People Before Profit blog

Power and the Intellectuals

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:58:00 +0000

A student once asked me: “If Latin America has always had so many good writers, why is it so poor?” The answer is multiple. First one would have to problematize a little something that seems obvious: what do we mean when we talk about poverty? What do we mean when we talk about success? I am certain that the concept assumed in both cases is the same one understood by Donald Duck and his uncle. As Ariel Dorfman observed, for the Disney characters there are only two possible forms of success: money and fame. The Disney characters neither work nor love: they conquer – if they are male – or seduce – if they are female. Which is why we never encounter among them workers or fathers or mothers.

Now, on the other hand we have to answer a rhetorical question: “And when in Latin America have the structures of power, the governments and private enterprises, ever paid any attention to the intellectuals?” The answer is again multiple. Yes, in the 19th century there were intellectual presidents, when they weren’t military men. In the following century the former became scarce and the latter abundant. Although I believe it would be better to listen a little to someone who has dedicated their life to study instead of listening to so many opinions about politics, economics and culture from soccer players and movie stars, I don’t believe we intellectuals should have a central voice in society or in the decisions about its future. It is curious that in these times the intellectuals don’t play soccer or displace the actors from the theater stage, and don’t take work from the politicians, and yet any sports figure, star of film or of “the real world' repeatedly exercises their right to publicly express their thoughts even though they might not be thoughts so much as spontaneous vibrations of the moment. An old man who has spent his life researching birds is a failure; but if Madonna or Maradona has an opinion about ornithology they are listened to and discussed on a mass scale.

In the 20th century intellectuals were systematically expelled or demoted by the power structures. According to César Milstein, when military leaders in Argentina took control of civilian power in the 1960s, they declared that our countries would be put in order as soon as all the intellectuals who were meddling in the region were expelled. In Brazil, the educator Paulo Freire was kicked out of the country for being ignorant, according to the organizers of the coup d’ etat of the moment. To cite just two of our many cases.

But this contempt that arises from a power installed in the social institutions and from the inferiority complex of its actors, is not a property of “underdeveloped” countries. In the United States they don’t listen to their intellectuals either. In fact, it is always the critical intellectuals, writers or artists who head the top-ten lists of the most stupid of the stupid in the country. Intellectuals are stupid, and those who make these lists, who are they? The same as always: prideful men and women with “common sense,” as if this distorted claim to realism were not heavily laden with fantasies and ideologies at the service of the status quo. “Common sense” is what the common men and women had who asserted that the Earth was flat like a table; Calvin was a man of “common sense” who ordered that Miguel de Servet be burned alive, after he tired of arguing about theology via correspondence with his adversary. It was men of “common sense” who obligated Galileo Galilei to retract his claims and shut his stupid mouth, as were those others who mocked the pretensions of a carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth.

A character from the novel Incident in Antares, by Érico Veríssimo, reflected: “During the Hitler era the German humanists emigrated. As a result, the technocrats were given free reign.”And later: “When President Truman and the generals of the Pentagon met, under the greatest secrecy, to decide whether or not to drop the first atomic bomb over a Japanese city… do you think they invited to that meeting a humanist, artist, scientist, writer or priest?”

--Translated by Bruce Campbell.

Oscars 2007: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:23:00 +0000

1-30-07, 10:21 am

This year, in a rare moment for the Academy Awards, Black, Latin American, and Asian actors and filmmakers will be strongly represented. Dreamgirls alone has two potential winners in Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson (Best Supporting Actor/Actress). The film itself, however, fails to support these three superior performances. Will Smith is also a possible Best Actor pick for Pursuit of Happyness as are Forest Whitaker, dynamite as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland, while Djimon Honsou could take Best Supporting Actor in Blood Diamond. Penelope Cruz is up for Best Actress in Volver while Rinko Kikuchi and Adriana Barraza are both nominees for Supporting Actress in Babel. One thing is clear, Hollywood 'deciders' seem to be coming around, in regarding adult theme movies as something that might bring story-hungry audiences back into theatres after a 20-year dose of denial ushered in by the Reagan years and the likes of Lucas and Spielberg. Catch a Fire written by Shawn Slovo, daughter of Joe Slovo, leading member of the South African Communist Party, presents a compelling portrayal of how an ordinary man can be driven to 'terrorist' acts when he and his family are brutalized by the White Supremacist Botha government in South Africa. Clint Eastwood’s bookended Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima reflect on the ironies of heroism and the ultimate waste of war. Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men presents a doomsday scenario which holds out a light of hope. Scorsese’s The Departed is momentarily enjoyable and watchable with expert performances, but Scorsese’s last great film remains Raging Bull, now 26 years old. Late releases on the West Coast are: The Good German which looked at the underside of postwar Berlin in an homage to Film Noir, Notes on A Scandal featuring a knockout performance by Judi Dench; Bobby by Emilio Estevez, which chronicles the last day of Robert Kennedy’s life; Todd Fields’ Little Children; Venus with Peter O’Toole; Children of Men by Alfonso Cuarón with Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine and Claire Hope-Ashitey.

Here are the suspects (usual and unusual).

Best Actor: Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland) Peter O’Toole (Venus) Leonardo DiCaprio (The Departed and Blood Diamond) Will Smith (The Pursuit of Happyness) Ryan Gosling (Half Nelson) Projected Winner: Forest Whitaker My pick: Forest Whitaker (any actor who can convincingly portray both Charlie Parker and Idi Amin deserves every Award in the book). I’d have liked the option of choosing Clive Owen, brilliant but not nominated for Children of Men.

Best Actress: Helen Mirren (The Queen) Judi Dench (Notes on a Scandal) Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada) Penelope Cruz (Volver) Kate Winslet (Little Children) Projected Winner: Helen Mirren My Pick: Helen Mirren: She lent vulnerability and humanity to her Queen Elizabeth that, despite my feelings about Royalty, made me understand and respect her. Certainly Judi Dench’s insidious teacher in Notes on a Scandal should be a close second.

Best Supporting Actor: Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine) Jack Earle Haly (Little Children) Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls) Djimon Hounsou (Blood Diamond) Mark Wahlberg (The Departed) Projected Winner: Alan Arkin My Pick: Alan Arkin. A fine actor and sentimental favorite. I’d have liked to see. My personal favorite: (un-nominated) Michael Caine as a pot-growing ex-revolutionary with a final heroic ace up his tattered sleeve in Children of Men.

Best Supporting Actress: Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine) Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls) Cate Blanchett (Notes on a Scandal) Rinko Kikuchi (Babel) Adriana Barraza (Babel) Projected Winner: Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine) My Pick: Cate Blanchett (always outstanding and long overdue).

Best Screenplay Original: The Queen Babel Little Miss Sunshine Pan’s Labyrinth Letters From Iwo Jima Projected Winner: The Queen My Pick: The Queen (literate, complex, funny and seamless).

Best Screenplay Adapted: The Departed Borat Children of Men Notes on a Scandal Little Children Projected Winner: The Departed My Pick: Children of Men

Best Director: The Departed, Martin Scorsese The Queen, Stephen Frears Babel, Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu Letters from Iwo Jima,Clint Eastwood United Flight 93, Paul Greengrass Projected Winner: Martin Scorsese My Pick: Stephen Frears

Best Picture: Babel The Queen The Departed Letters From Iwo Jima Little Miss Sunshine Projected Winner: The Queen My Pick: The Queen (Adult, complex, funny and intelligent) tied with Letters from Iwo Jima.

End the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:16:00 +0000

1-30-07, 10:15 am

Joint statement from the Canadian Peace Alliance and the Québec-based Collectif échec a la guerre, Jan. 17, 2007

On the occasion of the 4th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, March 17th 2007: We demand the end of the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan!

On 10 January 2007, George W. Bush made the announcement that the US would send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. A few weeks earlier, Stephen Harper was insisting that members of NATO should provide more combat troops in Afghanistan. This is the same dead-end recipe to 'win the hearts and minds' of the Iraqi and Afghan people! The Canadian Peace Alliance and Collectif échec a la guerre reject these war policies and call on the people of Quebec and Canada to participate in a Canada-wide day of action, on March 17th, against the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq

In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th 2001, while launching its 'war on terror' and invading Afghanistan, the Bush administration was already intent on occupying Iraq. After twelve years of merciless sanctions which had killed more than one million people in Iraq, four years of occupation, false promises of democracy and reconstruction have only resulted in more deaths and devastation, and plunged the country into a civil war.

In October 2006, the medical journal The Lancet estimated that 655,000 people had died in Iraq following the invasion. Oil production, electricity production, and the accessibility of drinkable water are all at lower levels presently as compared to four years ago, under sanctions! According to the estimates of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), out of a total population of 26 million, 2 million Iraqis have fled to neighbouring countries and an additional 1.7 million are internally displaced persons: While many of them were displaced before 2003, increasing numbers of Iraqis are now fleeing escalating sectarian, ethnic and generalised violence. In 2006 alone, UNHCR estimates that nearly 500,000 Iraqis fled to other areas inside the country and that 40,000 to 50,000 continue to flee their homes every month.

In Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, a country which was already ravaged by 30 years of war, the situation is also very bleak after more than five years of 'allied' military occupation. According to Human Rights Watch, more than half of the Members of Parliament elected in September 2005 are linked to armed groups, guilty of past human rights violations; the illegal growing and processing of poppies has again become the main economic activity of the country (Afghanistan provides more than 90% of world heroin). According to Amnesty International, thousands of Afghans have been tortured by the US army or armed Afghan groups under its control. According to the UNHCR, there are still more than 3,000,000 Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, and approximately 120,000 internally displaced in Afghanistan.

Finally, according to WOMANKIND Worldwide, after five years and contrary to media-fed illusions, it is imperative that the media, donor governments, international organisations and the Afghan government acknowledge the lack of progress in the domain of women's rights and immediately take action in key areas of education, the legal system, security services, healthcare, and livelihoods to transform paper rights to rights in practice.

Wars of conquest of the US Empire and its allies

The Canadian Peace Alliance and Collectif échec a la guerre refuse to buy the deceitful message of the 'war on terror' and so-called support of the Iraqi and Afghan peoples towards democracy and reconstruction in their countries. What we are dealing with is foreign control imposed by force led by the United States government and supported by Canadian economic and political elites to secure control of the resources of the Middle East and Central Asia. This is clearly indicated not only by the results achieved, but also by comparing the level of expenses committed by our countries. Thus, on 10 January 2007, while announcing a one billion dollar programme to sustain employment in Iraq, President Bush is about to request 100 billion dollars to pursue his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!

In Canada, the simultaneous announcements by ministers Peter McKay and Josée Verner of projects totalling about 20 million dollars in Afghanistan - 10 million to pay police salaries, 8.8 millions for landmine removal and 1.9 million to stimulate community development in Kandahar - are mere crumbs when one remembers that Canada wastes more than one billion dollars per year to continue its war in that country.

END the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BRING Canadian and US troops home immediately.

REJECT the Canada-US military partnership.

From People's Voice

Some Reflections on Science and the Gayness Of Sheep

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:13:00 +0000

1-30-07, 10:12 am

In 1961, the author William J. Lederer published his book A Nation of Sheep. One of its basic points was how the American people tended to follow and believe whatever the government and an uncritical press dished out to them. In Lederer's book the example given was how 'Communists' were blamed for all the troubles in the world and how the fight against “Communism' was used to justify every aggressive or stupid turn of US foreign policy, much as in today's world the fight against 'radical Islam' and 'terrorism' is used to justify the policies of the Bush administration (or, even worse, the fight against 'evil doers').

Recently, a small-scale example of 'sheep thinking' occurred among many people in both the animal rights and gay communities, as a result of inaccurate news reports published in the world press, climaxing in The Sunday Times of London last month. This story should be a warning that even progressive communities can be carried away when they let emotion and rumor trump reason and fact.

The following tale comes from the article 'Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science And the Perils of Bad Publicity' by John Schwartz, published in The New York Times of Thursday, January 25, 2007.

The protagonist of our story is one Dr. Charles Roselli, a scientist who works at the Oregon Health and Science University and who has devoted himself for the last five years to trying to discover what makes about eight percent of sheep (specifically rams) gay.

It seems that these rams never want to have sex with ewes but only with their fellow rams. Schwartz reports that Roselli's goal 'is to understand the fundamental mechanisms of sexual orientation in sheep.' This research, by the way, may be pertinent to the psychology of lonely Texas farmers, as well those interested in canine sexuality who want to know what motivates a certain percentage of wolves to desire to dress in sheep's clothing.

Unfortunately, the good doctor's research has stirred up a worldwide hornet's nest of denunciation initiated by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and joined by gay activists, other animal rights advocates, and regular people, all as a result of the bad press Dr. Roselli's research was given.

The erroneous report that came out in the London Sunday Times was guaranteed to cause trouble, as that paper reported Dr. Roselli had found a 'cure' for his gay rams (based on fetal hormone treatments) and that this, as the London paper said, 'could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.' Fighting words to be sure if this were really Dr. Roselli's intention. What is really behind this is that the sheep industry really wants to have more procreative rams. One of our more noted biological scientists, Martina Navratilova, was quoted as saying that this sort of research 'can only be surmised as an attempt to develop a prenatal treatment' to prevent gayness. She seems to be against scientific investigation itself. 'The more we play God,' she is quoted from an e-mail to the NY Times, 'or try to improve on Mother Nature, the more damage we are doing with all kinds of experiments that either have already turned or will turn into nightmares. How in the world could straight or gay sheep help humanity?' Well, the sheep industry thinks an eight percent increase in ram fatherhood would lead to more lamb chops for a hungry world (and more profits for them).

Dr. Roselli has been trying to correct the record, with some success, the NY Times reports. Schwartz reports that Dr. Roselli 'insists that he is as repulsed as his critics by the thought of sexual eugenics in humans. He said human sexuality was a complex phenomenon that could not be reduced to interactions of brain structure and hormones.' The NY Times article did not mention information available in other sources, namely that hormone treatments had changed the sexual preferences of some gay rams. (Cf. the latest issue of 'The Week.')

Despite Dr. Roselli's disclaimer, and I am not doubting his personal integrity, there seems to be evidence that his research could be used by others to not only detect 'gayness' in fetuses but also to eliminate it as well (and vice versa.) Dr. Roselli is quoted from a 2004 press release as having said his research 'has broader implications for understanding the development and control of sexual motivation and mate selection across mammalian species, including humans.' What he has done is detect a difference in brain structure in fetal rams that turn out to be gay. Hormonal treatment of the fetus changes the brain structure and the ram is not born gay.

The word 'control' is crucial in this context. Jim Newman, a publicist for the university, said the word 'control' did not mean, according to Schwartz, 'trying to control sexual orientation.' What did it mean then? It meant 'understanding the body's internal controls.' This is just playing with words. The first step to controlling sexual orientation is to understand the body's internal control mechanisms. The issue isn't Dr. Roselli's motives but the motives of others who can use this research for reasons Dr. Roselli neither desires nor condones. But should Dr. Roselli be condemned for his research?

This actually goes far beyond Dr. Roselli. If there are biological laws at work here scientists will ferret them out. That is the nature of science. You could destroy all of Dr. Roselli's research and other scientists would soon reconstruct it.

Schwartz also reports that 'Dr. Roselli said that merely mentioning possible human implications of basic research was wildly different from intending to carry the work over to humans.' Others, however, may want to carry that work over to humans. This is really a social and political problem, or an ethical and moral one, not a scientific one. Trying to prevent scientific research into the nature of reality is fruitless.

Speaking of ethical and moral considerations, I would like to draw a few implications of my own (not necessarily original by any means) from Dr. Roselli's research.

In the first place, it shows that homosexual activity is a naturally occurring behavior found in mammalian species (sheep are not the only mammals displaying this activity). The theologically inclined should note that this is how 'God' made the world and, I hope, the preaching class will now stop all the fuss and bother about the immorality, and similar nonsense, of the gay life style. If you don't like the way the deity made the universe take it up with her, or it, and stop persecuting your fellow creatures.

In the second place, I have to take issue with the statements of Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, a senior fellow at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, reported in the New York Times article. Schwartz writes, 'If the mechanisms underlying sexual orientation can be discovered and manipulated, Dr, Wolpe [said], then the argument that sexual orientation is based in biology and is immutable 'evaporates.''

It by no means follows that the argument from biology 'evaporates.' A similar argument would be that since transgendered individuals can have sex change operations, therefore male or female sex differences are not based in biology. It is the word 'immutable' that gums up Dr. Wolpe's argument. No one argues that biologically-based mechanisms are necessarily 'immutable.' There could be no such thing as gene therapy if that were the case.

Sexual orientation appears to be biologically (gene) based and a naturally occurring phenomenon. The fact that science can discover the biological mechanism and even manipulate it doesn't change that at all. It is absurd to claim that if you discover a biological mechanism, then the mechanism is no longer 'based in biology.'

Finally, lets all hope that scientific understanding of the world we live in will help us better understand and care for each other and not be used to divide and anathematize us.

--Thomas Riggins is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at

World Federation of Trade Unions Expresses Solidarity with Smithfield Workers

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:10:00 +0000

1-30-07, 10:09 am

WORLD FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS WFTU 40, Zan Moreas street 117 45 Athens Greece www.wftucentral.org Tel. +30210 9214417 and +30210 9236700 Fax +30210 9214517 Athens January 29, 2007 Justice at Smithfield To the fellow workers of Smithfield Foods The World Federation of Trade Unions W.F.T.U. is expressing full solidarity and support to the 5.500 workers who are working in the largest pork slaughterhouse in the world, in Tar Heel city, North Carolina. It is an imperative need for the benefit of working people to stop immediately the intensification of work and the inhuman working conditions.We demand employers to stop immediately violation of basic labor rights, to stop threatening and pressing the workers in the factory. It is inacceptable in the 21st century to exist workers who work under those circumstances. Workers international solidarity is necessary now more than ever!

