People Before Profit blog

Republicans lie about "Support our troops"

Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:26:00 +0000

For a decade, Republicans have been screaming at Americans to "support our troops."

But, they don't really support our troops. Their constant chanting was originally code to support the Republican administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the Republicans truly wanted to support the troops, they would have demanded - early in the wars - better armament and vehicles for the troops. Troops in Iraq had to "up-armor" their Humvees with their own ingenuity and money because Congress failed to appropriate enough protection.

The Republicans should have been outraged that after field medics performed extraordinary service to keep wounded from dying that the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center was negligent in providing health care. It took a Washington Post investigative series and actions by the Obama administration, not the Bush-Cheney administration, to straighten out that mess.

American civilians sent millions of packages of everything from soap to towels to shaving lotion for the troops because Congress didn't provide many of the basic necessities.

And now the Republicans have blocked the Veterans Job Corps bill in the Senate. That bill would have provided $1 billion over five years to hire 20,000 recent veterans by giving them priority in jobs as first responders. It would also have provided career advisers for the veterans. That bill would have helped not just veterans, but all Americans by strengthening fire, police, and first aid/paramedic assistance.

The vote in the Senate was 58-40 to pass that bill. But, typical of Republican obstructionism, it failed. Although there was a clear majority, the bill failed because the Republicans used a technicality in Senate rules to force a higher standard - requiring 60 votes, not a simple majority, to pass the appropriation.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., led the opposition to the bill because he claimed it was reckless spending and he didn't want to spend any more of the taxpayer money on something apparently as outrageous as helping veterans.

However, the bill was fully funded solely by increasing tax collections from Medicare providers who were delinquent in paying taxes, and by requiring persons applying for passports to be current in paying taxes. Pay the delinquent taxes and be eligible for further Medicare payments and passports. Seemed simple enough.

But, Tom Coburn and the Republicans stuck to their mantra of no more spending, even at the expense of combat veterans. The veterans just want some assistance to get a job and not to be a burden on unemployment and welfare rolls.

One billion dollars. Fully funded. That's what the bill called for. A billion dollars to help combat veterans. You know, the ones the Republicans sent into war in Iraq that we later learned was a war built upon lies.

Here's another statistic. The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has already cost Americans $2.3-$2.7 trillion, according to a Brown University analysis of war spending. That's not even the total cost. The analysts believe the war will exceed $4 trillion by the time all costs, including $1 trillion in interest payments, are figured in. That total expense is more than 4,000 times more than the Democrats asked for to help returning veterans. And, that $4 trillion, generously pushed by a war-mongering Congress, never met even the barest of financial constraints the Republicans put upon a bill to help the veterans they sent into battle.

But, the real reason the Republicans killed the veterans job bill has nothing to do with their public claims they are trying to cut government costs or to reduce what they believe is Big Government. It has everything to do with petty politics. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Senate minority leader, had said "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." He could have said the Republicans wanted to move the country forward, to help rebuild and improve the nation's infrastructure, help those who became unemployed and then homeless because of the recession, establish stronger regulations to prevent fraud, improve medical care for all Americans, assure the success of small business, increase the security of Americans both at home and overseas, or to help combat veterans readjust to civilian life. But he didn't say those were his party's top priority. The top priority was to defeat President Obama.

And so the Republicans blocked more than 80 percent of all bills submitted in the Senate, including legislation to provide health care for 9/11 first responders, end tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs, stop price gouging at the gas pumps, require oil companies to use some of their profits to develop clean alternative energy, and end a $4 billion a year subsidy to the oil companies - the top 5 had more than $137 billion profit in 2011. (The Republicans did manage to introduce more than 250 bills about abortion, family relationships, marriage, and religion, but not one for jobs creation.)

Because of their selfish hubris, the Republicans not only created gridlock in Congress, they refused to allow a bill that had the support of a majority of the Senate to go forward to help combat veterans. After all, that might be seen as supporting the president and not doing the Republicans' Number 1 job - to stop a second term.

Walter Brasch and his wife, Rosemary, were editors of The Oasis, a newspaper sponsored by the Red Cross for families of combat troops. Walter Brasch's latest book is "Before the First Snow: Stories from the Revolution."

Photo: Deborah Drummond // CC 2.0

NFL settlement a victory for unions, solidarity

Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:45:00 +0000

By now you've likely seen the "Fail Mary," the nickname for the Green Bay Packers/Seattle Seahawks final play from Monday night's game. The referees missed a penalty and simultaneously had opposing calls about the result of the play. Ultimately, the Seahawks were awarded a touchdown and the victory.

But, these were not just any refs. These were replacement "scab" refs as the National Football League had locked out the referee union since the start of the preseason. This labor battle has touched off a national debate about the treatment of workers and their unions.

The referees would not agree to the loss of their defined benefit pension. Fully funding the established pension system would be less than 1% of the NFL's yearly revenue. But like many other major companies posting record profits (in this case, $9 billion in yearly revenue), the NFL expected the referees' union to make significant concessions. When the union rightfully opposed such tactics, they were locked out.

In their place, the NFL brought in a cavalcade of referees from the college ranks and even castoffs from the Lingerie Football League. Their failures were numerous but let's run down just a few of the most egregious:

a) Not knowing how the two-minute warning works
b) In two different games, giving teams extra timeouts
c) Missing the correct spot of a ball, incorrectly running a clock causing a game to end on a last second drive
d) The aforementioned "Fail Mary" from Monday night where the referees missed an offensive pass interference call according to the NFL.

Monday night's game brought the use of scab referees to the public's attention. There were protests. Columnists, bloggers and others penned stunning articles demanding the NFL reach a respectful agreement with the union. Solidarity petitions popped up from the AFL-CIO. Incredibly, even union-busting Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ayn Rand acolyte/vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan made statements wanting the union referees back.

However, the most damning statement came from their fellow NFL union - the NFL Players Association. It was a statement of solidarity as much as a condemnation of the league's propaganda. The NFL is currently embroiled in a lawsuit involving 3,000+ former players and their families that believe the league misinformed them and hid information about the dangers of concussions. The NFL is also dealing with "bounty-gate," which the league alleges was a player-funded pay-for-injury scandal.

The dots are connected by the letter from the Players Association executive committee which read, in part: "Your decision to lock out officials with more than 1,500 years of collective NFL experience has led to a deterioration of order, safety and integrity." This decision, the players said "has not only resulted in poor calls, missed calls and bad game management," but will also "continue to jeopardize player health and safety and the integrity of the game that has taken decades to build."

"It is lost on us as to how you allow a Commissioner to cavalierly issue suspensions and fines in the name of player health and safety yet permit the wholesale removal of the officials that you trained and entrusted to maintain that very health and safety," the players continued. "Your actions are looking more and more like simple greed."

In response to the poor officiating, the NFL decided that they would take decisive action ... by punishing the coaches and players who complained. Somehow, the problem was not the scab refs but the people who were pointing out the obvious problems.

Then NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell stated in an interview about the lockout: "Yours truly doesn't have [a defined benefit pension]. It's something that doesn't really exist anymore and that I think is going away steadily."

Of course Commissioner Goodell doesn't have a pension. He makes nearly $20 million per season. He doesn't need a pension. Working people, like the referees, do.

Finally, bowing to the significant pressure, the NFL reached a tentative agreement with the referees late Wednesday. Early reports from ESPN state: "The current defined benefit pension plan will remain in place for current officials through the 2016 season or until the official earns 20 years of service. The defined benefit plan will then be frozen." However, for new hires, and for all officials beginning in 2017, retirement benefits will be provided "through a defined contribution arrangement." The annual league contribution made for each game official "will begin with an average of more than $18,000 per official and increase to more than $23,000 per official in 2019."

Ultimately, the NFL referee lockout has shown the nation the importance of unionized, skilled labor. It has shown us a perfect example of why allowing unskilled "scab" workers in jobs across the nation is an incredibly dangerous folly. It has also shown the importance of solidarity.

Now it is on us to keep pushing back against these corporate assaults on workers and their unions, as well as work to build a new world in which those rights and the value of their labor are respected.

Photo: Ed YourdonEd Yourdon // CC 2.0

Victory of the football refs tells a tale of two lessons

Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:45:00 +0000

The victory of the locked-out referees and millions of football fans over the greed of the team owners means much more than just a football season getting back on track. There are two big lessons to be learned.

The first is that no one is capable of doing a better job than men and women who have the training that comes with union membership and who have the voice on the job that union membership provides. Combine this with public support, and the possibility of defeating corporate greed increases enormously.

Milions watched Monday night when, in Seattle, a last-second wrong call cost the Green Bay packers a win over the Seattle Seahawks. It was a call made by an inexperienced replacement worker put there by a greedy owner determined to tear up contracts and pile up profits.

The second lesson we must learn is a bit more difficult because it requires a continued struggle to get the word out that workers all over America, like those at American Crystal Sugar, have long endured similar lock outs. Those at American Crystal have been locked out for more than a year, also by greedy corporate bosses determined to roll back wages and benefits, and willing to endanger both workers and the public by replacing the trained union workers with unskilled lower-paid substitutes.

Because the lockout victims there, and in other places across the country, have no national stage, in no way means that their struggle is any less important.

Despite what misguided politicians and corporate bosses would have us believe, a striking Chicago teacher, a striking bulldozer builder, or a locked-out sugar worker is not an easily replaced commodity.

