People Before Profit blog

People, presidents and kings star in new documentaries

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:00:00 +0000

The Real to Reel Program at the Toronto International Film Festival is the area where most of the progressive offerings can be found. Documentaries dealing with history and politics come from all corners of the globe and end up at this amazingly rich and diversified film festival. The rarely seen African side of President Barack Obama's family is explored in the Education of Auma Obama. Obama's older half-sister is featured in this tour of their shared father's small village and the townsfolk's excitement following the American election campaign of their native son. Old family movies, visits with relatives and the discovery that Auma is a strong post-colonialist feminist influenced by her progressive activist father who died in a tragic car accident in 1982, makes this a fascinating revelation of Obama's other side.

Race plays a major factor in Tall Man, following the death in police custody of Cameron Doomadgee in a small Australian seaport town. The film documents the investigation of officer Christopher Hurley and the townspeople's refusal to accept the official explanation of what happened. A fellow black inmate saw white police officer Hurley beat Doomadgee to death, and the brilliantly constructed film probes the growing anger in the village about the lack of justice, as well as the blatant racism, within the establishment. Further tragedy befalls the family as the poignant drama unfolds in real life.

Another poignant film follows the attempt by Iraqi citizen, patient and humane Husham, to gain funding for a small orphanage to house part of the huge growing number of homeless children in post-war Iraq. In my Mother's Arms shows the trauma caused by war, the loss of parents and the resultant poverty. Husham fosters 32 orphans in a small two-room house and searches desperately to keep the only hope for these children going. Each child is damaged psychologically, some physically, as we watch them cope with their new realities forced upon them by an unnecessary war and an uncaring world power.

But there is hope in the Middle East, as we witnessed in the joyous Arab Spring sparked by revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. The excitement of watching live broadcasts from Tahrir Square in Cairo reaffirmed the faith in humankind as people peacefully fought their way out of a seemingly endless road of oppression. Footage from all the cameras on the sight combined to present the clearest picture of a place on earth that just a short time ago was a dot on the globe. Well now, some of the most intimate and revealing footage is edited into a three-part documentary featuring three different Egyptian directors, titled Tahrir 2011: The Good, the Bad and the Politician. The title should not imply that the politician is something other than good or bad. In this case, we're talking about Hosni Mubarak, the fallen from grace leader who in this film is displayed as a person out of touch with the realities in his own country. Intimate footage of his personal life and interviews with fellow politicians paint a clearer picture of why he had to be forced to step down. The tri-partite doc soars in the first section though, as it follows the most dedicated activists forming in Tahrir Square despite the threat of violent opposition. Cameras appear to be attached to the subjects as they scurry in and out of the most massive and effective protest movements in history. We've seen a lot of films on this subject but this one is about as close as you can get to being there and learning about the true feelings and actions of the real heroes of social change.

And then there's the political history that most everyone knows nothing about - except of course the people of Bulgaria. Did you know that for a short while in the 40s, this country was run by a 6-year-old boy?! Only for the follies of monarchies. But wait - did you know this young boy had to flee his country because a large group of dissident communists thought they could do a better job running the country? And wait - did you know this young boy grew up and came back 50 years later, started his own party, ran for the office of president - and won?!! It's the first time in history a king became a non-royal leader of a country. But the story ends sadly, at least for lovers of monarchies. Former king, Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who was a close friend of Spanish dictator Franco while in exile, was voted out of office almost as quickly as he was elected in. Apparently he had an insatiable desire to reclaim not only his lost power, but also his royal wealth and property, and the people were already suffering badly enough since the fall of the communist "regime."

Yes, it's all true. Check it out in Boy who was King by Bulgarian filmmaker Andrey Paounov, who has a great sense of humor - and irony.

Photo: Still from Tahrir 2011.

MIA: Obama's new common-sense immigration policy

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:08:00 +0000

Now that the electronic shackle is off, it's really nice not having to listen to the eerie computer-voice commands regularly broadcast from its plastic speaker.

For 10 miserable days, I had to wear a thick rubber and plastic cuff around my ankle for 24/7 GPS monitoring. Every few hours, it would bark out strange comments and commands until I pressed a button to make it stop. Some were clear: "Call your officer." "Recharge the battery." But it also would sometimes declare "Leaving your master inclusion zone."

What does that even mean? Beats me. But then, the fact that I had been shackled by an employee of a private company with a lucrative Department of Homeland Security contract made no sense either.

On the other hand, now I get what it really means to experience abusive government intrusion into your life. And I know firsthand that the Obama administration isn't yet upholding its pledge to exercise some common sense when it comes to deciding whether a specific deportation case is a priority.

Under a new policy instituted in August, immigration agents and judges are supposed to use more discretion when deciding whether to deport someone. They're supposed to weigh such factors as how long the person has lived in the United States, as well as whether he or she has obtained or is pursuing a college degree, or has dependents who are citizens. This new directive was supposed to free the government to focus on deporting people deemed to be criminals or national security threats.

As a college-educated, 25-year-old undocumented immigrant with an active deportation case and no criminal record, I welcomed this change - until I learned the hard way that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field offices are actually becoming even more ruthless than before.

On September 13, less than a month after President Barack Obama announced this new initiative, and a dozen years after I arrived in the United States, I was placed on a supervision-intensive program run by a private company called BI Inc.

Under this program, a BI goon shackled me with a GPS-enabled monitoring device on my ankle that I'd have to wear at all times, even in the shower. Another called me a week later, telling me I should buy a plane ticket in two weeks. BI agents were free to make unannounced visits to my home, and my girlfriend and I had no right to refuse them entry. Nor was I allowed to leave the Washington, DC area.

Thanks to a petition drive by friends, colleagues, and supporters, ICE eventually relented and had the shackle removed. But thousands of other undocumented immigrants aren't so lucky.

The experience was shocking and upsetting. But as a veteran immigrant rights activist living in our nation's capital, I was no stranger to the facts about the massive and inhumane deportation system that has defined the Obama years when it comes to immigration policy. More than a million people have been shipped out over the last three years, putting the Obama administration on track to potentially deport more people in one term than Bush administration did in two.

I am an undocumented American. I came to this country with my parents at the age of 13, and after a dozen years of legal limbo, my attachment to this country is undeniable. I learned English as a teenager reading Catcher in the Rye, watching World Wrestling Entertainment, and enjoying Top 40 hits. But to the government contractor that suddenly became charged with my case, I was apparently just fodder for a profiteering scheme.

When Obama addressed Latino voters at the National Council of La Raza in July, he said he needed a "dance partner" to fix the nation's immigration failures and that he couldn't act alone. The new policy, announced in a letter from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to Sen. Dick Durbin, seemed to be playing a more danceable tune.

After my ordeal, I have some advice for Obama. One thing he could do to show that he wants the nation's largest minority group to embrace him is to cancel the Bush-era contracts with unethical and profiteering companies like BI. Then he should tell immigration authorities to actually follow his new, common-sense approach.

Matias Ramos, the Institute for Policy Studies' Carol Jean and Edward F. Newman fellow, is a formerly undocumented student and a co-founder of the United We Dream Network. More than 6,000 people have signed a petition calling on ICE to close his case. This article and photo originally appeared in Other Words, published by IPS. Matias Ramos shows the ankle monitoring device he had to wear for ten days. Photo by Michael Vanacore.

European workers have nothing but chains to lose

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:57:00 +0000

As usual, Paul Krugman aptly summarizes the latest failure in Europe to abandon austerity economics and politics. The default of the Greek government's on its debt now seems inevitable to most economists:

On one side, Europe's situation is really, really scary: with countries that account for a third of the euro area's economy now under speculative attack, the single currency's very existence is being threatened - and a euro collapse could inflict vast damage on the world. On the other side, European policy makers seem don't seem at all ready to acknowledge a crucial fact - namely, that without more expansionary fiscal and monetary policies in Europe's stronger economies, all of their rescue attempts will fail.

The EU is struggling with great difficulty to convince the 16 voting countries to establish a monetary fund sufficient to absorb the EU-wide bank losses and the financial crisis that will result from a disorderly Greek default. Yet already economists are saying the $600 billion proposed fund it is less than a third of what is needed to prevent runs on EU banks.

And staving off bank failures is only half the problem. The draconian austerity cutbacks in workers' incomes, retirement, health and security demanded by banks of debt-plagued EU members in return for access to cash are unprecedented and unsustainable under democratic government. Without the kind of fiscal stimulus that only central governments, not central banks, can provide - unemployment insurance, direct spending to create jobs, etc. - political instability, the return of military rule, and worse threatens any and all efforts to stabilize the banking system.

Witness the massive demonstrations in Greece against the visit of EU "Inspectors," there to determine if Greece is sufficiently savaging its peoples' welfare. From the EU nations' perspective, perhaps the "inspection" makes sense. But the Socialist Party trying to negotiate with the EU is down to less than 12 percent popular support. What "inspector" would reasonably believe any assurance they try to give? The "inspectors" could not even meet the Greek finance minister in the finance building, because it is being occupied by its own employees in protest!

It's not pretty, and we begin to see the wisdom of Lord Keynes' observation that "we are all dead in the long run" as the fitting response to those who fear stimulus and investment in the face of depression, and counsel faith that markets will correct them selves in the long run."