To stop exploitation of men by men! With struggling greetings The WFTU Secretariat

Trees – Our Ally in the Struggle Against Global Warming

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:15:00 +0000

1-29-07, 10:14 am

EARTH TALK

From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Which trees are best to plant to help combat global warming? -- Tim C., Perrineville, NJ

Trees are important tools in the fight to stave off global warming, because they absorb and store the key greenhouse gas emitted by our cars and power plants, carbon dioxide (CO2), before it has a chance to reach the upper atmosphere where it can help trap heat around the Earth’s surface.

While all living plant matter absorbs CO2 as part of photosynthesis, trees process significantly more than smaller plants due to their large size and extensive root structures. In essence, trees, as kings of the plant world, have much more “woody biomass” to store CO2 than smaller plants, and as a result are considered nature’s most efficient “carbon sinks.”

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), tree species that grow quickly and live long are ideal carbon sinks. Unfortunately, these two attributes are usually mutually exclusive. Given the choice, foresters interested in maximizing the absorption and storage of CO2 (known as “carbon sequestration”) usually favor younger trees that grow more quickly than their older cohorts. However, slower growing trees can store much more carbon over their significantly longer lives.

Scientists are busy studying the carbon sequestration potential of different types of trees in various parts of the U.S., including Eucalyptus in Hawaii, loblolly pine in the Southeast, bottomland hardwoods in Mississippi, and poplars in the Great Lakes. “There are literally dozens of tree species that could be planted depending upon location, climate and soils,” says Stan Wullschleger, a researcher at Tennessee’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory who specializes in the physiological response of plants to global climate change.

Dave Nowak, a researcher at the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research Station in Syracuse, New York has studied the use of trees for carbon sequestration in urban settings across the United States. A 2002 study he co-authored lists the Common Horse-chestnut, Black Walnut, American Sweetgum, Ponderosa Pine, Red Pine, White Pine, London Plane, Hispaniolan Pine, Douglas Fir, Scarlet Oak, Red Oak, Virginia Live Oak and Bald Cypress as examples of trees especially good at absorbing and storing CO2. Nowak advises urban land managers to avoid trees that require a lot of maintenance, as the burning of fossil fuels to power equipment like trucks and chainsaws will only erase the carbon absorption gains otherwise made.

Ultimately, trees of any shape, size or genetic origin help absorb CO2. Most scientists agree that the least expensive and perhaps easiest way for individuals to help offset the CO2 that they generate in their everyday lives is to plant a tree…any tree, as long as it is appropriate for the given region and climate. Those who wish to help larger tree planting efforts can donate money or time to the National Arbor Day Foundation or American Forests in the U.S., or to the Tree Canada Foundation in Canada.

CONTACTS: American Forests, www.americanforests.org; National Arbor Day Foundation, www.arborday.org; Tree Canada Foundation, www.treecanada.ca.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

The US Sets its Sights on Iran

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:11:00 +0000

1-29-07, 10:10 am

Supported by Arab allies, Bush is putting a strengthened military presence into place that is openly targeting Teheran.

More than ever, Iran is appearing in the US crosshairs.

George W. Bush’s speech presenting his 'new' Iraq strategy marked it clearly: he denounced the Iranian operations in Iraqi territory, announced the possible pursuits of 'enemies' in the country and made it known that he is refusing all dialogue with Iran, including about Iran’s nuclear program. To demonstrate his resolve, he had troops arrest employees of the Iranian consulate in Erbil (Iraqi Kurdistan) about whom there is still no news.

At the same time, the British tabloid The Sunday Times revealed Israeli plans for airstrikes in Iran.

Lastly, during her recent trip to the Middle East, US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice obtained, with little difficulty, support for the US plan, and in particular, for the deployment of additional troops to Iraq, from Egypt, Jordan as well as from the six countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates). These same countries had already made it known that they would be opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and are not at all criticizing the intensification of the US air and sea forces in the Gulf.

Gradually, the increased US military presence has been put in place and with it a new danger of war in this area. Anti-war Americans are not deceived by this and are amplifying their mobilization. Will the EU go along with this new escalation or, to the contrary, promote dialogue with Iran?

France prevaricates and is now talking about sending an envoy to Teheran. 'A possible dialogue with Iran would involve reaffirming our positions on the regional issues.', the French Foreign Office explained, whereas the Elysee (the president’s office) informed us that 'we are not acting in a unilateral fashion and we are in consultation with our partners.'

From l'Humanite. Translated by John O’Neil

Bangladesh: Left Demands Electoral Reform

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:09:00 +0000

1-29-07, 10:08 am

CPB’s and Left Parties March Jointly with Red Flag Opposing Plans for Farcical Election

The Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) along with other left forces of the country including the 5-Left Party, Gono Mukti Andolon organized a ‘Red Flag March’ on the 11th of January in the capital opposing the plans to stage a farcical election. Marchers called for the reconstitution of the Election Commission and implementation of a 53-point demand charter for comprehensive electoral reform for free and fair election proposed by the Party. The march started from Muktangon and concluded at Bahadur Shah Park, Dhaka.

At the beginning of the ‘Red Flag March’, addressing the rally the President of the CPB, Manzurul Ahsan Khan, said that when the common people of the country are dying due to cold and starvation, the government is preparing to hold a farcical election by spending 300 crore Taka (approx. $43 million). He said that this election will never be accepted by the common people of the country and the international community as well. Criticizing the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), he said that now they are saying that they will hold another general election after 22nd January if they consider it necessary. So why waste 300 crore Taka for a election farce which will be valid for only a few months?

As a constitutional organ, the election commission has no right to spend the people’s money and bear the liability of BNP-Jamat’s conspiracy. The CPB President demanded exemplary punishment for those who already plundered 200 crore Taka ($29 million) in the name of voter ID card and other related expenditure over the last 15 years. He urged upon all patriotic citizen to strengthen the struggle for Vote and Food. He demanded immediate reconstitution of the Election Commission and implementation of the 53 point demand charter for comprehensive electoral reform for free and fair election proposed by the Party.

The CPB president also demanded necessary steps against the religious extremists, black money and muscle power to ensure the essential condition and environment for free and fair election. Accusing the three enemies communalism, imperialism and plunderers, as the root cause of present crisis CPB President said that this crisis has compelled the common people to come out into the streets. These enemies of the people are responsible for the price hike of essentials, electricity crisis, fertilizer crisis, and other socioeconomic problems as well as the political crisis that has engulfed the country.

A procession supporting these demands, concluded at Bahadur Shah Park, Dhaka chanting slogan with banners and festoons after the meeting. People Don’t Want the Violation of Democratic Rights

The Political Department of the Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB), in a meeting on 12th of January said in a resolution adopted at he meeting that, though after unnecessary delay and at the cost of a huge loss of precious lives of dozens of martyrs and great damage, losses and hardships of the people of the country, the resignation of the Chief Advisor of the Caretaker Government (CTG) and the decision of nullification of the farcical election on 22nd January as well as the new government’s recognition of the necessity of a free and fair election with participation of all parties is a positive step. The CPB in its resolution demanded that the government should take immediate necessary steps for a meaningful election and urged the countrymen to keep a careful watch as to whether the government takes definite steps towards this. The CPB also reiterated that to conduct a free and fair election, effective steps against criminal godfathers, loan defaulters, war criminals, administrative manipulations, election engineering and above all the use of money power to degrade election to ‘Election Commerce’ are also necessary. CPB said that the Party will continue its struggle for the implementation of 53 point demand, a comprehensive charter for radical electoral reform proposed by CPB and the left parties to ensure real free and fair election.

Presided over by CPB President Manzurul Ahsan Khan the meeting also said that for ensuring free-fair pools it was not necessary to add to the difficulties in distressed public life by the declaration of ‘Sate of Emergency’ and curfew. The meeting called upon the people to remain alert so that the government does not encroach upon the fundamental rights, trade union rights, freedom of opinion and press etc in the name of ‘Sate of Emergency’. The CPB also urged the people to remain alert against any harassment on workers, peasants and other people’s movement by using this ‘Sate of Emergency’. The Party has described the inclusion of Rajakars (war criminals) and autocratic forces inside of the BNP led alliance and the AL led grand alliance as a serious danger to the country. Criticizing the power hungriness and pro imperialist policies of alliance and the grand alliance, the CPB said that the foreign imperialist forces are taking the advantages of this rivalry and interfering on country’s internal affairs. The Party strongly condemned the unauthorized activities of US ambassador and some other western diplomats in the name of political mediation. The CPB has called on all patriotic and democratic forces of the country to remain alert about the threat the blue print of so called ‘Third Force’ as a replacement of BNP-Jamat sponsored blue print of the abandoned farcical election, which is the desire of certain imperialist foreign forces.

The meeting demanded of the government to take immediate steps to control price hike of essentials, fertilizer and to bring the law and order situation under control.

