People Before Profit blog

Supreme Court: Precedent for Blocking Roberts’ Confirmation

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:46:00 +0000

7-30-05, 8:45 am

As more information about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ record is made available, it is increasingly clear that the Senate judiciary committee would be well within its rights to block confirmation. The White House packaged Roberts as a non-controversial, non-ideological nominee and announced its expectation of confirmation quickly, as early as next month.

But a precedent used by the Republican-controlled Senate in 1985 that specifically relates to Roberts’ early career points to the importance of careful scrutiny of any nominee. In this case, the Senate must not shirk its Constitutional 'advice and consent' responsibility in favor of partisanship or in an effort to avoid embarrassing the President.

In 1985, the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the nomination of William Bradford Reynolds for associate attorney general. The nomination was made by Ronald Reagan. The committee found that Reynolds, as assistant attorney general for civil rights, repeatedly acted in defiance of civil rights laws as passed by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Recent press accounts indicate that John Roberts worked with Reynolds in this attempt to undermine two decades of civil rights enforcement policies.

The Senate’s reasoning in that case was that it could disqualify a nominee based on that person’s activist role in undermining the Constitution. It just so happens that John G. Roberts seems to have played an active role in creating the conditions under which the US Senate disqualified William Bradford Reynolds.

This Republicans’ actions in the Reynolds matter is important both as a general principle and in this specific case. If Roberts is found to oppose laws written by Congress and upheld and interpreted as Constitutional by the US Supreme Court, and there is mounting evidence to show that this is the case, he must be disqualified. Further, if the Republicans disqualified Reynolds on these grounds with whom Roberts worked and may have aided in developing positions found to disqualify Reynolds, the Republicans have to be consistent and disqualify Roberts as well. News reports based on records from Roberts’ days in the Reagan White House and Justice Department paint a picture of an ideological militant who pushed hard to move policy and the law even further to the right than some of his ultraconservative superiors.

From 1981 to 1993, the Reagan and first Bush administrations did everything possible to turn back the clock on civil rights laws and federal protections. If successful, the Reagan-Bush policies would have permitted the federal funding of discrimination against women, minorities, people with disabilities, and older Americans. They would have allowed tax-exempt status to institutions that discriminate on the basis of race. They tried to block a strong and effective Voting Rights Act extension, to gut affirmative action, to block the South Africa sanctions law, to undermine the nation’s equal employment opportunity laws, to eliminate a constitutional right to privacy, and to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over cases pertaining to abortion, school prayer, and school desegregation remedies.

Memos authored by John Roberts during his work for the Reagan administration make it clear that he was a key figure in preparing and legitimizing this continuous right-wing assault on well-established civil rights protections. He has never been non-ideological or above partisanship, as his carefully crafted White House public relations image suggests. Roberts was always at the center of major controversial civil rights battles during the Reagan and Bush administrations. He neither called for reasonable positions that supported existing law or decisions made by the Supreme Court. In fact, his arguments are based on ideological positions rather than on established Constitutional law.

The emerging record revealed by memos of Roberts’ work in the Reagan and Bush administrations underscores the need for a thorough examination of John Roberts’ full record. Supporters of the call for such an examination have argued that 'before deciding whether to give him a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court, the Senate has a constitutional duty to ascertain exactly what John Roberts was doing from 1981-1986 and 1989-1993.'

Roberts himself, says the People for the American Way, has the responsibility to discuss his record and judicial philosophy openly and fully during his confirmation hearing. No one has the right to a seat on the Supreme Court, says a spokesperson at . It’s up to Roberts and the administration to make the case. And it is up to the Senate to make a thorough examination.

What would you ask Roberts if you had the chance to sit in on the confirmation hearings? What do you want the committee members to ask him? Let the Senators know at this website.

Moreno May Have to Reinvent Himself as the New IDB President

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:38:00 +0000

7-30-05, 8:37 am

On Wednesday, the Board of Governors of the International Development Bank (IDB) elected their new president. As predicted, Luis Alberto Moreno, the present Colombian ambassador to the United States, won the position, beating out the most highly qualified candidate, Brazilian Joao Sayad, the current Vice President of Finance and Management at the IDB, as well as Peruvian Finance Minister Pedro-Pablo Kuczynski. Mario Alonso, the head of the Central Bank of Nicaragua, and Jose Rojas, the former finance minister of Venezuela, pulled out of the race just before the tally.

