People Before Profit blog

Muslims Must Not Pay Price for Europe’s Identity Crisis

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:50:00 +0000

It seems that the targeting of Muslims and Islam has become a kind of national theater in France. Unlike theater, however, the disturbing trend can, and will turn ugly – in fact to a degree it already has – if the French government doesn’t get a grip on reality. The world, including France, is a complex, multifaceted and fascinatingly diverse place; it cannot be co-opted to fit national specificities determined by a group of irritable far right racists with a distorted interpretation of themselves and others.

Unfortunately, France is not alone; it merely highlights the most obvious manifestation of growing anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Europe. Unearthing the reasons behind the disturbing phenomena is hardly an easy task, for it arguably requires a greater examination of the political, economic and social woes of European states than it does of the ‘shortcomings’ of Islam.

Islam is a great religion in many respects; it has endured for over 1400 years. Its membership is never confined by skin color, culture, political ideology or geographic boundaries. Its views of antiquity, on equality, women rights and peace are considered progressive even by today’s standards.

The detractors of Islam fail to see all this. If Islam is dissected politically or ‘academically’, the investigation is done for the sake of destroying its repute, and discrediting or humiliating its followers.

The Swiss People’s Party (SVP) may claim that their commitment is to keep Switzerland secular, devoid of symbols of oppression (as in a mosque’s minaret), but this only sounds like incoherent blabber and reflects nothing but a growing tendency towards racism, intolerance and ethnocentrism. These trends are glaring violations of the liberal philosophies associated with European countries, which guarantee individual and collective rights, including those of self-expression and freedom of speech.

In France, the phenomenon is protracted and more dangerous. Considering that France is the home of five million French Muslims, rightwing tendencies threaten future discord in the country.

The Washington Post reported on December 19 that Bilal Mosque, in the tranquil French town of Castres was desecrated by unknown assailants. “Two pig's ears and a poster of the French flag stapled to the door; a pig's snout dangled from the doorknob. ‘White power’ and ‘Sieg heil’ were spray-painted on one side…and ‘France for the French’ on the other.”

Here, one must recall the alarming words of Britain’s first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik. Himself a victim of hate crimes, Malik lamented a year and a half ago that many Muslims feel targeted like the “Jews of Europe”, and that many British Muslims feel like “aliens in their own country”.

While Many Muslims share the same feeling of nationalism and patriotism in their homelands in Europe, rightwing racists - who are unfortunately becoming a dominant force in shaping public views in various European states – insist on a very narrow definition of what makes a French, a British, a German or a Swiss.

There is indeed an identity crisis that is real and frightening. And it’s one that is not engulfing Europe alone, but also affects and in some instances has devastated many cultures all over the world. While it is a byproduct of misguided and unchecked globalization, in the case of Europe itself the issue is very national and very personal. The European Union, which started as a purely economic body has morphed into a political and pan-nationalist organization that is attempting, by accident or design, to define a united Europe and a prototypical European. This has raised fears of the loss of national identities or whatever remains of it. Expectedly, it is the politically underrepresented, socially marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that often pay the price of this sort of national resurgence.

Targeting Muslims is a common denominator that now unifies a great proportion of European political elites and media. The reasons are numerous and obvious. Some European countries are at war (which they have chosen) in various Muslim countries; desperate and failed politicians are in need for constant distractions from their own failures and mishaps; associating Islam with terrorism is more than an acceptable intellectual diatribe, a topic of discussion that has occupied more radio and television airtime than any other; also, pushing Muslims around seems to have few political repercussions – unlike the subjugation of targeting of other groups with political or economic clout.

But is their more to this? A 2007-08 Gallup poll asked the following question: does religion occupy an important place in your life? The vast majority in Western European countries answered with a resounding “no”. Only nine percent of Turkish citizens – a country with a Muslim majority – shared the popular view. Most European Muslims strongly identify with their religion, which has preserved their sense of community, and helped maintain a degree of cultural cohesion and a semblance of collective identity at a time when many in Europe are losing theirs. Muslims must not be blamed for this loss, and nor should they be punished, derided or targeted for daring to hold onto their beliefs.

Returning again to France, what is most alarming about the anti-Muslim measures is that they are largely led by the government itself, rather than a fanatical group of disenchanted ideologues. Eric Besson, the country’s Immigration Minister, stated on December 16 that Muslim veils will be grounds of denying citizenships and long-term residence. Besson was only echoing the disquieting policies of conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy who has started a ‘national identity campaign’ for ensuring an exclusive identity of France - one that is occupied with the targeting of immigrants, particularly Muslims.

Sarkozy, Besson, and Europe’s rightwing and far right politicians must understand the possible ramifications if they continue to press with their reckless and alienating policies.

Radicalization is an unavoidable offshoot of group alienation, which is sadly being used to further fuel the anti-immigrant fervor throughout the continent. It is a vicious cycle, the blame for which lies squarely with the savvy politicians and their obvious agendas. As for those who insist on blaming Islam for Europe’s woes, they should really find another pastime; the self-indulgent game is too hazardous and must stop.

Legislative Editor Fired after Sex Change, Seeks Reinstatement

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:48:00 +0000

Original source: The Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA -- A former legislative editor for the Georgia House of Representatives is suing her former employers after she was fired for announcing her intent to transition from a man to a woman.

Glenn Morrison, a former naval lieutenant, was born with Gender Identification Disorder, a medical condition in which one’s physical sex does not match the perceived sex of the individual.

After struggling with this condition from early childhood, Morrison was finally able to become the woman she felt herself to be in 2007, changing her name to Vandy Beth Glenn and dressing as a female.

However, she was fired from her job on October 16, 2007. She had been working for the State of Georgia editing bills and resolutions in a windowless room at the State Capitol.

She had entered the job as a man in 2005 and then began the process of changing her sex beginning in 2006 while an employee.

'I was working at the Office of Legislative Council being an editor and had reached the time of transition. It was time to start coming to work as myself and they fired me. My direct supervisor at the General Assembly, Beth Yinger, was very supportive and understanding but the final say belonged to the Legislative Counsel, Sewell Brumby,' she explained in an interview with APN.

Glenn's job as an editor involved fixing grammar, spelling, and formatting, but not the content of legislation.

Her name change was complete and she was ready to begin her new life. But Sewell Brumby told her that her behavior was inappropriate numerous times.

Brumby said he was uncomfortable with her use of the public restrooms and the effect of her sex change on other colleagues in the office, Glenn said.

He called a meeting of his superiors and expressed fear that Glenn’s behavior might be judged immoral by legislators and their constituents, and that it would disrupt office morale.

Brumby offered no rationale based on Glenn’s performance and no proof based on past experience with gender transition.

She was fired based on Brumby’s uneasiness stemming from her sexual identity.

Glenn was immediately escorted to clean out her desk and then to leave the premises, she says. Her work quality and quantity had not changed.

'He said my fellow co-workers would be made uncomfortable by the transition. The legislators would find it immoral. He didn’t pretend it was about anything other than the transition.'

However, several of Glenn’s colleagues had expressed support for her, in addition to her supervisor.

Ms. Glenn contacted LAMBDA Legal, an organization based on liberation and unity for homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered individuals, with a division for working through the court system. They accepted her case.

She filed a lawsuit in July 2008 in the US federal district court, claiming discrimination. The defendants in the case are Brumby; Glenn Richardson, former Speaker of the House of Representatives of Georgia; Casey Cagle, Lieutenant Governor of Georgia; Eric Johnson, President pro tempore of the Georgia Senate; and Robyn J. Underwood, legislative fiscal officer of the Georgia General Assembly.

They were sued in their official capacities working for the State of Georgia.

She charged that her 14th amendment rights to protection as a citizen including due process were disregarded.

Ms. Glenn said she is not seeking compensation, only the right to resume her work.

She also wants to protect other transgender and transsexual individuals from suffering discrimination.

The judge ruled so far that anticipated reactions were not a valid basis for the firing and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

'At present the suit has been accepted as valid and Motions to Dismiss have been denied. Both the defendants and plaintiffs have made Motion for Summary Judgment,' Glenn said.

Ms. Glenn also testified in front of US Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), an openly homosexual member of US Congress, on September 23, 2009, in favor of HR 3017, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA).

This bill would end legal discrimination in all states on the basis of sexual orientation, although controversy has emerged over whether to include gender identity as another protected status in the bill.

Bush said he would veto such a measure even if it passed, but Obama said he would not. Congressman Frank says it makes economic sense to utilize citizens with needed skills for which the issue of gender is irrelevant. Most states offer some form of protection; the State of Georgia does not.

The lawsuit is also based on the fact that a person cannot be dismissed in Georgia on the basis of a medical condition if they have a contract. Ms. Glenn says she had a medical condition that was diagnosed for which her operation was the only cure.

'I am transgendered and have had a well-documented medical condition and not anything anyone should be fired over,' Glenn said.

At present Ms. Glenn says she feels much better and at home with her present sexual identity. 'It’s the way I was supposed to be in the first place. I have a comfort within my own skin I never had before,' Glenn said.

Federal “Defense” Spending Exceeds All State Outlays

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:45:00 +0000

The U.S. spends more for war annually than all state governments combined spend for the health, education, welfare, and safety of 308 million Americans.

Joseph Henchman, director of state projects for the Tax Foundation of Washington, D.C., says the states collected a total of $781 billion in taxes in 2008.

For a rough comparison, according to Wikipedia data, the total budget for what the Pentagon calls 'defense' in fiscal year 2010 will be at least $880 billion and could possibly top $1 trillion. That’s more than all the state governments collect.

Henchman says all American local governments combined (cities, counties, etc.) collect about $500 billion in taxes. Add that to total state tax take and you get over $1.3 trillion. This means Uncle Sam’s Pentagon is sopping up nearly as much money as all state, county, city, and other governmental units spend to run the country.

If the Pentagon figure of $1 trillion is somewhat less than all other taxing authorities, keep in mind the FBI, the various intelligence agencies, the VA, the National Institutes of Health (biological warfare) are also spending on war-related activities.

A question that describes the above and answers itself is: In what area can the Federal government operate where states and cities cannot tread? The answer is: foreign affairs---raising armies, fighting wars, conducting diplomacy, etc. And so Uncle Sam keeps enlarging this area. His emphasis is not on diplomacy, either.

For every buck spent by the State Department, which gets some $50 billion a year, the Pentagon spends $20. As for the Peace Corps, its budget is a paltry $375 million – hardly enough to keep the Pentagon elephant in peanuts.

Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz and finance authority Linda Bilmes write in their “The Three Trillion Dollar War”(W.W. Norton), “defense spending has been growing as a percentage of discretionary funding (money that is not required to be spent on entitlements like Social Security), from 48 percent in 2000 to 51 percent today. That means that our defense needs are gobbling up a larger share of taxpayers’ money than ever before.”

And they add, “The Pentagon’s budget has increased by more than $600 billion, cumulatively, since we invaded Iraq.” With its 1,000 bases in the U.S. and another 800 bases globally, the U.S. truly has become a “Warfare State.” Today, military-related products account for about one-fourth of total U.S. GDP. This includes 10,000 nuclear weapons. Indeed, the U.S. has lavished $5.5 trillion just on nukes over the past 70 years.

No other nation has anything remotely like this menacing global presence. The Pentagon strengthens its grip by running joint “training” exercises with the military of 110 other nations, including outright dictatorships that suppress internal unrest.

The U.S. spends more on weaponry than the next dozen nations combined and is by far the No. 1 world arms peddler. “The government employs some 6,500 people just to coordinate and administer its arms sales program in conjunction with senior officials at American embassies around the world, who spend most of their ‘diplomatic’ careers working as arms salesmen,” writes Chalmers Johnson in “Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire(Henry Holt).”

Chalmers goes on to say the U.S. military establishment today is “close to being beyond civilian control” and that despite its ability to “deliver death and destruction to any target on earth and expect little in the way of retaliation” it demands more and newer equipment “while the Pentagon now more or less sets its own agenda” and “monopolizes the formulation and conduct of American foreign policy.”

How long will it be before this tyrannical, anti-democratic, colossus that is sucking up as much money for war as all states, counties and cities spend on peace – and which straddles the globe, boosts dictators, and beats the war drums – turns on its own people?

Academic Snafu in a Marginalized US Neo-colony

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:33:00 +0000

In the global North, the plight of academics being fired or denied tenure scarcely merit attention in the media. This is so starkly banal today when teachers’ salaries are either drastically frozen or cut back (as at Harvard University, University of California, etc.) while tuition fees are jacked up. Becoming redundant or retrenched has not spared professor-scholars in this unprecedented crisis of global capitalism. Economics has become politicized when Washington rescues failing banks with taxpayers’ money; politicians’ decisions can no longer be quarantined from the carnage in Wall Street.

During the decades of the Cold War, of course, it was routine for professors to be weeded out for being “commies,” Soviet spies, traitors, etc. When I was first hired in 1965 at the University of California, Davis, I had to sign an oath of loyalty to the U.S. government even though I was not a citizen. My former professor at Harvard, Howard Mumford Jones, was famous for refusing to sign that oath as a condition for being hired by the University of Texas then. During the sixties and seventies, radicals such as Bruce Franklin and Barbara Foley--to name only two of many--were purged for their activist stance in protesting the Vietnam War, torture and war crimes in Latin America perpetrated by the “shock doctrine” technocrats of disaster capitalism (to borrow Naomi Klein’s terms). Franklin and Foley are brilliant and prolific scholars, respected in their disciplines. But obviously it was not their intellectual worth but their anti-imperialist political commitment that brought down the wrath of the Establishment on their heads. Like all state apparatuses, the university is not a sacred “think-tank for alternative models,” but a cog in the machine for reinforcing the oppressive status quo and stifling dissent.

In the Philippines, as in embattled “third world” countries generally, it is difficult if not impossible to disentangle the academic realm from that of everyday political struggles. Everyday life is a mixed affair of politics, economics, and witchcraft. Traditional customs of peasant life based on kinship, religious beliefs, memory, habits, etc. disturb the presumably “neutral” market competition of equal citizens. Ethics is compromised in political skulduggery and business deals carried out by political dynasties, warlords, and corporate hustlers. The reification or commodification of life in industrialized bourgeois society has not materialized enough to fully compartmentalize the public sphere from the private. This is a product of uneven development and the unsynchronized process of imperial subjugation and exploitation.

In a peripheral dependent formation such as the Philippines, the sociohistorical field of power is constituted by the dynamic interplay of economics, politics and ideology. Class struggle, while anchored in production and property, proceeds on various interacting levels. If Filipinos suffer from a “damaged culture,” this can be viewed as a logical outcome of the legacy of over three hundred years of Spanish colonial domination and more than a century of being “tutored” by U.S. entrepreneurial democracy and market pluralism. Class and racial differences are supposed to wither away in the course of “free market” modernization. Except for the perennial “maoist” insurgents and recalcitrant Moros, Americanization succeeded in molding the thinking of the intelligentsia, especially the academic gatekeepers at the University of the Philippines, and the self-reproducing hierarchy of civil servants in the judiciary, military-police agencies, and so on.

Missionary Positions

After killing 1.4 million natives, the United States ruled the Philippines from 1898 to 1946 as a direct colony. The fruit of this “civilizing” experiment is nearly a century of severe underdevelopment of the economy and disintegration of the collective psyche whose symptoms are evident today. The colonial power preserved the feudal-oligarchic property system, overlayering it with the trappings of comprador electoral democracy. One result is the authoritarian Marcos regime (1972-1986) whose human-rights violations have now been surpassed by the corrupt Arroyo regime flourishing in the midst of extreme class inequality, nurturing barbaric warlords such as the Ampatuan dynasty responsible for the recent Maguindanao massacre of 57 unarmed civilians. Not that the U.S. ruling class is to blame for everything—indeed, the founding of the local educational system is supposed to be one of the durable contributions of U.S. colonialism to the heroic task of civilizing those “benighted” natives. Nonetheless, a large share of what Filipinos enjoy today can be ascribed to the “benevolent assimilation” policy of the wise suzerain William McKinley and his no doubt well-intentioned successors.

One of the institutions established by the U.S. colonizers is the University of the Philippines (UP). It was designed to produce functionaries to serve the ideological state apparatuses of the colonial state. The U.S. needed trained “little brown brothers” (William Howard Taft’s affectionate terms of endearment) to legitimize the particularist motive of capital as one identical with the general interest. Its prestige eventually rested on the nurturance of generations of scholars and a significant number of activist intellectuals since its founding in 1908. Despite what historian Renato Constantino called “the mis-education of Filipinos,” that is, the slavish worship of EuroAmerican values and its elite gurus such as Richard Rorty and Benedict Anderson, UP students led mass demonstrations against the Vietnam War in the sixties and ruthless US interventions in Latin America and the Middle East from the seventies up to the present.

Class struggles worldwide could not be kept away from the classroom. Not only has the UP served to train subalterns for the colonial bureaucracy; it has also exposed students (given the internal contradictions of capitalist rule in a semifeudal dependency) to counterhegemonic, revolutionary ideas. During my student days in UP in the fifties, the writings of Frantz Fanon, Malcolm X, Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, and later on of George Jackson, Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Mao, and other progressive activists were disseminated among student-faculty discussion circles. From this arose organizations that spearheaded the national-democratic movement which challenged U.S. imperial hegemony and its support for the bloody dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos and his successors, up to Arroyo. To a limited extent, the UP still serves as an arena of ideological -theoretical debates reflecting the intense conflicts and antagonisms of a nation of over ninety million most of whom live on less than $2 a day, under a brutal regime praised by Barack Obama and credited with over a thousand victims of extra-judicial killings, forced disappearances, and torture.

Subalterns Speak

Now comes the news that within the hallowed halls of “academic freedom,” which the oligarchy takes pride in as “the marketplace of ideas,” the persecution of a prodigiously talented militant scholar, Sarah Raymundo, is going on without much fanfare. Except for the local demonstrations of sympathizers from student organizations in the campus and, incredibly, the massive support of academics, public intellectuals, and professionals from around the world, her case is scarcely noticed by Manila pundits and commercializing media celebrities. Globalization thus works in contradictory and paradoxical ways.