From the Monthly Bulletin of the Communist Party of Bangladesh

India: Singur, Nandigram And Industrialisation Of West Bengal

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:06:00 +0000

1-29-07, 10:05 am

THE SEZ QUESTION AND NANDIGRAM
There has been extensive coverage on the stand of the Left parties on the current special economic zone (SEZ) policy of the government in these columns. The major areas of our disagreement with the extant policy pertain to nature of the land use, extent of land use, the tax package and the rehabilitation package. The design of the current package of the government has undergone a qualitative change when SEZ rules were framed under the Act and process of approvals which has led to sanctions being given to 237 SEZ proposals. This huge number immediately brings to the fore the contrast with China which had successfully executed the SEZ approach to ensure investment and employment generation. The total number of SEZs in China is only 6 and they are concentrated on manufacturing exports by linking these zones to physical infrastructure like port and other transport facilities. In India, apart from the already sanctioned 237 SEZs, the Board of Approval gave the ‘in-principle’ approval for another 166 SEZs within less than a year of the promulgation of the SEZ rules. A scan of the number and nature of these SEZs reveal a clear-cut picture of regional and sectoral imbalance. Of the 237 sanctioned SEZ proposals, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamilnadu account for 147 SEZs which is 60 per cent of the total sanctions. Again, 148 out of the 237 SEZs approved so far are in the IT sector. Further, preliminary studies are also revealing a major possibility of real estate activities in many of these proposed and sanctioned SEZs instead of actual manufacturing/processing activities which would have been desirable from employment generation point of view. The crux of the difference between the government, on the one hand, and the Left parties, on the other, is on the nature of investment. Unless investments lead to production and employment generation, the stated objective of the SEZ policy will stand defeated. On the other hand, the present situation poses the danger of investment flowing into financial activities which can, at best, heat up the economy without any corresponding employment generation – a classic example of ‘jobless growth’. Nandigram in East Midnapur district of West Bengal is one of the seven SEZs sanctioned in West Bengal. The proposed SEZ will develop a mega chemical hub. The choice of this mega chemical hub in the Haldia region is the result of a long exercise undertaken by the government of India where this venue was chosen alongwith four other sites in the country. With the existing petroleum refinery of the IOC, the petrochemical plant at Haldia in the joint sector and the huge facility of Mitsubishi chemicals, this decision to have the mega chemical hub located here was a natural conclusion. Incidentally, the Haldia petrochemicals have led to 700 units in the downstream providing an employment to over 1 lakh people. The government of West Bengal has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Indian Oil Corporation to be an anchor investor for the project, while the Salim group will be the promoter for building the infrastructure. The Salim group will also build a 100 km six-lane expressway bypassing Kolkata and the new township at Rajarhat and Salt Lake, the eastern satellites. The expressway will be a major link and part of the central backbone of the road network in the state linking Darjeeling Hills in the north to the Sagar islands in the south. The expressway will also link to a bridge over Hooghly river which will connect South 24 Parganas and East Midnapur in the Haldia township. Beyond this, there has been virtually no other progress towards the Nandigram SEZ. It has to be pointed out that unlike largely real estate-driven activities in the SEZs in other parts of the country, the West Bengal government has maintained and sponsored proposals for SEZs where 50 per cent of the total land will be used for actual industrial-processing activities with major emphasis on employment generation. 25 per cent of the land will be related to social infrastructure of this real economic activity. This position of the West Bengal government is identical to the position taken by the Left at all India level. The proposed SEZ at Nandigram will strictly adhere to this basis. These columns have published the statement of the central committee of the CPI(M) describing the actual incidents in Nandigram. It is true that a particular document circulated by the Haldia Development Authority (HDA) had created confusion. The chief minister of West Bengal has categorically stated that no cognisance of that document need to be taken and that no progress on the project will take place until after widest possible consultations are held with elected representatives in the panchayat and the people of the area. As there has been no survey done and consultations held, the question of land acquisition does not arise before these processes take place. People’s Democracy has also editorially commented on the document by HDA. In any case, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, HDA does not have the executive authority to notify acquisition. Given these facts, therefore, the situation in Nandigram needs to be brought back to normal. Right now, roads, bridges and culverts remain disrupted with urgent need for repairing them. There is obstruction in doing that. This is putting the entire population in the four gram panchayat where incidents had taken place to great trouble. It is only when such normalcy returns that a proper discourse on Nandigram SEZ can take place. There is no doubt that land acquisition will only take place if a credible plan for improving the quality of life and livelihood can be put forth. This is the overall approach of the CPI(M). Having stated all these, it is difficult not to comment on the nature of political forces that have come together in Nandigram. This conglomeration with BJP on the extreme right to the various naxalite groups on the extreme left, to put it most mildly, is strange and unprincipled. It is also important to note that distinctions need to be made between legitimate protest and planned violence. With passage of time, all the pros and cons of the mega chemical hub project will be discussed and debated. No doubt, the compelling reason for any such project in the state will be premised on the question of employment generation and improving the lot of the poor and disadvantaged sections. As stated earlier, the Left Front had anticipated the need for such a project on the eve of the last elections. Therefore, the Left Front election manifesto had clearly stated: “Industrial parks have been decided to be set up in the task of modernising the traditional labour-intensive industries, and to make them competitive. Parks will be set up for foundry, jute, rubber, garments, textile, iron & steel, chemicals polymer, light engineering, and food” and “A minimum of four big industrial taluka and special economic zones will be set up in the state”. It is with this manifesto that the Left Front had approached the electorate in the 2006 assembly elections. And, it is on the basis of such plans for the future that the Left received its massive mandate. Many personalities from different parts of the country who have now taken positions on the principles on which the state government is functioning may not be aware of the electoral commitments of the Left Front nor the nature of the mandate of the people. So far as the specifics of the project are concerned, no doubt, concerns will be addressed. PARTISANSHIP WITH THE POOR The Left Front government in West Bengal has come back to office for the seventh time. This is unprecedented in the history of electoral politics of the country. The principle underlying reason has been the fact that the government has been partisan – partisan towards the poor. Lakhs of acres of land has been redistributed among the rural poor. Thousands of CPI(M) leaders and activists have laid down their lives to achieve the advance and empowerment of the poor in the state. And, it is with their support that the Left Front is trying to improve the overall economic situation in the state and develop industries. It will be foolhardy to assume that the CPI(M) can relinquish the achievements that the peopleof the state have scored. There is no conflict between agriculture and industry. But the nature of the industry, the manner in which it takes place is not completely under the control of the state government. In the present age of globalisation, the major direction of neo-liberal policies is aimed at de-industrialisation in third world economies. In the face of this, industrial development, particularly in manufacturing and processing sectors, is, in itself, a struggle against those policies. It is true that private corporate’s way of viewing industries and that of the Left will differ. Marx and Lenin had written a lot on this in the context of Luddites and Narodniks. The working class does not demand the closing down of an industry because it exploits them, they work for changing the nature of the ownership. As communists, we know that socialism is the future, and, therefore, the improvement of the material basis of the economic activities is important. But these struggles cannot overlook the specifics of the immediate context. The struggle for industrialisation in West Bengal will continue without giving up the struggle for consolidating and further improving agriculture in the state. The bottom line is the constant need for improving the conditions of the working people – be they in the rural areas or in cities. And, the lesson of learning from the people will never be forgotten.

From People's Democracy

'Don't Let Dick Cheney Get Me!'

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 06:18:00 +0000

1-27-07, 11:00 a.m.

This country has learned to be afraid... of Dick Cheney. The number one reason a significant minority of Americans still hesitates to get behind impeachment of Bush is fear of Dick Cheney. This will remain the case even should Cheney die, I am convinced. Certainly it remains the case no matter how many times I explain the following six reasons why it's INSANE, but I'm going to try one more time.

1.-If you impeach and remove a president from office, that president's successor will probably lose the next election, assuming he or she runs, and that president's party will probably lose big in the next election. This has never been tested in U.S. history, but the case of Nixon and Ford comes close to it. If you want the Democrats to win the White House and a larger majority in the Congress, then your ideal ought to be for the man who is really running the country now to be moved up front as the face of the White House. Why? Because Bush has set records for unpopularity and Cheney is about HALF as popular as Bush. Cheney is a walking advertisement for Democrats. More Americans believe in UFOs than believe Cheney is a decent human being. And Cheney won't even run for election as an incumbent. If Democratic strategists had any sense they would be angling for a Cheney presidency. But it is impossible they will ever get one, for reasons that follow.

2.-If Congress holds serious hearings and investigations into either Bush or Cheney, it will inevitably drag before the public evidence that incriminates both of them. It is utterly impossible that Congress will investigate, impeach, and remove from office Bush or Cheney, and leave the other still standing. Both will be facing criminal and civil prosecutions. And if one is impeached, both will be. If one is removed from office, both will be. But it will never come to that, for reasons that follow.