Europe in particular need only recall the impact of austerity on Germany after the onerous and "austerity" peace enforced on it after WWI to measure the catastrophe that can arise from faith in some ideal "long run" market model.

We see here in the U.S. the extraordinary difficulties pushing a "more expansionary fiscal and monetary policy" upstream against a fierce Republican opposition since the 2010 Congressional elections. And we already solved the biggest problems of having 50 separate states and many races and nationalities. The truth is that only solid steps toward an updated kind-of "United States of Europe" can implement a "more expansionary fiscal and monetary" policy needed for recovery - and to avoid a breakup of the EU. The latter calamity will certainly throw the U.S. into another depression on top of the one we are still in.

The loss of sovereignty required for each EU member to embrace a Europe-wide governing entity is a powerful countervailing force for many nations: Germany fears inflation most, partly because of the runaway inflation in the 30s leading to the Nazi catastrophe. Each country - including Greece - has its own version of "anti-imperialist" politics that draws on these fears. But shying away from political union now means the collapse of the Euro, the common market and the growth and economies of scale it promises. "Vast damage," Krugman's words, may be an understatement - especially when the political ramifications are taken into account.

The fears associated with a loss of sovereignty are understandable, especially for weaker countries contemplating unity with stronger ones, but also for stronger ones fearing competition from lower wage, less productive, nations. The only comfort, and solace, however is not nationalism, but internationalism. The unity of European working people, like the unity of the many races and peoples of the "American working people", is the path forward. And the slogan of internationalism is "peace and prosperity, not war and austerity."

Photo: Demonstration in Greece. Mehran Khalili // CC 2.0

Progressive documentaries make their debut

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:57:00 +0000

Once again there were many thrilling new documentaries at the Toronto International Film Festival.

TIFF probably draws more movie stars than any other festival outside of Cannes, but the stars are seldom associated with documentaries. This year however, Pearl Jam, U2 and Neil Young had new docs about them and they all appeared at the Fest. And a charming film about the popular songwriter, Paul Williams Still Alive, brought to life the long lost famously short blond singer and writer of huge hits such as You and Me Against the World, We've Only Just Begun and Evergreen. We learn he dropped out of show business and went through alcohol and drug rehab over 30 years ago. His newfound solace in sobriety has mellowed the entertainer who in this film is followed by an avid young director as Williams travels to places such as Winnipeg and Singapore to perform for enthusiastic crowds that still remember his songs.

In Caprichosos de San Telmo we learn about the music form called Murga, indigenous to the San Telmo region of Argentina, similar to the infectious Carnival rhythms of Brazil, and the Spanish working-class tango. Although the filmic quality is very basic, the editing is fresh and creative, and the images of the performers that live and breathe the music are remembered long after the film ends.

But this is a progressive film column, so let's get to the hard-hitting political docs that we're used to reporting on. Once again the National Film Board of Canada comes to the rescue. This national gem of an institution has been cranking out thought-provoking documentaries for over half a century. And two of them are represented at the TIFF this year.

Fearless in it's scathing indictment of monopoly capital, Surviving Progress provides yet another intriguing concept - that progress is not always good. They reason that there is good and bad progress. The illusion that you can let the economy rip has obviously failed. They claim it will apply to technology also. The film focuses heavily on the debt phenomenon and notes that Rome was the first country that refused to cancel the debt owed by people who were never going to be able to pay it back. The empire fell, and most likely will the American version. They state that the debt crisis will be the political fight of the 21st century. Executive producer Mark Achbar also brought us the brilliant expose The Corporation, still the greatest film on the subject.

Last Call at the Oasis does for water what An Inconvenient Truth did for global warming - puts out the warning call. Famed activist Erin Brockovich plays a prominent role in convincing viewers that we better fix the water crisis or we'll be paying dearly for something many of us take for granted. It'll be difficult to drink bottled water again after viewing this well-written and convincing wake-up film, as they reveal that 45 percent of the bottled water sold in the US originates as tap water. Where have all the water fountains gone, you ask.

Here's a startling premise - that the famous pink ribbon, symbol for breast cancer, has been exploited by corporate greed; that those walks, runs and other campaigns to raise funds for breast cancer research might just be profiting corporations. Pink Ribbons, Inc is a revealing examination of both sides of the issue. In fairness, agencies such as the Komen Foundation are given the chance to explain their failure to answer exactly where funds are going, what research is being pursued and what we've learned from it. The point is made that there is no central clearinghouse gathering research data, allowing wasteful duplicate study programs. And there is no indication how close anyone is getting to discovering a cure. Thanks to the National Film Board for another courageous and compelling documentary.

Always Brando falls between drama and documentary. What started out to be Marlon Brando's last film, turned into a meditation on his life interweaved with film clips that include the anti-colonialist masterpiece, Burn and other great Brando vehicles. The original fictional narrative about the chaos created in a small village when an American film team arrives to audition actors and comes across a young man who looks uncannily like Marlon Brando, is now intermixed with a philosophical study of Brando's career and what could have been if his last film project would have been completed with Tunisian director Ridha Behi. What prompted Brando to select this script for his last film, from the hundreds that passed his way? His feelings that Burn was his greatest film, his fascination for the Arab look-alike actor, his comment that Omar Sharif might possibly be the last Arab actor to make it big in the West now that 9/11 has changed the climate, adds up to a profile of a great actor totally aware of the crimes of occupation and colonialism.

Photo: Still from Last Call at the Oasis.

Powerful new films take up immigration

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:55:00 +0000

One of the more prominent themes at this year's Toronto International Film Festival was immigration. With the world facing increased poverty as the rich get richer, filmmakers are examining the ramifications of shifting populations. The richer countries are facing the realities that the poor of the earth have to find new lands to survive.

Two great new films from Italy address the moral and human aspects of the growing phenomenon of so-called "illegal" immigration. Cardboard Village, directed by the veteran master Ermanno Olmi (Tree of Wooden Clogs), tells about a group of North African refugees who take shelter in a Catholic church that's set for demolition. The lonely aging priest, played by famed actor Michael Lonsdale (Munich, Of Gods And Men and Free Men, which also appears at this year's TIFF), confronted with this final challenge in his decaying parish, takes the moral high ground and defends their right to seek shelter against the impending threat of starvation and possible death. In defiance, a tent city is constructed inside the empty church, while the priest, who could face charges of harboring illegals, contemplates the ethical questions that define the role of the church and just being human. The police eventually arrive and the movie offers a poignant resolution to the crisis. Possibly the last film from this revered director.

With a different locale, but the same issue of immigration, Terraferma takes us to a sunny island off the coast of Sicily, where an old fisherman takes his grandson out to sea to learn the fishing trade. As the sun begins to set, they see a starling vision in the horizon: a raft overloaded with human beings frantically waving for help. As several take the risk and jump off the raft desperately heading towards their boat, the old fisherman chooses between the new law of the land that punishes those who pick up "illegals," versus the law of the sea, which directs a person with moral conscience to pull drowning people from the water. A pregnant mother and several others are loaded onboard before a Coast Guard boat arrives and they leave before getting caught. The story takes us through an emotional roller coaster. A pregnant woman and her son are taken in while the others flee once they reach land. The fisherman's daughter helps deliver the baby that we soon find out was the result of a prison rape in Libya. The hardships of their long journey from Ethiopa, the reluctance of the daughter to accept the Africans, the villagers who pride their island as a resort town free of "illegals" and the eventual concerns about how they will get off the island with increasing police surveillance, infuses this drama with one moral (and political) dilemma after another. Director Emanuele Crialese, appearing after the screening, revealed that the woman playing the African mother actually was an immigrant from Somalia who encountered the tragedies depicted in the movie.

Acclaimed Finnish director, Aki Kaurismäki (Match Factory Girl, Man Without A Past), has also turned to the hot button issue of immigration. Applying his trademark style of dry humor, simple camera movement and a warmth for the working class, he offers a story about a man faced with the moral dilemma of harboring an "illegal." Le Havre won the FIPRESCI Award at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, and this "fairy tale" comical approach to a serious social issue is as effective as a hard-hitting documentary. An old shoeshine man (played by renowned French actor, Jean-Pierre Darroussin, who starred as the shop foreman in Snows of Kilimanjaro) hides a young African boy in his tiny house under the watchful eyes of his neighbors. Without any need to justify his actions, he eventually gains support from others to help the boy get to the rest of his family in London. Human kindness and the moral decision to save a human life, as depicted so often in history and movies like Anne Frank's Diary, The Visitor and El Norte, just to name a few, are often emphasized in Kaurismäki's enriching and entertaining works.

France produced one of the greatest film couples in history, directors Agnes Varda (Vagabond, One Sing, The Other Doesn't) and Jacques Demy (Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Donkey Skin). And they in turn produced an equally talented son, actor Mathieu Demy, who in turn produced, wrote, directed and acted in his first feature film, Americanos, which also happens to address the issue of immigration. A well-crafted and acted film, featuring Charles Chaplin's daughter, Geraldine, Marcella Mastroianni's daughter, Chiara, and the amazing Mexican actress Salma Hayek, the story follows a young man who travels from Paris to Los Angeles to close out the house and belongings of his recently deceased mother. He had long ago lost favor with his mother when his parents divorced and he moved to France with his father. While trashing any memories of his mother into the garbage can, he learns from a neighbor that she had a young Mexican woman living with her, and had willed the house to her. Surprised by the revelation, his search for her takes him to the gritty side of Tijuana to find the legal owner of his mother's house. What he discovers on his journey is the harrowing story of a young woman deported from America, forced to live in prostitution to survive with a young son she tries in vain to raise. This absorbing film flows like real life, carried on by actors at their best and a director who shows great promise.