"The big difference is that 100 million people can watch the football game so the mistakes are right there to see," a leader of the American Crystal strike who has been locked out of his job in East Grand Forks, Minn. for 14 months told us. "The mistakes that the scabs are making in the factories are behind closed doors."

He tells tales of how replacement workers are making dangerous mistakes with beet slicers and screwing up the dry pulp techniques that union workers had learned only after intensive training. Explosions, fires, danger to workers, and potential harm to consumers can and do result from corporate use of lockouts to maximize profits.

Let us all celebrate the victory of the refs, the players, and the football fans. But let us also resolve to double down on our support for the many among us who are victims of lockouts - one of the ugliest tactics in the arsenal of the corporate greed machine

Photo: Ed YourdonEd Yourdon // CC 2.0

The mailman wonders: Whose history are we taught?

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:44:00 +0000

STURGIS, S.D. - I draw the smoke forcefully into my mouth. It has to travel 2 feet from the crimson bowl in my outstretched hand to my pursed lips. When the aromatic vapors of the smoldering tobacco hit the back of my tongue I have to be careful not to inhale. As quickly as the fumes inflate my mouth I expel them into the still South Dakota air. It is dark, near midnight, with a full moon, and I send that blast of smoke up to meet the spirits in the sky as an offering of thanks for another splendid day on the roads of what we call America.

Sitting in the parking lot of the Starlite Motel in Sturgis, South Dakota, I am beginning to feel more relaxed than I have been in days. This pipe is doing its job, and the cold brewski nestled between my knees is the perfect companion to the intense smoke. Madame Dick is curled up inside the room watching the tube, knowing my routine after a long day of pounding the asphalt on our motorcycle, the Great White Steed. She sometimes asks me what I do all by myself sitting alone in the dark; my reply is always the same: "Thinking about everything yet thinking about nothing." From the stories my mother tells, I guess I was born with a head with wings. I have little control over the flapping, and thankfully motion makes any road seem right. Guess that's why I have white line fever.

The roads in this part of the country are spectacular. It is our third trip out here in 10 years and it is always breathtakingly beautiful. The town of Sturgis is home to the biggest motorcycle rally in the United States every August, but that is not why we are here. In fact, we scheduled our trip to miss the rally. Touring the Badlands and the Black Hills, winding up and down Needles Highway, gazing at herds of magnificent buffalo in Custer State Park, and seeing the Crazy Horse monument being carved out of a mountain will forever change your vision of what this country is. And let's not forget one iconic piece of Americana dear to each schoolchild's heart: Mount Rushmore. To see it in person brings back the memories of sitting at a desk in a classroom and learning American history as a youngster. The faces of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt stare stoically outward into the future, their inflexible facades demanding a best effort from every citizen. From the time I was a lad, my favorite was always Honest Abe.

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration." It's funny what you don't learn in school. Funny is the wrong word. Actually it's quite sad. If I told you who made that quote, you might be surprised. Let me give you a hint: a Republican. And no, silly rabbit, not Paul Ryan. It was ol' Honest Abe himself in his First Annual Message to the country after being elected president on December 3^rd, 1861. Lincoln, as a Republican, had such a sense of the class struggle of working folks that even Karl Marx wrote him to congratulate him on his reelection in 1864. And Marx received a cordial reply from Lincoln via the American ambassador to Great Britain. Never once was any of this even hinted at by any of my American history teachers. But there is more.

Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler were BFFs. I crap you negative! Hitler had a full portrait of Henry Ford hanging on the wall in his private office, while Ford published a newspaper in Dearborn, Michigan, during the 1930s that spewed the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi Party to American readers. In my hometown, Royal Oak, Michigan, Father Coughlin of the Shrine of the Little Flower Catholic Church had a radio show that spread this same pro-Nazi message to a nationwide audience. In the parlance of VP Joe Biden, I find that a BFD! And nary was a word of this mentioned in any of my history classrooms.

And how about labor and union history? In the last edition of New Vision, our local letter carrier newsletter, an article was published about the Battle of Blair Mountain and Matewan. At the end it asked the reader: Have you ever heard of this landmark event in American history, and if not, why not? That is a fascinating question, and one that I ask myself whenever I learn a new piece of what I would call basic American history. How do we know what we know? What has shaped and is shaping our understanding and our children's understanding of American history? The answers are complex; too far reaching to be solved here, but we need to begin the dialogue.

I believe we have been indoctrinated with a version of American history that was not accidental. From the textbooks to the chalkboards we have been spoon-fed that version of America that is the most comfortable to teach. It avoids the messy stuff that has kids asking too many questions.

Writing this is making my head wings flap again. Time to grab my pipe of peace and take a strong draw. The spirits are waiting for their offering, so I will blow my billowing smoke to the north, to the east, to the south, and finally to the west. Thinking about everything, yet thinking about nothing. I'll be inside soon, my love.

"Oh the gamblin' man is rich and the workin' man is poor /An' I ain't got no home in this world anymore." - Woody Guthrie

Photo: Mount Rushmore. Susan Webb/PW

U.S. gun culture diagnosed as a social disease

Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:44:00 +0000

Recently, a delegation from Tucson composed of some of the survivors of the mass shooting of January 2011, in which Rep. Gabby Giffords was gravely injured, met with the U.S. attorney general, urging him to take action and letting him know they expect President Obama to present a specific plan to reduce the horrific gun violence plaguing the nation.

In the wake of the two mass shootings this summer, some American physicians consider this country's gun violence a social disease. Mass murders of citizens by other citizens occur here with a frequency seen in no other nation in the world.

The mass murders in Colorado and the racist mass homicides in Wisconsin are illustrative of a type of tragedy for which the U.S. holds a near monopoly. The background facts speak for themselves.

First, the U.S. is awash in firearms. There are roughly 300 million guns in American households (per capita a gun for every citizen - this is the highest concentration in the world).

Second, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has a hugely powerful lobby that has been able to stop nearly any national debate on the issue.

Third, the U.S. has a history of hideous, omnipresent racism that has spawned a proliferation of hate groups among some white Americans -- citizens who have a very deluded, paranoid sense of victimization.

Fourth, massive inequality and poverty, long present in communities of color, has started to impoverish the ranks of hitherto comparatively prosperous Euro-Americans.

Fifth, there are 58 million Americans with significant mental problems (1 in 5).

Sixth, there has been a severe decline in mental health facilities (for this we can thank President Reagan: as California governor he systematically closed mental hospitals, and later as president he cut aid for federally funded community mental health programs).

Seventh, we have an arms industry, opting for profit over humanity, that makes billions each year on the sale of arms to hate-filled racists, the mentally ill and the general public.

With massive numbers of guns available in this country to the mentally ill, the race haters, the drug deranged, the people haters, and with huge inequalities, a lot of innocent citizens will be shot on a regular basis.

The result of a perfect storm of the above factors is an endless string of mass murders each year of innocent men, women and children. Staggeringly, research indicates that 20 mass shootings occur each year. The public only hears about the most egregious. Aside from mass killings, approximately 86 Americans die each day by gunfire. This adds up to 30,000 a year, with 100,000 wounded - much more than are killed in America's endless wars each year. The country is at war with itself. The figures are appalling.

The U. S. has, by one explanation, an ongoing gun culture because it is a nation founded on the genocide of one race - Native Americans - and the enslavement of another - African Americans. Guns were needed to slaughter one people and to subjugate another. Hence, the tradition of gun possession became embedded in the American psyche.

But we also need to look at the recent history of the arms business in the nation. At the end of World War II the Allies had a huge surplus of still very usable guns. There was no ready market anywhere for these firearms but in the U.S., as no other large and wealthy nation would have them within their borders. Even more weapons became available in the 1950s, when NATO forces changed to uniform cartridges and relinquished a stockpile of outmoded rifles. These also flooded the U.S., were imported very cheaply, often at less than $1 apiece, and could be sold at a huge profit, but still inexpensive for a purchaser - the rifle that killed President Kennedy cost $12.78. Massive imports of weapons took place at a time when the country was in the midst of serious political crises, which often incited violence. All this was with massive advertising by the NRA on the joys of gun ownership. A typical ad of the era read, "MORE FUN ... with YOUR GUNS ... the Year Around!"

However, also needed is an answer to the phenomenon of the young white male misanthrope who hates and kills. Is it just untreated mental illness? If so, why is it affecting mostly young white males? Or are these crimes also largely drug induced? More analysis is needed on this tragic phenomenon, particularly from the perspective of the Marxist theory of alienation, whereby some citizens become estranged from their own humanity.

In the meantime, to protect ourselves we need a "National Commission on Hate Crimes and Mental Health;" the tightening of gun laws; a huge reduction of public access to guns; banning of sales of the most lethal guns, assault weapons, etc.; national restoration of the mental health system; and a banning of huge ammo clips -- for just a start.

Photo: At a march and vigil against gun violence in New York's a Harlem neighborhood on Jan. 8, the first anniversary of the Tucson, Arizona shootings that killed six and injured 12. Kathy Willens/AP

Fantasy questions and belly laughs: Election 2012

Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:58:00 +0000

The secret video of the elite Republican fundraiser shows who really feels entitled, and the contempt and loathing they have for the American people. Without their vast financial power to stoke fear and prejudice, it is doubtful they could win any election.

It got me thinking of some fantasy questions I'd love to see Mitt Romney asked by a debate moderator. Here they are followed by some great videos from Jon Stewart and Sarah Silverman. Enjoy!