Raymundo’s case may be a minor affair compared to the issues of global warming publicized at Copenhagen or the genocidal wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Still, with the Philippines labeled a danger zone because of the unrelenting attacks by the Abu Sayyaf, one of the home-grown “terrorist” groups beloved by the U.S. State Department (the other being the Communist-led New People’s Army, stigmatized by then State Secretary Colin Powell), we might take the case of Raymundo as an allegory of what’s going on in that otherwise obscure tropical archipelago once noted for hosting the largest US military bases during the Korean and IndoChina wars—a nearly anonymous remote group of islands that is still remembered for Bataan and Corregidor and the thousands of Filipino and American dead sacrificed by General Douglas McArthur for the Empire’s honor.

Raymundo’s plight has been succinctly summarized by Dr. Walden Bello, a tenured sociology professor at the same University and now a representative of the party-list Akbayan in the Philippine Congress (accessible here). Although trained by the Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila University, Bello knows the inner workings of the UP academic bureaucracy. The facts are simple: On April 2008, the tenured faculty of the Sociology Dept. in a vote of seven to three recommended granting of tenure to Raymundo on the basis of her substantial academic record. Seven months later, Raymundo was informed that the faculty decided to reverse their decision. What happened?

Wonders can happen, even in bureaucratic chambers, without covert CIA (or local military-police) cues. In the hiatus of seven months, the minority schemed to overthrow the majority by “manipulating the Chancellor for Academic Affairs” (to quote Bello) to demand that the majority who voted for Raymundo justify (again!) their decision. Surprise? This was evidently a ploy since the majority report affirmed that Raymundo exceeded the necessary requirements for tenure. Meanwhile, the college’s highest governing body, the College Executive Board (CEB), upheld the majority decision. Finally, the Diliman campus Chancellor Sergio Cao dismissed the CEB’s decision and refused tenure. In effect, the Chancellor sided with the minority. Why? Not because of Raymundo’s lack of academic excellence; everyone concedes that. It is because of Raymundo’s ethical stand, political beliefs, and civic conduct as the general-secretary of CONTEND (Congress of Teachers/Educators for Nationalism and Democracy) and active member of ACT (Association of Concerned Teachers) and the All-UP-Academic Employers Union. She is being penalized for those rare virtues.

Raymundo is alleged by her detractors to have been involved with groups in support of victims kidnapped, tortured and killed by the military, in particular Karen Empeno. To such vague and muddled allegations that she hid such involvements, Raymundo has fully responded in a substantial memorandum submitted on Nov. 16 to university president Erlinda Roman. She has never made her activism a secret to anyone. The department allegations are all shoddy innuendoes and insinuations, unworthy of even a C- sociology major. Roman, for her part, played the coy and hedging fox (or is it mealy-mouthed Pontius Pilate?) in her Dec. 14 memorandum to Cao and the current department chair Randolf David as she tendentiously recounted the whole rigmarole.

Admitting that there was no argument about Raymundo’s academic qualifications, president Roman seemed obsessed with a conundrum: whether the April vote really showed “consensus.” Given the contentious, politically charged milieu of everyday life in the Philippines from which the university is not immune, Roman believed that Raymundo’s politics fouled up, or more exactly problematized, consensus. The original vote of 7-3 did not truly express “consensus” if by the term we mean unanimous. It was hard to really determine what the department’s consensus was despite or notwithstanding the April vote, Roman thought aloud. In effect, that little word “consensus” became Roman’s alibi out of this sorry mess. Alternatively, it was her fortuitous disguise to appear neutral and above board, not least that she was exercising conscientious leadership of a great institution.

No, Roman was not a hypocrite, only a realist. Cognizant that the composition of the department’s tenured faculty had meanwhile changed with the dropping-out of Raymundo’s supporters, Roman ordered another vote, which this time yielded the right “consensus”: 4 for-6 against Raymundo. The latest is the really more authentic “consensus” for Roman. Beholden to her neoliberal patrons in the “old boys’ network,” Roman knows that she has to safeguard her clientele within the university by upholding departmental cliques, “yahoo” mediocrity, at the expense of a more inclusive, libertarian, democratic, forward-looking vision of higher learning. This is perhaps too much to expect, given the politicized genealogy of UP presidencies. Compounding authoritarian methods and chicanery with fatuous casuistry, this whole exercise has now become a sad comment on the abysmal sinkhole to which this group of UP faculty and administrators have succumbed.

In summing up his brief supporting Raymundo, Dr. Bello pleaded to president Roman to “reverse a terrible miscarriage of justice and reassert UP’s commitment to academic excellence.” He was appealing to one of the executioners. Of course, operating legalistically within the institutional framework, Bello could not do otherwise—even though the case had already been thoroughly politicized by Raymundo’s enemies, those against Raymundo’s radical left-wing politics. He had already alienated the “yahoos” of the sociology department, which contaminated alleged progressives such as Randolf David and Cynthia Bautista. Can the Board of Regents, the last resort for the aggrieved, succeed in resisting the proven inertia of institutions and overturn Cao, Roman, and David? Maybe, if the popular-democratic voices prevail. Probably not, given the scandalous shenanigans of the traditional politicians challenging the Arroyo clique.

I want to sketch a parenthetical aside here. A subtext or submerged narrative, threaded with complex nuances that I cannot elaborate here, lurks behind this instructive controversy. Despite Bello’s tie-up with the Akbayan party and his record of defending his World-Social-Forum personality against the suspicions of former comrades in the anti-imperialist National Democratic Front-Philippines and in Bayan-Muna party (with which ACT and CONTEND are allied), he seems to have transcended sectarian narrow-mindedness, not to speak of barkada scholasticism. Meanwhile, the media-savvy Randy David, a leading member of BISIG (Bukluran sa Ika-uunlad ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa; Association for the Advance of Socialist Words and Deeds), an admirer of Rorty and other Western elite missionaries, finds himself somehow aligned with conservative if not reactionary Neanderthals, or “yahoos” (to quote Bello). In a single stroke, he forfeited his claim to be a nationalist (in the tradition of his distinguished kin, Renato Constantino). Incidentally, BISIG is one of the groups allied with Akbayan; BISIG’s former chair, UP President Francisco Nemenzo and other colleagues figured prominently in the 1993 Forum for Philippine Alternatives which rejected the political strategy and tactics of the Sison-led Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front-Philippines. Former comrades split, symptomatic of what was then happening in the Philippines during the retrograde administration of the late Corazon Aquino. For many academic leftists in a tributary shark-infested milieu, opportunism and obligatory tithes seem more functional if risky preoccupations in advancing careers than supporting human-rights organizations, or the cause of nationalist democracy. At any rate, this dialectical twist of events, one more proof of Lenin’s thesis that reality/practice is richer than theory, may augur a renewal of progressive and radical energies in the UP, despite Raymundo’s predicament. This may be a hope, but in a permanently crisis-wracked country like the Philippines, the improbable sometimes becomes realizable.

Lessons for Lilliputians

Our critique of abusive authority and conservative power needs to extend beyond the university precincts. As noted earlier, the neocolonial university is permeated with manifold contradictions symptomatic of the whole moribund system. To be sure, the balance of political forces may suddenly change and affect pedagogical agencies. One more Maguindanao massacre may stir up slumbering “people power.” If Raymundo’s case is not only flawed with procedural mistakes and ethical misjudgments, but also corrupted by scarcely veiled charges of political activism and humanitarian/social conscience on Raymundo’s part, it is shortchanging the victim if we do not put at the center of this whole affair the active complicity of Roman, Cao, Paredes, David, Bautista, Aquino, and others with a bankrupt regime that thrives on flagrant corruption, lies, mendacity, threats, and fascist violence—not least, the symbolic violence that the great sociologist Pierre Bourdieu associates with bureaucratic discourse, authoritarian procedures, and administrative rituals, such as tenure-granting (in which academic capital trumps intellectual capital), that insure the petty privileges of a self-perpetuating, obsequious elite.

What is to be done and undone? The now notorious “culture of impunity” fomented by the shameless Arroyo regime seems to have descended on the Diliman campus and is saturating the hallowed classrooms and libraries of this once esteemed sanctuary of learning. As it did before, once in the McCarthyist-like persecution of a community of pro-people nationalist scholars as communist sympathizers during the Magsaysay-Garcia regimes; this U.S.-styled witchhunt was repeated periodically in the terrible nights of collective suffering and resistance from the time of Marcos to Arroyo.

But lose no hope, friends and partisans in the global commons. While the UP is slowly being commercialized and privatized, students and faculty who are relatively privileged are feeling the pressures of unemployment, anomie, environmental degradation, and ubiquitous military-police violence. While serving the neocolonial state and the predatory merchants of global capital, the UP remains funded by taxpayers and is ultimately answerable to the Filipino people. Resistance to capitalist globalization is gradually rising, as shown by this robust and enthusiastic international support for Raymundo and what she stands for.

In California and elsewhere, students and faculty are rebelling against state terrorism: cutbacks in salaries, privatization, lay-offs, deterioration all around. Many are beginning to grasp that higher public education is a social and human right, no less than health care, food, and adequate shelter. Peoples around the world are mobilizing against the global war of terror launched by the U.S. corporate elite. The Filipino people are crying “No more massacres” by Arroyo and her Ampatuan accomplices. Whatever the final arbitration of her case, Sarah Raymundo’s voice cannot be repressed or denied “tenure”—an index of the inexhaustible resources, energy and intelligence of the Filipino people fighting for justice and liberation in solidarity with others beyond the surveillance of the gatekeepers of the University of the Philippines and other public institutions.

Hugo Chávez at Copenhagen

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:44:00 +0000

I promise that I will not talk more than most have spoken this afternoon. Allow me an initial comment which I would have liked to make as part of the previous point expressed by the delegations of Brazil, China, India, and Bolivia. We were there asking to speak but it was not possible. Among other things, Bolivia's representative said – my salute of course to Comrade President Evo Morales, who is there, President of the Republic of Bolivia – the following that I noted down: the text presented is not democratic, it is not inclusive.

I had just arrived and we were just sitting down when we heard the president of the previous session, the minister, saying that a document came about, which nobody knows about. I've asked for the document, but we still don't have it. I think nobody knows of that top secret document.

Now certainly, as the Bolivian comrade said, that is not democratic, it is not inclusive. Now, ladies and gentlemen, isn't that just the reality of the world? Are we in a democratic world? Is the global system inclusive? Can we hope for something democratic, inclusive, from the current global system?

What we are experiencing on this planet is an imperial dictatorship, and from here we continue denouncing it. Down with imperial dictatorship! And long live the people and democracy and equality on this planet!

And what we see here is a reflection of this: exclusion.

There is a group of countries that consider themselves superior to us in the South, us in the Third World, us the underdeveloped countries, or, as a great friend Eduardo Galeano says, us, the crushed countries, as if a train ran over us in history.

In light of this, it's no surprise that there is no democracy in the world and here we are again faced with powerful evidence of global imperial dictatorship. Then two youths got up here -- fortunately the security agents were decent -- some shoving, and they collaborated, right? There are many people outside, you know? Of course, they, many people, do not fit in this room. I've read in the news that there were some arrests, some intense protests, in the streets of Copenhagen, and I salute all those people out there, most of them youth.

Of course young people are concerned, I think rightly much more than we are, for the future of the world. We have -- most of us here -- the sun on our backs, and they have to face the sun and are very worried.

One could say, Mr. President, that a spectre is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx. A spectre is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that spectre walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, rising from below. This spectre is a terrible spectre almost nobody wants to mention: capitalism is the spectre -- almost nobody wants to mention it.

It's capitalism, the people are roaring, you can hear them out there.

I have been reading some of the slogans painted on the streets, and of those slogans of these youngsters, some of which I think I heard when I was young, and of the young woman there, I have noted two. You can hear, among others, two powerful slogans. One: Don't Change the Climate, Change the System.

And I take it on board for us. Let's not change the climate, let's change the system! And consequently we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life; it threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.

And another slogan calls for reflection. It is very in tune with the banking crisis that swept the world and still affects it and how the rich northern countries gave aid to bankers and big banks. The U.S. alone gave, well, I lost the figure, but it is astronomical, to save the banks. They are saying in the streets the following: If the climate were a bank it would have been saved already.

And I think that's true. If the climate were one of the biggest capitalist banks, the rich governments would have saved it.

I think Obama has not arrived. He received the Nobel Peace Prize almost the same day that he sent 30,000 soldiers to kill more innocents in Afghanistan, and now he comes to stand here with the Nobel Peace Prize, the president of the United States.

But the United States has the machinery to make money, to make dollars, and has saved -- well, they believe they have saved -- the banks and the capitalist system.

Well, this is a side comment that I wanted to make previously. We were raising our hand to accompany Brazil, India, Bolivia, China, in their interesting position that Venezuela and the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance firmly share. But hey, they didn't let us speak, so do not count these minutes please, Mr. President.

Look, over there I met, I had the pleasure of meeting this French author Hervé Kempf. I recommend this book, it is available in Spanish -- here is Hervé -- it's also in French, and surely in English, How the Rich Are Destroying the Planet. Hervé Kempf: How the Rich Are Destroying the Planet. This is what Christ said: it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is what our lord Christ said.

The rich are destroying the planet. Do they think they can go to another when they destroy this one? Do they have plans to go to another planet? So far there is none on the horizon of the galaxy.

This book has just reached me, Ignacio Ramonet gave it to me, and he is also around somewhere in this room. Finishing the prologue or the preface -- this phrase is very important -- Kempf says the following. I'll read it: We will not be able to decrease global material consumption if the powerful are not brought down and if inequality is not combated. To the ecological principle that was so useful when we first became aware -- 'Think globally; act locally' -- we must add the principle that the present situation imposes: 'Consume less; share better.' I think it is good advice that this French author Hervé Kempf gives us.

Well then, Mr. President, climate change is undoubtedly the most devastating environmental problem of this century. Floods, droughts, severe storms, hurricanes, melting ice caps, rise in mean sea levels, ocean acidification, and heat waves, all of that sharpens the impact of global crisis besetting us.

Current human activity exceeds the threshold of sustainability, endangering life on the planet, but also in this we are profoundly unequal.

Let's remember: the 500 million richest people, 500 million, this is seven percent, seven percent, seven percent of the world's population. This seven percent is responsible, these 500 million richest people are responsible, for 50 percent of emissions, while the poorest 50 percent accounts for only seven percent of emissions.

So it strikes me as a bit strange to put the United States and China at the same level. The United States has just -- well, it will soon reach -- 300 million people. China has nearly five times the U.S. population. The United Status consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day; China only reaches 5-6 million barrels a day. You can't ask the same of the United States and China.

There are issues to discuss, hopefully we the heads of states and governments can sit down and discuss the truth, the truth about these issues.

So, Mr. President, 60 percent of the planet's ecosystems are damaged, 20 percent of the earth's crust is degraded, we have been impassive witnesses to deforestation, land conversion, desertification, deterioration of fresh water systems, overexploitation of marine resources, pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

The overuse of the land exceeds by 30 percent the capacity to regenerate it. The planet is losing what the technicians call the ability to regulate itself; the planet is losing this. Every day more waste than can be processed is released. The survival of our species torments the consciousness of humanity. Despite the urgency, it has taken two years of negotiations for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and we attend this event without any real and meaningful agreement.

And indeed, about the text that comes out of the blue, as some have called it, Venezuela says -- and the ALBA countries, the Bolivarian Alliance, say -- that we will not accept it; nor will we accept, let us say it, any other texts that do not come from the working groups under the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention. They are the legitimate texts that we have been discussing so intensely over the years.

And in these last few hours, I believe you have not slept; on top of not having eaten, you have not slept. It does not seem logical to me to come out now with a document from scratch, as you say.

The scientifically substantiated objective of reducing the emission of polluting gases and achieving an agreement on long-term cooperation clearly, today at this time, has apparently failed, for now.

What is the reason? We have no doubt.

The reason is the irresponsible attitude and lack of political will on the part of the most powerful nations on the planet. No one should feel offended. I recall the great José Gervasio Artigas said: 'With the truth, I neither offend nor fear.' But it is actually an irresponsible attitude of marches and countermarches, of exclusions, of elitist management of a problem that belongs to everyone and that we can only solve together.

The political conservatism and selfishness of the largest consumers, of the richest countries, shows great insensitivity and lack of solidarity with the poor, the hungry, and the most vulnerable to disease, to natural disasters. Mr. President, a new unified agreement is essential, applicable to absolutely unequal parties, according to the magnitude of their contributions and economic, financial, and technological capabilities, and based on unconditional respect for the principles contained in the Convention.

Developed countries should set clear, concrete, and binding commitments for the substantial reduction of their emissions and assume obligations of financial and technological assistance to poor countries to cope with the destructive dangers of climate change. In this respect, the uniqueness of island states and least developed countries should be fully recognized.

Mr. President, climate change is not the only problem facing humanity today. Other scourges and injustices beset us, the gap between rich and poor countries has continued to grow, despite all the Millennium Goals, the Monterrey financing summit, all these summits; as the President of Senegal said here, revealing a great truth, there are promises and unfulfilled promises and the world continues its destructive march.

The total income of the 500 richest individuals in the world is greater than the income of the 416 million poorest people. The 2.8 billion people living in poverty on less than $2 per day, who represent 40 percent of the global population, receive only 5 percent of world income.

Today about 9.2 million children die each year before reaching their fifth year and 99.9 percent of these deaths occur in poorer countries.

Infant mortality is 47 deaths per thousand live births, but it is only 5 per thousand in rich countries. Life expectancy on the planet is 67 years; in rich countries it is 79, while in some poor nations it is only 40 years.

