Democrats and Republicans in the Nov. 2 elections.

Most Democrats, throughout the Obama administration, have pressed for and Republicans have opposed fair taxation, green jobs and health care reforms.

Many of the Democrats have pointed out that the Bush tax cuts for the rich are not an effective way to promote economic growth and job creation, that they contribute to the deficit and are a major cause of the economic crisis itself.

Nevertheless, Toomey, a former Wall Street derivatives trader, and his Republican colleagues call for extending those cuts. For Toomey, defending Wall Street profits is more important than meeting people's needs.

The Congressional Budget Office reported July 26 that the Bush high income tax cuts were "the least effective of eleven options to stimulate growth and job creation."

Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, provided details of how government spending on social programs is far more effective than tax cuts for the wealthy.

Zandi compared the increase or decrease in gross domestic product for each dollar of an increase in federal spending or each dollar of a decrease in federal taxes.

He found that each dollar spent on unemployment benefits extensions increased the gross domestic product by $1.64, every dollar put into food stamps increased GDP by $1.73, every dollar put into aid for state governments increased GDP by $1.36, and that each dollar put into infrastructure increased GDP by $1.59.

In contrast, each dollar's worth of dividend and capital gains tax cuts increases the GDP by only 37 cents. Each dollar's worth of corporate tax cuts yields only 30 cents and making the Bush tax cuts permanent yields only 30 cents.

The Philadelphia Inquirer cited a report that said a public works project maintaining public parks would generate more than 57,000 new jobs and return at least $4 in economic benefits for every federal dollar invested.

The CBO report cited by the Washington Post on Aug. 2 indicates that not only are high-income tax cuts relatively ineffective, but those tax cuts are the largest cause of the structural deficit. The tax cuts for the rich have so far totaled $2.3 trillion and, if Toomey and the GOP have their way, will total $700 billion more on top of that.

While Toomey and the GOP complain about deficit spending, they oppose progressive taxation for deficit reduction and job creation. They use the deficit, meanwhile, as an excuse to destroy Social Security and every other social program.

In order to force lifting of California's greenhouse gas regulations, lobbyists from Valero, Tesoro and Koch Industries, among that state's top polluters, are claiming this is the only way they can create jobs.

Governor Schwarzenegger called this approach a "corruption of the democratic process." "Texas oil companies have descended upon California to overturn a California law. There

is a struggle playing out right here in California that the world does not know much about. Today, Valero and Tesoro are in a conspiracy. Not in a criminal conspiracy, but a cynical one about self-serving greed. Does anyone think in their black oil company hearts that they want to create jobs?"

Economist John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1935, in the depth of the Great Depression, "The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth."

In every economic crisis, great inequality precedes lagging sales because of the resultant poverty. Businesses close down, there is massive job loss, and if no spending program is put into place, the process continues until the crisis becomes nation-wide.

The Bush tax cuts for the rich of 2001, 2002 and 2003 were an immediate and continuing cause of the current crisis. While the Democrats are initiating remedies the Republicans obstruct and then blame the Democrats.

In every business cycle, the process would continue until production sunk to extremely low levels, causing even more massive unemployment.

From the beginning of the Obama presidency until Oct. 6, 2010, Senate Republicans stalled 420 bills that were passed in the House despite Republican opposition in that body. Job creation was a feature of many of those bills.

Republicans even voted against loans small businesses needed so they could create jobs.

Astoundingly, the GOP is for tax breaks for companies leaving the country and leaving Americans unemployed.

The GOP even plans to dismantle health care reform, to privatize Social Security and to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

There are many reasons to vote in this election. Reversing the Bush tax giveaways to the rich are among them. With those tax cuts the nation faces continued high unemployment, greater debt and continued crisis.

A massive vote on Nov. 2 will save the nation from disaster.

Brown or Whitman? No contest

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:52:00 +0000

Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman for California governor? Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina for the Senate? For California's working people and their unions, the choice should be obvious. And it's a choice that should have national impact, given California's prominence as a pace-setting state.

All too often, we're faced with choosing between the lesser of two political evils. But not this time. Jerry Brown, currently state attorney general, has proven throughout his long political career - including two terms as governor between 1975 and 1983 - to be one of the best friends labor has ever had. And he shows no signs that he'd be anything else if returned tithe governorship in November.

I particularly recall, from my days as a labor reporter, the great political skill Brown demonstrated in convincing the State Legislature to enact what's still the only law outside Hawaii guaranteeing farm workers the collective bargaining rights granted most non-agricultural workers in the1930s.

It's impossible to imagine Brown's Republican challenger having the will or the skill to do something like that. Whitman's position on labor is precisely the opposite of Brown's. Whitman, former CEO and president of eBay, has made union bashing, and especially the bashing of public employee unions, a major theme of her campaign.

Democratic Sen. Boxer, who's running for a third term, is another strong labor supporter. Like Brown, Boxer is in a contest against a mediocre anti-labor Republican candidate, in her case former Hewlett-Packard CEO Fiorina, who has many, many bucks to spend on her campaign.

Some of the nine initiatives on the California ballot would be good for working people, some not so good. Prop. 25 is easily the best of the bunch for labor and just about everybody else. It would require a simple majority vote of the Legislature to adopt the annual state budget rather than the current requirement of a two-thirds majority. The great difficulty of lining up two-thirds support has often resulted in legislative stalemates that have forced some state operations to be cut back or even temporarily shut down for days, sometimes weeks. No money, as they say, no service.

Prop. 23 is bad news. The measure, backed by Big Oil and other major polluters, would suspend the state air pollution laws that limit omission of greenhouse gases known to cause global warming until statewide unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or lower for one year, which ¬ surprise! ¬ is not about to happen. Not for a long time, anyway.

Corporate greed heads could lose big, however, with passage of Prop. 24. It would repeal $1.7 billion in tax breaks granted big corporations during last year's budget negotiations, or "backroom budget deals," in the impolite but quite accurate words of the California Federation of Teachers.

Image: California Attorney General's office