Questions:

Governor, 38 million of the 47 percent who pay no federal income tax have full-time, low-paying jobs. Would you favor raising the minimum wage so they could have tax liability?

Governor, you have said, "Corporations are people." But 25 percent of the largest of these "corporate people" pay no federal taxes. Would you favor closing the loopholes so that these "people" could end their feeling of entitlement?

Governor, many "corporate people," including oil companies and agribusiness, get massive government subsidies. Would you favor ending these handouts so they could take responsibility and become good tax-paying "corporate citizens?"

Governor, you have been accused of being among the thousands of millionaires who paid no federal income taxes, and the little information you have released shows that you paid a very low tax rate at most. Is there any reason why wealthy people like yourself are entitled to lower tax rates than ordinary working Americans?

Aside from the 47 percent who pay no federal taxes and who you say will vote for the president, polls show that tens of millions of other Americans, who do pay taxes - including union members, women, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Jewish Americans - strongly oppose your candidacy. Between these two groups, how can you possibly hope to win?

Sarah Silverman: Let my people vote!

Jon Stewart: Chaos on bulls$%t mountain (three videos):

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Photo: LetMyPeopleVote2012.com

Chicago teachers educate a nation

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:51:00 +0000

It was nine days that shook Chicago - and the nation. Twenty-five thousand public school teachers, guidance counselors, speech-language pathologists, social workers, nurses and other professionals, members of Chicago Teachers Union Local 1, stood up and said with one voice, "Enough!"

Left with no other choice by an intransigent Board of Education and a politically ambitious mayor, teachers took to the picket line, declaring that the strike was for the kids, the profession and public education everywhere. This was a strike that changed the city.

This red sea would not be parted

For those nine days, the city went red, symbolizing solidarity with the union. Mass protests felt like festivals with clever, and often funny signs (Rahm likes Nickelback), musicians - teachers and high school marching bands -playing drums, brass and woodwinds through the streets of downtown Chicago, chants and singing, passionate speeches describing the corporate-created problems in detail - and offering realistic alternatives, generations marching together from kids in strollers to elders with canes or in wheelchairs, banners from other unions, community organizations, parent and student groups waving to show solidarity. This was a red sea would not be parted.

Picket lines were spirited with parents, students and neighbors stopping by, offering home-baked cookies, picking up a sign for a while and cheering at each of the numerous honks and waves from passing cars, trucks and buses.

The famed Chicago "El" would fill up with red-shirted supporters and strikers on their way to a mass demonstration. "Are you a teacher? Where?" would be some of the many conversation-starters.

From YouTube videos of "When there's a contract, then call us maybe" and other clever creations to tweets with #ctustrike, social media helped create a movement.

It's not about the money

This was not about the money, the teachers said, but about working conditions. The teachers refused to be reduced to a standardized test number and they refused to let their students be reduced to that same number. Following the corporate game plan, Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his appointed school board demanded job evaluations be pinned to students' standardized test scores, a dubious method for determining student progress and learning.

The teacher's response: Education is about learning, not "teaching to the test!"

Teachers refused to be held hostage to the unrelenting school closings and so- called turnarounds, both nothing more than giveaways to charter school operators, often aiming for nothing more than profits.

School closings have not only caused mass layoffs and great hardship for teachers, but have thrown families and communities into turmoil, leaving kids in danger as they are forced into distant neighborhoods.

Newer, lower-paid teachers replace higher-paid, more experienced ones. Left without support, newer teachers get burned out, leave and the revolving door continues, leaving insecurity and instability in its wake.

The union members, not satisfied with this direction in which the mayor was taking the schools, forged another vision for public education. Instead of a longer school day, forced through without much thought - or resources - the teachers said let's have enrichment classes, music, art, dance, and world languages, instead of test prep, test prep, and more test prep.

Starving public education

Most Chicago public schools have no music and art programs. One hundred sixty are without libraries. Air conditioning is not the norm. Two hundred five social workers have to service 675 schools. These are examples of the working - and learning - conditions that the teachers fought to change.

But the union didn't stop there. Class size - while by law not a contract issue - became an issue in the strike. Stories of more than 40 kids to a class came pouring out. Even the mayor said 55 in a class could happen - although he doesn't send his kids to a school with 55 kids in a classroom. Not even close, try more than half of that.

It was the teachers union - with a powerful, united voice - that finally got through to the media that there are larger factors at work in the shortcoming of public education. Poverty, racism and discrimination, violence, and the ensuing greater needs that come from these issues, are at work and must be addressed. Something on which the corporate reform agenda is entirely silent.

The union's fight for a holistic approach to public education, one that would benefit all students and all schools won the overwhelming support among working-class parents with children in CPS, especially Black and Latino parents whose kids make up the majority of public school students.

Emanuel's choice

Emanuel said the strike was one "of choice" by the teachers. But Chicagoans didn't buy it. A majority supported the strike, and most put the blame squarely on the mayor. Well they should. Perhaps it was using the "f-bomb" at a meeting with the union's indomitable president, Karen Lewis, or perhaps it was lobbying with the notorious anti-teacher group Stand [on] Children to pass an anti-union law, or perhaps it was the bullying and blustering around the longer school day that convinced Chicagoans that the mayor had made a choice - his way or the highway. His way was the one of chaos and corporate reform. The teachers were forced to take the "high way" and fight for the common good.

Teachers were happy to end the strike after winning a number of concessions. After the strike, teachers - and their union leadership - have been hailed as heroines and heroes. Rightly so. At one high school, the first day back from the strike, teachers marched in together as students cheered. (Make that into a movie, Superman-waiting folks!)

The Chicago teachers' strike of 2012 changed the national conversation on public education. Nothing will be the same again. Like Wisconsin, Ohio, Occupy Wall Street or justice for Trayvon Martin, the mass struggle has influenced the nation. Its implications reach beyond Chicago, something of which the U.S. Department of Education and its secretary, former Chicago school boss Arne Duncan, are sure to be taking heed.

Click here to read more peoplesworld.org coverage of the strike and fight for public education.

Click here for photos and here for videos.

Photos: (PW/John Bachtell)

Fighting for human rights in the fields of North Carolina

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:12:00 +0000

At its meeting in August, the AFL-CIO Committee on Civil and Human Rights was given a presentation from the committee's chairperson, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker, on her recent trip to meet with the immigrant farm workers in North Carolina. Sister Holt Baker had been invited to visit the workers by Baldemar Velasquez, the president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC). I, along with the other members of the AFL-CIO Executive Council, was invited by Brother Velasquez to travel to North Carolina to meet with the immigrant workers. I proudly accepted, and I made the trip late last month.

IFPTE and FLOC don't have many opportunities to interact. However, I thought it was important for me to make the trip for two reasons.

First, we can learn much from this organization. Although FLOC is a small national union, through massive member mobilization and by following some rather ingenious strategies, the organization has shown to have more muscle than one might expect. By raising public awareness on its issues, FLOC has won some remarkable victories in the past few years.

Secondly, and more importantly, FLOC's is a battle for basic human rights. Its struggle is not strictly about immigration. It's about whether we, as unionists, as Americans, as fellow humans, will agree to the heartless treatment of others. It's about whether we will stand by silently, while other people on American soil are forced to endure inhumane treatment by those who so callously wield power over them.

FLOC President Velasquez started my trip with an extensive briefing, during which he freely answered all of my questions.

Much of our discussion centered on his internal strategies, and for the sake of discretion, I won't divulge any of that here.

To my question regarding the workers' legal status as immigrants, Mr. Velasquez said that many of the workers we would meet are undocumented. Mr. Velasquez explained that it's nearly impossible to gain legal entry into the United States as a farm worker. Those few who do get working visas are requested directly by a handful of growers who use legal channels to find labor. Often only a portion of the workers have visas and the rest are undocumented, to provide a semblance of legal hiring practice.

Why not enter legally?

When I asked why immigrants don't try to enter the United States legally, Mr. Velasquez explained that such a thing is all but impossible. In order to gain a working visa or a "green card," foreign workers need to have an employer-sponsor, and the majority of farm owners have no interest in sponsoring workers to whom they would be required to pay a higher minimum wage. Instead, the owners rely on a well-funded and well-organized recruitment/smuggling ring that operates by extracting a fee from each immigrant (money, which is acquired by a loan from the ring itself) and then, the workers are shipped to various parts of the country to work as fruit and vegetable pickers. Most of the workers who have a visa are organized and fall under an effective collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between FLOC and the North Carolina Growers Association. The workers with a visa who don't fall under the CBA often have their passports seized by the employer and kept until the worker has fulfilled his/her obligation. In other words, the worker is prevented from quitting.

I asked why the undocumented workers don't try to save enough money to go back home, and then, come back to the United States legally. Mr. Velasquez explained that in order to apply for a working visa, a prospective immigrant must declare whether he or she has ever entered the United States illegally or worked without authorization. U.S. Workers who enter illegally are barred from re-entry for at least 10 years. As to the prospect of saving any money earned, Mr. Velasquez told me the workers are paid such meager wages that saving even a portion of it was simply ridiculous.

When I asked whether the farm owners know that much of their workforce of farm laborers was undocumented, Mr. Velasquez laughed, as he assured me that of course they know. That's the way the farm owners can get around any wage and hour laws, he explained. The farm owners depend on their workforce being undocumented, and the workers' substandard pay, along with the absence of any benefits, is an essential element of the farm owner's profits. Mr. Velasquez added, "Besides, a lot of people would object to paying double for a jar of pickles just to ensure the workers get paid the minimum wage."