3.-If Senate conviction looks likely for Bush or both Bush and Cheney, a situation that could arise – as it did with Nixon – even prior to impeachment in the House, Republican Senators who want to remain Republican Senators will tell Bush and Cheney to resign. Cheney will resign first – something he may do regardless, for 'health reasons' – so that Bush can name his replacement, who will – like Ford – become president. If Senate conviction is actually reached for both Bush and Cheney, it will not be reached in the same instant for both of them. Were such a bizarre occurrence to become possible, Cheney would resign before it occurred. The only way in which Nancy Pelosi can become President is for her to get herself elected, or for Bush and Cheney to simultaneously die. There is the slimmest possibility that Cheney could resign, the Senate could reject Bush's choice for a successor, the Senate could then remove Bush from office, and then Pelosi would be president. For that sort of miracle to happen, Pelosi would have to be a goddess with such superhuman powers that she wouldn't even want to be president. But none of this is about Pelosi, for reasons that follow.

4.-Were we to figure out a way to impeach and remove Bush and make Cheney president, he would not only be facing criminal charges and a possible impeachment himself, but he would be operating in awareness of that fact. He would be a president learning to be afraid of us, as we learned to stop being afraid of him. The same would be true with a President Pelosi or a new President Ford. Whoever is in that office after Bush is removed will be keenly aware that he or she might be next. Cheney would of course then retire, and the Republicans would lose the next election badly, allowing someone to become president the way they are supposed to: by getting elected. Selecting a president is not part of impeachment, for reasons that follow.

5.-Impeachment is not a way to pick a president, and if all you're worried about is picking a president, you have no business monkeying around with something as profoundly significant as impeachment. Impeachment is a tool for removing a criminal president from office, thus establishing limitations on power for subsequent presidents. If we do not impeach Bush, we will have established that it is acceptable for presidents to lie us into wars, to spy without warrants, to detain without charge, to torture, to murder, to reverse laws with signing statements, to hide the operations of our government, to exact retribution against whistleblowers, to rig elections, to ignore hurricanes, etc. For similar reasons, we must impeach Cheney too. These reasons go to the survival of our democracy, a matter of far greater significance than the person who next sits in the office of the presidency – or the office of king if that is what it is to become. It is obscene to even bring electoral or party concerns into this matter. But those who do, usually get their calculation upside down, for reasons that follow.

6.-It is not politically dangerous to impeach. It is politically dangerous not to impeach when the case is clear. The Democrats calculated that by letting the Iran-Contra gang off the hook, they could win the next elections. They then lost those elections and were forced to be haunted for decades by the thugs they declined to put away. The Republicans tried to impeach Truman, won what they wanted from the Supreme Court, and then won the next elections. A dozen examples through history tell the same story. The only near-exception is Clinton. But that was an impeachment the public opposed. So, it ought to have had a reverse result from the other cases. Even so, the Republicans lost fewer seats than is the norm at that point in a majority tenure, and they lost seats mostly in the Senate that acquitted, not the House that impeached. The handful of lunatics who imposed the impeachment on the rest of the Congress and the country won big in their next elections.

-David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA.

From

Book Review: The One Percent Doctrine, by Ron Suskind

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 04:03:00 +0000

1-27-07, 9:03 am

The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of its Enemies Since 9/11 By Ron Suskind New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006, 367 pages

Of late, investigative journalists have written a veritable tidal wave of tomes dissecting the blunders and missteps of the Bush Administration. Bob Woodward, and Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post have been among the most prominent but there are so many others that one quipster observed that bookstores will soon have to construct an entire section comprised of anti-Bush books. Certainly, the author of the book at hand deserves to have his worthy work placed in this section for this is one of the more insightful explorations of the misrule that has characterized Washington of late. The provocative title is ascribed to the new 'Prince of Darkness,' the man from the 'dark side' himself: Dick Cheney: '’If there’s a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response….It’s not about our analysis, or finding a preponderance of evidence…..It’s about our response.’' Suspicion—no matter how ill-founded—therefore became the basis for action, according to the Vice-President.

This bizarre promulgation reached its zenith during the illegal and ill-fated invasion of Iraq, which proceeded on the ostensible basis of the regime’s possession of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that remain undiscovered. This has culminated in a bloody occupation that is stretching the U.S. military to the breaking point and compromising the nation’s ability to confront pressing and nagging problems of poverty and disease.

But even if there was something to this rather grotesque doctrine, it would be vitiated by other policies of the White House. So-called moderate Republicans like former Secretary of State Colin Powell and retired General Brent Scowcroft have been treated like pariahs. Instead, Washington has relied heavily on Pakistan, whose vaunted intelligence service is riddled with Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers. This has also meant reliance on the utterly unreliable supposed ally of Saudi Arabia, the nation that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers in September 2001, not to mention Osama bin Laden himself. The animosity and distrust that permeates the relationship between the FBI and the CIA is reminiscent of what befell the Hatfields and the McCoys. Their lack of coordination and reluctance to share intelligence is jeopardizing national security.

This is all compounded by a chilling thesis argued by the author. As he sees it, the U.S. is 'undefendable.' This nation, as the Pentagon might put it, is a 'target rich environment.' As the author sees it, this realization underpins the obvious hysteria that has driven Washington’s wacky and weird policies. The apotheosis of this misguided Administration approach came when the U.S. security services detained suspected 'terrorist,' Abu Zubaydah. Bush, Cheney and their minions all trumpeted the allegation that he was one of the key sergeants of Osama bin Laden himself and that his arrest was another victory for Washington. But this was far from true. In fact, according to one insider, he was '‘insane, certifiable, split personality.’' They proceeded to torture him in order to compel him to talk. And he proceeded to make ever wilder allegations about supposed demonic plots against U.S. interests globally—which sent U.S. agents fleeing in all directions in order to forestall these 'plots.' The specter of a mentally unbalanced man being tortured then 'revealing' various devilish schemes that then send U.S. agents into a frenzied and frantic dither, scurrying hither and yon as if their hair was on fire, is the reigning metaphor for this incompetently conceived 'war on terror.' Suggestive of the hysteria driving Washington policy was the stunning event of April 2003 when 'the head of the FBI’s unit on Hezbollah and radical Shiite fundamentalists took his own life with his bureau-issue revolver.'

In short, the author suggests that the Bush regime has been driven mad by the press of events. Certainly it was unwise for the White House to focus before September 2001 on toppling the regime in Iraq rather than confronting the plans of al Qaeda, which the author suggests was one of their primary flaws. After all, Iraq had oil and was an antagonist of Israel, while al Qaeda controlled no petroleum. Strikingly, the author argues that al Qaeda desperately desired to see Bush re-elected on the premise that their diabolical plans were more likely to be attained with him steering the ship of state and the White House’s stunningly ill-timed and disastrous maneuvers have appeared as the realization of bin Laden’s most coveted dream.

Just as Pentagon chief, Donald Rumsfield, is the villain of Bob Woodward’s best-seller, here the source of evil is Cheney. 'The Iraq war was launched, in large measure, from the left brain of the Vice-President,' writes the author. His nickname at the CIA was 'Edgar' as in the ventriloquist, 'Bergen'—which meant that Bush was his dummy, Charlie McCarthy.

In sum, this book is well worth reading and deserves the plaudits it has received.

--Gerald Horne is a contributing editor of Political Affairs. Send your remarks to

Opposition to Iraq war surges

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:58:00 +0000

1-27-07, 8:57 am

Progressive Caucus introduces comprehensive bill to exit Iraq

President Bush’s announcement that he is sending over 21,000 more troops to Iraq has fueled increasing bipartisan opposition in Congress, among the U.S. public, in the labor movement and among the military itself. Organizers of the Jan. 27-29 Washington antiwar march and lobbying report growing interest in the protest actions.

The co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, and Rep. Maxine Waters, chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus — all California Democrats — held a press conference Jan. 17 in the House Radio/TV Gallery to introduce the Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act.

The measure would repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of force, fund withdrawal of U.S. forces and military contractors from Iraq within six months of the bill’s passage, prohibit funding to deploy or keep U.S. troops in Iraq, accelerate U.S. aid to train Iraqi police and community-based security, bar permanent U.S. bases there, provide economic and political aid to the Iraqi government, authorize U.S. support to replace U.S. troops and contractors with an international stabilization force if requested by the Iraqi government, and fully fund VA health care for all veterans.

Meanwhile Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) said they would join Democrats Joe Biden (Del.), Foreign Relations Committee chair, and Carl Levin (Mich.), Armed Services Committee chair, in supporting a bipartisan resolution opposing Bush’s escalation plan.

In a new USA Today/Gallup poll, 70 percent of the public disapproved of Bush’s handling of Iraq. A Jan. 10-15 Pew Research Center poll showed 70 percent think Bush has no clear plan for Iraq, and 59 percent think the U.S. should set a timetable to withdraw. Directly opposing Bush’s rhetoric, 57 percent said America’s safety from terrorism does not depend upon our “success” in the war in Iraq, and 61 percent opposed sending in more troops.

On Jan. 16, a delegation of U.S. service members delivered to Capitol Hill an appeal signed by 1,031 active duty and reserve soldiers, sailors and Marines asking Congress to end the Iraq war and bring all U.S. troops home. Signers of the online appeal included 35 troops serving in Baghdad. Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) received the petition from leaders of Appeal for Redress (www.appealforredress.org), a Norfolk, Va.-

based organization of active duty and reserve military personnel formed last fall.