Here are four new films, created by talented directors, all appearing at just one film festival, all dealing with the growing crisis of people immigrating under the harshest conditions, just in order to survive.

Photo: Still from Cardboard Village.

Free online movie, Debtocracy, tells story of Greek debt crisis

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:14:00 +0000

Movie review

Debtocracy

Directed by Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou

2011, 75 min., Creative Commons/Online

Debt crisis engulfs Greece. The Euro edges towards collapse. Stock markets plunge.

"You may ask yourself, well...how did [it] get here?" to paraphrase the Talking Heads song "Once in a Lifetime."

The online movie Debtocracy provides straightforward and relatively short analysis of that question.

Written and directed by two Greek journalists Katerina Kitidi and Aris Hatzistefanou, Debtocracy was produced by small, online donations, and is distributed under Creative Commons license. That allows anybody to distribute the work with certain conditions.

The one hour and 15 min. movie is available online. It's mostly in Greek with subtitles in Italian, Spanish, German, French, English and Portugese. (Review continues after video.)

It opens with Costas Lapavitsas, professor of economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, explaining the two parts of the post-World War II economies in leading capitalist countries. The first 25 years after the war, he says, were marked by income growth, consumption and relative stability.

This kind of stability was "novel in the history of capitalism," he says as the interview is over-laid with a U.S. Chamber of Commerce propaganda cartoon in Technicolor called, "It's Everybody's Business."

The second period, he says, began in the mid-1970s and was marked by low growth, recurrent crises, depressed wages and high unemployment.

British Marxist and social scientist David Harvey further explains that mid-1970s period as being focused on "disciplining" labor, politically and wage-wise, and the huge growth of the financial system.

With wages stagnant, Harvey says, the answer was to give everyone credit to keep buying.

"The way we got out of the crises of the 1970s prepared the ground for the current crisis," he says.

"There is no such thing as crisis-free capitalism."

The U.S. housing market collapse of 2008, fueled by Wall Street manipulations and racism, led to a meltdown of the global financial system.

Interviews, news clips and other sources make the case that the European Union was fatally flawed for two basic reasons. There is no political entity, no country, that backs Europe's currency, the Euro. And the integration of European countries exacerbated the already existing inequities and race-to-the-bottom (for workers) competition. It pits "poor relatives," mainly southern European states like Greece, Spain, Portugal and even the G-8's Italy, against the richer, stronger ones, most notably Germany and France.

"It's like putting in the ring Muhammed Ali, the World Heavyweight Champion, with a featherweight boxer, telling them, 'Start fighting and let's see who wins,'" says a Belgian activist on Third World debt.

Debtocracy rejects the push towards austerity: slashing public services, pensions, wages, and placing the current economic crisis -caused by capital/banks/corporations - square on the backs of Greece's workers, pensioners and people.

It documents the build up of debt in Greece through shady deals and predatory loans involving German-based Siemens, American financial giant Goldman Sachs and unnecessary military spending. The Athens Olympics also proved to be a bust and added enormously to Greece's debt.

On top of that, the moviemakers say, there was a small group of elected and nonelected leaders, composed of ruling Greek families and elites, making the decisions on these loans for their own personal political and financial gain.

So what to do, they ask?

And their answers lie in a concept called, "odious debt." And for political inspiration they look towards South America: Ecuador to be exact.

Briefly, odious debt means a country can repudiate a debt if the loan to a government was made without the knowledge and approval of the people, nor in their interests, and if the lenders of the predatory loans know what's going on.

Perhaps the most recent use of odious debt comes from the Bush administration when it repudiated Iraq's debt as part of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The movie reviews the debt crises of Argentina and Ecuador and the divergent paths they took to resolve it.

After fierce political struggles that wound up with the election of Rafael Correa to the presidency of Ecuador, his administration used the concept of odious debt to review the loans and renegotiate the terms without sacrificing investment in the nation's public education, health care and other social security spending.

The moviemakers offer this as an alternative to the sever austerity policies now facing Greece.

However effective or flawed this alternative may be, Debtocracy succeeds in contextualizing the debt crisis, including at its systemic root, and offers a way out.

Careful viewers can see the parallels to the European struggles against austerity, and the unfolding budget fights here in the United States.

The policies of slashing spending, refusing to raise taxes on billionaires, attacks on unions, clean air and water laws may euphemistically be called deficit reduction, but its America's austerity plan; a way to get families, retirees, students and workers to pay for the irresponsibility and drive for maximum private profit of Wall Street banksters and corporations.

The new scramble for Africa

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:43:00 +0000

Is current U.S. foreign policy in Africa following a blueprint drawn up almost eight years ago by the rightwing Heritage Foundation, one of the most conservative think tanks in the world? While it seems odd that a Democratic administration would have anything in common with the extremists at Heritage, the convergence in policy and practice between the two is disturbing.

Heritage, with help from Joseph Coors and the Scaife Foundations, was founded in 1973 by the late Paul Weyrich, one of the most conservative thinkers in the U.S. and a co-founder of the Moral Majority. While the Moral Majority whipped up the culture wars against abortion and gays, Heritage lobbied for an aggressive foreign policy and American military supremacy.

In October 2003, James Carafano and Nile Gardiner, two Heritage Foundation heavyweights, proposed a major shift in U.S. military policy vis-à-vis the African continent. Carafano is a West Point graduate who heads up the Foundation's foreign policy section, and Gardiner is the director of Heritage's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

In a "Backgrounder" article entitled "U.S. Military Assistance for Africa: A Better Solution," the two called for the creation of a military command for the continent, a focus on fighting "terrorism," and direct military intervention using air power and naval forces if "vital U.S. interests are at stake." Such interventions should avoid using ground troops, the authors argue, and should include the participation of other allies.

Almost every element of that proposal has come together over the past year, though some pieces, like African Command (Africom) and the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative, were in place before the Obama administration took office.

The Libya war seems almost straight off of Heritage's drawing board. While the U.S. appeared to take a back seat to its allies, NATO would not have been able to carry out the war without massive amounts of U.S. military help. It was the U.S. who took out the Libyan anti-air craft systems, blockaded the coast, collected the electronic intelligence, fueled the warplanes, and supplied munitions when NATO ran low.

While the UN resolution forbade using ground troops, U.S. special forces and CIA teams, along with special units from Britain, France, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates organized the rebels, coordinated air strikes, and eventually pulled off an amphibious operation that sealed Tripoli's fate.

The Heritage scholars were also clear what they meant by vital U.S. interests: "With its vast natural and mineral resources, Africa remains strategically important to the West, as it has been for hundreds of years, and its geostrategic significance is likely to rise in the 21st century. According to the National Intelligence Council, the United States is likely to draw 25 percent of its oil from West Africa by 2015, surpassing the volume imported from the Persian Gulf."

It was a sentiment shared by the Bush Administration. "West Africa's oil has become a national strategic interest," said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Walter Kansteiner in 2002.

The UN tasked NATO with protecting civilians in Libya, but France, Britain, the U.S. and their Gulf allies focused on regime change. Indeed, when leaders of the African Union (AU) pushed for negotiations aimed at a political settlement, NATO and the rebels brusquely dismissed them.

The NATO bombing "really undermined the AU's initiates and effort to deal with the matter in Libya," complained South African President Jacob Zuma. More than 200 prominent Africans released a letter Aug. 24 condemning the "misuse of the United Nations Security Council to engage in militarized diplomacy to effect regime change in Libya," as well as the "marginalization of the African Union."

The suspicion that the Libya war had more to do with oil and gas than protecting civilians is why the AU has balked at recognizing the rebel Transitional National Council. For much of Africa, the Libya war was a "shot heard 'round the continent," and there is a growing unease at the West's "militarized diplomacy."

Though the Defense Department's African Contingency Operation Training and Assistance Program, the U.S. is actively engaged in training the militaries of Mali, Chad, Niger, Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Gabon, Zambia, Uganda, Senegal, Mozambique, Ghana and Malawi, and Mauretania.

In June 2006, NATO troops stormed ashore on Sao Vicente island in the Cape Verde archipelago in operation "Steadfast Jaguar" (an odd choice of monikers, since jaguars are natives of the New World, not Africa). The exercise, which brought together a host of nations, including France, Germany, Spain, Greece, the U.S. and Poland, was aimed at "protecting energy supplies" in the Niger Delta and Gulf of Guinea.

Major oil producers in the region include Angola, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Chad and Mauritania.

Protecting energy supplies from whom?

In the case of the Niger Delta, it means protecting oil companies and the Nigerian government from local people fed up with the pollution that is killing them, and corruption that denies them any benefits from their resources. Under the umbrella of the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), locals are waging a low-key guerilla war that at one point reduced oil supplies by 20 percent.