As a side note, Mr. Velasquez told me that FICA tax is withheld from the workers' pay even if the workers are undocumented. It's a sad but running joke that the undocumented workers are supporting the Social Security benefits of American workers, while the undocumented workers have no chance of receiving any benefits themselves.

We discussed the value of the workers' membership in FLOC. First and foremost, when a union has a roster of the workers, the union demands that the workers are paid minimum wage and receive fair treatment consistent with prevailing law. Union members have the right to file grievances against their employer. These grievances involve anything from mistreatment by supervisors, to housing conditions, and being shorted their rightful pay, which is especially troublesome when the workers are paid by the count of produce picked in lieu of being paid a set amount of money per hour.

Outside of the FLOC/NCGA CBA, there is no protection against employer retaliation for workers who are deemed troublesome because of their union activity. In fact, in most states there are no labor laws that govern farm workers' rights. Therefore, the union has no regulatory body to which the union or the workers can file appeals or unfair labor practice charges.

Sent to their work camps

When the day is done, the workers are sent to their work camps (I can hardly believe I'm using such a despicable term), where they eat, sleep, bathe and live while they are employed on any given farm. Mr. Velasquez and I, along with some staff representatives of FLOC and some other worker advocates, visited a few of the work camps, which were nonunion. (We didn't want to get in the workers' way while they were picking produce, so we waited until they had finished their work for the day.)

We were lucky enough to be there when the temperature was only around 90 degrees. But this was eastern North Carolina, and the temperature regularly swelters in the 100s.

In short, each complex was filthy and disgusting. The grounds were a mixture of rutted and uneven rocks, stones and weeds. Gnats and flies were so thick, we had to walk with our mouths closed and all of us were continuously swatting and waving our hands in front of our faces-as though that would do any good. Of course, the ever-present haze of flying bugs was always denser nearer to where the workers had to cook and eat their meals. Whatever else the workers ate, I have no doubt they couldn't help but consume some insects with their food.

The work camps are made of rows of shacks that encircle a stony yard. The shacks rest on concrete slabs. The crude buildings are made of bare wood with bare pipe in the few buildings that have running water (the kitchens, the laundry rooms and the bathrooms are all located in the same buildings). A lone 50-gallon water heater is used to accommodate up to 100 people, who all need to bathe, wash their clothes and eat in the same complex. When the hot water runs out, the workers simply have to shower and do their laundry in cold water. There is no running water in any of the shacks used for sleeping.

We arrived in time to find most of the workers had just washed after the day's work. They were all incredibly friendly and in good spirits, although none of them could hide the fact that they were dog tired. At this point in their day, the simple act of sitting down was a joyous experience.

The workers all knew who Baldemar Velasquez was. If they didn't know him, they'd all obviously heard of him and they accepted him like he was a saint.

I refrained from waving the haze of bugs away from my face while I was talking with the workers, because I didn't want to appear perturbed by such a minor inconvenience in the face of such appalling hardship. At the same time, I couldn't help but think of how my own family reacts when there's a single fly or a moth in the house.

The workers all welcomed us and freely spoke with us. We were careful not to take too many pictures of them without their approval and we were told beforehand (by the FLOC staffers) not to take photographs of any of the children.

I sat and spoke with a worker named C for a few minutes. Like all the other workers around him, C is a slightly built man. He is small and wiry, without an ounce of fat on him. As I sat down, C glanced at the FLOC staffers and I assume they nodded that it was safe to talk with me. (The FLOC staffers served as our interpreters.) C said he was doing fine, except that he was incredibly tired.

Photo: Baldemar Velasquez, left and Gregory Junemann, right. Courtesy of AFL-CIO.

Part-time faculty pay reaching poverty level

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:53:00 +0000

The American Federation of Teachers recently highlighted the tenuous employment and poor compensation of part-time college teachers in an article titled: "New report blasts working conditions of adjunct faculty."

The article spotlights findings of two recent reports. In the first, a survey of 500 adjunct faculty found they are frequently hired at the last minute for courses they have little time to prepare for, with little or no support from the institution. They rarely have opportunities for professional development or chances to share in the collegial culture of education.

The second report, "Dismantling the Professoriate," paints a bleak portrait of the poverty-level wages and lack of professional support for adjunct faculty, who often make significantly less per course than their full-time counterparts:

"The median pay per course, standardized to a three-credit course, was $2,700 in fall 2010, and ranged from a low of $2,235 at two-year colleges to a high of $3,400 at four-year doctoral or research universities.
"Part-time faculty respondents saw little, if any, wage premium based on their credentials.
"Professional support was minimal for part-time faculty members' work outside the classroom and for their inclusion in academic decision-making."

Grassroots efforts are also drawing attention to the low pay, lack of benefits and lack of support in a field that has come to depend on the presence of a surplus of "freeway flyers," as adjuncts are often called.

A "crowd-sourced" spreadsheet at adjunctproject.com lists data from part-time faculty all over the U.S., on wages, health benefits (or more commonly, lack thereof), access to institutional support, union membership and retirement.

Budget cuts are often blamed for the over-reliance on part-time adjuncts to handle the bulk of teaching. Budgets have indeed been slashed in education, but data shows at the same time, the non-teaching administrative sector has grown.

While college administrations often tout the fiscal advantages of using part-time faculty, they don't apply the same logic to their own ranks. Between 1976 and 2005, part-time faculty rose from 31 percent to 48 percent, while part-time administrators declined from 4 percent to 3 percent.

College administrators' salaries are several levels higher than the wages of adjunct teachers. Although full professors' salaries may seem commensurate with those of administrators, salaries and wages for all teaching staff have not kept pace, even with rising tuition, as reported by the American Association of University Professors.

The AAUP says tuition rose much faster than full-time faculty salaries, with the greatest gap at public institutions, where tuition and fees grew by 72 percent, accounting for inflation, while professors' salaries rose by less than 1 percent at doctoral and baccalaureate institutions and fell by over 5 percent at master's universities.

Meanwhile, the AAUP says, between 2006-7 and 2010-11, median presidential salaries jumped by 9.8 percent, adjusted for inflation, while median full-time faculty salaries rose by less than 2 percent."

In fact most adjuncts have been hired when universities were not facing budget cuts, the AAUP reported .

At the same time, colleges are increasingly turning toward corporate models and business culture. And corporations and businesses are taking more of a role in diverting public education funds intended for colleges, and instead directing them to private profit. Cheap and surplus labor is the model for an expanding bottom line in Wall Street-driven institutions and the same process has taken hold of our institutions of higher learning, especially in privatization at public universities.

Without tenure, adjuncts are among the first to be fired when cuts are on the table, just like temps and contract workers across many other fields. This can translate to depressed wages across the board for teaching staff, higher class loads for the remaining faculty (in some cases throwing teaching duties on "stipend" paid graduate students who make even less than adjuncts), and a decrease in dues in the teaching union locals, attacking their ability to fight educational austerity measures.

Slashing the teaching workforce in education does not cause the economy to grow or save the budgets of universities in the long run. Expanding wages and benefits and teaching opportunities for adjuncts would bring more regional prosperity, increasing the tax base and helping to grow available funds for education.

The political will must also be found to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, who benefit from the presence of public universities and a well-educated labor force. Full time and part time teaching staff must forge organized and unified fight-backs, to press universities to benefit the teaching staff who attract students to the school. Resisting the privatization of our public resources will also help reverse the trend of making education jobs poverty-level.

Adjuncts should not view themselves as "the expendables," but as a workforce that now makes up the majority of higher education staff. If there is a union at your college, join it. If the adjuncts are not organized or not part of the existing union, press to become a part of the union or form an adjunct union.

Organization is the best weapon against capitalism, which has definitely entered the arena of higher education. The future of our working people, teachers and students alike, is at stake.

Photo: A college class, stock photo. Yee Ting // CC 2.0

College’s antiquated policies up against new generation of thinkers

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:46:00 +0000

The following is written by an Illinois student.

The right to form a union is a right that belongs to all workers. For a significant number of educated, skilled workers, however, this representation is not even an option. Since the late 1970's when the Supreme Court's ruling in NLRB vs. Yeshiva University largely blocked unionization in private colleges, the faculty of these places of higher education have struggled to be heard. Many are at the mercy of a tyrannical Board of Trustees and are poorly organized into largely-ignored faculty associations. Hearing about workers unable to unionize would shock a progressive nation, but here in the states it is a reality and an issue that very few are willing to tackle.

I recently had the privilege of transferring to one such college - the only college designed for students and faculty of my faith. It is a picturesque campus complete with historic structures, sculpted hedges, and hundreds of eager pupils.

The school is governed by a very conservative Board of Trustees, which imposes right-wing policies and codes of conduct under the guise of our religion. Despite this, I interviewed one professor who told me "I truly believe in this school and what it stands for- it is the policies that need changing."

Another professor was very discriminating in her approach toward the policies: "I try to always keep our religion and this school separate." Her point? The policies of the school do not always represent the teachings of our church.

For example, among the conservative policies in place is a ban on all homosexual PDA (public display of affection), including non-sexual dating, an issue on which the church takes no official stance. Several students have been on disciplinary suspension for their sexual orientation, and yet there has been little action from the students here. "We are told that all the rules here are based on religious principles, so if we oppose them, we are treated like we're opposing God," says one concerned student who is very active in the largest religious student organization on campus.