Additionally, there are 1.1 billion people without access to drinking water, 2.6 billion without sanitation services, over 800 million illiterate, and 1.02 billion hungry people. That's the global scenario.

Now, the cause -- what is the cause?

Let's talk about the cause, let's not evade responsibilities, and let's not evade the depth of this problem. Undoubtedly, the cause -- I return to the theme of this whole disastrous panorama -- is the destructive metabolic system of capital and its embodied model: capitalism.

Here's a quote that I want to read briefly, from that great liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, as we know a Brazilian is of our America. Leonardo Boff says on this subject as follows:

What is the cause? Ah, the cause is the dream of seeking happiness through material accumulation and endless progress, using for this science and technology with which they can exploit without limits all the resources of the earth.

And he cites here Charles Darwin and his 'natural selection,' the survival of the strongest, but we know that the strongest survive over the ashes of the weakest.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, we must always remember, said that, between the strong and the weak, freedom oppresses. That's why the empire speaks of freedom; it's the freedom to oppress, to invade, to kill, to annihilate, and to exploit. That is their freedom, and Rousseau adds this saving phrase: 'Only the law liberates.'

There are countries that are hoping that no document comes out of here precisely because they do not want a law, do not want a standard, because the absence of the norm allows them to play at their exploitative freedom, their crushing freedom.

We must make an effort and pressure them, here and in the streets, so that a commitment comes out of here, a document that commits the most powerful countries on earth.

Well, Mr. President, Leonardo Boff asks.... Have you met Boff? I don't know whether Leonardo has been able to come, I met him recently in Paraguay. We've always read him.

Boff asks: Can a finite earth support an infinite project? The thesis of capitalism, infinite development, is a destructive pattern. Let's face it.

Then Boff asks us, what might we expect from Copenhagen? At least this simple confession: we cannot continue like this. And a simple proposition: let's change course. Let's do it, but without cynicism, without lies, without double agendas, no documents out of the blue, with the truth out in the open.

How long, we ask from Venezuela, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, how long are we going to allow such injustices and inequalities? How long are we going to tolerate the current international economic order and prevailing market mechanisms? How long are we going to allow huge epidemics like HIV/AIDS to ravage entire populations? How long are we going to allow the hungry to not eat or to be able to feed their own children? How long are we going to allow millions of children to die from curable diseases? How long will we allow armed conflicts to massacre millions of innocent human beings in order for the powerful to seize the resources of other peoples?

Cease the aggressions and the wars! We the peoples of the world ask of the empires, those who try to continue dominating the world and exploiting us. No more imperial military bases or military coups! Let's build a more just and equitable economic and social order, let's eradicate poverty, let's immediately stop the high emission levels, let's stop environmental degradation and avoid the great catastrophe of climate change, let's integrate ourselves into the noble goal of everyone being more free and united.

Mr. President, almost two centuries ago, a universal Venezuelan, a liberator of nations and precursor of consciences, left to posterity a full-willed maxim: 'If nature opposes us, let's fight against it and make it obey us.' That was Simón Bolívar, the Liberator.

From Bolivarian Venezuela, where a day like today some ten years ago, ten years exactly, we experienced the biggest climate tragedy in our history (the Vargas tragedy it is called), from this Venezuela whose revolution tries to win justice for all people, we say it is only possible through the path of socialism!

Socialism, the other spectre Karl Marx spoke about, walks here too. Rather it is like a counter-spectre. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don't have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world. We say this from Venezuela, which because of socialism faces threats from the U.S. empire.

From the countries that comprise ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance, we exhort -- and I want to, with respect, but from my soul, exhort in the name of many on this planet -- the governments and peoples of the Earth, paraphrasing Simón Bolívar, the Liberator: if the destructive nature of capitalism opposes us, let's fight against it and make it obey us, let's not wait idly by for the death of humanity.

History calls on us to unite and fight.

If capitalism resists, we are obliged to take up a battle against capitalism and open the way for the salvation of the human species. It's up to us, raising the banners of Christ, Muhammad, equality, love, justice, humanity, the true and most profound humanism. If we don't do it, the most wonderful creation of the universe, the human being, will disappear -- it will disappear.

This planet is billions of years old, and this planet existed for billions of years without us, the human species, i.e. it doesn't need us to exist. Now, without the Earth we will not exist, and we are destroying Pachamama as Evo says, as our indigenous brothers from South America say.

Finally, Mr. President, and to finish, let's listen to Fidel Castro, who said: 'One species is in danger of extinction: humanity.'

Let's listen to Rosa Luxemburg, who said: 'Socialism or Barbarism.'

Let's listen to Christ the Redeemer, who said: 'Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.'

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, we are capable of not making this Earth the tomb of humanity. Let us make this earth a heaven, a heaven of life, of peace, of the peace of brotherhood for all humanity, for the human species.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much and enjoy your meal.

Recovery Act Promotes Green Business

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:17:00 +0000

EarthTalk® From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: I’ve been following reports about President Obama’s stimulus package and what it may mean for creating green jobs. Beyond that, are there programs in place to help businesses switch to greener raw materials and/or to green up operations overall? -- Diane, via e-mail

Even though the push to create green jobs is getting the lion’s share of business news headlines right now, almost $7 billion of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill President Obama signed into law earlier this year, has been allocated to help businesses reduce their environmental footprints in any number of ways.

For starters, the stimulus package rewards businesses (as well as individuals) for investments in energy efficiency—that is, for doing more with less power. The federal government has extended its tax credit program for energy efficient business improvements—whereby 30 percent of qualified expenses up to $1,500 can be credited against your tax bill—through 2010. No one knows yet if the program will be extended beyond that, so 2010 could be a great time to finally go for that upgrade you've been putting off.

Qualifying upgrades include the installation of central air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, boilers, windows, doors and roofing that meet efficiency standards set by the government’s Energy-Star program. Likewise, the costs of upgrading to code-appropriate insulation and sealing as well as installing solar water heaters and biogas or biomass stoves also qualify for the tax credit. Business owners beware, though, that they can only claim a maximum of $1,500 combined for all efficiency-related upgrades. Stimulus money—some $2.3 billion over the next 10 years—is also available to businesses, institutions and government agencies that green up their vehicle fleets and/or take steps to encourage or subsidize employees to go green with their commutes. Companies that install alternative fuel (ethanol, biodiesel or hydrogen) pumps on site can qualify for tax credits for between 30 and 50 percent of installation costs through 2010. Likewise, businesses that buy electric or plug-in hybrid cars or trucks for their fleets can score credits of between $2,500 and $7,500 per vehicle depending on battery size and fuel efficiency.

Another way businesses can make use of tax credits is to install on-site wind or solar power systems. The federal government will pay up to 30 percent of the set-up cost. Congress has also allocated $1.6 billion for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) to help finance construction of renewable energy facilities run by public utilities, electric cooperatives and city, state and tribal governments.

Businesses that qualify for any of the aforementioned tax credits should be sure to file IRS Form 5695 with their tax returns and keep all relevant receipts and copies of manufacturer certifications and Energy-Star labels where applicable. Tax advisors can provide more details on how to qualify for these federal incentives, and can also advise as to what additional incentives might be available from states. Be sure to check out the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), which provides a continuously updated list of both state and federal ways for both businesses and homeowners to save cash by going green.

CONTACTS: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, www.recovery.gov; DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Atlanta: Progressive Groups Diverge on Mortgage Bill, SB 57

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:57:00 +0000

Original source: he Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA -- Various notable groups within Atlanta's progressive community appear to have come to very different conclusions about SB 57, a bill currently in the State Senate which would change laws regarding mortgages in Georgia.

Georgia Watch and Georgia STAND-UP are supporting the bill, while the Atlanta Fighting Foreclosure Coalition (AFFC) is not.

Georgia Watch rallied downtown Friday, December 04, 2009, in support of the bill which aims to protect consumers from abusive lending practices. Georgia STAND-UP had also sent out an email in support of the bill.

Barbara Joye of the AFFC also sent out an email regarding the December 04 press conference, later sending a clarification that the AFFC was not endorsing the bill.

SB 57 is also known as The Georgia Fair Lending Act.

The original sponsor is State Sen. Bill Hamrick, a Republican. Co-sponsors include State Sen. Nan Orrock, a notable progressive; former State Sen. Kasim Reed, who is currently Mayor-elect of Atlanta; and State Sens. Ed Harbison, Ralph Hudgens, and Ed Tarver.

However, another progressive elected official, State Sen. Vincent Fort--a member of the AFFC--criticized the bill for several reasons, starting with the fact that it was sponsored by a Republican.

'We have a major, major issue with lending in this state,' Danny Orrock, Deputy Director of Georgia Watch, said. 'We have to do something to ensure lenders don’t continue to make the choices that led us into this mess.'

Incidentally, Danny Orrock is the son of Nan Orrock, one of the co-sponsors of SB 57.

Danny Orrock noted 10,000 foreclosed homes land on the auction block in Fulton County every month. As a result of so many people losing their homes, Georgia ranks number seven in the nation for foreclosures.

'The consequences of careless lending are real and they are broad,' Orrock said, noting foreclosures lead to stressed and broken families, lost jobs, and vacant properties.

The State predicts 350,000 more homes will go into foreclosure through 2012, Orrock said. 'This problem is not going away any time soon.'

ARGUMENT FOR THE BILL

Georgia Watch argues Senate Bill 57 is a good solution to the problem for several reasons.

'It would ban prepayment penalties on subprime loans. We shouldn’t have a disincentive for people wanting to get out of high risk loans,' Orrock said.

The bill would ban broker 'yield spread premiums' on subprime loans, or what Georgia Watch characterizes as broker kickbacks.

Orrock said the legislation would designate mortgage brokers as agents of borrowers so that the brokers 'act on behalf of the borrower, not the lender.'

'You want to get the best rate you can possibly get,' he said. 'You don’t want to line [the lenders’] pockets.'

Additionally, SB 57 would require lenders determine borrowers have the ability to repay a loan before they get one. Orrock said this is 'the single most important thing we can do.'

The description of the bill on the Legislature's website seems somewhat different; and a new version of the bill is expected to be introduced this Session because the State House recommitted the legislation last Session.

That description reads: 'A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend provisions of the O.C.G.A. relating to mortgages, foreclosures, and evictions; to amend Chapter 6A of Title 7 , relating to the 'Georgia Fair Lending Act,' ; to amend Code Section 15-6-77 of the ,[sic] relating to fees to be collected by clerks of the superior courts, so as to provide for fees for filing documents pertaining to a deed under power more than 30 days following the exercise of a power of sale in a mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract; to amend Code Section 44-7-55 , relating to the writ of possession, so as to provide that a tenant with a valid lease can stay in a foreclosed property for 60 days; to amend Article 7 of Chapter 14 of Title 44 , relating to foreclosure on mortgages, so as to provide for examples of when an instrument of conveyance will be an equitable mortgage; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.'

Providing protections for renters affected by foreclosed properties would be one of the strengths of the bill if it is included in the new version. Atlanta Progressive News first reported in 2007 on the fact that rent-paying tenants can currently be evicted if their landlord fails to pay the mortgage.

ARGUMENT AGAINST THE BILL

'The organization that's pushing it is the Center for Responsible Lending, that was created by predatory lending money from Golden West--which was bought by Wachovia--a notorious predatory lending company that was founded with billions of dollars of predatory lending money,' Fort said.

'They collaborated with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to put in place predatory lending across the country. This is an organization that is out here that was going around the country trying to push through any predatory lending legislation they can,' Fort said.

'They circumvented the Black Caucus last year to support a bad piece of legislation that will not do anything to stop predatory lending,' Fort said.

'It doesn't have third party liability,' Fort said. 'What happens in these transactions, when somebody gets in a bad loan, the financial institution that they give the bad loan to sells the loan to Wall Street immediately,' Fort said.

'When a person who gets a bad loan wants to sue to somebody, the bank says, we sold it to Wall Street. But the person they sold it to says, we didn't do any of that,' Fort said.

When asked about the positive aspects of the bill referenced by Danny Orrock, Fort said, 'What he doesn't tell you is it doesn't include any third party liability. If you don't have third party liabilities, the fact is you can't enforce any of that stuff,' Fort said.

'If you can't sue the person who's screwing you, you can have all the prohibitions in the world but you can't find any redress to your grievances,' Fort said.

'The irony is, Center for Responsibility had a person from North Carolina here saying third party liability was a bad thing and they didn't need it. Then their person testified in Congress that without third party liability, any law Congress passed would be bad law,' Fort said. 'So it's hypocrisy from the Center for Responsible Lending.'

'We offered amendments on the Senate floor to a bill that was even worse and they voted out,' Fort said. 'I introduced alternative legislation. Republicans would not even let it out of Committee.'

SB 57 moved well through the Georgia General Assembly in 2009, receiving broad, bipartisan sponsorship while passing the Senate 43-9.

Those voting nay included State Sens. Robert Brown, Gloria Butler, Gail Buckner, Vincent Fort, Lester Jackson, and Horacena Tate.

Last Session, the bill passed one House committee before stalling in the House Rules Committee at the end of the session. The bill was recommitted by the House, according to the legislature's website.

Georgia Watch said the bill will likely end up before the House Non-Civil Judiciary Committee when the new session starts in January 2010.

Whales Still Threatened

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:52:00 +0000

EarthTalk® From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What is the current status of whales? How effective is the International Whaling Commission and which countries are involved in illegal whaling? -- Jonathan Wingate, Yulee, FL

Some larger whale species have been recovering since the dark days before the whaling industry was regulated, but the majority of cetaceans—that is, the distinct order of marine mammals consisting of whales, dolphins and porpoises—are in decline, with some likely headed for extinction in the near term.

According to data collected by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which maintains a “Red List” of threatened or endangered species, two of the largest whale species, humpbacks and southern rights, have rebounded since 1982 when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling. Based on IUCN’s 2008 survey of cetaceans, both species, while still threatened, were upgraded from “Vulnerable” to “Least Concern” status on the Red List. “Humpbacks and southern right whales are making a comeback in much of their range mainly because they have been protected from commercial hunting,” says Randall Reeves, IUCN’s assessment leader. “This is a great conservation success and clearly shows what needs to be done to ensure these ocean giants survive.”

But other cetaceans haven’t fared so well. Almost a third of the world’s 80-plus cetacean species had their Red List status changed based on the IUCN’s 2008 assessment, with the vast majority now considered at greater risk than before. Overall, nearly a quarter of cetacean species are considered threatened, and of those, more than 10 percent (nine species) are listed as Endangered or Critically Endangered, the highest categories of threat. Reeves says that the real situation could be much worse, as researchers could not obtain enough data on more than half of the world's cetacean species to properly classify their status.

While commercial whaling is what first put cetaceans at risk—the IWC’s 1982 moratorium greatly reduced stress on many species—other threats loom larger than ever: Whales the world over withstand ship strikes, habitat deterioration and declining prey. And the smaller cetaceans (dolphins, porpoises and small whales) often drown in huge fishing nets that trawl the ocean scooping up everything in their path.

And of course commercial whaling still goes on despite the moratorium. Norway, Even with its IWC membership, disregards the moratorium and resumed commercial whaling in 1994. Iceland, which initially withdrew from the IWC over the moratorium, began commercial whaling again in 2006. Japan claims to hunt whales for scientific research purposes—but critics say this is just a front to obtain and sell whale meat under the false pretense of species counts. Whalers from several nations, including the U.S., hunt limited amounts of cetaceans for subsistence purposes, but these numbers are very small.

The IWC is a voluntary organization not backed up by any treaty, so its ability to regulate whaling is limited. Perhaps the biggest factor in nations’ willingness to honor the moratorium is the court of public opinion; awareness of the plight of cetaceans has skyrocketed since the 1960s when environmental groups like Greenpeace first began publicizing the threats faced by the largest creatures on the planet. Today “Save the Whales” might seem like a cliché from bygone days, but with so many cetacean species in decline, it just might be a more needed environmental battle cry than ever before.