MEND is certainly suspicious of American motives in the region. "Of course, it is evident that oil is the key concern of the U.S. in establishing African Command," says the organization's spokesman, Jomo Gbomo.

The Nigerian government labels a number of restive groups in Nigeria as "terrorist" and links them to al-Qaeda, including Boko Haram in the country's north.

But labeling opponents "terrorists" or raising the al-Qaeda specter is an easy way to dismiss what may be real local grievances. For instance, Boko Haram's growing penchant for violence is more likely a response to the heavy handedness of the Nigerian Army than an al-Qaeda inspired campaign.

Terrorism and the protection of civilians may be the public rationale for intervention, but the bottom line looks suspiciously like business. Before the guns go silent in Libya, one British business leader complained to The Independent that Britain was behind the curve on securing opportunities. "It's all politics, no commercial stuff. I think that is a mistake. We need to be getting down there as soon as possible,"

The Spanish oil company Reposal and the Italian company Eni are already gearing up for production. "Eni will play a No.1 role in the future," says Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. Almost 70 percent of Libya's oil goes to four countries, Spain, Germany, France and Italy. Qatar, which is already handing oil sales in Eastern Libya, will also be on the ground floor as production ramps up.

A major loser in the war-and some would argue, not by accident-is China. Beijing had some 75 companies working in Libya and 36,000 personnel, and accounted for about 11 percent of Libya's pre-war exports. But because China complained that NATO had unilaterally changed the UN resolution from protecting civilians to regime change, Beijing is likely to suffer. Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager of the rebel oil firm AGOCO told Reuters that China, Brazil and Russia would be frozen out of contracts.

Brazil and Russia also supported negotiations and complained about NATO's interpretation of the UN resolution on Libya.

For Heritage, keeping China out of Africa is what it is all about. Peter Brookes, the former principal Republican advisor for East Asia on the House Committee on International Relations, warned that China was hell-bent on challenging the U.S. and becoming a global power, and key to that is expanding its interests in Africa. "In a throwback to the Maoist revolutionary days of the 1960s and 1970s and the Cold War, Beijing has once again identified the African continent as an area of strategic interest," he told a Heritage Foundation audience in a talk entitled "Into Africa: China's Grab for Influence and Oil."

Beijing gets about one third of its oil from Africa-Angola and Sudan are its major suppliers-plus important materials like platinum, copper, timber and iron ore.

Africa is rife with problems, but terrorism is not high on that list. A severe drought has blistered much of East Africa, and, with food prices rising, malnutrition is spreading continent-wide. The "war on terrorism" has generated 800,000 refugees from Somalia. African civilians do, indeed, need help, but not the kind you get from fighter-bombers, drone strikes, or Tomahawk cruise missiles dispatched at the urging of right-wing think tanks or international energy companies.

This article originally appeared in Dispatches from the Edge.

Reader voices: A suggestion on homeless veterans

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:43:00 +0000

The other day, a military veteran said he was just out of the service and was homeless. He asked how he could resolve this situation. It started me thinking.

It occurred to me that the government, specifically the Veterans Administration, should make available to all veterans that are homeless, as well as their accompanying immediate family, temporary free housing on inactive military bases in the continental U.S., until they are able to find a job and affordable housing. This is the least we can do for the men and women that have been in the service of the country and are returning to find an unemployment crisis like never before. One could even think that they could receive job training as well to help them transition.

Of course the question is how to pay for this in this period of low government revenue caused by the tax breaks given to the millionaires, the banks, the corporations and Wall Street stock transactions, and by a military budget that takes more than half of all discretionary spending in our federal budget.

The obvious answer is raise the taxes significantly for those mentioned above and reduce the inflated military budget.

Too many of our representatives in Congress don't want to tax the groups above. Given that, it seems to me that since there are only about 200 countries in the world and we have over 750 U.S. military bases spread among these foreign countries, we could close many of these down without losing any defence capability and bring those troops home to bases located here at home. This would be a huge savings that would still pay for the active military we bring home but also pay for the this emergency veteran and family temporary housing program.

Keeping military bases in foreign countries is very expensive. We don't need all 750 or more foreign bases given the technology we now have in order to maintain defense. Close down the redundant bases abroad and give veterans and their families some respect and dignity is what I say.

Photo: Jonathan Greenwald // CC 2.0

The GOP’s war on climate change

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:48:00 +0000

Critics note the Republican agenda is paved with bad intentions especially when it comes to climate change, which is a growing global concern and a real issue the GOP continues to deny.

Now, reported Triple Pundit, as the concerned (and sensible) portion of America - including the working class - debates the issue with the radical Right, a new book has linked climate change with violence and conflict.

Tropic of Chaos, by Christian Parenti, poses the theory that climate change is causing violence around the world right now, particularly in the Southern parts of the world. The book ultimately suggests the best way to deal with ongoing global violence is to save the world's natural environment.

As progressives campaign to address global warming, their efforts may not bode well as the Right Wing continues to stirr up conflict on the issue. They have deliberately, strategically, turned a collective blind eye to climate change as a whole. And for GOP presidential hopefuls, the idea of even acknowledging climate change is tantamount to becoming political cannon fodder. This is evident by the fact that when even someone like GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney had enough sense to address the topic, other Republicans attacked him, and it ultimately did nothing to strengthen his agenda.

But the next logical question one might ask is, what can be done to remedy the issue?

According to the report, Parenti maintained that the problem was going to stick around for a while. "Get used to it," he said. "Food, weather, upheaval, and war - these are likely to be the [news] headlines not only for decades to come, but tied together in all sorts of complicated and unsettling ways."

Parenti went down the list of current environmental dilemmas: "Extreme weather and increasingly severe droughts, whether in Texas, China, or Somalia; crops burned to a frizzle; starving people desperately on the move; incipient resource wars; and a world in which the basics of everyday life are increasingly beyond the buying power of tens of millions of the poor - that's a recipe for our future. Unfortunately, it's also increasingly the present, as grain crops fail in various global breadbaskets and food prices soar."

Parenti may actually be more optimistic than he sounds, because he also mentions that we should strive not only to be more environmentally conscious, but that we should - and can - learn to live within the limits of the planet.

It would seem that Republicans have not yet learned to do this - that is, if one were to look at offshire oil drilling, fracking, and negligence in preventing wildfires for reference.

In a study for Grist, writer David Roberts analyzed why right-wing politicians, particularly, as he put it, "conservative white men," seem to be against anything that is even remotely environmentally conscious.

"The most significant force behind climate change denial" for conservatives, he said, "is not any ineffable psychological mystery, but simply the increasing intensity and radicalization of the American conservative movement. The same dynamic afflicting climate change is afflicting the debate over fiscal policy, the economy, jobs, and health care. The Right is rejecting empirical reality and adopting a stance of unshakeable ideological opposition to anything the non-Right does. Loyalty to tribe and hostility to outsiders is at the core of the [right-wing] perspective."

With the 2012 election coming up, Republicans are hitting the campaign trail. There is an ongoing drive among the Right Wing to push environmental concerns aside, and if the GOP is behind the wheel, progressive America does not want to be the deer caught in the headlights.

In an era where politicians - and morals - crossroad, it's time to take a sharp Left turn and stop ignoring climate change

Photo: A sign held by a demonstrator for recognition of climate change on Parliament Hill, proving that the environment is of international concern. Pawel Dwulit/AP Photos, Canadian Press.

NLRB has airtight case against Boeing

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:21:00 +0000

Republicans are clearly using the National Labor Relations Board complaint against Boeing to launch a bigger, right-wing assault on individual worker rights and collective bargaining.

Here's why this is the case:

Whether you agree with the NLRB or not, it says Boeing violated one of the laws of the land, the National Labor Relations Act, which has been in place since 1935, The NLRB came to this conclusion after conducting a thorough investigation. After the investigation, it issued a complaint about what it said was a violation of the law by Boeing. A hearing on that complaint was then scheduled. Normal procedure for all concerned would have been to wait for the results of the hearing. (If you don't agree with the ruling then you can challenge it.)

The GOP did not wait, however. It pre-empted normal legal procedure and rushed the matter to trial in the press and the courts, whipping up a campaign against the NLRB and the Obama administration. This can only mean that, from the beginning, the goal was more than just squashing a specific complaint the board made against Boeing.

Obvious to all now is the fact that Republicans want to weaken, if not destroy the NLRB altogether and, in the process, embarrass and weaken the Obama administration. Less obvious, but equally true, is that their pursuit of this matter is designed to take away the collective bargaining rights of all Americans.

The NLRB's case against Boeing is quite simple. No one disputes that Boeing workers in the state of Washington engaged in negotiations, a legal strike and other activities that the law protects. Boeing itself never claimed that its workers did anything that was illegal.

After workers engaged in this collective activity, however, Boeing announced that it was moving a substantial part of its assembly work on the company's new 787 Dreamliner to South Carolina.

Last week the Machinists Union released the "Project Gemini" documents. They are internal documents distributed at a meeting of Boeing executives.

"The Project Gemini" documents prove what we've suspected all along, that Boeing moved to South Carolina to punish our members for exercising their union rights," said Connie Kelleher, a spokesman for the Machinists.

Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh, in an interview with the Seattle Times on March 2, 2010, also clearly stated that the move was retaliatory.