During an in-depth discussion with a recently hired professor, I asked her why she would come to a school which seems very hesitant to even discuss progressive policies. She told me, "I went to this school and I love this school. The teachers here had the biggest impact on me and I love the idea of giving back." She had previously taught for over ten years in public education before accepting a pay cut to come back to her alma mater.

During her time in the public sector, she had been an active member of the teacher's union and participated in two strikes. "They were over pay cuts both times, and I don't believe the issues were resolved, but at least we had the right to picket."

"I have faith that the policies can change," says the new professor. "A whole new generation is coming into the faculty and I think that soon we'll see a lot of positive changes. The founders of this school left ample room for progress." This sentiment seems to be shared by many her colleagues who feel that the non-progressive policies of the school do not accurately reflect the progressiveness of the church. "Not all of the policies are bad," says another professor; "many were revolutionary when the school was founded. We just can't give into the idea of stagnation."

One professor summed up the faculty consensus, "The same active faith that helped organize the school over 100 years ago is active now; we just need to get politics and personality out of the way of progress."

Photo: wohnai // CC 2.0

Connecticut GOP Senate hopeful a threat to kids

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:35:00 +0000

Our kids can't vote on Nov. 6. But we can.

In Connecticut, the budget cuts that Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon support are already hurting the children, causing a shortfall of funds for public education. In New Haven 30 paraprofessional jobs are unfilled, and half the K-2 classrooms lack full staff.

Starting in 2008, the economic crisis hammered state and town budgets in Connecticut. Revenues fell, while the need for services grew. State aid to education fell by $400 million per year.

Thanks to President Obama's stimulus package most of the gap was filled. Federal aid to education increased from 5% to 9.1% of local school budgets. Stimulus funds also prevented layoff of police and firefighters, and paid for infrastructure repairs. But the stimulus only lasted for two years.

Last year, President Obama introduced the American Jobs Act, which would have continued funding for teachers, police and firefighters. Republicans in Congress blocked it. As a result 3,000 teacher jobs have been cut in Connecticut leaving classrooms in some towns overcrowded with more than 30 students.

Mitt Romney and Linda McMahon's program will cut federal funds for education even further. And it's not just the schools that will suffer. Hundreds of New Haven youth missed out on youth@work summer jobs when the stimulus funding was not renewed.

Cutting federal funds also endangers non-profits doing vital work with youth programs and education. Federal grants and loans keep thousands of students in classrooms at Southern, Gateway and other area colleges and universities, generating hundreds of jobs in New Haven.

When federal budgets are cut to preserve tax breaks for the wealthy, state and local governments are faced with a choice: close schools, libraries and clinics, or raise taxes on working people.

When Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act in Congress, the state of Connecticut stepped in with increased aid to local schools. But to pay for keeping teachers in classrooms and other state services, taxes were increased on working families.

Mitt Romney and Linda McMahon want to keep and extend tax breaks for multi-millionaires like themselves. McMahon is the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment. She has spent over $60 million of her fortune running for the Senate and if elected, she will be one of the wealthiest people in Congress. Romney and McMahon have a big personal stake in preserving the special tax breaks that benefit the richest 1%.

President Obama supports ending the Bush tax breaks for the rich and closing some of the biggest and most unfair loopholes. But again he has been blocked by Republicans in Congress.

For the sake of the children: our city, state and nation need policies that put children and working families first.

Voters in Connecticut have a clear choice in the race for U.S. Senate. During his seven years in Congress Chris Murphy has been a strong supporter of President Obama's economic program and healthcare reform. He has a record of fighting for manufacturing jobs, renewable energy and union rights.

"Linda McMahon's tax proposal would give her a $7 million break," he said, asking, "what is more important? $7 million more for Linda McMahon or $7 million invested in New Haven's Fair Haven, Newhallville and Hill neighborhoods?"

The Senate race in Connecticut is a tossup. If Linda McMahon wins, it could hand control of the whole Congress to the Republicans, whose highest priority is to take down President Obama. Every vote can make the difference.

Photo: The candidates are vying for the Senate seat left vacant by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Independent. emmett.hume // CC 2.0

Neil Armstrong: moon in the balance

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:33:00 +0000

August 2012 was an eventful month for space science. The Curiosity rover landed on Mars beginning the next exciting chapter of understanding that planet's many mysteries. On August 25, Neil Armstrong, the first human being to set foot on the Moon, passed away at the age of 82. Armstrong's legacy is one of achievement and quiet encouragement for explorers in all walks of life. He was no recluse, but unlike other astronauts he did not capitalize on the uniqueness of his experience to build a political career. Few people can say that they have been in a similar position to Armstrong, that they have gone beyond the realm of previous human experience. Fewer still have lived a life as genuine and forthright as Armstrong's.

Neil Armstrong's career focused from the beginning on aeronautics. This trajectory lead him to be drafted out of University to be a Navy fighter pilot during the Korean War. He returned to University after three years of service, receiving a Bachelors in aeronautical engineering from Purdue and eventually a Masters from the University of Southern California. Before entering the space program he was a test pilot for jet and rocket-powered aircraft. Armstrong flew twice in NASA missions: first on Gemini 8, then on Apollo 11. It was on July 20th, 1969 that he, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins landed on the Moon.

The dueling space programs of the USA and USSR were an aspect of the wider conflict between the 20th Century superpowers. The space race began as an offshoot of a World War II military program to develop a frighteningly powerful weapon, originally a Nazi plan for a missile capable of flight from Germany to New York City. After the war, German scientists were instrumental in developing rocketry for both the United States and the Soviet Union. When Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, was launched in 1957, it demonstrated technological and military superiority of Soviet science. By the end of the 1950s both Moscow and Washington had developed rockets capable of delivering atomic weapons to any point on Earth.

But the engineers and scientists who developed these technologies did not make them for war alone. Nuclear power and rocketry fulfilled a dream they had as children, of exploring space and giving light to the world. This conflict of hope and annihilation is evocative, and it is especially interesting because it is not the creation of these weapons that we remember fondly. What we remember is the first transmission from Sputnik, the first human footprint on the face of the jewel that hangs suspended in the sky.

Armstrong and Aldrin became political footballs upon returning from the Moon. They represented an achievement that could be nationalized and used for political ends as examples of American exceptionalism and military might. To a lesser extent so too did Gagarin and Komorov. But the astronauts who risked life and limb traveling to an unimaginable frontier were generally interested in peace and reconciliation. During Armstrong's spacewalk a ceremony was made of leaving messages from presidents and world leaders for future explorers. It is telling that it included a golden olive branch and memorials to the Apollo 1 astronauts and cosmonauts Gagarin and Komarov, who had recently died in training and spaceflight accidents.

Despite becoming an important political symbol, hailed as the ultimate achievement in the race to make history in space, Armstrong declined to associate himself with politics. In doing this, the first human steps on another world don't belong to any single group but instead to all mankind. Armstrong privately capitalized on his experiences directly, teaching aeronautics at the University of Cincinnati and accepting spokesperson positions for various American companies. One could say that Armstrong was definitive of his generation, he was intelligent, moderately conservative, and apolitical. Like Gagarin, and Aldrin, and so many other astronauts he believed that space exploration was a boon to all humanity; his interest in science was personal rather than jingoistic. Engineer before statesman, pilot before partisan. He is remembered fondly by many for inspiring them and taking care to carry their dreams with grace. Armstrong's family requested that anyone wanting to honor his memory just look to the moon. And wink.

Photo: Arjan Almekinders // CC 2.0

"Searching for Sugar Man": a review

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:19:00 +0000

Searching for Sugar Man is an uplifting documentary film about the life of Detroit based Mexican American working-class singer Sixto Rodriguez. He not only sang working-class songs; he lived a working-class life.

"Rodriguez," as he was know on his albums, wrote some of the finest protest music of the 1970s and has been compared to Bob Dylan and Neil Young as one of the most important American songwriters after Woodstock. Yet almost nobody knows about him. In fact, his album "Cold Fact," released in 1972, sold very few copies here in the U.S., even though his singing (which to me also sounds like Jose Feliciano) was superb, his music was beautifully arranged and his lyrics were all great poetry, full of the meaning of life, relationships and struggle.

Almost unknown in America, in the 1970's Rodriguez was a mega-star in apartheid South Africa. His music had a huge impact on discontented Africanist youth, who were growing weary of the censorship, the mandatory military draft and the war in Namibia.

The most incredible thing was that Sixto Rodriguez, who gigged regularly in the dive bars and beer joints along Detroit's riverfront, had no idea of his massive popularity in South Africa. Rodriguez never received a dime in royalties from the sale of his music there. In 1975, he actually gave up his music career after his first albums weren't selling here in the U.S.

In order to preserve apartheid, the South African racists tried to completely shield their population from outside influences. Even white South Africans lived under almost total censorship. There was no Internet back then; in fact, South Africa had no television until 1975.

South African white youth lived privileged lives next to the fascist oppression that the black majority had to endure. But apartheid had a corrosive effect on the freedom, stability and moral integrity of the whole society.

Rodriquez's progressive music, which had a Motown feel to it, was politically and culturally liberating to a lot of white youth who were becoming more and more opposed to the apartheid system.

Rodriguez became an underground success. His music was smuggled into the country on tapes and circulated by the tens of thousands among young white South Africans. One of the music executives from South Africa said that in his country back then Rodriquez was bigger than Elvis.