CONTACTS: IUCN, www.iucn.org; IWC, www.iwcoffice.org; Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Cuba Takes on Racism

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:49:00 +0000

Letter to American Artists and Intellectuals

A Yoruba proverb says: “The lie can run away for a year, the truth catch up with it one day.” Although for long time the American public opinion has tried to impose, from the most intolerable political circles and most powerful mass media networks, a distorted image of the contemporary Cuban society, in one way or the other, the truth comes out to reality always. The same will happen, we have not doubts about it, when the reasons that impel us to refute the false affirmations regarding our society stated in a document published last December 1, 2009, signed by a group of Afro-American leaders and intellectuals, come to light. To say that among us there is a “callous disregard” for the black Cubans, that there is a denial of “civil freedoms on the basis of race”, and to demand the end of “the unwarranted and brutal harassment of black citizens in Cuba who are defending their civil rights”, could seem a uproarious lucubration, if it not were for the fact that behind that fiction shows out the evil intention to sum up respectable voices from the Afro American community to the campaign against Cuba aiming at undermine our identity and sovereignty. If nowadays Cuba were said racist country some pretend to invent, its citizens could have not contributed to the liberation of African nations. More than 350,000 Cubans fought together with its African brothers against colonialism. More than 2,000 Cubans died on African soil. Nelson Mandela, a personality of remarkable relevance, has recognized the role of those Cubans volunteers to the end of the infamous regimen of apartheid. From Africa, we only brought the remains of our heroes. If nowadays Cuba felt such disregard for black people, more than 35,000 young Africans would have never been educated in our schools in the last 40 years; 2,800 young Africans from more that 30 nations were not studying at this moment in our universities. A nation sick of racism would refuse to collaborate in the education of physicians and health specialists in Medical Sciences Schools created in Guinea Bissau, Guinea Equatorial, Gambia and Eritrea; it would turn back to the health assistance programs that have saved thousand lives in Latin American and the Caribbean, regions where the presence of the African diaspora is significant; it would have never provided assistance to the more than 20, 000 of Haitians and Anglo Afro-Caribbeans that have recovered their vision through surgical operations carried out in our country at no charge. It is possible that the vast majority of those who signed the document ignore that just before the devastation of New Orleans by hurricane Katrina, tens of Cuban physicians and health specialists offered to assist voluntarily the victims of this catastrophe as a humanitarian act that did not receive any answer from the American authorities. Also, they maybe ignore how, since the first days of the popular victory in 1959, the institutional and juridical basis of a racist society were dismantled. In 1959, the Cuban Revolution found a desperate situation within the majority of the population. Cuban Afro descendants, who were among those most affected victims of Cuba’s neocolonialism, immediately benefited from the battle started by the revolutionary government to end with all forms of exclusion including the ferocious racism characterizing the Cuba of that epoch. The policy of Cuba against any kind of discrimination and in favor of equality has the constitutional support and it is expressed in the chapters of the Carta Magna that refer to the State’s social, economic and political foundations, and the rights and duties of its citizens. The constitutional rights, as well as the mechanisms and means to make them effective and to reestablish legality before any violation of these, are guaranteed through a precise complementary legislation. As never before in the history of our nation, has blacks and creoles found, within the process of transformations carried out in the last 50 years, opportunities to personal and social development, supported by the policies and programs that have favored the rising of, as it was called by Cuban anthropologist Don Fernando Ortiz, the phase of integration the Cuban society. It is a process, we know, that is not exempted from conflicts and contradictions, around which gravitate inherited social disadvantages as well as deeply rooted prejudices. Six years ago, Fidel Castro, dialoguing with Cuban and foreign pedagogy specialists, commented how “even in societies such as the Cuban, which emerged from a radical social revolution in which people were able to attain full and complete legal equality and a revolutionary level of education that cast out the subjective component of discrimination, this continues to exist in another form. I would describe it as objective discrimination, a phenomenon associated with poverty and the historic monopoly of knowledge.” Those who observe the daily life in any part of the country will be able to notice an enormous effort to definitely eliminate those factors conditioning such situation, by means of new programs aiming at eliminating all social disadvantages. The Afro American intellectuals must know how their Cuban counterparts have tackled these issues and promoted actions from the prominent place they have in civil society. Some of the programs previously referred to, were born from the debates carried out in 1998, during the VI Congress of the National Union of Writers and Artist of Cuba, UNEAC, in an open and frank dialogue with the highest authorities of the State, headed by Fidel Castro. It must be remembered that the organization embracing the vanguard of Cuba’s intellectual and artistic movement was presided over by a black poet, Nicolas Guillen, one of the most remarkable Hispanic poets of century XX, active advocate against racial discrimination and personal friend of Langston Hughes and Paul Robeson. Within UNEAC, organization that has never been away from this issue, it has been created a permanent committee to fight, from a cultural perspective, against all vestiges of discrimination and racial prejudices. In a racist country, it would be impossible to think in the creation and functioning of institutions like Casa de Africa (Africa’s House), Fundación Fernando Ortiz (Fernando Ortiz Foundation), Casa Caribe (Caribbean House) in Santiago de Cuba, Centro de Estudios del Caribe de Casa de las Americas (Center for the Study of the Caribbean) and the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia (National Institute of Anthropology), that, among other issues, study the African legacy to our nation and the inter-racial relations in Cuba. Artistic institutions like Conjunto Folclorico Nacional of Camaguey would have not received support and widespread social recognition. If racial hate were a predominant element in our society, it would have been just a rhetoric gesture the celebration of the centennial of the foundation of the Independent Party of Color, to recover the historic memory of a period struggle of the Cuban people for its rights and liberation from all dominations. Genuine examples of our traditional music culture, highly recognized by the American public, like Los Muñequitos de Matanzas and Yoruba Andabo and Clave y Guagancó groups, would only be temporary port workers with a bad pay, parking workers, shoe cleaners and domestic workers, should their extraordinary values had not been recognized. A racist society would have never translated and published hundreds of literary works of tens of African and Afro Caribbean writers. During one of his visit to Cuba, Nigerian Nobel Prize Wole Soyinka expressed: “It’s difficult to find another place in Western Hemisphere where the quest to learn about the African writers transcends, as we have seen here, the interest of the academic institutions”. The Cuban Intellectuals and Artists appreciate the solidarity, comprehension and respect that several Afro American personalities has demonstrated to the Cuban reality through half a century. We have never asked them to share our political ideas nor have we never conditioned a dialogue to any kind of support or adhesion. It may be appropriate that those who signed the declaration we comment on, listen to those criteria without prejudices. We are convinced that by doing so, as it is said by the Yoruba proverb, the truth will have its day. Havana City, December 3, 2009.

Nancy Morejon, Poet and Essayist Chucho Valdes, Musician Miguel Barnet, Poet and Anthropologist Esteban Morales, Politologist and Essayist Eduardo Roca (Choco), Artist Heriberto Feraudy, Historian and Essayist Rogelio Martinez Fure, Africanist Pedro de la Hoz, Journalist and Essayist Fernando Martinez Heredia, Sociologist and Essayist

CIA Agent Captured in Cuba

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:45:00 +0000

Original source: The Chavez Code

An article published in the December 12th edition of the New York Times revealed the detention of a US government contract employee in Havana this past December 5th. The employee, whose name has not yet been disclosed, works for Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), one of the largest US government contractors providing services to the State Department, the Pentagon and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The employee was detained while distributing cellular telephones, computers and other communications equipment to Cuban dissident and counterrevolutionary groups that work to promote US agenda on the Caribbean island.

Last year, the US Congress approved $40 million to “promote transition to democracy” in Cuba. DAI was awarded the main contract, “The Cuba Democracy and Contingency Planning Program”, with oversight by State and USAID. The use of a chain of entities and agencies is a mechanism employed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to channel and filter funding and strategic political support to groups and individuals that support US agenda abroad. The pretext of “promoting democracy” is a modern form of CIA subversion tactics, seeking to infiltrate and penetrate civil society groups and provide funding to encourage “regime change” in strategically important nations, such as Venezuela, with governments unwilling to subcomb to US dominance.

DAI IN VENEZUELA

DAI was contracted in June 2002 by USAID to manage a multimillion dollar contract in Venezuela, just two months after the failed coup d’etat against President Hugo Chávez. Prior to this date, USAID had no operations in Venezuela, not even an office in the Embassy. DAI was charged with opening the Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI), a specialized branch of USAID that manages large quantities of liquid funds destined for organizations and political parties favorable to Washington in countries of strategic interest that are undergoing political crises.

The first contract between USAID and DAI for its Venezuela operations authorized $10 million for a two year period. DAI opened its doors in the Wall Street of Caracas, El Rosal, in August 2002, and began to immediately fund the same groups that just months earlier had executed – unsuccessfully – the coup against President Chávez. The USAID/DAI funds in Venezuela were distributed to organizations such as Fedecámaras and the Confederación de Trabajadores Venezolanos (CTV), two of the principal entities that had led the coup in April 2002 and that later headed another attempt to oust Chávez by imposing an economic sabotage and oil industry strike that crippled the nation’s economy. One contract between DAI and these organizations, dated December 2002, awarded more than $10,000 to help design radio and television propaganda against President Chávez. During that time period, Venezuela experienced one of the most vicious media wars in history. Private television and radio stations, together with print media, devoted non-stop programming to opposition propaganda for 64 days, 24 hours a day.

In February 2003, DAI began to fund a recently created group named Súmate, led by Maria Corina Machado, one of the signators of the “Carmona Decree”, the famous dictatorial decree that dissolved all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions during the brief April 2002 coup d’etat. Súmate soon became the principal opposition organization directing campaigns against President Chávez, including the August 2004 recall referendum. The three main agencies from Washington operating in Venezuela at that time, USAID, DAI and the National Endowment for Democracy (“NED”), invested more than $9 million in the opposition campaign to oust Chávez via recall referendum, without success. Chávez won with a 60-40 landslide victory.

USAID, which still maintains its presence through the OTI and DAI in Venezuela, had originally announced that it would not remain in the country for more than a two year period. Then chief of the OTI in Venezuela, Ronald Ulrich, publicly affirmed this notion in March 2003, “This program will be finished in two years, as has happened with similar initiatives in other countries, the office will close in the time period stated…Time is always of the essence”. Technically, the OTI are USAID’s rapid response teams, equipped with large amounts of liquid funds and a specialized personnel capable of “resolving a crisis” in a way favorable to US interests. In the document establishing the OTI’s operations in Venezuela, the intentions of those behind its creation were clear, “In recent months, his popularity has waned and political tensions have risen dramatically as President Chávez has implemented several controversial reforms…The current situation augers strongly for rapid US government engagement…”

To date, the OTI still remains in Venezuela, with DAI as its principal contractor. But now, four other entities share USAID’s multimillion dollar pie in Caracas: International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), Freedom House, and the PanAmerican Development Foundation (PADF). Of the 64 groups funded from 2002-2004 with approximately $5 million annually, today the OTI funds more than 533 organizations, political parties, programs and projects, mainly in opposition sectors, with an annual budget surpassing $7 million. Its presence has not only remained, but has grown. Obviously this is due to one very simple reason: the original objective has still not been obtained; the overthrow or removal of President Hugo Chávez.

DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES INC. IS A CIA FRONT ORGANIZATION

This organization dedicated to destabilizing governments unfavorable to US interests has now made its appearance in Cuba, with millions of dollars destined to destroy the Cuban revolution. Ex CIA officer Phillip Agee affirmed that DAI, USAID and NED “are instruments of the US Embassy and behind these three organizations is the CIA.“ The contract between USAID and DAI in Venezuela confirms this fact, “The field representative will maintain close collaboration with other embassy offices in identifying opportunities, selecting partners and ensuring the program remains consistent with US foreign policy.” There is no doubt that “selecting partners” is another term for “recluting agents” and “consistent with US foreign policy” means “promoting Washington’s interests”, despite issues of sovereignty. Clearly, all DAI activities are directly coordinated by the US Embassy, a fact which negates the “private” nature of the organization.

The detention of a DAI employee is a very important step to impede destabilization and subversion inside Cuba. This episode also confirms that there has been no change of policy with the Obama Administration towards Cuba – the same tactics of espionage, infiltration and subversion are still being actively employed against one of Washington’s oldest adversaries.

VENEZUELA SHOULD ALSO EXPEL DAI

Now that Cuba has exposed the intelligence operations that DAI was engaging in (recluting agents, infiltrating political groups and distributing resources destined to promote destabilization and regime change are all intelligence activities and illegal), the Venezuelan government should respond firmly by expelling this grave threat from the country. DAI has now been operating in Venezuela for over seven and a half years, feeding the conflict with more than $50 million dollars and promoting destabilization, counterrevolution, media warfare and sabotage.

In an ironic twist, currently in the United States five Cuban citizens are imprisoned on charges of alleged espionage, yet their actions in US territory were not directed towards harming US interests. But the DAI employee detained in Cuba – working for a CIA front company – was engaged in activities intended to directly harm and destabilize the Cuban government. The distribution of materials to be used for political purposes by a foreign government with the intent of promoting regime change in a nation not favorable to US interests is clearly a violation of sovereignty and an act of espionage.

Development Alternatives, Inc. is one of the largest US government contractors in the world. Currently, DAI has a $50 million contract in Afghanistan. In Latin America, DAI is presently operating in Bolivia, Brasil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haití, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Perú, República Dominicana and Venezuela.

[All references in this article to DAI in Venezuela are thoroughly documented in The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela by Eva Golinger (Olive Branch Press 2006).]

A Scandal About Afghanistan Shakes Berlin

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:35:00 +0000

Like the peaks of the Hindu Kush dominating much of Afghanistan, the war in that unhappy country increasingly overshadows the political scenery in Germany. Parallels with the situation in the USA are unmistakable.

On December 3rd the Bundestag voted on prolonging the use of German troops in Afghanistan for another year. But before the delegates crowded to the front of the house to put their ballots in the container, they were surprised to hear an unusual statement. It came close to a confession.

For three months one event has repeatedly grabbed the headlines: the bombing on September 4th of two hijacked German fuel trucks in Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan. The air attack, ordered by a German colonel, resulted in the deaths of 142 people, including women, children and many other civilians despite the fact that the trucks, stuck in the mud while crossing a river, were of no immediate danger to German troops. American pilots suggested flying low over them to frighten civilians and the Taliban hijackers away. But no, the colonel insisted on bombs – and got them. The fuel caused a terrible explosion.

Army spokespersons, including Franz Josef Jung, Minister of Defense, tried to belittle the matter and denied any certainty about even a few civilian casualties. This was a crucial matter; it was the first such case involving German troops in Afghanistan and the worst bloodshed caused by Germans in uniform since World War Two.

As more and more facts and videos leaked out about the horror in Kunduz and the cover-up, both the army inspector-general and a deputy minister were forced to resign. The Minister of Defense kept denying any knowledge of the full facts but began to look paler and paler in public, even though Angela Merkel had demoted him to a lesser and less vulnerable job as Minister of Labor. But this switch could not save him; he had obviously lied in covering up the atrocity and, still pouting defiantly, he too was thrown to the wolves.

One aspect became embarrassingly obvious: the bombing and the early attempts to downplay it were in September, only weeks before the national Bundestag elections on September 27th. All parties represented in the Bundestag had supported military action in Afghanistan with a single exception, The Left, the common foe of all the others. It had opposed sending troops and AWAC planes from the start, insisting that the action was not really helping the Afghans or gaining increasing security in the world, but was rather a way to strengthen German military involvement abroad and expand influence generally.

Since 60 to 70 percent of the German public was also opposed to military involvement the four older parties agreed tacitly to avoid the whole subject during the election campaign. Of course The Left took every chance to raise what it saw as a key issue. However, as usual it was largely excluded from a fair hearing in the mass media. But then along came this brutal affair which threatened to upset the whole apple-cart and the relative silence was greatly disturbed.

It is hard to say what direct influence this had on the outcome, but both of the two main war advocates, the Christian Democrats and, to a far greater extent the Social Democrats, lost millions of voters, while The Left jumped to 12 percent (more exactly, 11.9 percent), higher than ever before.

Now, three months later, this issue still haunts the political scene. During a discussion of the bombing in November the new Defense Minister, the elegant Bavarian noble Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, told the Bundestag that the Kunduz bombing had after all been “an appropriate action”, thus justifying the killing. But on December 3rd, after more of the truth had emerged and pressures from many sides increased, and just before the vote on extending the mission, Herr zu Guttenberg suddenly decided to change his policy and make a confession: in truth, he announced, the bombing had been 'militarily inappropriate' after all. He had simply not known all the facts when he made the first statement, he explained.

But then, thanks to the International Red Cross, it was found that a full report on the tragic results had been placed on his desk prior to his earlier statement; he must have known the facts and he must have been lying. The position of this elegant politician, who some viewed as a candidate to follow Merkel, began to teeter. Worse yet, some heretic voices raised another awful question: how early did Angela Merkel know the facts about Kunduz and keep her silence? An all-party committee will now investigate the case. Will the result be a whitewash? Perhaps luckily for her, Frau Merkel is now off in Copenhagen trying to defend her reputation as a heroine in the fight against global warming. She will probably weather both storms, but may get a bit battered in the process.

Soon after the Defense Minister made his confession, the vote was taken on extending the stay of the 4500 German soldiers in Afghanistan for another year. During the debate the Greens and the Social Democrats, now in the opposition, lustily joined in attacking Herr zu Guttenberg, Frau Merkel and the army brass, pounding the lectern in righteous indignation about their violation of the truth. They had to choose their angry words carefully, however, since both parties had supported the war from the start. It had been a Social Democratic Defense Minister, Struck, who declared in late 2001 that “Germany’s security is being defended in the Hindu Kusch mountains.” But words are cheap, and the time came to make a decision.

Of course, the two government parties voted en masse to prolong the mission; only three of the “Christians” and two of the Free Democrats had the guts to vote No. Eleven Social Democrats were opposed but the majority, 121, voted to keep sending troops. The Greens were again split, reflecting pressures from their grass roots membership: eight voted to continue the mission, 19 voted against it, 40 sat firmly on the fence by abstaining. Of course all of the 70 delegates from The Left, reflecting the wishes of most people in Germany, voted No.

Thus, the government got its majority vote and German soldiers will continue to fight, kill and also die in dusty north Afghanistan. In January it and other NATO members will decide whether to comply with the wishes of Nobel-prize President Obama and increase their contingents. More details in the Kunduz scandal may also be expected; it seems that the elite, super-secret German commando force was involved – or perhaps responsible for the Kunduz disaster. And more heads could roll before this scandal is replaced by some new one.

I recall the giant meeting with Obama in Berlin during his election campaign. His eloquent speech received plenty of applause – though some things he said were received more thoughtfully, if not coolly. Near where I stood, high up on a lantern, unnoticed by the police and certainly by the great orator far to the front, and in defiance of a ban on posters or banners, there was a sign saying “No Troops for Afghanistan”. It looked a bit lonely at the time. The movement to find better solutions for that war-torn land has grown since then, but needs to grow a lot faster.

Bike-riding and Traffic Pollution

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:00:00 +0000

EarthTalk® – From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: I ride my bike to work along busy urban streets. Should I be worried about inhaling pollutants from vehicle emissions and other sources? -- J. Kaufman, San Francisco, CA

The short answer is, yes, probably. Cars, trucks and buses emit considerable amounts of airborne pollution as they make their ways along city streets and highways. The fine particles, nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) spewing out of tailpipes have been linked to a wide range of human health problems, from headaches to respiratory illness to cancer. Though Australian researchers found that exposure to these pollutants is actually higher while riding inside a vehicle than while riding a bike, turning your handlebars in the direction of back roads might still be a good idea, for safety’s sake as well.