Even worse, under the guise of protecting Boeing's right to set up shop wherever it wants, the Republicans have proposed legislation that would take away the right of the NLRB to enforce labor law and would change that law so that it would no longer protect workers when companies decide to punish them for legal activity by moving work out of their states.

Boeing and its surrogates in Congress claim that the Federal government is trying to tell a company where to put its work. This is not true. The National Labor Relations Act itself does not restrict the placement of work unless a company does so for an illegal reason. Retaliating against workers because they engage in activity that the law protects is illegal. The NLRB complaint itself states, "The relief requested by the Acting General Counsel does not seek to prohibit Respondent (Boeing) from making non-discriminatory decisions with respect to where work will be performed."

Republicans say the Obama administration is just giving payback to labor unions. This is also untrue. The protected rights at stake in this case apply to workers regardless of whether they are unionized and regardless of politics. The NLRB is the law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing the rights that Boeing violated. Republicans are trying to get the NLRB to stop doing its job. They are saying, in effect, that big companies do not have to obey the law.

Republicans are also saying that the NLRB's complaint is a back door attack on states that have right to work (for less) laws. This too is false.

The normal rule under the National Labor Relations Act is that employers and unions may, by agreement, require all employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement to share in the union's cost of negotiating those improved wages, benefits and protections, by paying union dues or a non-member fee.

The National Labor Relations Act also permits states, by statute, to ban such a cost-sharing requirement. These are right to work (for less) laws, and they allow "free riders," employees who receive the improvements paid for by their co-workers without contributing themselves.

South Carolina is one of these states.

The NLRB's complaint has nothing to do with such laws. It seeks to remedy Boeing's retaliation against its workers in Washington by bringing their work back to Washington. The remedy would be the same wherever Boeing had moved that work. It has no effect on South Carolina's right to work law whatsoever.

Photo: Right-wing politicians have as their real aim the destruction of union rights whether at the state or national level. PW

Jim Crow alive and well in Alabama

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:57:00 +0000

Shelby County, in suburban Birmingham, Ala., has been trying to disenfranchise black people for years, but the latest ploy has been shot down by a federal district court.

Shelby County officials, ever zealous in trying to protect the Constitution and the rights it grants to American citizens, went to court because they feared that the U.S. Congress was trampling the Constitution underfoot by extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for 25 years (this was done in 2006).This means it won't be until 2031 that Shelby County can start discriminating against black voters, and Congress could extend the act again.

The Voting Rights Act applies to areas where a history of discrimination has been manifested-- almost every county in every Southern state, but also, according to the New York Times, "Alaska, Arizona and isolated towns and counties around the country."

These areas cannot change any of their voting practices without getting permission from a panel of federal judges or the U Department of Justice. Shelby County, and no doubt other areas, feel discriminated against and, as we all know, discrimination is unconstitutional.

The good officials of Shelby County are not about to have their rights stepped on.

They maintain that Jim Crow is history, and they went to court to argue that "it is no longer constitutionally justifiable for Congress arbitrarily impose" on them and others "disfavored treatment," i.e., having to get permission before mucking around with their voting procedures. Congress, they maintained had no evidence "of intentional discrimination" and, even if it did it, seems, it is still a disregard of states rights (I thought that was resolved in 1865).

The federal court, however, found otherwise. At least 14 cases of intentional voter discrimination between 1982 and 2006 had been determined by the courts. The federal judge also noted that the county has openly racist lawmakers and poll workers [preposterous - what in Alabama?] and that a town in the county had in 2008 tried to eliminate the only district with a black majority.

Poor Shelby County. It looks like it will have to wait until 2031 before it can overcome "disfavorment." As the federal judge, a Bush Jr. appointee, John D. Bates, concluded, "Bearing in mind both the historical context and the extensive evidence of recent voting discrimination reflected in that unprecedented legislative record [the attempt to eliminate the only black majority voting district] the court concludes that 'current needs' - the modern existence of intentional racial discrimination in voting - do, in fact, justify Congress's 2006 reauthorization imposed on covered jurisdictions."

Maybe the county fathers will have better luck with Jim Beam than with Jim Crow.

Morgan Freeman charges tea party motivated by racism

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:38:00 +0000

Oscar winner Morgan Freeman took on the tea party right last week, pointing directly to the corporate-based movement's racist intentions when attacking President Obama.

Appearing on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight on Sept. 23, the generally easygoing actor said, "Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What underlines that? Screw the country. We are going to do ... whatever we can to get this black man outta here."

He continued, "It is a racist thing ... It just shows the weak, dark underside of America. We're supposed to be better than that. That's why all those people were in tears when he was elected."

Freeman began the interview by indicating that racism, instead of lessening, had become worse since Obama's election.

He predicted however that the Republican effort would fail. "They're not going to get rid of Obama either," he said. "I think they're shooting themselves in the head."

GOP hopeful Herman Cain, who won a Florida straw poll after last week's debate, took issue with Freeman, saying he was "shortsighted."

Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, on the other hand, when asked about tea party racism, said, "One of the curses of racism in this country is that you're always asking yourself if the stuff that goes wrong is on account of racism. I hope it's not."

He went on to say that the GOP's unrelenting opposition to the president's policies might be "seditious." The governor then said, "The notion that the singular focus of the hard right today is to defeat this president, even if there's an idea he puts forward to help - that they used to support - is incredibly worrisome to me and a very different political climate, I think, than we've been dealing with for a long time."

A 2010 report by the NAACP links the tea party to giving "platforms to anti-Semites, racists and bigots."

John Wojcik, writing for peoplesworld.org, says, "The NAACP study finds ... that among the tea party ranks are many who are obsessed with issues of race, national identity and a host of other social issues."

Photo: www.revelationsent.com

More progressive cinema at Toronto film fest

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:06:00 +0000

Last year it was Made In Dagenham. Probably the most worker-oriented film at this year's Toronto International Film Festival was the class-conscious Snows Of Kilimanjaro, the latest from Robert Guédiguian (Army Of Crime, Marius And Jeannette), France's prolific progressive filmmaker.

A beautifully drawn story that starts with a telling scene of dockworkers lined up as their foreman, Michel, reluctantly picks names from a box that will pronounce the end of their job. Not surprisingly the veteran foreman, who felt it only fair to put his name in the box, pulls his own out and is instantly retired. Friends and family come to the aid with moral support, a party to celebrate their years of union activism, and two tickets to Kilimanjaro as a consolation trip to help them cope with their new situation. Guédiguian's repertory cast of actors has appeared regularly in his films and has developed an incredible rapport seldom seen in movies.

Of course the movie isn't over until the director delves into the political ramifications and struggles that are well known to the working class of Marseille, where most of his films take place. In this case, the consolation is shattered when they're robbed by masked gunmen during a card game...taped up, knocked down, with credit cards and plane tickets taken. Their life savings are wiped out and the foreman's arm is broken in the process. To up the political intrigue, the foreman in his determination to help the police find the culprit, finds out the robber was one of his young fellow workers who lost his job on the dock the same day. In his desperation to raise his two younger brothers, the robber gets caught and now it's Michel's dilemma whether to raise charges and send his fellow worker to prison for 15 years, knowing the economic hardships the younger workers were enduring. And this is all in the first 20 minutes of the film!

Guédiguian's knowledge of unions and the class struggle informs the rest of the story with a probing study of the issues facing union workers complicated by the harsh economic times most of the world is facing. But more importantly, he infuses his storytelling with the most humanist understanding of personal relationships as Michel and his wife reflect on their political development and activism over the years. This is mandatory viewing, as are all of Guédiguian's works.

A rare free public and industry screening of This Is Not A Film was made available probably because the organizers realized that few would pay to see this "non-film," which consists of simply Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi talking into a friend's camera explaining every scene of his next movie (that he's not allowed to make), right down to the masking tape on the carpet outlining the set.

Little happens and the case made for an artist under "house arrest" was undermined by the luxurious apartment furnishings (pet iguana thrown in) and a certain inability to make a convincing appeal to the viewer. His offhanded remarks like "why make a film if all you have to do is tell it?" barely demands an answer. Despite a long one-way phone call to his lawyer, no explanation is made or details provided about charges against this world famous director. The continual outdoor explosions in the background implying protests on the streets of Tehran turned out to be fireworks celebration for the New Year. Although the curtailment of artistic freedom is a serious issue, the almost-film feels almost pretentious and disingenuous. The same for the next film.

Sarah Palin, You Betch by Nick Broomfield (Tracking Down Maggie: The Unofficial Biography Of Margaret Thatcher), no stranger to stalker films, was very reminiscent of Roger and Me, right down to the silly and pretentious mugging by Broomfield pretending to speak to an audience with a bullhorn as they leave a stadium where Palin just finished speaking. Palin never gives the expected interview, but the film is about the quest, of course. To Broomfield's credit, it should be noted that he was around almost 20 years before Moore, who began his amazing ride of award-winning documentaries starting in 1989. His tongue in cheek questioning, silly hunting gear and misrepresentation of real intent to prospective interviewees, diminishes whatever response this acclaimed director hoped for from a population already weary of Palin. Hopefully this is dated material. But it did reinforce the belief that Palin would be a dangerous person if she became our next president. And this film might become more relevant if she chose to run again.