Moreno has his work cut out for him. Replacing the current president, Enrique Iglesias of Uruguay, will be an immensely complex challenge that Moreno will be hard put to meet. Iglesias, who has recently brought dramatic reforms to the IDB through the introduction of oversight, whistleblower protection, increased transparency and disciplinary measures for bank personnel who violate legal and ethical banking practices, demonstrated an iron-willed commitment to bringing credibility back to a bank which had been plagued by allegations of corruption, nepotism and non-stop office intrigue.

Part of the impetus for Iglesias’ reformations was an incident in 2002, when an IDB official attempted suicide in his office at the bank’s Washington D.C. headquarters. Despondent over having been demoted, and both physically and psychologically ostracized by the bank’s senior officers in retaliation for his complaints of improprieties he had witnessed in the institution, the ill-fated official slashed his wrists and throat. On the wall he had scrawled with his own blood, 'The bank is corrupt.' While rather dramatic, episodes like this one illustrate the kind of internal problems that the bank chronically has had to face - problems that reflect the moral health of the often compromised institution.

Through legislation recently introduced by U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar, Congress is putting pressure on multi-lateral development banks such as the IDB, calling for additional institutional reforms as well as effective oversight by the U.S. Treasury and Government Accounting Office. By threatening to withhold funding, Congress is in a position to affect the policies of the bank, which receives 30 percent of its funding from the U.S. Thus, Moreno and the IDB could be under heightened scrutiny as this bill gains momentum.

A favorite of the Bush Administration, Moreno has extensive diplomatic experience as Colombia’s representative in Washington. However, as a principal architect of Plan Colombia— the U.S.’ largely ineffective, and now heavily militarized, multi-billion dollar aid package aimed at stemming the tide of drugs and rebellion in his country—Moreno’s credibility is in question. The IDB, which distributes approximately $6.5 billion a year in low-cost loans to Latin American countries, will need the kind of leadership experience that were not necessarily in evidence by those, like Moreno, who were heavily involved in piloting through a program like Plan Colombia. Some critics find the plan to be far more a controversial militarized strategy than one aimed at social reform.

Following Wednesday’s election, a ceremony was held to honor Iglesias’ 17-year tenure at the bank. Taking the opportunity to speak at the occasion, Moreno stated his commitment to fight corruption in the bank, as well as to bring transparency to its activities. Unfortunately, Moreno has no particular track record in those areas. While these are laudable ambitions, they should be fundamental to any democratic institution. Moreno needs to go above and beyond rhetorical platitudes in order to competently run the oldest and largest regional bank in the world. Since there is little in his background to suggest that he is the indispensable man for the job, his tenure will have to be closely watched for any indication that he might relapse into his adroit embassy-style wheeling and dealing.

While everyone is prepared to allow Moreno to demonstrate whether he’s up to the job, with former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria recently holding the position as Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and now Moreno being elected to lead the IDB, some in Washington feel that these regional positions are being used as a dumping ground for Colombian political figures whose shelf lives have expired, and are not particularly welcome in their home country.

From Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Wal-Mart: Always High Costs...Always

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:27:00 +0000

7-30-05, 8:25 am

According to a report authored by the staff of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, because of Wal-Mart's low wages, any one of its employees might be forced to seek public assistance estimated at $2,103 to the US taxpayers for health care and other assistance. With approximately 1.3 million US employees and growing, this amounts to a total of $2.7 billion a year.

By paying sub-standard wages and benefits in order to increase profitability, large corporations are shifting costs onto taxpayers by forcing employees to rely on publicly funded health care programs and for other public assistance services. While public services are an important safety net, large companies have a responsibility to pay living wages and provide adequate benefits to workers. Wal-Mart's benefits package is so expensive that most of its employees cannot afford it. Wal-Mart officials have even been caught encouraging employees to apply for state benefits to cover health care costs.