The documentary is about a South African radio personality in the late 90s who was trying to find out what happened to Rodriguez.

The rumors in South Africa were that Rodriguez became deeply depressed and had committed suicide after a performance in Detroit.

The radio disc jockey went on a mission to find out what happened to Rodriguez, who didn't make another album and, as far as South Africa could figure out, he literally dropped out of site.

It turns out the Rodriguez was alive and living in Detroit. When he decided that his music career had run its course, he became a construction worker, mainly doing demolition, the hardest, most backbreaking work one can do. He spent all of his effort raising his two daughters, who appear in the film.

Sixto Rodriguez was born July 10, 1942, in Dearborn, Mich. He lost his mother when he was three years old and spent many years in an orphanage, his father visiting him on Sundays. He worked in auto for a time, meaning he was likely a UAW member.

His music was drawn from his hard life as the son of Mexican immigrants, and having to deal with the harsh realities as a Latino worker and a single parent. He raised his daughters and, despite working hard all of his life, he still lived in near poverty.

He called himself a "musical political." He ran for mayor of Detroit twice and for State Representative, and received his largest vote (7,000) when he ran for Detroit City Council. He described himself as a worker and he always ran as an independent on a pro-working class platform.

The high point of the movie for me was when Rodriquez was found and told that he was bigger than Elvis in South Africa; he was so happy.

He has since done two huge concert tours in South Africa. He played to sold out concert halls of mostly whites who were all cheering at the top of their lungs for their iconic people's artist. At his first South African concert he shouted, "Thanks for keeping me alive."

In the film, which shows him at his concerts, he still had his modest working-class manner, which, along with his music, makes him very likable - especially knowing all he went through.

"Searching for Sugar Man" shows that his life had come to a wonderful fruition. Sixto was glad to be performing again and to receive the full recognition that had been denied him for so long.

The movie is playing around the country, mainly in art theaters. Swedish director Malik Benjelloul directed the film. Sony has picked it up and, yes, there is talk that an Oscar nomination may be in the offing.

Sixto Rodriguez has appeared on the Letterman show with a full orchestra with strings. In a CNN interview, he said, "I sing about social issues, not boy- girl stuff."

He is presently on a nationwide tour. My wife and I caught him at the Highline Ballroom in NYC and he was great. He had on his signature outfit - black from head to toe. In between every song, he'd give a short political comment, like "Free love is very expensive" and "Women are stronger" - the crowd just loved it. People were yelling out their favorite song during the set.

His music and his politics are fiercely against the 1 percent and at one point he told the packed house to vote for Obama, which was met by cheers. Most of his tunes where written back in the 1970s, but as he said in a recent interview, "The issues are as urgent today as when I first wrote these songs."

At the end of his concert received a standing ovation. In response, he held up a clenched fist and declared 1960s style, "Power to the People." Bendjellooul, the director of the film, told CNN, "It was the most beautiful story I ever heard in my life."

Searching for Sugar Man is definitely a must see.

Movie Review
Searching for Sugar Man
Directed by Malik Benjelloul
2012, 86 mins., Rated PG-13

Mitt, you take personal responsibility!

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:04:00 +0000

Few could have missed what are likely the most contemptible words ever uttered by a candidate for the presidency of the United States - words that show just how unqualified he is to aspire to that office. But just in case a reader did miss Mitt Romney's secretly recorded comments at a Boca Raton, Fla., fundraiser, here they are:

"There are the 47 percent who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for the president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax. My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." (Editorial continues after video.)

One has to ask today, on the first anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, just who Mitt Romney, Mr. 1 % himself, was referring to as people who don't "take personal responsibility and care for themselves?"

It must be people like him - and their sibling corporations - who he is talking about, because they spend millions to find ways to not pay taxes!

Set aside, for a moment, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the 47 percent who he says are hopelessly in the Obama camp, actually pay plenty of income and other taxes.

Even if we look only at the minority who don't pay federal income taxes, we find 61 percent of that group are workers currently employed but earning dismally low wages, particularly in the non-union states championed by Romney and his fellow 1%ers.

Students, military families, people with disabilities and the unemployed, taken together, account for 17 percent of those who don't pay federal income taxes.

Students, of course, will pay huge amounts of taxes when they get out of school and military families paid taxes before they joined up and will pay again after their enlistments. The unemployed paid plenty of federal income taxes before they lost their jobs and were it not for the outsourcing promoted by Romney and his 1% pals many would still have their jobs and be able to pay federal income taxes.

As for the disabled: Does Romney dare tell the thousands suffering from black lung and other diseases acquired on the job, those born with disabilities or came by them through war or other life's trials, that they don't have the right to food or a roof over their heads?

The remaining 22% of those who don't pay federal income taxes are seniors, most of whom worked and paid taxes all their lives. Taking away the safety net those seniors have earned would not only result in countless early deaths but would quickly plunge the millions who are members of their families into abject poverty too.

The reality is a far different one from the one painted by Romney at that gathering of his rich friends. The fact that someone is not paid enough or that he or she is on active military duty protecting Romney's wealth, among other things, or that he or she is too old or that he or she is suffering from disease acquired on the job does not mean that he or she is not contributing to society.

The poorest one fifth of American households actually pay out a crushing 16 percent of their meager incomes in various federal, state and local taxes while many of the super-rich, Romney among them, devise ever more creative ways of avoiding taxes entirely.

Mitt, you're wrong! It's you who is not taking personal responsibility when you stash your money in offshore tax shelters. The vast majority however does take personal responsibility. If you can't see that now you will understand on Election Day.

The data source for this editorial is a 2011 report entitled "Who doesn't pay federal income taxes?" put out jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.

Photo: Demonstrators at a protest march using a puppet in the likeness of Mitt Romney, Aug. 30in Tampa, Fla., outside the Republican National Convention. Dave Martin/AP

Why Romney’s slipping in polls

Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:51:00 +0000

With less than seven weeks to Election Day, the American people are turning their attention to the presidential race. Polls say President Barack Obama has an advantage - in fact, some separation - over GOP nominee Mitt Romney nationally and in some critical battleground states - notably Florida, Virginia and Ohio.

How do we account for this? First is the contrast in the two parties' conventions. According to many nonpartisan pundits, the Republican convention was a "flop," whereas the Democratic Party convention succeeded in energizing its base and presenting an appealing message to undecided voters.

Then there is the contrast in campaigns. Even Republican strategists are shaking their heads at the reoccurring missteps of the Romney campaign. Meanwhile the Obama team seems to be making all the right moves, beginning with their success in defining Romney over the summer and then at the convention as being out of touch with the "middle class."

Moreover, one can only think that this image will only grow with the surfacing this week of the Mother Jones video that has Romney (ala Rush Limbaugh) telling a group of wealthy Republicans that 47 percent of the people are on some form of government dole, pay no taxes and take no responsibility for their lives.

Another factor in Romney's growing unpopularity is that he is tacking in an extremist direction. The conventional wisdom was that upon securing the nomination he would move to the center, but there are few signs of that so far. In not doing so, his campaign is alienating broad constituencies - union members, people of color, women, youth, seniors, gays, disabled, veterans, etc.

Romney's lack of a persuasive economic recovery plan also has hurt him in the polls. The expectation was that he would unveil a recovery plan in his acceptance speech at the Republican Party convention. What better place! But he came up empty, except for a few right-wing bromides like cutting taxes on businesses and the 1 percent.

As a result, Romney's advantage in public opinion polls over Obama over the handling of the economy has virtually disappeared. This is a major shift in popular thinking.

Still another factor that accounts for Romney's slippage is that he hasn't given people the sense that he is a steady leader in difficult times. Nowhere was this more evident than last week when the U.S. consulate in Libya was attacked and four Americans were killed. Before the dust had settled and the facts were in, he chided the president for his handling of this heinous attack. His rhetorical, and as it turned out groundless, shot from the hip at the president surprised nearly all, but his most zealous supporters and the Fox News team.

Indeed, people and pundits felt that his criticism was very unpresidential and amateurish; even some of Romney's supporters were turned off by remarks that were transparently self-serving.

Despite this criticism, Romney along with the right-wing media doubled down on their tirade against the president. Not only did the president supposedly botch the response to the attack on the consulate, they said, but the protests in the Muslim countries reveal that the president in foreign policy matters "leads from behind," that he unnecessarily apologizes for the U.S. role in world affairs, that he throws reliable allies like Israel under the bus and that he makes good speeches, but practices bad policy.

And joining Romney and gang (perhaps with a little more subtlety, but every bit as irresponsible and adventurist) was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who is itching to go to war with Iran. (Perhaps to boost his sagging poll numbers in Israel.)

I seriously doubt that this desperate gambit by Romney will resonate well with the electorate however. The American people aren't looking for a more muscular foreign policy in the Middle East from their next president. Their memories aren't so short that they have forgot about the cost in blood and treasure of our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. They correctly suspect that a war against Iran would not only enflame the entire region, but lock us into an untenable and costly situation in the Middle East for a long time to come. If anything they look with suspicion on any candidate who cynically plays with American lives for political advantage in an election campaign.

None of this bodes well for Romney and the Republicans. Their path to victory in November is more difficult now. For Obama and his supporters, on the other hand, the recent turn in public opinion is cause for cautious optimism, although no one will express that in words, probably for good reason.

For they realize that much can happen over the next seven weeks that could have an impact on the outcome of the race - nothing more so than the systematic attempt by the Republican Party and its supporters to suppress the vote.