The service members’ appeal reads, “As a patriotic American, proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”

At a news conference in Norfolk the day before, Marine Sgt. Liam Madden, 22, co-founder of the group, said, “This is not politics. It’s our generation’s call to conscience.”

Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto, 29, the other co-founder, is a graduate of Howard University who serves on an aircraft carrier. He told a reporter for the Richmond Times-Dispatch he was motivated to organize the group while stationed off the coast of Iraq last year, after reading a book on GI resistance to the Vietnam War.

National Guard Sgt. Jabbar Magruder, who served 11 months in Tikrit, said at the Norfolk event, “We served in combat and we’ve seen the futility of this war,” the Times-Dispatch reported. “The soldiers want to resist. The soldiers want to come home now. We need the citizens to back us.”

David Cline, president of Veterans for Peace, accompanied the delegation delivering the petition. He told the World, “This is a very impressive initiative by active duty and reserve soldiers and shows just how strong opposition to this war is among men and women in uniform.”

In a poll of military personnel published last month in four military newspapers — Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times — only 41 percent felt it was a good idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and AFSCME President Gerald McEntee blasted Bush’s escalation plan.

Bush is trying to “salvage his own legacy by putting in harm’s way more young American soldiers,” Sweeney charged in a Jan. 11 statement.

The soldiers risking their lives in Iraq come from America’s working families, the labor leader said. “They deserve leaders who will call them only when the nation’s security is at risk and there is a clear plan for victory. This administration has failed and continues to fail that basic obligation.

“What is needed in Iraq is an expansion of political and diplomatic efforts — not an increase in United States military performing police functions,” Sweeney emphasized. “Moreover, sustainable social and economic development and the guarantee of fundamental labor and trade union rights are absolutely essential.”

McEntee called pouring more troops and funds into the war “reckless and wrong” — “bad foreign policy” that “takes away the resources we need to solve problems here at home.”

From People's Weekly World Reach the author at suewebb @ pww.org Tim Wheeler contributed to this article.

Bush's Four Anti-Terror Successes All Fictional

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:55:00 +0000

1-27-07, 8:55 am

President Bush claimed in his State of the Union speech to have prevented four terrorist plots. Phew! It's a good thing to know that we tossed out our Bill of Rights for some actual REASON – I mean other than turning Iraq into a training ground for terrorism. Except that we didn't. 1.-'We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast.' An October 8, 2005, LA Times story, headlined 'Scope of Plots Bush Says Were Foiled Is Questioned,' cited 'several counter-terrorism officials' as saying that 'the plot never progressed past the planning stages.... 'To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,' said one senior FBI official….At most it was a plan that was stopped in its initial stages and was not an operational plot that had been disrupted by authorities.' On Feb. 10, 2006, the LA Times quoted a 'US official familiar with the operational aspects of the war on terrorism,' who said that 'the Library Tower plot was one of many Al Qaeda operations that had not gone much past the conceptual stage….The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying that those familiar with the plot feared political retaliation for providing a different characterization of the plan that that of the president.' Michael Scheuer, an al Qaeda expert in the CIA's counter-terrorism center, told the Voice of America: 'This doesn't sound like anything that I would recall as a major threat, or as a major success in stopping it….My impression [was that the National Security Council] culled through information to look for something that resembled a serious threat in 2002. It doesn't strike me, either as someone who was there or as someone who has followed al Qaeda pretty closely, that this was really a serious sort of effort.' A February 10, 2006 Washington Post story cited 'several U.S. intelligence officials' who 'said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the Library Tower scheme and whether it was ever much more than talk.' A February 10, 2006, New York Daily News story cited one senior counterterrorism official who said: 'There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage.' Back on June 17, 2004, the New York Daily News quoted John Pistole, the FBI's counterterrorism director. Asked to comment on a CIA agent's statement that 'I think we've probably prevented a few aviation attacks against both the East and West coasts,' Pistole at first said he was 'not sure what [the CIA] was referring to.' The Daily News reported that 'Even after consulting CIA officials, Pistole still would not call the alleged threat uncovered in the summer of 2003 an advanced plot.' 2.-'We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America.' An October 31, 2006, Washington Post article describes al Qaeda's efforts as well short of 'developing' and the case to tie them to the anthrax attacks in the United States as leading nowhere. A September 25, 2006, Washington Post article describes the FBI's investigation of the anthrax attacks in the United States as still open, but just barely active. If that investigation has reached any conclusion, or if Bush has discovered a plot of some other attacks that were prevented, he should produce evidence of such. 3.-'Just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean.' Well, the British 'authorities' did arrest two dozen people at the insistence of the Bush Administration, but numerous reports found consensus among experts that those arrested could not have possibly mixed together on an airplane the liquid explosives they allegedly planned to use. And common sense suggested that if they had managed such a sophisticated plot, it was unlikely anyone else was working on the same thing (the assumption that prevents us all from traveling with toothpaste and deodorant unless sealed in a proper protective plastic bag, and leads to government employees carelessly tossing deadly dangerous toothpaste tubes into trashcans in the middle of unsuspecting crowds). Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, summed this case up well: 'None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time. In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms. 'What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests. Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.' 4.-'We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States.' Was this the one broken up in 1995, before Bush, when we still had much of our Bill of Rights intact? Is this the 'tallest building on the West Coast' story by another name in order to expand the list? I've seen a lot of reports on Bush's speech, but no explanation of what he's talking about here. 5.-Of course, such claims are not new: They follow the pattern of the Padilla radiation bomb claim. The announcement of that supposed success was made at a time when Bush needed a boost in the media, even though the man had been locked up for a month already; and then the charges were later dropped. Keith Olbermann once ran a segment highlighting the suspicious timing of ten such announcements, each one of which ended up amounting to nothing at all. Olbermann's story left out plenty of more recent examples, but then, so did Bush's speech. Have we forgotten the heroic way in which he saved the Sears Tower already? _________ Richard Matthews provided research assistance for this article. From

Venezuelan Unemployment Drops to Lowest Rate in Chavez’s Presidency

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:52:00 +0000

1-27-07, 8:51 am

Caracas, January 25, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Venezuela’s National Statistics Institute released its unemployment data yesterday, saying that unemployment had dropped to 8.4% in December 2006, which is 0.5% lower than the same month in 2005. Also, the quality of jobs improved, in that formal sector employment rose from 52.0% to 55.5% in the same time period. This means that 364,589 new jobs were created in 2006 for a total of 11.3 million employed in Venezuela.

Traditionally employment drops to its lowest levels in December of each year because employers hire temporary workers for Venezuela’s extremely busy holiday season. The annual unemployment rate for 2006, though, is expected to be at least 2% lower than when Chavez became president in 1999.

This year, however, reports the daily El Universal, the unemployment decrease between November and December was lower than usual. According to the paper’s survey of employers, this was because of the uncertainty that the December presidential elections generated, producing a less busy holiday season than usual. As a result, the government did not meet its goal of reducing unemployment to 7% by the end of 2006.

Economic growth in Venezuela has been the main force behind the lowering of the unemployment rate. For 2006 GDP grew by 10.2%, which is the third year in a row that the economy grew by more than ten percent. Opposition economists put this off as a result of high oil prices and not due to anything the government has done.

However, compared to other oil producing economies around the world, Venezuelan growth beats all of these. Economic growth for various OPEC member states hovered around 5%. For example, 2006 GDP growth was 5.9% in Saudi Arabia, 5% in Iran, and 5.3% in Nigeria.

From

Sen. John McCain and 27 Other Republicans Demand Repeal of Minimum Wage

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:15:00 +0000

1-26-07, 9:12 am

There are 28 Senators who should lose their $165,200 per year jobs. They are listed as follows:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) – (202) 224-4944 Wayne Allard (R-CO) – (202) 224-5941 Robert Bennett (R-UT) – (202) 224-5444 Christopher Bond (R-MO) – (202) 224-5721 Sam Brownback (R-KS) – (202) 224-6521 Jim Bunning (R-KY) – (202) 224-4343 Richard Burr (R-NC) – (202) 224-3154 Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) – (202) 224-3521 Tom Coburn (R-OK) – (202) 224-5754 Thad Cochran (R-MS) – (202) 224-5054 John Cornyn (R-TX) – (202) 224-2934 Larry Craig (R-ID) – (202) 224-2752 Mike Crapo (R-ID) – (202) 224-6142 Jim DeMint (R-SC) – (202) 224-6121 John Ensign (R-NV) – (202) 224-6244 Michael Enzi (R-WY) – (202) 224-3424 Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – (202) 224-5972 Judd Gregg (R-NH) – (202) 224-3324 Chuck Hagel (R-NE) – (202) 224-4224 Orrin Hatch (R-UT) – (202) 224-5251 James Inhofe (R-OK) – (202) 224-4721 Johnny Isakson (R-GA) – (202) 224-3643 Jon Kyl (R-AZ) – (202) 224-4521 Trent Lott (R-MS) – (202) 224-6253 John McCain (R-AZ) – (202) 224-2235 Mitch McConnell (R-KY) – (202) 224-2541 John Sununu (R-NH) – (202) 224-2841 Craig Thomas (R-WY) – (202) 224-6441

What did these guys (all white Republican guys) do?