Photo: Still from Snows of Kilimanjaro

Progressive films shine at Toronto film fest

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:04:00 +0000

This year's Toronto International Film Festival offered another amazing array of films. With over 350 titles to choose from, the chance of viewing a variety of great films was not difficult. Interestingly, and similar to the Traverse City Festival, the most challenging and rewarding film was the longest one. The lengthy four-and-a-half-hour Vapor Trail (Clark) in Traverse City was beat out in length by the 15-hour Story of Cinema (An Odyssey), a monumental study of film history that was shown in separate episodes throughout the TIFF. Providing not only a clear demonstration of the development of filmmaking through the decades, the marathon doc also presents a highly personalized but intriguing sampling of famous and neglected films over the years. Key interviews with filmmakers who changed the world of cinema, philosophical and political analyses, fast paced editing and a voiceover with a charming Irish brogue by the filmmaker and critic, Mark Cousins himself, makes this one of the most engrossing and developed studies of film for political activists to date.

Disappointingly, TIFF is failing in the area of presenting challenging and progressive fare from Cuba. Their singular choice this year was a horror film, Jaun of the Dead, reminiscent of the 1985 animated Cuban classic Vampires in Havana, which challenged American imperialism. With the same spirit of Cuban self-criticism, this one however appears to be challenging Fidel and the Revolution, implying the zombies are of the "pro-government" type. Not surprisingly it's the first post-Revolution film not funded by the government. Subtitled, "50 years after the Revolution, a new one is about to start," we can only guess what they mean by that.

Horror mixed with political satire struck twice at TIFF in a misleading-titled, God Bless America, directed by comedian Bobcat Goldthwaite. A Bonnie and Clyde type rampage against the American cultural wasteland of American Idol, Survivor, insult and hate TV, this film goes where no others have gone. An hilarious killing spree targets the purveyors of right-wing extremism, corporate commercialism, filth, hate and greed. The likes of Fox television personalities, American Idol judges who capitalize on dehumanizing candidates, and spoiled rich kids, are all targets of Goldthwaite's slings and arrows. Sure to be criticized, this satiric attack on violence, human insensitivity and crass capitalism brings a new approach to cultural activism.

Walkouts: Rarely do I write about films I feel should be ignored, but at this years festival there were too many that drove me from the theater. Aside from the decidedly un-Revolutionary and silly Cuban entry mentioned prior, Last Days in Jerusalem was another film with a misleading title. Well acted but the theme was personal not political and the city of Jerusalem was simply the setting for a love affair going wrong. The much-touted In Darkness by famed Polish director Agnieszka Holland (Europa, Euiropa) failed to hold light to the troubling question of Polish complicity in the Nazi treatment of Jews during World War II. And the dismal setting of Jews in the sewers of Lvov living with rats, was truly dark and overdone. A powerfully important subject done better in many other films.

The pacing of Last Cristeros was slow enough to develop disinterest within the first 15 minutes. A critical subject in Mexican history about the attempted abolition of religion in the 20s will have to wait for a more dramatic and informative treatment. The subject of Fatherland showed promise in detailing the volatile political history of Argentina, but instead displayed an endless parade of tombstones in an ancient cemetery with readers quoting the dead and departed in a repetitive and predictable fashion. Recipient of good reviews at Cannes this year, Play, failed to spark an appreciation for the minimalist pacing and close to racist storyline following several young Black youth who steal from little white kids. Adventurous camerawork doesn't always trump political naiveté. This Side of Resurrection, Carre Blanc, and Year Of The Tiger, all had dismally tedious pacing, a lack of capturing dialog and political sounding plots that failed to live up to their promises.

Despite these few disappointments, the rest of the Festival provided an endless supply of exciting and stimulating cinema that will be covered in upcoming articles.

Photo: Vapor Trail (Clark)

Is green the new red?

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:20:00 +0000

Book Review

"Green is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement Under Siege"
by Will Potter
2011, City Lights Publishers, 256 pages, paperback $16.95

Green is the New Red traces several stories about the radical environmental movement and the responses of the U.S. government. Written by journalist-activist Will Potter, Green is a fast and exciting read. Potter writes about several politically precarious topics, including the changing definition of terrorism since 9/11/2001 and the rights of individuals and groups to disrupt corporate profits via media campaigns that border on harassment.

This quasi-ethnographic account brings the reader into the underground world of the Animal Liberation and the Earth Liberation Fronts, and their illegal "ecotage" practices. These are controversial subjects given that most people (this author and publisher included) agree with the larger social consensus that does not support destruction of property and violent acts as methods for social change. In artfully discussing these topics, Potter provide a glimpse into the thinking, lives, and judicial proceedings of several "eco-terrorists," such as Daniel McGowan, Kevin Kjonaas and Lauren Gazzola among others.

Central throughout the narrative is the constant clash between the Bill of Rights, specifically our freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully, and the practices of the FBI and National Security Agency. Since passage of the PATRIOT Act, our government has greatly expanded its definition of terrorism. Unknown to most Americans, the book says, our justice system has been co-opted by certain groups (such as the American Legislative Exchange Council) to write laws that infringe on basic civil liberties. These groups, Potter writes, tend to be interested in protecting corporate profits rather than our inalienable rights. Readers are exposed to an Orwellian reality, where vegans are blacklisted and secret spy projects like COINTELPRO, SHAMROCK and Operation Backfire are the norm.

Overall the book is well organized, well researched and well written. While Potter spends a few pages discussing the controversial tactics of radical environmentalists, I think further exploration into this topic is needed. At the root of these acts sits the definition of nonviolence, civil disobedience, and the question of what constitutes terrorism. Another concern here is the U.S. government's response to loss of corporate profits. If citizens participate in nonviolent civil disobedience (boycott, protest, rally, etc), and business suffers, to what extent are people protected from corporate backlash lawsuits? This narrative opens these topics for public debate. I would recommend this book for any aspiring environmental or constitutional law students.

Green comes at a perfect time, when ecology and environmentalism are gaining popularity. Potter's investigation invites people to consider the "proper" methods of creating a more ecologically sustainable culture.

Alan Wight is a doctoral student in educational studies at the University of Cincinnati. He is an environmental sociologist working on re-introducing agriculture to schools and communities.

Photo: joiseyshowaa CC 2.0

Arms, China and the Obama administration

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:42:00 +0000

The recent decision by the Obama Administration to sell $5.8 billion in arms to Taiwan is a bit of a head scratcher, rather like the hunter who goes into the woods with one bullet. Seeing a deer to his left and a turkey to his right, he shoots in the middle. It will annoy Taipei, irritate Beijing, stir up the China bashers in the U.S., and increase tensions in a region of the world that is already pretty tense.

So what's the point here?

The plan would upgrade Taiwan's 140 U.S.-made F-16 A/B jet fighters, plus supply Taipei with Blackhawk helicopters and anti-ballistic missiles. The Obama administration has more than doubled the Bush administration's arms sales to Taiwan, and this sale would bring that figure to slightly more than $12 billion.

Taipei had asked to buy 66 new F-16 C/Ds, but the White House turned that down, annoying the Taiwanese. "These years, China is showing stronger and stronger reaction to U.S.-Taiwan arms sales," complained Taipei's deputy defense minister Andrew Yang, and that has turned Americans "more wary with arms sales."

While PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Beijing "firmly opposes the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan," China's reaction was generally low key, certainly more so than when a similar arms sales went through in 2008. Then Beijing canceled joint military consultation with the U.S. and put capitol-to-capitol relations into a deep freeze for many months. After a similar arms sale in 2010, Chinese military leaders went as far as to suggest that China cash in some of American's $1.1 trillion debt to Beijing.

While the White House can't get bi-partisan agreement on the budget, it brought Republicans and Democrats together on this issue. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) have joined hands to introduce legislation demanding that the administration sell the new F-16s to Taiwan. The Taiwan Air Modernization Act cites the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which calls for providing defensive weapons to Taipei and resisting any effort by the PRC to forcibly reunite Taiwan with the mainland.

Cornyn thundered that the decision to upgrade rather than sell was "capitulation to Communist China" and a "slap in the face to a strong ally and a long-time friend." In language straight out of the Cold War, a Coryn-Menendez letter to Obama-signed by 13 Democrats and 23 Republicans-warned that a failure to sell the new fighter aircraft means "Taiwan will be dangerously exposed to Chinese military threats, aggression and provocation, which pose significant security implications for the United States."

A similar letter, signed by 181 House members, also demanded that Washington approve the sales of new F-16s.

Tucked in amidst the "red dragon" scare rhetoric is pork: "We are deeply concerned that further delay of the decision to sell F-16s to Taiwan could result in closure of the F-16 production line," the letter argues. Lockheed Martin, maker of the aircraft, has a plant in Cornyn's Texas, and the company employs 750 workers in Menendez's New Jersey. The company is the largest arms manufacturer in the world and has a formidable lobbying presence in Washington.

In many ways the whole matter seems mired in the past, particularly the letter's warning that Taiwan risked losing its "qualitative advantage in defensive arms." Taipei has not had a "qualitative advantage" over the PRC in any category for the past two decades. Even the Taipei Times writes that "Taiwan would have at most only a few days to hold off China and get help from the outside, most likely the U.S., if they were going to stand any chance."