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott reportedly admitted, 'In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value [than Wal-Mart's health care options].' Wal-Mart spokesperson Ron Bracy recently told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 'Yeah, we have a lot of people on state rolls. We wish it wasn’t so.' Wal-Mart took in $10 billion in profits last year alone and has offered no comprehensive and affordable health care plan for its employees that would allow them to leave public assistance rolls.

In fact, their strategy to remedy a situation they claim to regret is not to boost wages or benefits, but to deny there is a problem and spend millions that could go to benefit workers on a public relations campaign to improve their image.

The House Committee's report estimated that for every 200 person store Wal-Mart opens additional public costs being passed along to taxpayers for an average 200-employee store include: $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families; $42,000 a year for low income housing assistance, assuming 3 percent of store employees qualify; $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families; $100,000 a year for the additional Title I expenses; $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children’s health insurance programs (S-CHIP); $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance. California taxpayers pay $86 million annually for such public programs as health care and subsidized housing just to help out low-wage Wal-Mart workers, according to an August 2004 report from the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley.

Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, Washington, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Connecticut—report Wal-Mart as the leading beneficiary or among the top corporate beneficiaries of its public health program for children's health care. In other words, Wal-Mart's low wages drive its employees to seek public assistance in these states more than any other major employer in the state.

Employees seeking public assistance isn't the only cost to taxpayers Wal-Mart demands. When the company looks at building a store in a new area, the first thing it does is ask for tax subsidies. According to nonprofit research group Good Jobs First, over the past 20 years, taxpayers have shelled out at least $1 billion in subsidies to Wal-Mart, as well as to real estate developers who build strip malls for Wal-Mart. While Wal-Mart convinces many local governments to go along with this on the promise that new jobs will offset tax subsidies (in other words, working people will make up for the lost revenue), one study commissioned by the city of Barnstable, Massachusetts actually found that the town's revenues lost an average of $794 per 1,000 square feet developed by Wal-Mart. The losses arose due to greater need for road maintenance and public safety services.

Cathedral City, California also reported losses due to its tax deal with Wal-Mart. In 1995, the city gave Wal-Mart a tax subsidy worth $1.8 million to build two stores. Last year, after the city collected its first check for $800,000 from the stores’ sales taxes (charged to its customers, not out of Wal-Mart's pocket), the store closed down.

After losing a cool million just on the up-front deal and millions more over the decade of not paying taxes, Wal-Mart moved the stores to a neighboring city, where, no doubt, they stoked the flames of competition and collected a similar tax break. Meanwhile Cathedral City’s encounter with Wal-Mart has put the city in hock for $3 million altogether.

Many states are considering remedies to the crisis for local governments caused by corporate subsidies. Close to 30 states have introduced or passed legislation requiring states to disclose which employers are shifting health care costs to taxpayers by forcing working to pay for health care out of pocket or by pushing them to seek public assistance. The legislation is designed to help measure the costs to state health care programs when large and profitable employers such as Wal-Mart skimp on coverage.

While this legislation isn’t aimed just at Wal-Mart, it does result from Wal-Mart style policies. And Wal-Mart has taken it personally, fighting the legislation every step of the way.

Another remedy is organizing unions. Wal-Mart denies publicly that it opposes unions, but it forces new employees to take anti-union classes. When workers do try to organize they are threatened and harassed until they give it up. In two recent situations in Colorado and Canada, Wal-Mart’s response to store workers that voted to join a union was to close the stores.

While large numbers of Wal-Mart workers earn at or less than the federal poverty level and fewer than half actually get Wal-Mart’s meager health benefits, union workers on the whole earn an average of close to 30 percent more than non-union workers, are more than 4 times more likely to have a pensions, and almost always have some health care benefits. Unions have been instrumental in fighting and eliminating job and promotion discrimination based on race or gender.

So, while Wal-Mart’s claims that its policies lead to low prices, let’s ask who really pays to keep their prices low and their profits high? Workers and taxpayers. If Wal-Mart ever took full responsibility for its employees (not to mention the low-wage workers in other countries it relies on to manufacture the majority of the products sold in its stores) and paid a fair share into the communities it operates in, it would continue to earn large profits and would likely be welcomed by communities rather than see a growing number of local communities campaign to block it from opening new stores.