On Wednesday (1-24), in addition to voting against a clean minimum wage raise bill, they voted for an amendment to repeal the federal minimum wage, currently bogged down at $5.15 per hour. Oh sure, they will claim that it was a procedural issue or that they are interested merely in ensuring that states can set their own minimum wages.

But the truth is they are out to demolish the one protection that America's lowest paid workers have against starvation.

The irony is that almost all of these guys voted to give themselves raises every single year since 1997, the last year the minimum wage was raised, amounting to more than $32,000. Imagine if working families could vote for their own raises! Imagine if the poorest Americans made $32,000.

Unlike this gang of 28, minimum wage earners make around $10,000 a year, unless they have more than one job. Most don't have any health care benefits. More than three out of four minimum wage earners are adults over 20 who, most of the time, earn the majority of their household income. Many thousands have families, are single mothers, and are people of color.

Each of these Senators will claim that the minimum wage hurts working families because jobs are lost. The truth is the opposite. Low-wage job markets have been largely unaffected by minimum wage increases because employers are able to absorb the higher cost of labor with higher productivity, lower turnover, and lower absenteeism.

The plain truth is that this gang of 28 rich white guys has no excuse not to raise the minimum wage to $7.25, except to send a signal to everyone that they staunchly side with business interests against working families.

And for 'straight-talk' John McCain, who has presidential hopes for 2008, this is the straightest talk of his campaign to date. It is a message that is loud and clear. He doesn't care about the plight of working Americans. He doesn't care about sharpening income inequality in the economy. In fact, he favors policies that promote inequality. He is focused solely on the interests of business and the conservative's favorite past time: pandering to the ultra right. Good luck, McCain. You're going to need it.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs magazine. Reach him at

Union Condemns Arrest of Workers at Smithfield Plant

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:09:00 +0000

1-26-07, 9:08 am

For immediate release: For information Contact: Leila McDowell 202 728 1829 UNION CONDEMNS ARRESTS OF WORKERS AT SMITHFIELD PLANT IN NORTH CAROLINA AS A CONTINUING PATTERN OF TERRORIZING WORKERS AND THEIR COMMUNITIES

ARRESTS VIOLATE ICE GUIDELINES

'Smithfield has a history of using threats of arrest by immigration authorities to intimidate workers and this is a continuation of that pattern', says Gene Bruskin head of the Smithfield Justice Campaign, a national coalition backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) that is supporting workers' efforts to get the protection of a union contract at the Smithfield, Tar Heel plant.

The arrests of the 21 Smithfield workers by the US immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) comes on the heels of the company announcement that it will fire up to 600 people next month primarily those who walked out in protest last November over the firings of fellow employees allegedly for receiving social security no match letters. 'The arrests are another way to incite fear and try to stop more protests,' Bruskin said.

In a recently settled legal case, Smithfield's private company police force, now disbanded, was found to have unlawfully threatened workers with arrest by federal immigration authorities in response to their advocacy for better working conditions. 'Now they've made good on those threats,' Bruskin said.

Smithfield is appealing NLRB order in that case.

The arrests, which are likely to increase, are also be in violation of ICE's own instructions which preclude the agency from facilitating the use of immigration laws of enforcement to intervene in the course of a labor dispute. Workers have been fighting for a union at the Tar Heel, North Carolina plant for over 10 years. The company entered into a partnership with ICE in July, 2006 following the union's launching of a national campaign in June.

'The entire community has been terrorized,' said Bruskin 'Parents are being torn from their young children who don't know where they are. Many of these workers have given their life blood to this company for as long as 6 years and now are being summarily handed over to be arrested and discarded.

It is unconscionable and continues Smithfield's pattern of callous disregard for the well being of its workers.'

Many workers were afraid to show up for work last night. Today production is down by as much as 50 percent at the plant. The past three months have been characterized by a series of confrontations with Smithfield workers.

Following the November walk out, last week, Smithfield threatened its employees with being fired for petitioning for a Martin Luther King holiday and taking the day off. The petition was signed by thousands of the predominantly African American and Latino workers.

'Smithfield is the wrong company for our government to partner with on immigration enforcement. Legal rulings have confirmed its long and immoral history of abuse, unlawful firings, assaults, intimidation and threats against workers', Bruskin said.

The UFCW is supporting the establishment of a humanitarian fund to assist workers and their families who are unfairly terminated.

The company was condemned in two Human Rights Watch reports for widespread, dangerous working conditions. A recent report on injuries, based on OSHA data, found that injuries rose 200 percent since 2003.

From Justice at Smithfield

Japan: Significance of International Communities for Peace and Article 9

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:04:00 +0000

1-26-07, 9:04 am

Japanese Communist Party Chair Shii Kazuo on an Asahi Newstar Communication Satellite TV program aired on January 16 spoke about Japan's diplomacy and Article 9, the gist of which is as follows:

Japan's dangerous move to strengthen cooperation with NATO

Q: Prime Minister Abe Shinzo in his recent tour to Europe committed Japan to strengthening its cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). What do you think of this?

Shii: Abe reportedly is planning to strengthen Japan's cooperation with NATO in Afghanistan. This is a plan to dispatch the Self-Defense Forces to the region where NATO forces are currently deployed. Cooperation between military alliances for dispatching forces abroad is very dangerous.

At the same time, I would say that this plan does not match the present situation in which the 'drift of NATO' is much discussed. NATO has lost its original purposes, and member states cannot reach a consensus on what NATO should do next. At the time of the Iraq war in 2003 in particular, NATO failed to function due to opposition to the war by major member states including Germany and France.

Much controversy still exists over dispatching its troops outside of the NATO area to include Afghanistan.

Broadly speaking, military alliances in the world on the whole are heading toward dismantlement.

European countries are trying to refrain from waging wars in the region by establishing a regional community for peace, the European Union. I believe that the plan to dispatch forces abroad by means of strengthening cooperation between the Japan-U.S. military alliance and NATO is incompatible with the direction that European countries are heading.

Replacing military alliances with communities for peace

Q: You were visiting Vietnam when Prime Minister Abe made a tour of Europe and visited the Philippines to attend the East Asian Summit meeting. What is the East Asian Summit like when it is viewed from Vietnam?

Shii: First of all, it is significant that Vietnam has become an influential member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In the past, Vietnam fought with some countries that are now ASEAN members. In the days of the Vietnam War, there existed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), and the Philippines, Thailand, and South Korea sent troops to Vietnam.

However, since this tense relationship ended in a positive manner, ASEAN has been turned into a regional community for peace. ASEAN is calling on nations to join the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), and China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Japan have joined it. Thus, this region has become a promising source of the global current for peace.

During my stay in Vietnam, I was really impressed by the fact that Southeast Asia has become a peaceful region in which former foes and friends during the Vietnam War together make up a community for peace.

I have just mentioned that military alliances in the world on the whole are heading toward dismantlement. I must add that regional communities for peace have replaced military alliances, and this is a global trend.

In Southeast Asia today, nobody thinks of waging wars, though small-scale conflicts may occur from time to time. Therefore, it is important to establish a framework for peace in Northeast Asia.

Article 9 that has sustained postwar Japan

Q: It is 60 years since the Constitution came into force. Prime Minister Abe is calling for a revision of the Constitution. How do you view Japan's postwar history and the Constitution?

Shii: Although the Japanese military (called the SDF) was established in violation of the Constitution, the Japanese military has killed no foreigners since the end of the war, and none in the military has been killed in wars. This is unique among countries participating in the G8 Summit. This is not because the Liberal Democratic Party is peaceful, but because Article 9 has displayed its value in protecting the peace.

Although Japan's military budget is large in absolute terms, it has been relatively small in comparison with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) due to Article 9. This has prompted the government to use funds for economic development.

As a matter of fact, Article 9 has sustained postwar Japan. We will make our utmost efforts to prevent the pro-constitutional revision forces from destroying Article 9.

From Akahata

Unnatural Disaster

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:01:00 +0000

1-26-07, 9:00 am

Zionism appeared in Jewish life waving the flag of normalcy. The idea was that Jewish sovereignty would pave the way to a normal existence and deliver the Jews from the vicissitudes of life among the goyim. Critics of the Zionist project were quick to point out that normalcy would mean that there would be Jewish criminals and even Jewish prostitutes – it being clear to all involved in the debate that “no such animal existed” up to this point in Jewish life.

The Zionist advocates sighed and argued that this was a small price to pay for the overriding advantages of independent national existence. But even those who had steeled themselves for some unpleasant aspects of national existence were not ready for the deluge of criminal behavior in high places that characterizes Israeli public life today. A short list of the present, distinguished leaders of Israel, who are also distinguished by virtue of the fact that they are defendants involved in criminal prosecutions, will tax the outer limits of Zionist normalcy.