Western Washington University Geophysicist Bernie Housen, concerned about the air quality on his own bicycle commute along busy Bellingham roads, recently launched a study of the magnetism in local trees to gauge air quality along his route and elsewhere in his region. The magnetism in a tree’s leaves is created by tiny particles of iron oxides and other pollutants that drift through the air, emanating primarily from eroding vehicle brake pads and diesel exhaust. The particles are small enough to pass through our nasal passages and get lodged in our lungs. Housen and his colleagues found 10 times as much magnetism on urban roadside tree leaves as on their rural counterparts that contend with little traffic.

Housen has also altered his own bike route to campus to avoid the more polluted thoroughfares. “One underlying concern is that if you are riding your bike, you are being more physically active; you are breathing deeper and breathing more air in, and so if you are doing that in an area where there is a concentrated elevation of this material it might not be such a good thing,” he added.

Ironically, many cities that offer dedicated bike lanes often lay them out right next to busy bus lanes, unintentionally ensuring that bicyclists breathe in as much diesel exhaust as possible. “I ride along one of these high-traffic bus routes,” Housen says, “and … there was between two and five or six times more magnetic fine particulate matter along the bus route than [on less-busy streets].” Housen would like to expand his research so it could be used by urban planners to better design bike and pedestrian routes so as not to intermingle so much diesel transit and pedestrian/bicycle traffic.

Of course, there are other ways to track urban pollution levels. In the UK, for instance, researchers from the government-funded Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council have created the Urban Pollution Monitoring Project, which builds and distributes GPS-enabled mobile pollution sensing systems that can be carried by hand or placed on a bike rack. The group is using data gleaned from the sensors to map where and when pollution levels are at their highest around London and other UK cities, and hopes to use its research to influence the way roads and urban areas are planned in the future as well.

Those who want or need to keep on riding through polluted areas should consider wearing an anti-pollution respiratory mask, many of which can filter out upwards of 95 percent of particulate pollution before it enters the human lung. Some leading manufacturers include Totobobo, G-Flow and Respro.

CONTACTS: Urban Pollution Monitoring Project, www.equator.ac.uk/index.php/articles/563; Totobobo, www.totobobo.com; G-Flow, www.gflowmask.com; Respro, www.respro.com. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

The Swiss and the Muslims

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:52:00 +0000

The Swiss, known for cheese, Alps, watches, chocolate and secret bank accounts, at least two of which are full of holes, have now added a sixth important product: intolerance. 57.5 percent of its 8 million population, or of those who went to the polls, voted to forbid minarets next to Muslim mosques.

As nearly everyone agreed, the minarets themselves were not so important. The 400,000 Muslims living in Switzerland now have only four minarets. Their architecture disturbs almost no-one, nor do muezzins call loudly over the rooftops five times a day. The minarets are symbols, and while few who voted for the ban said so openly, what many thought was: “There are too many damned furriners in our Christian republic anyway. We can’t even understand their foreign lingo. Keep ‘em out!”

Several sad ironies are involved. One is linguistic. Switzerland has four official languages to begin with, which should breed tolerance, especially since German-speaking Swiss, and it is they who voted most frequently against the minarets, have a folksy dialect which sounds rather quaint to people in Germany but is so difficult to understand that Swiss films shown there require sub-titles. Variety in cultures is a good thing, intelligent people generally believe, but it involves tolerance toward other people’s cultures.

Another ironic note is more tragic. Christianity is no constitutional requirement in Switzerland; religious freedom is supposed to be the rule. But it was Swiss authorities equally determined to keep their country Christian who turned away Jewish refugees from neighboring Germany during the Hitler years, resulting in death to many or most of them.

This shameful episode, though most other countries at that time were equally guilty, makes the decision by over half of Swiss voters especially disturbing, and not only because it was a victory for the far-right Swiss People’s Party. Like cheese and watches, such intolerance promises to be an export product whose political effects recall the crippling medical effects of thalidomide, or Contergan. And far too many in other countries are overly willing to buy this poison.

Among those rejoicing were the Berlusconi backers in Italy. A leader of the government party Lega Nord fantasized for the media: 'Flying high above a Europe now almost fully Islamized is the flag of courageous Switzerland, which wishes to remain Christian.”

The daughter of that old racist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who now heads his Front national in France, expressed her warm satisfaction. Geerd Wilders, the handsome blond and rabid Dutch film-maker currently building a party based on Islamophobia, said: “We need a referendum like that in the Netherlands!” His brother-in-arms in the Danish People’s Party echoed his sentiments. In Austria, England, Spain and elsewhere there were fanatic nationalists, racists and neo-fascists, both the jackbooted thugs and the suave, elegant wheeler-dealers, to welcome this smoke signal from the Alps. They were the extremists, of course, rarely with anything like majorities. But their numbers were often tending upward.

Many German politicians were undoubtedly horrified. Others, thinking of German history or counting the growing numbers of Muslim voters in urban centers, were careful and quiet. Few were exuberant. But some, while not explicitly approving the referendum results, betrayed their inner thoughts. Referring to Swiss voters, Wolfgang Bosbach, a key leader of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, said: “Their worries must be taken seriously!” He was quickly slapped down, but his message got through even the thickest shaven skulls.

Muslimphobia is not unknown in Germany. In one borough of Berlin enraged demonstrations, egged on by a Christian Democratic candidate, opposed building a mosque and modest minaret. Now completed and in use, it causes no troubles to anyone. A menacing rally in Cologne against a new mosque was prevented by a counterdemonstration of almost all parties, unions and religious groups, but its sponsors did manage to form a new local party and win city council seats for their unholy crusade. The list of those warning against the fictional monster of Islamization, recalling “Yellow Peril” campaigns on the US West Coast, contained a few surprisingly prominent names.

If unemployment figures in Germany grow worse and social assistance is further cut by the new government, part of any angry protests can be misdirected, not against those guilty of the misery, the banks, corporations and politicians obliged to them, indeed, their whole system, but instead, as so often in history, against those who are suffering even more. Eighty years ago it was the Jews who were blamed, discriminated against and then murdered. The Jewish community today, although its size has increased in recent years, is hardly large or conspicuous enough to serve this purpose sufficiently. It is still on the neo-Nazi list, but the main attacks, usually verbal thus far, are directed against Muslim communities, which include about 2 million people of Turkish descent, but also many Kurds, Africans and Arabs from Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and other areas.

This problem for immigrants is clearly international, involving long-lasting pressures of northern and western economies and cultures on those of the south and east. Experience in many countries indicates that large immigrant groups usually can integrate into their host country but the process often lasts two or three generations. Until then their differing appearance and culture, and the results of poverty and oppression, are all too often utilized to prevent unity among poor people and working people.

Even if the referendum vote should be reversed by the Swiss Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights, to which all European countries belong, even Switzerland, the 57.5 percent result of those who bothered to vote has done damage enough to any Swiss reputation for tolerance, while encouraging the most dangerous elements of political life in all Europe.

The Hypocrisy of Al-Demoqratia

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:05:00 +0000

So this is how democracy works? In 2004, France banned headscarves and school principals chased after young 'defiant' Muslim girls who continued to cover their heads in school. Now, following a national referendum, Switzerland has banned the construction of minarets, because minarets also somehow symbolize oppression.

Thanks to the dedicated action of the far-right Swiss People's Party, the Alpine skies will be free from the snaking menace, which would spread intolerance and taint the splendor of Swiss architecture. In between these two peculiar events, the targeting of Muslims in Western countries and the subjugation of entire Muslim nations all over the world has never ceased.

Not for a day. Moreover, the collective targeting of small or large Muslim communities in Western countries, and the deliberate abuse and degradation of Muslim individuals and Islamic symbols (from the Holy Koran to the Prophet Mohammed) has also never ceased. Bizarrely, most of these actions have been done through 'democratic' channels and justified in the name of democracy, on the basis of upholding the principles of secularism and Western values. Many thoughts come to mind here; all unreservedly angry. I remember when the word 'democracy' used to resonate so loudly among Arabs and Muslims around the world. The more they were denied it, the more they yearned for it. University campuses in Cairo, Gaza and Karachi took their student union elections so very seriously.

Innocent blood was spilled in clashes around campuses as students desperately tried to express their right to vote, to speak out and to assemble. Those were the days, when al-demoqratia, Arabic for democracy, was the buzzword in the Middle East and beyond.

Even Palestinian political prisoners held their elections, ever so faithfully, surrounded by highly fortified towers and under the deriding gaze of armed men in the unforgiving heat of the Naqab desert. Arab and Muslim masses were keen on democracy to the extent that there was a near consensus that democracy, although a Western conception, could be distinguished from the many ills invited by Western interventions, imperialism and wars that scarred and continued to impair the collective Muslim psyche. An entire school of Muslim thought was in fact established around the concept that democracy and Islam are very much compatible. Such a notion goes back to Egypt's Azharite scholar Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that the principles of European modernity were compatible with Islam. 'Al-Tahtawi's work influenced the philosopher Muhammad Abduh [1849-1905], another Azharite who is often described as the founder of Islamic modernism, which is captured in his statement that in Europe he found Islam without Muslims, while in Egypt he found Muslims without Islam,' wrote German anthropologist, Frank Fanselow. If one sets his prejudices aside to ponder this for a moment, one would realize the intellectual valor it takes to consider and even embrace commonalities with the very powers that have instilled so much harm and fear. Even in their darkest, least proud moments, Muslim intellectuals and nations displayed impressive open-mindedness. They are hardly ever credited for that. More recently, in Egypt, people tried hard to vote, in the face of beatings, public humiliation and imprisonment. In Palestine in 2006 the price was even higher - starvation. Gaza continues to endure under a medieval Israeli siege, ultimately because of an election. Muslim communities in the West have long been considered the luckiest; after all, they live in the abodes of democracy. They drink from the fountain of rights and freedoms that never runs dry. However, these idealized assumptions missed the fact that Western democracy was conditional. And unconditional democracy can only be a farce. Much has been said to explain the West's faltering on its own commitment to democracy. No, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, is hardly the defining moment that created the growing chasm that made the West fearful of Islam. Despite all that has taken place since then - the constant spewing out of right-wing hatred, evangelical fanatic preaching and all the rest - America is still more tolerant than Europe. Nor was the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe a response in solidarity to America's woes. Honestly, the French are not fond of Americans, nor are the Germans necessarily that passionate about the Swiss. But this didn't stop a German Christian Democratic state interior minister, Volker Bouffier, from making a 'recommendation' to Muslim communities in his own country: 'Naturally the Muslims in Germany have a right to build mosques. But they should make sure not to overwhelm the German population with them.' How do you overwhelm people with minarets? Is this a post-post-post-modernistic logic that we are yet to be informed of? There are only four minarets in the entire country of Switzerland, a country with a population of approximately 7.6 million people. How overwhelming can that be? And aren't religious freedom and the freedom of collective and individual expression basic rights guaranteed by democratic values? But this is hardly about a 4.8-meter tall minaret in the northern Swiss town of Langenthal. It's about the fact that the one who suggested the structure is a Muslim furniture salesman by the name of Mutalip Karaademi. He didn't know, of course, that his modest idea of adding a minaret to the community's mosque would generate a nationwide referendum, and an international 'controversy'. Karaademi was not trying to 'Islamificate' the Swiss. He just wanted his community to have a place for worship (as opposed to the unused paint factory it currently uses for prayer), to be able to express its collective identity without fear. Ironically enough, the Muslim community in Langenthal is mostly Albanians, refugees who fled Kosovo seeking escape and deliverance. What a strange paradox: Muslims escaping to the West, physically and figuratively, only to find double standards, self-negation and, at times, pure hypocrisy. For now, however, a new consensus is forming: democracy can be invoked and used against Muslims only, and not for Muslims. It can be manipulated to deny them their identity in Europe and their freedom in Palestine, to ensure their subjugation in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and to meddle in their internal affairs everywhere else. Al-demoqratia, indeed.

Poetry, December 2009

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:14:00 +0000

TWO POEMS FROM THE CONFUCIAN ODES by NEELI CHERKOVSKI

A Legion…

a legion. a league
in the dust and dapple, a ridge
of ants, a ring, a circus, a performance
of ants, a desire to seize, a lament in the dusty rabble
of voices, a losing proposition, this empire, the border
guards and the merchants waiting by the dock
for the barges

to tip. an envious glance, a desire
to be known, let the
light topple the trees, let
the river speak
for experience, one
hundred years
we are no more able
then the other, one
cup empty, one cup
half empty

*******

Rust

the armor is rusted, love, the pan
is empty, snarling dogs
await us, this long, narrow path
crosses a bridge, the tall trees
dampen the light, all is rust, all
the tropes fallen, could we, the imaginary
line, fake a punt, under the tower, the black
tower, the men of the black tower, the evil
priest, the extinguished candle, lord of the
ax, men without pity, harsh men plodding north
in deep drifts, take pity on the men
of the long march, those chill bones, the moans
in time, deep rust, rusty trees, silence
of the air between one white dwarf and another,
mosquitos in the marsh, stand near the bank,
go to the brink, the rusted lines of a song

--Neeli Cherkovski

Used with permission.

In Fear Of Eviction
snowflakes fall past the window

you count them
erratically
your sum as random
as the snowfall

in a corner of the room
you sit and wait
for a knock
on the door

today is not a day
for small miracles

today you need
to squeeze
water from rock

you need to burn
shadows
against the cold

--Mike James From Blue Collar Review.

Repression and Resistance: The Communist Party From 1949-1959

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:04:00 +0000

“The record shows that our aim and the purpose of reconstituting the Communist Party was to become a more influential and effective working class force in this postwar struggle to save our people from the force and violence of monopoly reaction, lynching, and atomic war….Probably most of you jurors never saw a real live Communist before you came to Foley Square. Perhaps you were surprised to find descendants of Daniel Boone and John and Priscilla Alden sharing leadership in our ranks with the descendants of heroic Negro slaves. You must have noted that about half of these witnesses were World War II veterans…. One need not be either a Communist or a Communist sympathizer or a progressive or a trade unionist to recognize the difference between people of good or evil intent. One need not understand a single Marxist principle, or agree with a single word ever written by Lenin, to recognize the real conspiracy symbolized by the prosecution and its false witnesses; or that the defendants and the defense witnesses are men and women who are dedicated to serving the interests of the American people – Negro and white, and seek to promote peace and democratic advance.” From Eugene Dennis, “In Defense of Your Freedom,” [“Foley Square Smith Act Trial, 1949”], in Highlights of Fighting History: 60 Years of the Communist Party, USA, 280-281.

The greatest political show trial in US history began in late 1949. The previous year, the Truman administration had indicted 12 members of the Communist Party's political bureau for “conspiracy” when they helped reconstitute the Communist Party in 1945, a public event mentioned widely in the national press at the time.

William Z. Foster, the best-known Communist Party leader, was tried separately. The other 11 stood before federal Judge Harold Medina, an old machine politician who complained that Communist agents in the court's gallery were trying to hypnotize him. Medina showed extreme prejudice against the defense throughout the trail. But the verdict was pre-ordained, since the prosecution and the judge carefully selected the jury, as in the other major political show trials of the period – the second Hiss trial and the Rosenberg trial – to insure they were unsympathetic to the defendants and unlikely to defend the rights of those with whom they had political disagreements.

These first Smith Act trials were only the beginning. Subsequent trials came after the arrest and imprisonment of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and other lesser-known Communist Party leaders. With the Korean War raging in 1950, Congress passed the McCarran Internal Security Act over President Truman’s veto. The principle sponsor was the right-wing senator from Nevada, Pat McCarran, who also later served as the prototype for the corrupt senator in Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather and the film “The Godfather, Part 2.”

The law, which invented categories of “Communist-controlled” and “influenced” organizations established a Subversive Activities Control Board to force the officers of such organizations to register and present their membership lists to the Board or face heavy fines and prison sentences. The law also created a special provision, originally introduced by Cold War liberal Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, as an alternative to the bill, the compilation of a list of individuals to be arrested without due process and placed in detainment camps in the event of a “national emergency.”

Along with the various Smith and McCarran Act trials, state and local authorities began to blacklist public employees, industrial workers, and people in the arts, sciences and professions thought to be associated in any way with the Communist Party.

Nothing new

Red Scares and politically motivated repression were not new to the US. In fact, the Communist Party was first organized in a period of terroristic state and business-funded repression against the Left in 1919. But no one had ever seen anything like the repressive tactics of the US government in the 1950s. The Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s lasted only for a few years. Politically motivated attempts to take away the constitutional rights of abolitionists before the Civil War were largely defeated in non-slave states, and the previous red scares against working-class organizations were relatively mild.

In the 1950s, Communist Party leaders and some members were forced into hiding, and the government would eventually imprison many in the Party leadership. Leaders of organizations who refused to comply with McCarran Act provisions that demanded membership lists or or registration as 'subversive' were also threatened with prison. Through the entire period the Communist Party refused to register under the McCarran Act. The purpose of the law was to isolate the Communist Party and any other organization which the government disapproved of. The basic aim of the law was to draw a political color line that could be enforced by federal authorities to “protect” the general public from political dissent.

Nationally, these policies came to be associated with Joseph R. McCarthy, the mentally unstable and alcoholic Republican senator from Wisconsin. McCarthy rose to prominence in the far right in the winter of 1950 when he launched wildly unsubstantiated charges against what he claimed were scores to hundreds (the numbers constantly shift) of “Communist agents” in the State Department. Supposedly these subversives were responsible for everything from the Chinese Revolution to the Soviet explosion of an atomic bomb. McCarthy quickly found that he could get away with making these charges, which the press dutifully spread. He also found that the more ludicrous and wilder the charge, the higher his star rose.

The Communist Party recognized the special danger represented by McCarthy, whom Communists and non-Communists both in the US and globally saw as a potential fascist leader. They also understood that reactionaries were cynically using McCarthy's wild claims to turn the new “anti-communist consensus” (which had already succeeded in undermining the Bill of Rights and wounding labor and progressive forces) into full-fledged hysteria.