So why does the company spend millions to spruce up its image rather than fixing the problems everyone knows it has? Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, if he were honest, would be the first to admit that the capitalist system forces the company to operate the way it does. Capitalism is driven by the need to increase profits, not by service to the community or responsibility for the welfare of employees, despite the fact that it is their work that makes the company successful. This means, unfortunately, that working people really cannot rely on Wal-Mart to improve its behavior on its own. They have to continue to fight Wal-Martization in their legislatures by demanding passage of legislation that will expose corporate misbehavior and by joining campaigns to pressure Wal-Mart in a new direction, such as the Send Wal-Mart ‘back to school’ campaign being led by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

--Joel Wendland may be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

John Roberts: A Republican Great Gatsby?

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:16:00 +0000

7-30-05, 8:15 am

The Bush administration has nominated a smooth corporate lawyer with all the right university, law school and gentleman’s club connections to replace Sandra Day O’Connor at the Supreme Court. Questions will be asked of course, particularly on Roe v. Wade, but the federal judiciary’s collaboration with right-wing Republican administrations in the undermining of workers’ rights and civil rights and civil liberties should be seriously addressed if peoples movements who are mobilizing to defeat Roberts are to be given a real hearing.

First of all, the argument that Bush as president has the right to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court he wishes is specious. The Supreme Court has always been a political court and there have been intense battles over the appointment of specific judges through U.S. history. Most of the judges themselves have understood this. For example, when Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great early 20th century progressive jurist, wished to resign from the court because he was over ninety and in bad health, he contacted President Herbert Hoover and said that he would only resign if Hoover appointed a progressive to replace him. Even though he was very old and ill, Holmes told Hoover that his chances of surviving on the court were much greater than Hoover’s chances of being re-elected in the midst of the great depression. Hoover did appoint a progressive to replace Holmes.

Popular opposition and leadership by Senate Democrats did stop Richard Nixon from appointing his first two court nominees, Harold Carswell and Clement Haynesworth. A powerful mass movement also defeated Reagan’s attempt to appoint Robert Bork to the court. While those who were eventually appointed were not progressives, a number of them subsequently played a very positive role in opposing rightwing initiatives on the court. Of the sitting Judges, John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, and David Souter, appointed by George Bush I, are the best examples.

It is important to broaden the campaign against Roberts by raising the class question, making it clear that Roberts on all major class issues is the enemy of the overwhelming majority of the American people chosen by an administration which received the votes of 30% of the nation’s eligible voters. Anita Hill, an African American Law Professor best known for her role in Justice Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, mentioned after the appointment was announced that that the choice of a candidate with Harvard Law Review and elite Washington firm background, hailed as a 'standard of excellence' by supporters, makes it unlikely that women and people of color, neither of whom have too much access to such credentials, can ever be on the Supreme Court. This is certainly true although it really isn’t primarily a question of gender and ethnicity since there are female and minority jurists who are no different than Roberts in their support of corporate power and opposition to workers rights along with issues of reproductive rights and civil rights and civil liberties.

In the battle against Roberts, progressives should begin to put forward the need to have the federal judiciary (and the judiciary at all levels of government) include labor lawyers and community lawyer representing working people on a myriad of issues from parking tickets to land-lord tenant disputes as against corporate lawyers and lawyers who are professional politicians. Lani Guinier (who is also a woman and an African American) the NAACP chief counsel who brilliantly fought off Reagan administration attempts to completely eliminate affirmative action would make a great Supreme Court justice. Since Bill Clinton withdrew her nomination for a mid-range Justice Department position in 1993 when the buffoonish rightwing radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh attacked her as a 'quota queen,' her appointment in the future by a national administration would be a powerful rebuttal to decades of right-wing Republican court-packing.

Roberts unlike Lani Guinier, extends the rightwing court domination by being objectively worse than Sandra Day O’Connor, the conservative Arizona Republican whom he may replace. While O’Connor came from a ruling class Texas family and attended Stanford, her gender kept her out of the old boys club of elite lawyers. While she was a Goldwater Republican politician in Arizona, she, like Goldwater himself, did not identify with the religious right and, unlike her fellow Arizona Goldwaterite, William Rehnquist, who voted against Roe v. Wade, had no record of opposing reproductive rights. Over the last two decades, O’Connor was sometimes the swing vote against ultra-right stands on a variety of issues. Roberts, based on his record, can be counted on to swing to the side of the ultra-right.