Our predator President is going to be indicted for four sexual assaults. They can be considered crimes ex officio because they were all inflicted on women employed by the government. Four other accusations were squashed because of the statute of limitations. Our Prime Minister is busy preparing to dodge three separate indictments for things like influence peddling, illegal appointments and real estate rake offs. Our suspended Minister of Justice is awaiting a verdict in a sexual harassment case. Malfunction, misfeasance and just plain “shlumperei” (sloppy inefficiency) by the government and the army related to last summer’s war in Lebanon are being investigated all over the place.(The time in Israel for dealing with serious accusations regarding war crimes has not yet arrived). The former Minister of Justice, Hanegbi, cannot serve as a minister because he is charged with handing out a hundred jobs to party hacks without bothering about qualifications. There is a case brewing against the Finance Minister for not reporting a major robbery in the health fund that he headed at the time. Oh, did we mention that the top officials of the Tax Service are being investigated for advancing the careers of members of the senior staff who have the proper attitude towards money people who had previously suggested them as the right person for the job? I am certain that there are other important instances, but I think the reader will get the idea.

It seems that Israel has hit the “normalcy” jackpot and is now out to win the Olympic finals for the most corrupt public servants…

Now, this is the point that we have to come clean and reveal our obsessive belief that somewhere and somehow all this is definitely linked to the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the mud mountain of illegality, injustice, corruption and brutality slipping and sliding westward from the West Bank and northward from the Gaza Strip.

Ten thousand Palestinian political prisoners are languishing in Israeli jails. Whatever the opinion regarding their actions, it is clear that they are not common criminals. It is far from clear that this can be said regarding those holding them.

--Reuven Kaminer lives in Jerusalem. Read his blog at www.reuvenkaminer.com/english.

Medicare-for-all Health Care Bill Reintroduced

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 03:52:00 +0000

1-26-07, 8:51 am

H.R. 676 has been reintroduced: Single payer, quality, national healthcare!

This is your chance to help make history! What you do right now will make a huge difference? How can we really get to a quality national healthcare system now, this time around?

Step One: We have a great bill, H.R. 676, that covers our medical needs without continuing to support insurance companies. Improved and enhanced Medicare for All that will save about one third of every dollar we have been spending.

Step Two: We already have 45 Co-sponsors. Three are not yet listed in the official list below.

Step Three: We need YOU -- every one of you – yes YOU – to be in touch with your Congress Member today –by the end of January to be sure that he or she signs onto this bill, H.R. 676, and understands that you are committed to seeing it passed. Visit your Congress Member when he/she comes home; take a delegation with you; call your Member at work 1-866-338-1015 on our toll free number. Do it now. And send them letters from our website under “Campaign Tools” and “Write Congress” Or take a big batch of postcards and hand deliver them to his/her office.

Don’t wait for someone else to do this. You don’t want to miss out on this chance to make history.

FREE CONYERS VIDEO

If you send an email to Healthcare-NOW (info@healthcare-now.org) letting us know that your Congress member is on board, we’ll send you a free 7 minute DVD of John Conyers talking about how we can win. Just let us know. 1-800-453-1305.

Now the next part gets tricky. But it is really easier. If your Congress Member is already listed here, then you only have to call to remind him/her that you are supporting the bill and you need him/her to be sure it gets passed. It is also important to write to Congressman Charles Rangel, and call on him to hold hearings on H.R. 676 during April or as soon as possible. His fax is 202-225-0816. His phone is 202-225-4365. He has already signed onto the bill, so be sure to thank him.

Tell them all that we are sick and tired of waiting for healthcare in this country.

We want it NOW.

WAY MORE SPONSORS Our bill already has a lot more co-sponsors than any other healthcare bill in the House. The pundits and the nay-sayers are still saying it is not possible, just too hard – but they haven’t taken into account the broad and growing movement for a national single payer healthcare plan that says “Yes, we can win this. We can do it together.”

Here’s a really important point. Since the Congress has passed the Pay/Go measure mandating no deficit spending, our bill, H.R. 676, is the only one that can pass muster because it pays for itself. Pay as we go. Single payer is the only way.

By the way, if you want to read the bill, H.R. 676, just go to Thomas.gov, click in Conyers name and scroll down to 676:

OUR NEW CO-SPONSORS LIST:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/24/2007 Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 1/24/2007 Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 1/24/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/24/2007 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 1/24/2007 Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 1/24/2007 Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 1/24/2007 Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 1/24/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 1/24/2007 Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 1/24/2007 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 1/24/2007 Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 1/24/2007 Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 1/24/2007 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/24/2007 Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 1/24/2007 Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] - 1/24/2007 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 1/24/2007 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 1/24/2007 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/24/2007 Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2] - 1/24/2007 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 1/24/2007 Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 1/24/2007 Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 1/24/2007 Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 1/24/2007 Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 1/24/2007 Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 1/24/2007 Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 1/24/2007 Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 1/24/2007 Rep Scott, Robert C. [VA-3] - 1/24/2007 Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 1/24/2007 Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 1/24/2007 Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 1/24/2007 Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 1/24/2007 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 1/24/2007 Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 1/24/2007

I would be remiss not to say thank you again to all of you who have worked so hard over the past three years to get to this point. We will have hearings, and we will get this passed.

Call us up if you want more information, and go to our website for more guidance on what else you can do – holding hearings, getting ready for Martin Luther King Healthcare Month, (APRIL) taking an action every 6th and 7th of each month…1-800-453-1305.

If you are not yet a member, please join us now. .

This is a happy day,

Marilyn Clement National Coordinator, Healthcare-NOW

Giant Backbone to be Delivered to Congress for Peace & Accountability

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 03:41:00 +0000

1-26-07, 8:41 am

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Backbone Campaign January 25, 2007, 9:00 PM CONTACT: Bill Moyer, Executive Director (206) 356-9980, Diane Wittner, Backbone Patrol Lead (410) 245-3637 Giant Backbone to be Delivered to Congress for Peace & Accountability

Seattle, WA/Washington, DC – While Washington DC’s January weather isn’t typically the kind that would encourage out-of-town visitors to head to the country’s capitol, thousands of Americans will be doing just that this coming weekend. Their message? Stop the war. Actually the puppet will read: 'Fund Operation Homecoming' on one side and 'Indict-Impeach-Imprison' on the other in giant letters, so not to be missed by the cameras.'

“Our sincere hope is that the new Congress has enough spine to stand up for the American people's mandate to get out of Iraq and stay out of Iran. We want them to find the backbone for an “Operation Homecoming” to end the occupation of Iraq and investigate and hold accountable those who squandered so much life, national treasure, and moral credibility getting us there,” said Amy Morrison, managing director of the non-profit Backbone Campaign. “Just in case they need a reminder of what a backbone looks like, we're bringing ours.”

Based in Seattle, WA, the politically progressive but non-partisan organization actually is bringing a backbone to the Saturday, January 27 political rally March On Washington – a 70-foot long, parade float-style backbone carried by ten of the organization’s members – with the intent of driving home to Congress the need to stop the war before more dollars are spent and more lives – American and Iraqi – are lost.

Leading the organization’s march will be the Bush & Co. Chain Gang, the oversized, prison stripe-wearing “human puppets” made famous the world over by photojournalists who’ve captured the caricatures of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove as symbols of the dissatisfaction that’s grown within the American public for the current administration’s unwillingness to end the war in Iraq, and the manipulations used to justify it.

Starting at Washington DC’s National Mall, the March On Washington will begin at approximately 1 pm on Saturday, January 27. Organized by the advocacy group United for Peace & Justice and with the coordinated efforts of hundreds of organizations including the Backbone Campaign, the National Organization for Women, Working Assets, MoveOn.org, True Majority, the RainbowPUSH Coalition and hundreds of other national and local groups, the anti-war demonstration is expected to draw thousands of participants from all walks of life and every corner of the country.

Aside from human voices and additional marchers, the Backbone Campaign brings to the March On Washington protest the sense of humor that the organization has become famous for; besides the rallying cry of “Got Spine?” that’s become a familiar chant in parades and marches all over the country, the organization created the “thank and spank” accountability tools – including both “Spineless Citations” and “Backbone Awards” - for politicians and civic leaders whose work is worthy of notice and, one way or the other, public citation. A “Backbone Patrol” in bobby hats and badges will deliver citations through the halls of Congress on Monday the 29th.

“With our participation in the March On Washington, we hope to send a message, loud and clear, that we hold our elected representatives accountable for their actions and accountable to us, the American public,” explains Morrison. “For us, the backbone symbolizes an interlocking agenda, a coalition, and the personal courage necessary to fight for a future worthy of our children. This war has already taken its toll from that future, it’s past time to bring it to an end.”

P.S. MarchForth! is not merely a play on words, March 4th, 1789 is the day the Constitution went into effect. Today it is a call to action to reclaim an aspirational vision for the country. Check out the first annual effort to claim a day for 'We th People' to dialogue, celebrate and take action for a more perfect Union. Visit WeThePeopleMarch4th.org to learn about this effort or to host or attend an event near you.

From Backbone Campaign