What is so remarkable about this repression, and so instructive for students of US history, was its longevity and its multifaceted nature. By the late 1950s, Supreme Court decisions had weakened the original Smith Act and ended the prosecutions, and prominent figures like Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Du Bois, denied the right to travel because of their supposed ties to the Communist Party, received their passports back. The government continued to prosecute both Communists and former Communists under the McCarran Act, however. The Kennedy Administration, for example, revived the prosecution of the Communist Party for failing to register under the McCarran Act in 1961, and predictably achieved an indictment and conviction in 1962 of party leaders Gus Hall and Benjamin Davis, while fining the party $120,000. Davis passed away in 1964, and the cases against Gus Hall and the Communist Party were finally overturned in 1966 and 1967, respectively.

Resisting repression

In general, the facts of the postwar period of repression are widely known. Far less is understood, however, about the Communist resistance and its contribution to both the decline of McCarthyism and the defeat of the real danger of full-fledged fascism, which in the 1950s brought with it the likelihood of a nuclear World War III.

Communists adopted the policy of what might be called a “semi-underground.” Much of the Party's leadership found itself either in hiding or fighting to keep out of jail. The general membership faced relentless FBI harassment. In many cases, Communists were forced to abandon the organizations they had helped to build in the 1940s. Throughout, Communists struggled to maintain their long-term strategic outlook, which connected the struggle for workers' rights with anti-racism and peace.

First, let’s look briefly at the deceleration of McCarthyism. Communists rallied support for the “Joe Must Go” grassroots campaign, launched initially by liberal Republicans in Wisconsin in 1952, and continued the campaign even after McCarthy’s re-election to the Senate in 1952. McCarthy liked to say that the Communist Party invented the term McCarthyism, which he, of course, flaunted in his usual egotistical way. Although McCarthy’s whole career was based on endless lies, he wasn’t completely wrong in this regard. The “anti-Communist consensus” was rooted in brutal dictatorial policies that both preceded McCarthy and continued after his downfall, acts carried out by the FBI, government bureaucrats, and politicians far less out of control than the junior senator from Wisconsin.

Truman’s “loyalty program,” the Attorney General’s list, the arrest of the Communist Party national leadership, the state-condoned racist mob attack on Paul Robeson in Peekskill, New York, and the purges and blacklists, all were crude violations of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights – whether carried out by labor leaders like Walter Reuther, Democratic President Harry Truman, or tolerated by the American Civil Liberties Union, which refused to defend Communists. Many of these abuses were justified by the claim that Communists had to be purged to save the unions or save the social gains that Communists had played a central role in bringing about. To use Adlai Stevenson’s famous description of Richard Nixon in 1952, there were many “white-collar McCarthys,” respectable McCarthys instituting and attempting to institutionalize the repression.

But with McCarthy, the extremism and injustice of the whole process could not be covered up. By focusing on McCarthy and his henchmen, Communist Party activists gave the process a face and a name and helped the broad left fight back more effectively. All this took place in an atmosphere in which anti-McCarthy demonstrations on college campuses and in communities around the “Joe Must Go” slogan – and later the university-based “Green Feather” campaign – got very little coverage in the press, but the campaigns encouraged liberals like Edward R. Murrow to take the chance of exposing some of McCarthy’s abuses on television. In Milwaukee, for example, Party activists printed and distributed over 20,000 anti-McCarthy leaflets, even through they were followed and harassed by FBI agents.

McCarthyites go too far

Eventually, the Eisenhower administration, itself threatened by McCarthy’s attempt to extort an Army commission for his henchman G. David Schine, made public some of his activities, which led to the nationally televised hearings which did great damage to him as an individual.

Anti-communism in all of its forms served as the major barrier to an effective anti-McCarthy campaign. The right attacked all who refused to kowtow before the repression as “anti-anti-communist,” and many fell into this trap, “balancing” their criticisms of McCarthy’s actions with condemnations of the Communist movement. Truman began this trend in 1950 when, in response to McCarthy’s first group of wild charges, he called McCarthy “the Kremlin’s greatest asset.” Many others chimed in to contend that McCarthy, by undermining respect for the government, was “helping the Communists.” The hip political comedian, Mort Sahl, then beginning his career, captured perfectly the warped politics of the time when he described McCarthy’s version of the “Eisenhower jacket” (the name given to a popular military surplus jacket) as “the one with the zipper across the mouth.”

Harassed by the right, many Democratic politicians used anti-communism to save their political careers. In his 1954 reelection bid, Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey, as the story goes, was accosted by a man who kept calling him a Communist. Humphrey replied that he was an “anti-Communist,” which led the man to say, “I don’t care what kind of Communist you are.” Humphrey shored up his base of support by sponsoring new anti-Communist legislation, which the press crudely called “The Communist Control Act.”

Still, many people saw the 1954 elections as a referendum on McCarthyism. The Democrats regained control of both Houses of Congress, which was interpreted correctly as an important defeat for both McCarthy and McCarthyism. McCarthy was quickly dropped by most of his former backers and drifted deeper into the alcoholism that was to kill him just three years later. But McCarthy didn’t change. He continued to make wild charges, and may even have come to believe some of them, although fewer and fewer people took them seriously any more.

McCarthy-like charges became little more than flimsy conspiracy theories. For example, when David Greenglass, whose testimony had sent his sister and brother-in-law, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, to the electric chair in 1953 as “Soviet spies” who stole the “secret of the atomic bomb,” came forward with the claim in 1957, after the Soviet’s launching of the Sputnik space satellite, that Julius Rosenberg had transmitted space technology to the Soviets, no one outside the ultra-right took the charge seriously.

Wild claims and conspiracy theories actually split the Republican Party. Ultra-rightists, including industrialists and retired military leaders angered by what they saw as the Eisenhower administration's shift away from their policies, formed the John Birch Society to revive McCarthyism. Their leader, candy manufacturer Robert Welch, even contended that the failures to defeat Communism and destroy the Soviet Union served as evidence that President Eisenhower was a Communist. Some of McCarthy’s supporters promoted Welch as a potential Republican presidential candidate in the early 1950s. By the late 1950s, however, McCarthyite tactics, once at the heart of the Republican Party, moved to the fringes of the ultra-right.

The discrediting of McCarthy and the deceleration of McCarthyism could also be seen also in how the FBI establishment operated its secret Counter Intelligence Program (Cointelpro). Aimed exclusively at the Communist Party, from its founding in 1956 Cointelpro carried out thousands of provocations against Communists. But it was compelled to do so secretly, despite in contrast to the open harassment of the Communist Party immediately after World War II.

Thus the Communist Party's anti-McCarthyism campaign helped to save Americans from the political nightmare sought by the Mcarthyite section of the right wing.

Struggles continue

The purges in the unions were especially devastating for African American trade unionists, who were in large numbers part of the left. Communists and others organized the National Negro Labor Council in 1951, which, although it was to be short-lived in the face of political persecution, served as a center for the recruitment of African American militants who were to later distinguish themselves in labor and civil rights struggles. Communists also played a leading role in the US and worldwide campaigns against the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg between 1951, when the death sentence was pronounced, and 1953 when it was carried out. William Patterson, a leading African American Communist, led 3000 protesters to Sing Sing Prison in 1953 where the executions took place. This event, which the mass media refused to cover, was an act of great courage, as was the much larger demonstration in New York's Union Square as the hour of the executions approached.

Communists condemned US military intervention in Korea and exposed the fraudulence of the Truman administration’s use of the UN as a cover for war, at a time when few on the left took on the issue. In what was perhaps the Communist Party’s most remarkable achievement in the period, Party members and their allies gathered 2.5 million signatures for the international Stockholm Peace Petition against militarization, nuclear proliferation and war.

Communists also made major contributions to the struggle against the racist terror which intensified in the early Cold War period. Both white and Black Communists, along with other progressive activists in labor and community-based civil rights organizations found themselves fighting a new two-front war in defense of the civil rights of the oppressed and their own civil liberties, even as leading groups like the NAACP retreated. For example, the Civil Rights Congress, founded by Communists and allies after World War II, took on major legal battles that the NAACP feared to engage in, and helped to compile data on racist abuses even as the CRC itself became a prime target of FBI attacks.

In 1951, CRC leader William Patterson and Paul Robeson delivered “We Charge Genocide: The Historic Petition to the United Nations for the Relief from a Crime of the United States Government Against the Negro People” to the Office of the United Nations Secretary General in New York. While the document remained largely ignored or, if mentioned at all, reviled by the mainstream US media, it was published throughout the world and introduced many people, especially in the nations emerging from colonialism, to the sordid history of racism in the US. By exposing racism globally at a time when the US was fighting a Cold War against anti-racist Communist and national liberation movements, “We Charge Genocide” helped to make US racism an even bigger liability than it already was and thus strengthened the developing civil rights movement.

Communists remained inseparable from the civil rights movement. In 1953, the Party came forward with a new program centered on advancing the struggle for liberation and justice for all people in the South. Party leader James Jackson drafted “The Southern Peoples Common Program,” which connected the abolition of segregation with the elimination of anti-labor and anti-democratic policies, and showed how doing away with such policies would achieve large social and economic gains for all working people in the South. Over 100,000 copies of the program were distributed throughout the South on a single day, an ingenious strategy that successfully defeated attempts by the FBI and local racists to repress the document.

Communists strongly supported the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott, a victory that opened a new chapter in the struggle for African American equality. The Highlander Folk School, where Communists had long played a significant role, served as a center for the training of activists in civil rights campaigns both before and after Montgomery. Although historian Maurice Isserman and others have documented the role of “former party members” in these and other campaigns, the important role of those who had not left the Party and of the Party itself has yet to be studied in depth. This, in large part, is the result of the long-term distortion of the history of the civil rights movement fostered by anti-communist ideology and policy, during a period when all attacks on the Party were accepted without scrutiny or challenge.

Most of those who left the Party between 1946 and 1956 did so because of Cold War repression. Some simply dropped out of politics. Others continued to work with former comrades in new organizations like Women Strike for Peace. Anti-communists in peace, civil rights, trade union and youth organizations, however, constantly undermined those organizations by wasting time and resources on fighting “communist infiltration.” Also, once you got below the surface of a liberal or left anti-communist, it became clear that their opposition to communists centered on using the issue as a cover for their own conservative policies or their opposition to militancy in any form. Thus, those in the leadership of groups like the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, the early Students for a Democratic Society, and other mass organizations, who usually defined themselves as liberals, were actually “closet conservatives” seeking validation from the very power structure whose policies their organizations claimed to challenge. Like their counterparts in the trade unions, this often made them more duplicitous and vicious in their attacks on Communists and the broad left than open conservatives.

What is most remarkable about this period is that thousands of members stayed with the Party even in the face of severe repression.

Factional dispute

In 1956, a “secret speech” by CPSU General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union denounced the policies of Joseph Stalin and properly called for “de-Stalinization” in Soviet institutions. A Polish defector gave the speech to the CIA, which promptly published it. Along with criticisms of Soviet policies in Poland and Hungary, the speech produced factional conflicts and loss of membership in many countries and the establishment of rival Communist parties in some instances. In the US, John Gates, editor of the Communist Party's Daily Worker newspaper, on his own decision made the Khrushchev speech the center of a series of criticisms of party leadership and policies, sparking division and conflict within Party clubs and districts. The FBI and other police agencies saw the conflict as a huge victory for their activities as they intensified their campaign to sow dissension within the Party.

The factional dispute within the Communist Party resulted in no small part from the long period of repression that saw most of the leadership imprisoned or embattled in court cases and a membership under relentless attack. Experienced Party leaders at all levels, who might have been better equipped to organize Party-wide discussions of the events in the Soviet Union, found themselves preoccupied with legal battles or in hiding and unable to respond to Gates' attacks. As the factional struggle intensified, it became front-page news throughout the US. Communists struggles against McCarthyism, for the rights of labor, civil rights and peace had been invisible in US mass media for years. Now, however, various pundits from liberal and tolerated left backgrounds came forward to call for the end of the Communist Party, to proclaim its uselessness and assert that somehow, magically, after it ceased to exist, some vague “democratic left” would arise.

Inside the Party, Gates and his supporters were voted down and left the party. Others followed suit as internal disputes accompanied by external repression simply wore them down. The struggle did not mean the end of the Communist Party, although the official story became that it no longer played a significant role in the US.

The factional struggle did significant harm at a crucial moment. The loss of membership weakened the Communist Party at a time when mass progressive forces were regrouping around civil rights and peace struggles. In trade union struggles especially, the losses reduced the possibility of a Communist and left comeback at a time when the anti-Communist clause of the Taft-Hartley Act was being defeated in the courts.

The Communist Party supported the AFL-CIO merger in 1955 as necessary in the face of the attacks on workers' rights. But the party was strongly critical of the AFL-CIO leadership’s failure to advance wages and hours protection, its support of overtime pay as a crutch to increase wages for unionized workers as opposed to increasing both wage rates and jobs, and its refusal to initiate policies that would reduce the income and employment gap between white and African American workers. Could a significantly larger Communist Party have used its industrial concentration strategy to advance more effectively progressive policies within the AFL-CIO on issues of civil rights, workers rights, and peace, or to reach out to the new social movements that blossomed in the 1960s? Of course. But we can also say that the vision and strategy articulated by the Communist Party in this difficult period continued to offer the best path to achieving long-term progressive change. Still, we can only imagine what history might have been like if the Party had developed the same membership and allies in the 1960s that it had in the 1930s.

By the end of 1959, as the Party prepared to enter its fifth decade with diminished forces, millions of Americans had repudiated the consequences of McCarthyism, that entrenched and ossified conservatism whose cultural slogans were “don’t make waves” and “look out for number one.” Meanwhile, Cold War Democrats like Senator John F. Kennedy sought to leave the witch hunts of the 1950s behind and talked about “getting the country moving again,” although he refused to say where and for what. Soon student sit-ins in the South would open a new and militant phrase in the civil rights movement, and Cold War conflicts over Cuba and Vietnam would add new impetus to peace efforts. The Communist Party, still facing extensive attacks from the federal authorities, began this new period under the leadership of three veteran Communists Gus Hall, Ben Davis and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

Howard Fast: Two Memoirs, One Life

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:02:00 +0000

Being Red (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1990), Howard Fast’s account of his association with the Communist Party USA, of which he was a member from 1943 until 1956, is a valuable addition to the growing list of memoirs and historical studies about the CPUSA. Unfortunately, in Being Red Fast was unable to separate his profession as a novelist from his less familiar role as memoirist. The tendentiousness of Being Red is made clear once its content is compared with The Naked God: The Writer and the Communist Party (New York: Praeger, 1957), a memoir that covers much of the same material, but from a very different perspective and for a very different purpose.

Fast was an exceptionally prolific writer: He published more than 80 books, including 50 novels, ten plays, and 20 nonfiction books. Worldwide sales of his novels have exceeded 80 million. His writings have been translated into 82 languages and many observers—including Fast—have insisted that he may be the most widely read writer of the 20th century.

In Being Red, Fast presents vivid and often touching descriptions of his early life, a life which could logically lead a thinking person toward the Communist movement. He ascribed his “sense of identity with the poor and oppressed of all the earth” to his working-class father, a Jewish immigrant from the Ukraine. Howard and his brothers grew up in extreme poverty; they sensed they could only overcome this disadvantage through their own cooperative efforts. This likely led him to believe in the possibilities of collaboration among the oppressed.

While still a member, the CPUSA and indeed the world Communist movement lionized Fast. The protagonists of his popular historical novels – a radical craftsman, in Citizen Tom Paine; a progressive political leader of immigrant origins, in The American; the common foot soldiers at Valley Forge, in The Unvanquished; newly freed slaves, in Freedom Road; Native Americans, in The Last Frontier; and rebellious gladiators from the oppressed classes, in Spartacus – dramatized the class struggle, which with all its tragic setbacks somehow foreshadowing ultimate victory. He is remembered as the writer who refitted the genre of the historical novel to the requirements of Popular Front culture. The themes of his works – the accomplishment and destruction of Radical Reconstruction (Freedom Road); the steadfast support of the common people for the American Revolution (The Unvanquished); the neglected giant of the American Revolution (Citizen Tom Paine); Governor John Peter Altgeld’s issuing of writs of clemency for the three Haymarket Martyrs (The American) – encapsulated the Party’s General Secretary Earl Browder’s understanding that if Communism was to become twentieth-century Americanism it had to have historical antecedents. Fast was a major figure in the Party’s remarkable enterprise of encouraging the creation of a complex and almost complete popular “progressive” American culture. It was during this period that the vast circulation of Fast’s books occurred.

As a result of Fast’s celebrity and his ability to translate the Party’s general outlook into literature, the Party enshrined him, along with Paul Robeson and W.E.B. Du Bois, on the highest pedestal in its pantheon of intellectuals. Fast’s Communist Party status also entailed international recognition. In December 1949, when he traveled to the World Peace Conference in Paris, Fast remembered entering “a world where Communists were honored, not hunted down and imprisoned.” Concretely this meant: Fast sat on the stage next to Louis Aragon; Pablo Picasso kissed him on the mouth and offered him any painting he chose; later, Pablo Neruda would write a poem to him. In 1954, Fast received the Stalin Peace Prize.

It would be entirely unfair, however, to portray Howard Fast as a Red Mandarin. In 1949, Fast emceed a Paul Robeson concert at a campground near Peekskill, New York, sponsored by the Civil Rights Congress. In what Fast would later describe as “the opening shot of American fascism,” mobs of rock-hurling youths screaming “Kill a Commie for Christ” prevented the event from happening. One week later, 15,000 Leftists attended the rescheduled concert, protected by 3,000 Red trade unionists, many of whom had fought in Spain and in larger numbers in World War II. After a memorably successful concert, many of the concert-goers incurred severe injuries when mobs (mobilized by veterans’ and Catholic groups) attacked their cars and buses, which had been routed by police through narrow back roads. While interviewing an elderly woman who had been present at the ill-fated concert, I mentioned that I was writing this review. With great vehemence she said: “Don’t you go and say anything bad about Howard Fast. I saw him in Peekskill with a Coke bottle in each hand fighting back.” Fast took on any number of less heroic Party assignments. He wrote Party-published pamphlets on topics ranging from telling the story of the Peekskill concert to promoting the reelection of Vito Marcantonio; served as editor of The Daily Worker from 1952 to 1954, when the paper’s circulation and influence were in precipitous decline; and ran on the American Labor ticket for a Congressional seat in the East Bronx during the height of the Korean War in 1952.