According to the Pentagon, the PRC's fighter aircraft fleet outnumbers Taiwan's 1,680 to 388, and many of the latter's planes are obsolete. Besides the 140 F-16 A/Bs, Taipei's forces include 1970 vintage F-4 Phantoms (an excellent fighter-bomber in its day, but that day is long past), 60 aging French Mirage 2000s (vintage 1982), and 130 domestically produced, but underpowered, Indigenous Defensive Fighter, the "Ching-Kuo."

The PRC's fleet features Sukhoi-27 and Sukhoi-30-the latter a match for the U.S.'s premier fighter, the F-15-and China's domestic fighter, the J-10. A J-20 stealth fighter is in the testing phase but will not be deployed until 2017. Upgrading the F-16s, or even selling Taiwan new ones, will not alter this balance.

The PRC maintains that Taiwan is part of China (and virtually no country in the world, including the U.S., disagrees) and reserves the right to use military force if Taipei tries to establish independence. But "reserves the right" is very different than ramping up the landing craft. Indeed, China has carefully lowered nationalist rhetoric around Taiwan and cross-straits ties are warmer than they were three years ago.

Current Chinese President Hu Jintao has pushed rapprochement with Taipei, but as the Financial Times points out, "his approach to Taiwan is not uncontested within the Chinese Communist Party," and it notes that "the Party is also preparing to elect a new generation of leaders next year." That new generation tends to be more nationalistic than the older generation.

The PRC's armed forces mirror currents in the Communist Party, with a wing that advocates a more assertive role-at least in local waters like the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea-and a more cautious wing that wants to avoid a confrontation with the U.S.

Similar currents exist within the U.S. military establishment, although the Pentagon's "caution" wing has recently gone silent because of all the talk about cutting military spending. Much of the recent "China threat" talk is aimed at derailing efforts to cut the huge military budget, and, to that end, generals and admirals have closed ranks behind "the dragon is coming, the dragon is coming" gang. One suspects the American hawks have counterparts among the Chinese chiefs of staff.

The arms deal will make President's Hu's job more difficult, although he will probably portray the F-16 upgrade as a compromise. Of course, all bets are off if Congress throws a monkey wrench into the deal and insists on new aircraft that won't change the military balance, but will worsen an already charged diplomatic atmosphere.

The White House is nervous about January elections in Taiwan, which will pit the nationalist Kuomintang Party against the more independence-minded Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The DPP's leader, Tsai Ing-Wen, apparently had a recent falling out with Obama administration officials over the independence issue. One U.S. official told the Financial Times, "that while she [Tsai] understood the need 'to avoid gratuitous provocations' of China, it was 'far from clear...that she and her advisors fully appreciate the depth of [Chinese] mistrust of her motives and DPP aspirations.'"

DPP leader Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan's president from 2000 to 2008 pushed for formal independence and cut off formal negotiations with Beijing during his administration.

If this all seems like a terrible muddle, that's because it is.

On one hand Washington insists on a robust military presence on China's doorstep, and continues to supply arms to Taiwan. These are not minor matters. If there is a confrontation between Taiwan and the PRC, and it pulls in the Americans, it will pit two nuclear powers against one another.

The growth of the Chinese navy-Beijing got its first aircraft carrier this year, albeit one half the size of a U.S. flat top-is being portrayed in Washington as a threat to U.S. naval power in the Pacific and Indian oceans. But the PRC's buildup is about protecting its oil and gas supplies-80 percent travel by sea-and recent history.

The PRC is still smarting over having to back down when the U.S. sent two aircraft carrier battle groups into the Taiwan Straits in 1995 during a particularly tense standoff between Taipei and Beijing. The increase in China's military spending dates from that confrontation, although Beijing's budget is still only about one eighth of what the Americans spend.

On the other hand, the White House is leaning on the DPP not to push independence and watering down the arms package to Taipei.

Bi-polar diplomacy anyone?

It is clear that Washington and Beijing are of two minds about their relationship. Both are riding conflicting internal political currents, and over the next decade, threading a path between cooperation and competition promises to be tricky. Arms sales accomplish little more than pushing China's nationalist button. The jobs they create in the U.S. are marginal (and the same amount spent on civilian projects produce more employment), and the tensions they create are real.

It is time to revisit the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, a piece of legislation that reflects a very different world than the one we live in now.

Conn Hallinan can be read at Dispatches from the Edge.

Troy Davis and the new abolitionists

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:24:00 +0000

Among Troy Davis's last words were "I am innocent."

He said them while strapped down on a death chamber gurney Sept. 21 in Georgia's Jackson State Prison, looking at the family of slain police officer Mark MacPhail.

"It's a sad day. There's nothing to rejoice," said Joan MacPhail-Harris, the widow of the victim.

His mother, Anneliese MacPhail, said, "All the feelings of relief and peace I've been waiting for all these years, they will come later. "

One million petitions were delivered to Georgia's Board of Parole demanding clemency for Davis. Just as many people, or more, rallied, prayed, tweeted, phoned, faxed or Facebooked "I am Troy Davis" messages.

Thousands signed letters of support for clemency for Davis, whose conviction was based on coerced and compromised eyewitnesses. Former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, former FBI Director William Sessions, conservative and liberal politicians, celebrities and artists were among the signatories.

"Troy Davis has impacted the world," his sister Martina Correia said. "They say, 'I am Troy Davis,' in languages he can't speak."

Hundreds held vigil outside death row, hoping, fasting, protesting and praying for a miracle or some modicum of justice.

None came.

At least not for Troy Anthony Davis.

Yet, despite the tragedy, perhaps a miracle did arise from the despair and tears, the anger and shame. For in those emotions and in that fight to save Davis's life, a new abolitionist movement was born.

"Troy's execution, the exceptional unfairness of it, will only hasten the end of the death penalty in the United States," said NAACP's Ben Jealous.

The practice of the death penalty in our country is historically rooted in the lynch mob, slavery and Jim Crow. Mob justice was infused with racial hysteria, where bigotry determines guilt and innocence. African Americans and Native Americans were most often the targets.

Perhaps it was the knowledge of this history, or the movements to overcome racism and oppression, that sparked the fight.

Perhaps it was social media and the Internet.

Or perhaps, in a nation which elected its first black president (a death penalty supporter), it was the newly awakened consciousness of the idea that black, white and brown can stand together for justice, and ordinary people from Wisconsin to Egypt can change the world.

Whatever the factors, the birth of a new movement to abolish the death penalty has arisen as Georgia carried out this execution.

"The struggle for justice doesn't end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises who came before me and all the ones who will come after me," said Troy Davis, prophetically, on the day of his execution.

About the death penalty, there are many opinions. The Supreme Court had two: one in 1973 that banned capital punishment as unconstitutional, and later, one in 1976 that allowed it under certain circumstances.

Public support for the death penalty had been relatively high since its reinstatement, swinging upwards to more than 80 percent favoring it.

Political campaigns laced with racial and tough-on-crime hysteria undoubtedly boosted the numbers.

But science and DNA evidence helped put a damper on this.

DNA evidence used to prove the innocence of death row convicts accelerated since 2000. There have been 273 post-conviction exonerations in the U.S., 206 of them since 2000. Seventeen of the 273 wrongly-convicted had been on death row. Since 1973, 138 people have been freed from death row by DNA and other evidence.*

Polling data indicates nearly half the public supports the sentence of life without parole over the death penalty.

Then came the numerous reports and studies that showed blatant racial, class, regional and political bias in the death penalty's application.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have now outlawed capital punishment. And more are sure to follow suit.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said last year he once thought the death penalty could be administered "rationally and fairly."

But now, he said, he has concluded, "That personnel changes on the court, coupled with regrettable judicial activism, had created a system of capital punishment that is shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics and tinged with hysteria."

It doesn't even deter crime, Stevens noted.

Troy Davis did not go quietly into the night. He and his family inspired millions to stand up and fight for decency and justice. His death gave life to a new abolitionist movement.

Grave questions of guilt or innocence, barbarism or civilization, blunder or repair, injustice or fairness swirl around Georgia's execution, and they do not go quietly into the night.

Neither do the students who rode buses from Spelman and Morehouse colleges to Jackson, Ga. Nor do the human rights activists throughout the South where 80 percent of executions are held. Nor do the millions of people throughout the U.S. aroused by the questions raised and justice denied in this case.

Meet the new abolitionists.

And we say, "We are Troy Davis."

More on the death penalty from PeoplesWorld.org.

Photo: About 500 marchers gather in downtown Atlanta to walk from Woodruff Park to Ebenezer Baptist Church, the spiritual home of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., in support of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis on Sept. 16. (AP/David Tulis)

*UPDATED Sept 26 to more accurately reflect post-conviction exonerations based on DNA, and former death row inmates freed.

Let's get positive, and win

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:44:00 +0000

The American Jobs Act is the leading edge of the jobs struggle. It is the ground on which millions can be drawn into the fight to create jobs and rebuild the nation's infrastructure.

The AFL-CIO is embracing and promoting it. Others will come on board too as the jobs campaign gathers momentum.