It is this palpable reality that is driving the supporters of the president to turn out record numbers and guarantee every vote is counted on Election Day.

Photo: AP Photo

GOP willing to sabotage economy to win “last stand” election

Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:06:00 +0000

Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans are a cynical and calculating bunch. They are extremists the likes of which we have never seen in American politics.

In commenting on the anemic jobs growth in the last quarter - 96,000 jobs - they place the entire blame on the president. Not a hint of criticism was directed at congressional Republicans. But everyone knows that Republican leaders in the House and Senate have attempted to block anything that might remotely reinvigorate the economy and create jobs.

Even small initiatives have been obstructed and then dismissed as examples of the Obama administration's fascination with "big government budget-busting" solutions to problems that can only be solved, so Romney and gang say, by the private sector.

But there is no evidence that entrepreneurial capitalism will set the economy on a dynamic, job-creating growth path. Facts on the ground tell us that while the engine of capitalism is not quite on life support today, it is experiencing, by nearly all measures, a crisis that is more deep-going and protracted than any crisis since the Great Depression.

To entertain the idea that the system will move onto a robust path of development on its own, as a result of a "burst" of entrepreneurial activity, is delusional, as is increasingly evident with each passing quarter of dismal economic reports.

In fact, long-term stagnation is more likely than robust recovery.

Thus waiting for the economy to first jump start itself and then throw itself onto a sustained high-employment growth trajectory is a fool's errand. It just won't happen. Capitalism is not a self-correcting system, especially in current conditions.

But I don't believe that the Republicans even care if the economy rebounds. A sluggish economy in their view is their only path to the White House in this election cycle. If confronted, they will deny it, but if you judge them by their actions in Congress, it seems apparent that sabotage of the president's economic plans is at the top of their agenda. It is the thin reed on which their return to power and domination rests.

To say that Romney and his fellow Republicans are consciously undermining the economy for the purpose of winning this election is probably hard for many Americans to swallow.

Even with their skepticism of politicians and the political process, many American people still believe that there are bounds beyond which neither party would go to accomplish its aims. That is not the case in this instance in my opinion. No matter what the cost and pain, Romney and the Republicans are hell bent on undermining any recovery of growth rates and jobs in order to emerge triumphant on Election Day.

Don't forget that today's Republican Party is of a different vintage than the Republicans of even a few decades ago. The extremists who used to be on the fringe are now at the center of the GOP. They formulate policy, they set the agenda, and they frame the message.

Moreover, they have an existential fear that demographic trends - the country is becoming majority minority while the Republican base among older white voters is literally dying out - are going to render them a historical anachronism. For them, that ratchets up the stakes of this election. It becomes their "last stand." It incites them to do whatever is necessary to win in November - lies, demagogy, racism, misogyny, immigrant bashing, homophobia, voter suppression and intimidation, and yes, economic sabotage.

Will they realize their objective? I don't think so, but the outcome of these elections isn't written in the stars by any means. No stone should be left unturned to ensure the decisive defeat of Romney, Republicans in Congress, and right-wing extremism.

Photo: DonkeyHotey // CC 2.0

Why I’m voting for Obama and Democrats as a person of faith

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:34:00 +0000

The Jewish New Year falls on September 17, a joyous anticipation of good health and prosperity in the coming year. The season continues with Yom Kippur on the 26th, a day of fasting and reflection on what we could have done better in the preceding year and how we resolve to go forward.

This season overlaps with another period of reflection on the theme of outgoing and incoming: the end of President Obama's first term and his re-election to a second.

Sitting it out, or "protest" voting, is not an acceptable option. Not when the GOP boasts of purging millions of voters from the rolls, shortening voting hours, and requiring picture IDs. Voting never before seemed like such a sacred act.

The GOP offers us two men of profound faith and conviction, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and Paul Ryan, a Roman Catholic. Or so they profess. I really have to wonder what Bibles they're reading, and what religious precepts they're following. To my thinking, Republican/tea party policies directly contradict the great teachings of just about every world faith tradition. The Ryan budget alone is a shining example of "doing unto others what you would not have done unto you."

Republicans paint for us a dark, every man for himself dystopia. They seek to privatize and monetize everything in the commonweal, like health care, education, and national defense. I'm on Social Security now, and they want to yank us back to the day when most of our seniors were living in poverty. Ryan-Romney will give us Medicare vouchers raising every senior's medical bill $6,500 a year, and eliminate Medicaid completely. The Affordable Care Act isn't perfect, but it's a platform to build on. Personally, I support Medicare for All, and will continue struggling for that if Obama is re-elected. If not, even ACA will be repealed.

Republicans want to drag us back to the Gilded Age, a time of no government regulation, no unions to fight back against the robber barons, women paid substantially less, pervasive wage theft, no safety rules or minimum wages. They envision no consumer protection, no banking laws, no limit on financial institutions. Their budget promotes the ever-widening gap between the 1% and the rest of us. The floodgate of "Citizens United" money flowing into our elections has amplified the voice of every ultra-right-wing candidate in the country. If we do not come out in force to vote, billionaire donors to the GOP will succeed in buying our government.

Do these people of faith know Isaiah 58 that we read on Yom Kippur? "To loosen the bonds of injustice ... To let the oppressed go free by smashing every yoke! To share your bread with the hungry, and to bring the outcast poor into your home. When you see the naked, that you clothe them, and not hide yourself from your own flesh." What about remembering the stranger in your midst? Are Americans not overwhelmingly a nation of immigrants and their descendants?

What would Jesus have done with these people? He would have thrown the moneychangers out of the temple! The Conference of Catholic Bishops has pronounced the Ryan budget an immoral document. The "nuns on the bus" use the term sinful.

President Obama has ended the war in Iraq, and set a withdrawal date from Afghanistan. There exist serious abuses by our "security state" government, but we can address them more effectively in a second term. A President Romney, guided by advisers largely drawn from the George W. Bush administration, would only hurtle us into more interventionist adventures.

One hallmark of acceptance into society is the right to serve our country. President Obama engineered the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Romney wants to reinstate it. The Democrats include marriage equality in their platform. Another route to success is education, but Republicans want to block government from providing student loans. And jobs! A good job is supposed to be your path to the American dream - work hard, play fair, save a little, and you can live with dignity, and retire with security. Republicans have done zilch to help Obama create jobs, train workers in needed skills, or convert to eco-friendly technologies.

Republicans have made a religion of denying global warming. Eco-activists have shown that Obama can be moved by our protests. From the GOP we'll get only more noxious emissions heating up the planet, causing extreme weather phenomena, creating irreversible health problems, and threatening all creation. What greater sinfulness than the pursuit of profit while killing the Earth and all the creatures thereof?

As someone who has worked for a great part of my life in the faith and interfaith communities, I say the GOP blueprint is profoundly inhuman. Immoral. Sinful.

I give modestly to several charitable groups that send out a yearly legislative scorecard showing where our senators and congressmembers stand. Democrats come in at 70%-100% favorable, and Republicans 0%-30% at best.

I am voting straight Democratic. I don't love every candidate. In some races I truly wish we had better progressives. But when we wake up on November 7, we'll enjoy far brighter possibilities if we find that we've elected more Democrats everywhere.

A sweet, healthy New Year to all!

Image: A verse from the Old Testament's Isaiah 58. flattop341 CC 2.0

Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, and the war on drugs

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:48:00 +0000

Most Americans would readily admit the "war on drugs" has been a failure. The draconian policies have led to record amounts of arrests, primarily of adult males of color. The resulting felony convictions create a lifelong stigma that limits these individuals' full participation in their communities and their employment opportunities. People's constitutional rights are routinely violated through "stop and frisk" or consent searches in traffic stops which often end up targeting ethnic minorities. The "drug war" structure is a reactive program of policies that recognizes it will never be able to "win" but nonetheless demands increasing amounts of funds and legal latitude to combat the perceived evil.

Yet for all of its failures, the "war on drugs" continues. So, it should be no surprise that when the issue of performance-enhancing drugs and blood doping entered the sporting world, the practices of the drug war would follow.

Lance Armstrong's lifetime ban over doping allegations and Major League Baseball's 50-game suspensions of Melky Cabrera and Bartolo Colon for testosterone make them just the latest faces in the sporting version of the "war on drugs."

From Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens to now, the parallels to the drug war are obvious. Just as arrests for possession have skyrocketed, the sporting drug war also puts a disproportionate amount of focus on individuals. This idea has failed in minimizing recreational drug use. The policy of publicly shaming and putting all responsibility at the feet of the individual player has also failed to limit athletes choosing to take performance-altering drugs (PEDs).

There are no deeper analyses of why people choose to use drugs or how our society can ameliorate the situation. In the sport world, no one asks the institutions, teams and owners to, say, turn over the billions they earned from baseball's steroid era.

For international cycling, the focus on Lance Armstrong fails to acknowledge that over 40 fellow cyclers who raced along with Armstrong have been implicated in their own scandals.

There is also no investigation of the precariousness of these athletes' jobs. It is tragically often that athletes are willing to risk everything by using PEDs to ensure as much earning ability as possible. However, owners and institutions that profit off of these athletes' risks don't face punishment and can always find new players to take the place of those suspended and disgraced.

Unfortunately, the status quo ultimately refuses to acknowledge the powerful role and culpability of those owners and institutions in benefitting from and shaping the motivations behind individuals' choices.