McCarthyism visited on Howard Fast every conceivable punishment it had devised to persecute and obliterate the Communist movement. In April 1946, the House Committee on Un-American Activities demanded the names of the 30,000 donors to the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, an organization supporting Spanish Republican refugees living in Southern France. Fast and fifteen other members of the organization’s Executive Board (which Fast tells us, at various times, included Eleanor Roosevelt, José Ferrer, Ruth Gordon, Stella Adler, Leonard Bernstein, Van Wyck Brooks, Mark Van Doren, and Lucille Ball) refused to cooperate with the Congressional inquisition. They became the first in a long line of a distinguished Americans punished for refusing to cooperate when by a lopsided vote of 262 to 56, the House voted to cite them for contempt. In 1950, after the Supreme Court refused to issue a writ of certiorari, Fast and ten other members of the executive board were imprisoned for three months. While in jail, he began writing his most famous novel, Spartacus, the story of a slave rebel leader in the Roman Empire.

As the anti-Communist repression intensified, Fast was subjected to increasingly damaging attacks. In 1949 Citizen Tom Paine was removed from New York City’s libraries. Fast was barred from speaking at City College and many other campuses. He was under constant surveillance by the FBI (his file ultimately reached 1100 pages), and he was refused a passport until 1961 (five years after he resigned from the Party). Publisher after publisher (Little Brown, Viking, Scribner’s, Harper, Knopf, Simon & Schuster, Doubleday) rejected Spartacus. When Spartacus was finally published privately in 1951, it ultimately sold 50,000 copies. Ironically, the most significant literary event in Fast’s career after leaving the Party was his 1960 collaboration with Dalton Trumbo (one of the Hollywood Ten) on the screenplay for Spartacus, which represented a major breakthrough in overcoming the Hollywood blacklisting.

Being Red describes Fast’s membership in the Party as the best years of his life. “I don’t know anything in life so satisfying and nourishing as the sense that you are doing what you were put on earth to do, fighting for things you believe, for the poor, the oppressed and against racism. It gives one a feeling of being, of consciousness, and connection.” In this new work, he insisted that the Party was not dominated by the Soviet Union and, in any case, that it was “Russia [which] had paid a price of twenty-million human lives to destroy the Nazis… and moved three million Polish and Ukrainian Jews eastward beyond the reach of the Nazis.” He also stated that the Daily Worker never compromised with the truth as it saw the truth....” Repeatedly, he returned to the theme that the Communists were “priests in the brotherhood of man. When I joined the Communist Party, I joined the company of the good.” Fast also reminded the reader that the Party was the group which best knew how to conduct the anti-Fascist struggle, and that they “fought and often enough died for black freedom.” He spoke of the renowned artists and writers who joined its ranks, including Sherwood Anderson who has not been so identified elsewhere. He also recalls the Party’s leading role in the organization of the Progressive Party in 1948. This is what Fast remembered finding in the Party. Without ever mentioning The Naked God, in Being Red Fast refuted the damning criticisms of the Party he made in the earlier memoir.

Unfortunately, Fast’s need to justify and glorify his past prevented him from accurately recording a number of critical events in Being Red. Most egregious is his fictitious account of an incident at the 1949World Peace Conference in Paris. Fast reported he carried instructions given him by Paul Novick, leader of the Jewish Commission of the Party, from the Central Committee of the Communist Party, USA. Fast claims he was instructed to inform the head of the Soviet delegation that the CPUSA was bringing charges against the Communist Party of the USSR because of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union! Even a faulty memory for events from long ago cannot excuse his telling this far-fetched tale. The implausibility of this story is total. Nowhere in the public record is there any instance of the CPUSA criticizing any aspect of Soviet policy, much less “levying charges” against its Communist Party. Moreover, none of the many memoirs of or interviews with Party or ex-Party leaders has ever corroborated Fast’s purported mission. One feels compelled to believe, that consciously or unconsciously, Fast concocted this story as a means of exculpating himself for complicity from anti-Jewish acts being committed at that time in the Soviet Union. Even more significantly, Fast himself never mentioned this episode in his earlier memoir, The Naked God; in fact, in Being Red, Fast never acknowledged The Naked God’s existence. Indeed, he even omitted it from “Books by Howard Fast,” listed in Being Red’s front matter. Clearly, The Naked God is something Fast wanted to forget, and amazingly the reviewers of Being Red have allowed it to be forgotten.

Being Red is the autobiography of an eighty-five-year old man (he died in 2003 at the age of eight-eight), who wanted to be remembered as a man of the Left. After all, everything that happened to him before joining the Communist Party seemed to lead to that decision and his fame and feelings of self-worth were at their height while he was a Party member. After resigning from the Communist Party, Fast never again attained the status of an important American writer. It was not until 1977 that Fast found a new audience and a new identity with the publication for The Immigrants, the first in a highly successful series that has been characterized as a San Francisco family saga. One critic noted: “I’m sure [The Immigrants] has some overriding social purpose, but happily it never gets in front of the relentless pace of events. In short, you can enjoy this book without a thought in your head....” Concurrently with the publication of Being Red, Fast reestablished his connections with the Left by becoming a columnist for the New York Observer, writing trenchant and militant critiques from a strongly left perspective. Fast realized that drawing attention to The Naked God would not contribute to his efforts at self-rehabilitation as a leftist.

The Naked God had served as a questionable passport for Fast to gain re-entry into the commercial publishing world. Its account of many events greatly contrasts with those in Being Red, which was a document designed to ensure his re-entry into the ranks of brave once-young artists who risked so much for what they could reasonably have believed was a great cause. The Naked God stated that communism was based on “naked terror, awful brutality, and frightening ignorance.” It goes on to say that the evil Communism did “was to accept the degradation of our own soul,” and that in joining the Party “one sells his own soul.” At the same time, the book underplays Fast’s own persecution by the United States government. To be sure, The Naked God also contains glowing descriptions of Party members: “Never in so small a group have I seen so many pure souls, so many gentle and good people. So many men and women of utter integrity.” In stark contrast to this description is The Naked God’s leitmotif is that the CP was an “oriental temple of organization [led by a] dogma-ridden priesthood....” Although all his best work was written during his Party years, Fast wrote about the Party’s destruction of his muse, claiming he had to leave the Party in order to become a better writer.

Fast’s resignation from the Party was announced in a front-page New York Times interview with the avidly anti-Soviet reporter, Harry Schwartz. And while there is no record that Fast ever named names, Natalie Robins reports in Alien Ink: The FBI’s War on Freedom of Expression that Fast’s FBI file indicates he contacted the FBI to report that his just completed book would assist the anti-Communist cause; he also gave its agents a set of galleys.

After the publication of The Naked God, intellectuals remaining within and close to the Communist Party filled the pages of Mainstream, the Party’s cultural journal, with angry and sad comments. Walter Lowenfels, perhaps the best poet remaining in the Part’s ranks, queried: “Where are your wound stripes? Your torn and battered uniform? Your badge in the fight for the clean word?... I expected a battle-scarred front-line dispatch from you. Instead, you give us a political report on the Russian situation. What I was expecting was not your farewell to Russia but your salute to the people of the U.S.A.” However, it was Joseph Starobin, a New York City York City-based Party leader, who drew the most blood. He depicted Fast as the Party’s Frankenstein: In the CP Fast found adulation.... And he reveled in what he should have resisted.... For Howard became in the CP the oracle on every issue from Negro rights to socialist realism… he headed every conceivable committee, took the floor each time without saying too much, refused the pleas of his best editors to revise his first drafts, published the best novel of the year every year… But throughout it all he neither grew as a writer nor gained wisdom as a man.... [He lived] in a Left which had lost all sense of proportion about Howard Fast.

It is understandable that Fast had wanted to forget all this, but Being Red is finally only as important as it is accurate. It would seem that Fast invented his mission to the 1949 Paris Conference, in order to bury the memory of his uncritical support of a movement, which at that time glorified a régime seemingly determined on obliterating Yiddish culture. Similarly, in Being Red Fast accused Morris U. Schappes, the editor of Jewish Currents, a monthly with attenuated roots in the Communist Party, of having threatened to bring him up for expulsion from the Party on charges of “Jewish nationalism” because of the publication of My Glorious Brothers, a novel about the Maccabees. Schappes refuted Fast’s allegations. The veracity of Fast’s version of this incident is undercut by his failure to mention it in The Naked God; there he never connected Schappes to this report of a threatened expulsion. In a somewhat similar way, Angus Cameron denied the story that he had resigned as editor-in-chief and long-time vice president of Little, Brown in protest against its refusal to publish Spartacus. Cameron exposed Fast’s narcissism by pointing out that the question of Spartacus was only peripheral to his decision, which was prompted more by the general retreat of the company acquiesced to the blacklisting of Left authors generally.

Despite these serious weaknesses, Being Red deserves wide attention. Fast’s account of his Dickensian childhood is memorable. It helps the reader to understand the attractions of the Communist Party in the 1930s and 40s, as well as its many accomplishments. More immediately, the injuries of Fast’s childhood may explain the neediness of his personality. Being Red has lasting importance for its documentation of the as yet not fully acknowledged depredations of what has become known as the McCarthy Era. Unfortunately, Being Red fails as autobiography, because Fast chose self-aggrandizement and evasion over the truth. There remains a discontinuity, which must always be unexplained as long as it is unacknowledged.

--An earlier version of this essay was published in Science & Society (Spring 1993): pp. 86-91.

American Protesters Urge Release of the Cuban Five

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:59:00 +0000

Thousands of religious, trade union, and human rights activists participated in a moving vigil and rally outside the gates of the School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia on November 22nd to demand that it be closed. The “school,” renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001, has trained more than 64,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency, military intelligence and interrogation techniques. Luis Posada Carriles, the notorious terrorist and mastermind of the 1976 downing of Cubana airline flight 455, trained at this School of Assassins in 1961.

Graduates of the SOA, which is operated by the U.S. Department of Defense, have been linked to human rights violations and suppression of popular movements throughout the Americas, most recently in Honduras where they led the coup against democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya.

This year marked the 20th anniversary of the massacre of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her teenage daughter in El Salvador in 1989. Those responsible for the killing were trained at the U.S. Army School of the Americas according to a U.S. Congressional Task Force. Since then, the non-violent, grassroots group called SOA Watch has organized annual protests at the gates of Fort Benning, often involving massive acts of civil disobedience. For 20 years, the SOA Watch movement has stood in solidarity with the people of Latin America to change oppressive US foreign policy.

This year, for the first time, the issue of the Cuban Five was introduced to thousands of participants. A literature table set up on the road leading to Fort Benning’s entrance attracted activists from all over the country with its two large banners. People stood in line to sign petitions demanding an end to the travel ban. They added their names to letters to President Obama demanding the immediate release of the five heroes, took copies of letters to Hillary Clinton calling for her to grant visas for the wives. They filled out postcards to different media outlets asking them to cover the case. Many gobbled up brochures, fliers and free DVDs about the case to take home to their communities. What was most remarkable to this participant was the curiosity that people brought to the table and their willingness to ask questions until they understood the complexity of the situation. Many were incredulous that they had never heard about the colossal injustice and then would ask, “What can I do?”

A workshop on Nov. 20th entitled, “Anti-Cuban Terrorists & Anti-Terrorist Cubans: Luis Posada, the SOA, and the Cuban Five Connection,” attracted about 70 attendees. It was organized by Stan Smith of the Chicago Committee to Free the Cuban Five and myself and held at the Columbus, GA Convention Center. Participants came away with both indignation and ideas about how to become more involved in winning the release of Gerardo, Antonio, Rene, Fernando and Ramon.

At the vigil on Sunday morning, thousands stood in the rain holding small crosses with the names of victims murdered or disappeared at the hands of graduates of the SOA. For nearly three hours, as names were read off, people would raise their crosses in unison and chant “Presente!” This year, thanks to the ingenuity of Marilyn McKenna, former co-chair of the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), there were crosses for members of the Cuban National Fencing Team who perished in the 1976 downing of flight 455. As I held the cross for Julio Herrera Aldama, age 25, and the man next to me held that of Jesús Méndez Silva, age 30, a national foil team competitor, it struck me that solidarity between the North American movement and the Cuban people had taken on a deeper significance. And as we marched up to the gate, to stick those small crosses into the fence, I knew that the selfless acts of the Cuban Five to protect their island from terrorist attacks would soon be seen in that light by people of conscience who will raise their voices to free the Five.

Phil Ochs, Fondly Recalled, Is Never Really Lost

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:55:00 +0000

Another December, another Phil Ochs birth anniversary. Wow, he would have been 69 this year. It’s also time for the stream of annual Ochs birthday concerts which have been occurring all over the nation each December since the singer’s untimely death in 1976. The movement has not had Phil Ochs to call upon for a long time, but none on the Left have forgotten his impact – and the impact his music continues to have upon us.

From the view of contemporary times, it is perhaps Phil Ochs (1940-1976), among other ‘60’s folkies, which speaks most directly to us. His was a visceral kind of protest music. Ochs maintained an affiliation with the IWW throughout his adult life, though he was a self-described socialist who demonstrated an affinity toward anarchism; he detested the greed of capital and this poured out of his songs. Ochs was active in the fertile period that bridged the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War periods, with those of Women’s Liberation, Black Power, AIM, militant environmentalism and Gay rights. For an artist of conscience, there was much work to do, so Phil Ochs’ songs called for peace, equal rights and an egalitarian society. His songs damned the establishments that begat the murder of our progressive heroes and allowed organized labor to forget its true mission. He cried for our nation and praised its promise.

Ochs’ songs unashamedly revealed our faults but also offered the means to rectify them. Phil was a presence at demonstrations and other radical actions, not merely a voice on a record. He traveled to Hazzard, Kentucky during the bloody strikes in the earliest 60s, boldly performing for the pickets and in ear-shot of the threatening goon squads. Several songs document these struggles, including the hauntingly beautiful “No Christmas in Kentucky”. Shortly thereafter, Phil became entrenched in Civil Rights, traveling to many points on the Klan’s radar. His periods in the Deep South are chronicled in songs such as “Freedom Riders” and the brutally blunt “Here’s to the State of Mississippi” and “Too Many Martyrs, the Ballad of Medgar Evers.” His awareness of the power of song was keen, brazen.

In March of 1963, Ochs wrote in Broadside magazine of the importance of protest songs in the changing times of the day. It is amazing to note just how relevant this statement remains. Ochs described the core value of topical song – issue-based music relevant to progressive activism of the time in which it is created. But he also clarified, quite profoundly for such a young man, that the media stood in direct contrast to this music and that the songwriter needed to scour the news reports in order to find his or her material. It was – and is – a worthy duty. In this sense, Ochs’ statement lifted from the well of time stands as universal: “The Need For Topical Music” By Phil Ochs

Before the days of television and mass media, the folksinger was often a traveling newspaper spreading tales through music.

It is somewhat ironic that in this age of forced conformity and fear of controversy the folksinger may be assuming the same role. The newspapers have unfortunately told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the cold war truth, so help them, advertisers…

The folksingers of today must face up to a great challenge in their music. Folk music is an idiom that deals with realities and ever there is an urgent need for Americans to look deeply into themselves and their actions and musical poetry is perhaps the most effective mirror available…One good song with a message can bring a point more deeply to more people than a thousand rallies…

Every newspaper headline is a potential song, and it is the role of an effective songwriter to pick out the material that has the interest, significance and sometime humor adaptable to music. A good writer must be able to picture the structure of a song and as hundreds of minute ideas race through his head, he must reflect the superfluous and trite phrases for the cogent, powerful terms. Then after the first draft is completed, the writer must be his severest critic, constantly searching for a better way to express every line of his song.

I think there is a coming revolution (pardon my French) in folk music …The news today is the natural resource that folk music must exploit in order to have the most vigorous folk process possible. (1) From Greenwich Village coffee houses to the national stage, Ochs sang his protest loudly. While his first two albums set the standard for topical singers henceforth, both All the News That’s Fit to Sing and I Ain’t Marchin’ Anymore offer stark moments of beauty. “One More Parade”, “I Ain’t Marchin’ Anymore” and, later, “The War is Over” gave us anthems that would carry the peace movement. “The Power and the Glory” spoke of his pride in our nation’s mission and greatness—even as the FBI began an investigation of him that would span a decade and fill 410 pages. “Cops of the World” spit back into the faces of the reactionary government. Ochs was nobody’s fool.