The Jobs Act, introduced by President Obama in a well-crafted and passionate address to a joint session of Congress, is not as far reaching as some other jobs proposals. The plans put forward by the Congressional Black Caucus, Progressive Caucus, AFL-CIO and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., are more ambitious, and we recognize that they contain more in-depth solutions. But the hard fact is that none of these stand a chance of congressional approval given the current balance of forces in Congress, and in the House in particular.

The president's proposal does. The various provisions in the act appeal to a broad constituency, including political moderates in both parties.

Even for this plan the going will be tough. The Republicans, while initially making conciliatory noises, are determined not to give the president a positive record to run on. They figure a president with no accomplishments, especially in a period of crisis, will not be returned to office.

That such a posture will hurt millions of people who are already hurting is of no concern to them.

In fact, in their view, the worse that economic conditions are, the better are their chances of winning back the White House and Congress in 2012.

Irresponsible yes, cynical yes, even diabolical, but as a political calculus, it contains some truth. Unless the American people are convinced otherwise, they could easily blame the president for the economic mess when they go into the voting booth next year. Good policy positions and eloquent speeches are seldom enough to attract voters in a time of crisis.

The president, probably more than the rest of us, is certainly well of aware of this.

Thus he appears determined to take the initiative on the main economic policy questions facing the nation. It seems evident he is no longer willing to let Republicans frame the political agenda.

Indeed, his jobs speech two weeks ago - and his support for a special millionaires' tax (the Buffet option) earlier this week - put the GOP leaders on their heels for the first time since 2010 when they regained control of the House.

We won't like everything the president proposes, especially cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and should mobilize to make sure such ideas are dropped. But at the same time that shouldn't be an obstacle to getting behind the American Jobs Act and the millionaires' tax in a full-blooded way.

The left should not set the perfect against the possible. It's counterproductive. And let's not "damn" Obama's jobs and tax initiatives "with faint praise" - an approach that has been employed too often to no good effect.

A positive, robust grassroots campaign for Obama's jobs and tax-the-rich measures will put the wind in the president's sails, give people hope and improve the prospects of a people's victory next year.

Photo via White House press service.

Votes and vetoes: Palestine at the UN

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:44:00 +0000

This week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is taking the Palestinian people's case for statehood to the United Nations.

The UN granted Palestine non-voting observer status as a non-state entity in 1974. Palestine has been recognized as a state by 122 UN member nations. In the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Abbas heads, as "representing the Palestinian people" in exchange for the PLO's recognition of Israel.

Now, on behalf of the Palestinian people, Abbas will be requesting full UN membership. The action has spurred a flurry of backdoor diplomatic efforts by Israel, the U.S. and some others to prevent Abbas from making the request.

The Obama administration has said it will veto the initiative in the Security Council, and some in Congress have threatened to cut off aid money to the Palestinian Authority - aid that was initiated by none other than President George W. Bush. Israel has threatened to disrupt the Palestinian Authority by withholding Palestinian tax money that it collects as the occupying power.

Why?

Numerous polls have shown that a majority of Israelis, Palestinians, and American Jews as well, favor a two-state solution to resolve the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict with peace, justice and security for all.

Yes, a UN vote to grant full member status for Palestine would be only a symbolic move. Serious negotiations are necessary in order to make that state a reality. But after repeated Israeli sabotage of recent negotiating efforts by both the U.S. government and the Palestinians, including open snubs to both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who can criticize the Palestinians for taking their case to the international community?

For 20 years, since the Oslo Accords, Israel has taken unilateral actions in building settlements in the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem, blockading Gaza and erecting an apartheid so-called security wall that has disrupted Palestinians' lives and livelihoods. These actions have provoked violence on the part of fringe Palestinian groups, which the Israeli government has then used to justify further provocative steps. And these actions create "facts on the ground" making a viable Palestinian state virtually impossible.

This gives a hollow ring to the Israeli right-wing government's charges of Palestinian "unilateralism" at the UN.

Looming large in all the sound and fury over the UN vote on Palestine is the 2012 U.S. presidential election. The Obama administration is under heavy pressure from an unholy alliance between right-wing Israeli leaders led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, their supporters in the U.S., and right-wing Republicans. It's a disgusting sight to see U.S. Republicans, who whipped up the Nazi-like tea-party movement, now opportunistically portraying themselves as "friends" of Israel and Jews. It's sad to see some ordinary Americans misled by such posturing. It's sad to see the White House and Congress cowed by this far-right drive, so harmful to Mideast peace and to the interests of Americans, Israelis, Palestinians and people everywhere.

But the reality is, there is a well-funded right-wing offensive to retake the White House and lock in control of Congress in 2012. As part of this offensive, the Republicans and their anti-Obama allies are seeking to attract Jewish American voters, who supported Obama in 2008 by 78 percent. The right-wing cabal is now latching onto to the obviously false claim that Obama is guilty of "soft" support for Israel. Just look at how right-wingers, including former New York Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, worked to use the recent special congressional election in Brooklyn and Queens to "teach President Obama a lesson on Israel."

Earlier this year, Netanyahu rebuffed President Obama's attempts to restart negotiations, his urging to stop new settlement building and most recently, his statement that 1967 borders are a starting point in negotiations, a long-standing U.S. foreign policy position and one broadly accepted in the international community.

In a public swipe at the president, the GOP-dominated House of Representatives invited Netanyahu to give a speech on Israel and the 1967 borders, which Netanyahu obliged willingly.

As the NY Times puts it, there is an "ever-tightening relationship between the Israeli government and the Republican Party that now controls the House."

Republican presidential candidates are getting into the act. This week, Rick Perry stood with advocates for Israeli annexation of the West Bank. Michele Bachmann said Israel should never give up any land on the West Bank.

Yes, the Obama administration is in a tough spot on the Palestinians' move for full UN recognition. A Palestinian state and the chance for peace in the Middle East are long past due. Yes, ultimately real negotiations are necessary to achieve peace. But a veto of the Palestinians' UN effort would further damage U.S. standing in the world, especially in the Middle East tinderbox. It would reduce our ability to help bring about a just and peaceful solution, and possible inflame violence instead.

Our country needs to stand for peace, security and justice for all people. And ultimately, it's up to us, the American people, to build a strong and broad movement to expose and defeat the right wing in all its manifestations.

Photo: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, right, is greeted by Hanan Ashrawi, left, Palestinian legislator and activist, as he arrives in New York, Sept. 19, to attend the 66th General Assembly session of United Nations, where he will make the case for Palestine's membership in the international body. (David Karp / AP)

The Jewish New Year and political vampires

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:11:00 +0000

Let me tell you something about the men's group I'm in. We formed in early 2009 at the Workmen's Circle in Los Angeles, so we're going on three years now. There are seven of us now, and we meet for two hours every other week. We're pretty homogeneous, maybe too much for our own good, as we're all Jewish guys in our 50s and 60s (we did have some non-Jewish and younger and older participants but they moved away).

Our group isn't therapy, and we're not out to "fix" anyone. We just share the truths about our lives, issues with our jobs, our marriages and relationships, kids, parents, aging, sex and sexuality, our health, our fears. We try to speak from the heart and not give unwanted advice. We don't waste much time talking baseball or movies.

And yet, there is a therapeutic effect. If I come in one week with an issue that's troubling me, I'm not going to come back the next time and say the same thing, and the next, and the next. To do so would only say, in so many words, that I'm not truly interested in addressing my problem, but only want a regular supply of shoulders to cry on. I've learned there's a word for people like that: Vampires. They suck all your energy, your attention, your good will, but they don't give back mutual support.

The Jewish New Year season comprises two major holidays, Rosh Hashanah, the New Year itself, this year September 29; and Yom Kipur, known as the Day of Atonement, October 8. During this time, Jews are asked to give thanks for the year past, to review their actions, apologize for their misdeeds and make amends, and resolve to do better in the year to come.

In a similar way to our men's group, the New Year season discourages vampirism. In both our group and in the Jewish tradition, we try to remain real and authentic, honoring our selves and others, and the commitments we make. If we value the bonds of community, we assume the burden of honesty and candor. If we are going to be depending on one another in the months and the years to come, we have to be open, frank, trustworthy and constructive.

There is much our progressive movement can learn from the men's group, and from the Jewish New Year. Are those of us (you know who you are) who endlessly carp and quibble about every faux pas of the President, in whom you are so deeply "disappointed," not a type of political vampire, injecting negativity and futility into our ranks? Are they not coming back week after week with the same unresolved complaints, expending precious energy that could be better applied to actually achieving something in their union, their neighborhood, their school? And aren't they letting us down, the rest of us trying so hard in this climate to keep our heads above the waters of cynicism, aiming for a little victory now and then?

This may be a good time to think about repairing frayed relationships, taking a long view of our movement's needs as we both build independent politics on the one hand, and strengthen the unity of all those forces working compassionately for justice and peace. If we can work together harmoniously and supportively on the main issues, we may find that the issues separating us may not be so fundamental after all.

A year from now we'll be heading into the final stretch of what will surely be a stressful electoral campaign. Let us hope that the internal "reset" we perform on ourselves now leads to more effective collective work, and to great gains and accomplishments, in the critical months ahead.

Have a good and healthy New Year!

Photo: A man blows the traditional shofar (ram's horn) to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, at a ceremony in Seattle. Joe King CC 2.0