Since its inception, the sport "war on drugs" has also mirrored its public policy counterpart in playing fast and loose with constitutional rights.

In 2002, Major League Baseball and its union agreed to confidential testing to see if there was a steroid/PED problem. If a certain percentage of players tested positive, the league would use mandatory testing.

In April 2004, then-IRS agent Jeff Novitzky spearheaded raids on several drug-testing labs and the Bay Area Lab Co-Operative (BALCO) with warrants to get evidence against 10 players whom he was investigating for alleged steroid use. But the federal agents including Novitzky took evidence and samples of over 100 MLB players. They also obtained testing results of a number of unrelated sports, athletes and events.

The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals demanded the return of the illegally seized evidence, and other judges harshly criticized Novitzky's actions.

Yet, Novitzky was not fired for this assault on the Fourth Amendment. In fact, he was given a job in the Food and Drug Administration. He has also been one of the lead investigators against Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong. He is also involved in the investigation and possible prosecution of Melky Cabrera.

The sporting drug war mirrors its general counterpart in yet another vein. It is a gigantic waste of money.

Countless millions have been spent on enforcement, even while tacitly acknowledging the fact that the newest designer drug will likely be ahead of the tests. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency even admitted that it would not be able to catch a person if they used blood transfusions.

Instead, the sporting drug war has created a reactive structure that asks for millions in testing and then prosecutions long after the athlete has competed.

Public money and prosecutor time were spent convicting Barry Bonds of obstruction of justice for giving a meandering answer to a grand jury, as well as on the Roger Clemens case which ended in an acquittal. With Lance Armstrong, it ended up that there was not a strong enough case to bring before a jury.

The harsh punishments have not curbed the number of athletes choosing to use performance-enhancing drugs. This is incredibly similar to the way that mandatory minimum sentences and record numbers of arrests have not curbed the appetite for drugs in general.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results. It is high time that we get a massive change in public policy about the "war on drugs," in the sports world and in general.

Photo: Cancer survivor Lance Armstrong speaks to delegates at the World Cancer Congress in Montreal Aug. 29. Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press/AP

The truth about teacher tenure

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:21:00 +0000

A fight over teacher tenure is now raging because so-called education reformers have set their sights on destroying public education under the guise of saving it. In reality it is about blaming teachers for the failures of the education system. It is also about ending public education as we know it and turning it over to privateers, hedge fund managers and all those who want a piece of the billions going into public education.

History of tenure

Many of us do not know the history of tenure. Teacher tenure goes back to the mid-1880s, when the National Education Association called for political action to protect teacher rights. In 1886 Massachusetts became the first state to pass a pre-college tenure law. In 1909 New Jersey passed the first comprehensive tenure law. Finally, all teachers there, from elementary level through high school, had job protection. It wasn't until the Great Depression that teacher unions fought for tenure rights and other job benefits. It took until the mid-1950s for the overwhelming majority of teachers to have tenure protection.

Is tenure lifetime job protection?

Today right-wing, anti-union advocates like Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, to name a few, have pushed to cast tenure as lifetime job protection for unqualified, incompetent teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. But this view carries considerable sway with a public that unfortunately does not fully understand what tenure really means. Tenure simply guarantees due process rights to protect teachers from arbitrary and capricious administrators and superintendents.

Move to deny tenure in New York City

A recent New York Times article cites the fact that nearly half of new teachers in New York have either been denied tenure or had their probation extended one or more years. The article all but praises Mayor Mike Bloomberg for getting tough on teacher tenure. After all, the article goes on, almost 97 percent of new teachers received tenure only two years ago.

Those of us in education know the truth behind these statistics. The numbers of teachers who were denied tenure rose dramatically because of severe pressure placed on principals and superintendents by the Bloomberg administration. In fact, every teacher can recite cases where principals recommended tenure only to have that decision reversed by superintendents. Many cases exist where a teacher who worked satisfactorily for two years and transferred to a new school in their third year automatically had their probation extended. This past year a new tactic guaranteed that the percentages would be kept low - superintendents who approved tenure decisions had those decisions rejected at the chancellor level.

And the union has been stymied from developing a fighting strategy. It is understood that if a probationary teacher fights an unjust rating instead of accepting an extension of probation, he or she will be summarily let go. No due process, no real recourse.

What about the responsibility of administrators?

What is never stated in the tenure debate is that it takes three or more years to attain tenure. During that time new (probationary) teachers are observed in classroom performance numerous times. Shouldn't an experienced principal or assistant principal responsible for making observations be able to make an educated evaluation of the support a newbie needs to become a proficient teacher? Shouldn't a qualified administrator provide guidance and professional support to new teachers? Isn't three years enough time to evaluate, help, and determine whether a teacher will "cut it" in the profession or not? Let's not blame teachers, let's put a major part of the responsibility where it belongs.

Recruiting and retaining teachers must be a major focus

Data regarding teacher retention shows that about half of all new teachers leave the profession within the first five years. Many new teachers quit due to the difficult conditions and lack of support from administrators. Focus must be placed on how to retain these new, dedicated educators who enter the field, so they can become the experienced teachers that are essential to quality education.

Another major issue that must be addressed is the recruitment and retention of minority teachers. A Center for American Progress report, "Increasing Teacher Diversity," states, "The scarcity of minority teachers is not limited to any one type of school - in over 40 percent of public schools there is not a single teacher of color." In New York City, research recently conducted by the United Federation of Teachers clearly shows that the number of minority teachers has plummeted since the Bloomberg administration took office in 2001.

Blaming teachers is happening nationwide

The "education reformers" are on the offensive. They have been for several years now, funded by major foundations such as Broad, Walton, and Gates. Of course the impetus to blame teachers and their unions has been greatly increased by the Race to the Top policy of President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. That policy is now changing with states being granted waivers from the punitive No Child Left Behind policies of President Bush.

School systems are facing a great crisis including drastic cuts to school budgets, teacher layoffs and furlough days, salary cuts, and as important, a dramatic rise in class size in too many districts.

Still, educators and their unions must put forward winning strategies that unite parents and communities to fight for public education, debunk the charter school myth, reject blaming teachers, and counter the argument that good teachers can only be judged by students' standardized test scores. At the same time unions, teachers, and parents must begin to address the critical question of how do we fight for a quality education for all children.

Michael Shulman taught high school in New York City for 36 years. He is a former vice president of the United Federation of Teachers and currently serves as an Executive Board member.

Photo: Creative Commons CC BY 2.0

Charting a new vision on the anniversary of 9/11

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:53:00 +0000

Ceremonies marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks today recalled the day 11 years ago when close to 3,000 perished as airliners hijacked by terrorists crashed into New York, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C.

After that horrible day Americans came together, ready to do whatever they were asked in order to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.

The Bush administration and the neoconservatives in power in Washington took advantage of that readiness to build support for a "war on terrorism" that would ultimately encompass two wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Support for the wars was ginned up with false claims about the Saddam Hussein regime's ties to the 9/11 attackers and about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. The wars have taken an immense toll in human lives here at home and abroad. The Afghanistan war continues. Multi-trillion-dollar military expeditions may have succeeded in shoring up oil and military company profits but they failed to build stable and just countries overseas and they weakened the economy here in the U.S.

It is appropriate on this 11^th anniversary to think hard about the need for a new direction in foreign policy.

In the years since 9/11 it has become clearer than ever that pursuit of wars and unlimited military spending threaten the very security they claim to provide. Pre-emption is seen for what it is - an excuse to pursue any means necessary, including war, to protect the interests of profit-hungry multinational corporations - with oil companies high up on that list.

Real homeland security is a fantasy in an economy where jobs are shipped overseas and a vibrant working class -- the engine of real success for America - is eroded and destroyed.

The Obama administration has taken some important steps in the right direction. It has ended the war in Iraq and set a 2014 date for ending the war in Afghanistan. It has moved toward control of nuclear weapons of mass destruction and, it has rejected the reckless doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive war by resisting calls for military action against Syria and Iran.

However, use of drones that inevitably kill civilians, expansion of military bases and operations in Asia and Africa, and pursuing military intervention in Libya have continued the dangerous policies of intervention and militarism. Alliances with reactionary dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, breeding grounds for terrorists like the 9/11 hijackers, continue.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and their backers advocate a complete return to bellicose adventurism based on the idea that the United States has the right to do whatever it wants anywhere in the world. At the recent Republican convention Romney backed military attacks on Syria and Iran. His is a dangerous policy that Americans reject. It guarantees there will be no nation building where it is needed most - here at home, and it does not make our country safer - indeed it jeopardizes our safety.

The necessary U.S. foreign policy is one that builds international respect and cooperation to protect us from any real terrorist acts, but also to promote economic and social justice at home and around the world. It protects and creates jobs in this country and abroad. A foreign policy that discourages exploitation of foreign workers and encourages fair trade will benefit everyone.

The necessary U.S. foreign policy aims at the dismantling of nuclear weapons and all weapons of mass destruction.

It aims at strengthening, not weakening, the United Nations, including bringing rising powers into its leading bodies.

It helps nations (including our own) eradicate disease and poverty rather than develop ever-higher-tech weaponry. It reduces military spending so that we can do the nation building needed here at home and help others at the same time.

This is how we move forward to make sure there are no more 9/11s -- either here or anywhere else.

Photo: In 2001 and the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 attacks, New Yorkers line West Side Highway to pay respect to the victims. (PW/Israel Smith)