The music kept coming and Phil Ochs stood as a profound voice for his generation. Over the next few years, we’d hear the haunting “Changes” and on “Crucifixion” he emoted about the loss of John Kennedy, but wasn’t he also singing about the loss of innocence, perhaps conscience itself? When Bob Dylan had moved into other realms, focusing his lyrical content on matters of the personal as opposed to the social, Ochs maintained his stand as a topical artist, even as he dug deep inside. He never failed to strive for a wider sound, however, and in 1967 he relocated to the west coast, seeking change and the potential for a new scope both artistically and as a means toward the healing of his long-term emotional turmoil. Upon arrival, his producer paired him with pianist-arranger Lincoln Mayorga, already a fixture in LA studios as a member of the busy studio aggregation loosely known as the Wrecking Crew. The opportunity to work with Ochs posed an interesting challenge: Phil wanted some kind of classical styles behind his singing for “I’ve Had Her”, one of the songs on ‘Pleasures of the Harbor’, his first LA album. I suggested that I would incorporate different composers’ styles, changing them up with each verse. You know, Bach behind one, Schumann behind another, and so on. He loved the idea (2) From this start, Mayorga’s work with Ochs would be continuous. His keyboard playing and rhythm section arrangement helped Ochs to realize his visions, and he began to compose on piano, thereby incorporating more complex harmonies into his music. Mayorga often played a multitude of variations behind the folksinger’s endless streams of verses for each song. But he also contributed ideas beyond the styles of European concert music. On “Miranda”, the sound became that of the 1920s and to solidify this, Mayorga brought in a stream of great Jazz musicians from that era including the legendary reeds player Mattie Matlock and drummer Nick Fatool. Fatool’s syncopated services were retained for the song the album would perhaps become best known for, “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends”, which made wry commentary on the brutal murder of Kitty Genovese, which occurred in front of an apartment complex full of witnesses who refused to come to her rescue. Ochs used this vehicle to illustrate alienation in society and darkly mocked it by singing over ragtime piano, flailing tenor banjo and tap-dancing drum breaks. The song was a smash on college campuses across country, yet true fame eluded Ochs. This coupled with emotional turmoil wore him down over the next few years. As Mayorga explained, “Phil saw himself as the artist trying to destroy himself. He was in a bad place.”

Phil Ochs had been a major part of the protest surrounding the ’68 Democratic Convention in Chicago, performing his best topical material right in Lincoln Park. Later, he was called in as a witness for the defense on behalf of the Chicago 8, speaking sardonically of how he bought and paid for Pigasus, the pig he and the Yippies were nominating for president. But Ochs told anyone who’d listen that he felt he spiritually died in Chicago, as the police riot inflicted pain upon democracy itself. Working in concert with the Yippies’ vision of protest as a kind of theatre-of-the-absurd, Ochs was sure to help turn the defendants’ very trial into a spectacle. The following excerpts of the actual trial transcript, wherein Ochs is questioned by defense attorney William Kuntsler need no doctoring for they reflect the spirit of the times—and of the revolutionary acts they were involved in—quite clearly: MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, can you indicate what kind of songs you sing?

THE WITNESS: I write all my own songs and they are just simple melodies with a lot of lyrics. They usually have to do with current events and what is going on in the news. You can call them topical songs, songs about the news, and then developing into more philosophical songs later. MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, have you ever been associated with what is called the Youth International Party, or, as we will say, the Yippies?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I helped design the party, formulate the idea of what Yippie was going to be, in the early part of 1968.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, were any of the defendants at the table involved in the formation of the Yippies?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. -------That’s Jerry Rubin with the headband and Abbie Hoffman--- with the smile.

MR. KUNSTLER:. Did there come a time when Jerry and Abbie discussed their plans?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they did, around the middle of January at Jerry's. Present there, besides Abbie and Jerry, I believe, was Paul Krassner and Ed Sanders. Tim Leary was there at one point. They discussed my singing at the Festival of Life. They asked me to contact other performers to come and sing at the Festival. I talked to Paul Simon of Simon and Garfunkel. I believe I talked with Judy Collins.

MR. KUNSTLER: After you arrived in Chicago did you have any discussion with Jerry?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. We discussed the nomination of a pig for President. We discussed going out to the countryside around Chicago and buying a pig from a farmer and bringing him into the city for the purposes of his nominating speech. I helped select the pig, and I paid for him.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did you find a pig at once when you went out?

THE WITNESS: No, it was very difficult. We stopped at several farms and asked where the pigs were.

MR. KUNSTLER: None of the farmers referred you to the police station, did they?

THE WITNESS: No.

PROSECUTOR: Objection!

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Ochs, can you describe the pig which was finally bought?

PROSECUTOR: Objection.

THE COURTI sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what, if anything, happened to the pig?

THE WITNESS: The pig was arrested with seven people.

MR. KUNSTLER: What were you doing when you were arrested?

THE WITNESS: We were arrested announcing the pig's candidacy for President. Jerry Rubin was reading a prepared speech for the pig---the opening sentence was something like, 'I, Pigasus, hereby announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States!'

MR. KUNSTLER: What was the pig doing during this announcement?

PROSECUTOR: Objection!

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you informed by an officer that-- the pig had squealed on you?

PROSECUTOR: Objection! I ask it be stricken.!

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. When an objection is made do not answer until the Court has ruled. . .

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, I call your attention to Sunday, August 25, 1968. Did you have any occasion to see Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: We walked through the streets following the crowd.

MR. KUNSTLER: And can you describe what you saw as you followed the crowd?

THE WITNESS: They were just chaotic and sort of unformed, and people just continued away from the park and just seemed to move, I think toward the commercial area where the nightclubs are and then police clubs were there too, and it was just a flurry of movement of people all kinds of ways.

PROSECUTOR: If the Court please, the witness was asked what he observed and that was not responsive to the question. If you would simply tell the witness to listen carefully to the question so he can answer the questions.

THE COURT: I did that this morning. TO OCHS:You are a singer but you are a smart fellow, I am sure.

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. You are a judge and you are a smart fellow.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you sing a song that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes, 'I Ain't Marching Anymore.'

MR. KUNSTLER: I am showing you what has been marked at D-147 for identification and I ask you if you can identify that exhibit.

THE WITNESS: This is the guitar I played 'I Ain't Marching Anymore' on.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, would you stand and sing that song so the jury can hear the song that the audience heard that day?

PROSECUTOR: If the Court please, this is a trial in the Federal District Court. It is not a theater. We don't have to sit and listen to the witness sing a song. Let's get on with the trial. I object.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, this is definitely an issue in the case. Jerry Rubin has asked for a particular song to be sung. What the witness sang to the audience reflects both on Jerry Rubin's intent and on the mood of the crowd.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, he is prepared to sing it exactly as he sang it on that day,

THE COURT: I am not prepared to listen, Mr. Kunstler.

MR. KUNSTLER: Where did you see Abbie Hoffman first that night at the Coliseum?

THE WITNESS: When he raced in front of me on the stage when I was introduced to Ed Sanders. He said, 'Here's Phil Ochs,' and as I walked forward, Abbie Hoffman raced in front of me and took the microphone and proceeded to give a speech. I was upstaged by Abbie Hoffman.

PROSECUTOR: You say it was at the Coliseum, Abbie Hoffman upstaged you, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was walking toward the microphone and he raced in front of me.

MR. SCHULTZ: And he led the crowd in a chant of 'Fuck LBJ' didn't he?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, I think he did.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now in your plans, did you plan for public fornication in the park?

THE WITNESS: I didn't.

MR. SCHULTZ: In your discussions did you plan for public fornication in the park?

THE WITNESS: No, we did not seriously sit down and plan public fornication in the park.

MR. SCHULTZ: That is all, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step down. Don't forget your guitar.

THE WITNESS: I won't. (3)

Not only the authorities, but Ochs toyed with fans too. He also mocked his own sense of doom when he titled his 1968 album Rehearsals for Retirement. Its cover depicted his own gravestone with the year of death listed as, of course, 1968. Continually plagued by demons, both inner and outer, Ochs struggled with bi-polar disorder, anxiety and alcohol dependence. Often, his performances became strained as lyrics were increasingly forgotten and melodies faded. In his later period, gigs became arguments with the audience. Ochs would see the end of the decade as a metaphor for the demise of the movement.

Ochs had become very pessimistic by 1970. The series of mishaps at his Carnegie Hall concert that year would eventually be released on record as Gunfight at Carnegie Hall due to Ochs’ verbal sparring with the audience as he tried desperately to play popular songs from his past, sporting a gold lame suit and singing songs by Elvis, Buddy Holly and others. “Phil thought that America had no future—any good would come from its past, so he celebrated this earlier time”, pianist Lincoln Mayorga offered. He wore the Elvis suit, but it was more inspired by Liberace, who was so flamboyant in Vegas, but so popular. Phil was trying to find the answer. He even endorsed the music of Merle Haggard, the darling of the Right-wing at the time. He realized that Haggard had become a more effective voice for the Right than any so far on the Left, and he wanted to capture that. We played “Okie from Muskogee” and the audience just hated it. (4) Mayorga’s primary memory of the event was the bomb scare that was called in half-way through the concert. Phil, who’d been drinking wine to wash down uppers all evening, was onstage for an acoustic segment, alternating with the full band’s sets, and a police officer informed Mayorga about the bomb threat. He ordered that Phil close up early and tell the audience to exit. Mayorga went onstage and sat at the piano to get Ochs’ attention: Phil came over to tune his guitar and I leaned over and whispered in his ear, telling him about the seriousness of the situation. Phil slowly looked up at me, looking deep into my eyes and then put on his shit-eating grin. He slyly asked, ‘Are you prepared to die for rock-n-roll?’. And then he went and sang another song or two before coming off stage. To the point of Ochs’ desperate need to reach back into the past—his own and that of the nation—we find his final album, Phil Ochs Greatest Hits of 1970. Not a ‘Best Of’ collection at all, but ten new songs, many of which indicate the genres of his youth. One can hear strains of Conway Twitty, the Everly Brothers, Hank Williams, even a Chevrolet commercial, all bracketed by the telling “One Way Ticket Home” and the very somber “No More Songs”. The album cover, of course featured Ochs in his Elvis suit and inside the liner notes jibe ‘50 Phil Ochs fans can’t be wrong’, a self-deprecating take on the claim by Elvis’ record label that ‘50,000,000 Elvis fans can’t be wrong’ in that artist’s press. By contrast, Phil’s record sales were pitiful and his contract was quietly cancelled. Mayorga reports that the last time he saw Ochs was in 1973, when he was called to perform with him at the Troubadour, an unrehearsed gig which was not without problems. “But I never dreamt that it would be the last time I’d see Phil; I thought it would go on forever”, Mayorga recalled soberly.

As the Vietnam war slowly came to a bloody, grinding halt, Ochs staged several ‘The War is Over’ concerts which featured many name performers in both folk and rock music, the largest of which occurred in New York’s Central Park in 1975. He would also travel to Chile and befriend the great songwriter Victor Jara. Shortly thereafter, the CIA-backed coupe would take the lives of Jara and thousands of others; this was a terminal assault to the faltering Ochs. By 1976, unable to prevail in this battle on every front, Phil Ochs would die by his own hand.

The protest song’s grandest voice dared to speak back to the criminal Nixon administration, uncovering and exposing with anger and wry humor. He alerted his audiences to corruption and brutality and especially to the right-wing’s manipulation of ‘the American dream’. Ironically, he also warned us that, “a protest song is something you don’t hear on the radio”. He dared us to care, at the expense of himself. And now, the silence has become deafening.

Noted folksinger Holly Near, who’d worked with Ochs on a number of occasions, recently spoke of her feelings about the star-crossed topical singer: The world hurt him. Artists who do this work must figure out how to articulate the broken heart of humanity—but do so without hurting themselves, without losing themselves in the process. (5)

REFERENCES:

(1) Ochs, Phil, “The Need for Topical Music”, Broadside #22, March 1963; source: Cunningham, Sis, Red Dust and Broadsides: A piece of People’s History in Songs, poems and Prose, self-published, 1990, page 37.

(2) from the author’s interview with Lincoln Mayorga, Chatham New York, 6/19/09.

(3) excerpts, court transcript, Chicago, 1968.

(4) from the author’s interview with Lincoln Mayorga, Chatham New York, 6/19/09.

(5) from the author’s interview with Holly Near, 11/7/09.

Publix’s Harvest of Shame 2009

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:33:00 +0000

Forty-nine years ago this past Thanksgiving CBS aired Edward R Murrow’s exposé on the exploitation of migrant farm works in the US. Today many of the same conditions that existed in the agricultural fields of 1960 are still in place. And the Publix supermarket chain in the South East has been very amenable to those conditions, including buying from two tomato suppliers that have been convicted for slavery.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers has been fighting for farm worker justice in Florida for over 15 years. They have successfully won victories with such major companies as McDonalds, Burger King, Subways, Whole Foods, Yum Brands (Taco Bell) and others. Their main goal in these campaigns is to get the major purchasers of Florida tomatoes to pay one penny more a pound for every tomato picked and to support worker justice in the farm field. The average pay for a farm worker, if he or she manages to pick two tons of tomatoes in a day, is $54.00l. The one penny more a pound would increase their pay by $30.00 a day. The agreement with Taco Bell cost the corporation about $100,000.00 a year, this for a business that recorded $1.9 billon in revenue in 2008. This is hardly a footnote on the balance sheet, so why do other companies, like Publix, fight so hard not to participate in these agreements?

In addition to the penny a pound, these purchasers of those Florida tomatoes agree to demand that their suppliers enforce a strict code of conduct in the way the farm workers are treated in the fields. There have been no fewer than 7 cases of slavery successfully prosecuted in the State of Florida, involving over 1000 farm workers. Charley Crist, the Republican governor of Florida, said the following in response to the CIW’s efforts to fight slavery in his state: The information you provided greater expanded my understanding of the hardships the workers face while enduring this difficult employment. I have no tolerance for slavery in any form, and I am committed to eliminating this injustice anywhere in Florida. I unconditionally support the humane and civilized treatment of all employees, including those who work in Florida's agricultural industry. Any type of abuse in the workplace is unacceptable.

With this background the CIW has asked the buyers not to purchase tomatoes from packing houses that engage in slavery.

Their current campaign is with Publix, the dominant supermarket chain in the states where it does business. It took vigorous campaigns to reach agreements with Burger King and Yum Brands, but nothing compares to the opposition that Publix is undertaking. Publix is a chain of over 1000 stores in five southeastern states, with an anuanal income of $24 billon, selling themselves as a friendly store, “where shopping is a pleasure.” Publix has turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls to join the campaign for fair food and support worker justice in the fields, which was unsurprising. But they have been aggressively trying to shut down any attempt by the CIW and their allies to demonstrate in support of this cause at Publix’s stores, and on some occasions they have been successful.

On November 7, Hollywood, Florida, at the very same shopping center where a successful protest against Burger King was held two years ago, with no police interference, the police and Publix officials working their cell phones, were waiting when the CIW arrived with their local allies. Publix had one thing in mind—shut down the protest before it started. At first the police sided with Publix, but after talking it over they decided to allow the CIW to move across the street and hold their demonstration on the opposite side. Both the original and the new location were on public sidewalks.

Now, at all the planned protests promoted on the CIW website, activists are met by Publix officials trying to put pressure on the police to shut them down. Recently, in Birmingham, AL they were successful; the minute the CIW team got out of their vehicle the police informed them if they set foot on the sidewalk they would be arrested. The next day, in Columbus, GA, where the CIW was attending the SOA Watch rally at Fort Benning, a protest was called for 5pm, (after the SOA Watch rally was over) at a local Publix. Again, the police and Publix officials were there waiting. The police allowed the action to start, but once the action grew from 50 to 300 the police shut it down, threatened arrest and brought in a city bus to haul people off to jail. In the end there where over 30 police officers in attendance. As far as I know there has never been an arrest at any CIW action, however Publix keeps referring to the people who attend these actions as dangerous.

Despite these attempts by Publix the CIW and its allies have managed to pull off some very creative actions. One such action was at a Grand Opening of a new Publix on South Beach, in Miami Beach. At a quickly called action, initiated by a neophyte organizer, about 40 supporters of the CIW cause surprised Publix and its officials on opening day. When Publix called in the police they were perplexed and upset that the MBPD sided with the rights of the protesters rather than Publix. After failing to get the police department to shut the demo down, Publix tried the code enforcement department, using the level of noise the demonstration was making. The protesters were told that they could no longer use a bull horn and they had to move across the street. The level of noise only increased as everyone now joined in the various chants. In the end Publix was very happy to see us leave, only because it was a very successful protest.

Publix has also resorted to videotaping these actions and has focused on filming the children that attend these actions with their parents. It first started on the west coast of Florida. A man with a camera, unknown to local activists, first caused concern among members of the CIW when he spent a lot of time filming the children in attendance. When asked who he was, he replied “I'm just an old hippie doing a documentary about the modern protest movement.” It later turned out that he is Publix employee, Thomas McGuigan; he continues to film actions in SW Florida, and now wears a Publix button at those actions. In Columbus, Publix hired an outside company to do the filming. That act was documented by National Layer Guild legal observers [LOs]. The LOs also did their own video documentation of the event.

Publix tactics reflect the suppression of first amendment rights that local, state and national authorities have taken (see Police Escalate Attacks on First Amendment Rights, in November’s PA). The danger here is that Publix, a private company, is encouraging local police to shut down the CIW’s right to protest in front of Publix’s stores, and in some cases the police comply. Historically this is not new; throughout the history of the struggle for workers rights, the police have come in on the side of the company. However no other campaign that the CIW has engaged in has been met with such tenacity as Publix. The irony lies in the contrast between Publix’ sustainability statement (below) and their response to the CIW’s struggle for respect, humane treatment, and a penny more a pound: Sustainability means balancing the needs of humanity with the needs of the living earth. It’s meeting today’s demands without compromising what‘s essential for tomorrow. That’s why Publix got into a Green RoutineSM in 2001—long before being eco-savvy was chic. We started making smarter choices to enrich the quality of life of our associates, our customers and our planet.

Anyway you look at it the statement is hypocrisy to the real policies of Publix. Sustainability has to include those who work the fields as much as the associates who work in the stores. Whole Foods saw this and they came forward and did the right thing. Perhaps Publix would prefer that their agricultural suppliers return to the plantation system that existed in the south prior to 1865. The harvest by which Publix profits is “A Harvest of Shame”. And they’re taking the First Amendment down with it.

Edward R. Murrow ended “Harvest of Shame” by saying the only way to change the conditions that exist for migrant farm workers was for the citizens of the best fed country in the world demand that they change. I do believe that Mr. Murrow would be very proud of the work of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and their allies. For more information on the CIW go www.ciw-online.org.