His career over the last 24 years is evidence of this. Roberts worked in the Justice Department in the Reagan administration as a rightwing young attorney whose memos, those so far released, show him prodding senior rightwing Republican Justice Department officials like William French Smith and Theodore Olson to be more militantly rightwing in their actions. Roberts for example favored administration support for a bill outlawing school busing to facilitate integration even though the Supreme Court had previously declared busing for those purposes to be legal for those purposes. His cover story was that busing produced 'white flight.' Roberts stated his opposition to affirmative action because it meant the recruitment of 'unqualified candidates'

At the same time, Roberts clearly stated his opposition to court decisions to restrict sectarian prayers in public schools and court opposition to the use of public funds for parochial schools. His MO was to express sympathy for grievants, that is, minorities and women who were struggling for equal rights, but to contend that the policies they advocated would make matters worse for them one way or another. To me this sounds suspiciously like the old refrain of keeping you place, waiting fifty-years, one hundred years, to get to the front of the bus, to get the job others get because they don’t have your color or gender, and realize that it is for your own good.

Out of government, Roberts served as a high corporate lawyer, earning in recent years a seven figure annual income. In that role, he represented companies in conflict with each other and in conflict with their workers. This can and should be highlighted in the campaign against him.

Roberts is a throwback to the powerful corporate lawyers who from the 1870s to the 1930s, dominated the Supreme Court. They first invented and defended the 'freedom of contract' and legal due process for the Trusts, then they built a wall of protection in federal law for those corporations against both state and federal legislation regulations that benefited workers and the whole people.

Roberts, in the mold of the contemporary ultra right goes beyond those corporate lawyers in his opposition to reproductive rights (which did not exist in their time in law) and the separation of church and state (which did).

Roberts’s anti-working class orientation today is highlighted by his opposition to affirmative action and the enforcement of civil rights legislation, because the anti-civil rights agenda is essentially a defense of corporate profits and power against working people.

Eliminating racial and gender inequalities means eliminating the basis for super-profits gained through discriminatory wages, hiring practices, fewer benefits and so on given to people regarded as less worthy. Eliminating inequality also threatens the hegemony of the capitalist class by unifying workers. Residential integration of communities and schools also deepens the general integration which has been carried forward at the work place and diminishes the racist sub-text that underlies right-wing political attacks on urban housing and social welfare programs (since both 'urban' and 'welfare' are synonyms for minorities).

Finally, reproductive rights including the right to pregnancy termination makes women more independent in the workforce and in society as a whole, reducing capital’s ability to channel women into pink collar jobs, define female workers as part-time because of pregnancy and child care issues, and treat large numbers of female workers, along with minority workers, as a super-exploited 'reserve army of labor' in Karl Marx’s classic formulation, used to depress wage rates and divide and weaken the working class as a class.

Scholars in the 1960s in criticizing US foreign policy often wrote of the 'arrogance of power.' Power is ultimately class power and the more secure it feels, the more open it is in its arrogance.

John Roberts is a smart rich country club Republican chosen by some of his by some of his cruder, less intelligent brethren, Bush and his advisors, to run interference for them in the Supreme Court. They can be sure that he will do his job because he always has. A successful and broad fight against Roberts’ confirmation would connect the class question with Roberts’ right-wing stands on civil rights and reproductive rights. Further, progressives should begin to actively advocate the future appointment of progressive judges, in the tradition of Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and Thurgood Marshall, to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. My first choice would be Lani Guinier.

--Norman Markowitz may be reached at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net.

TV Drama on Iraq Tells Us More About Hollywood

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:18:00 +0000

7-29-05, 9:22 am

A significant percentage of the U.S. news stories about Iraq in the past couple of days have been stories about a fictional TV series set in Iraq – 'Over There,' which debuted on the FX Network on Wednesday night. Much has been made of the idea that this is the first such series about a war to air during the actual fighting of that war (apparently we've already all forgoten the Jessica Lynch series and the Colin-Condi-Dick-and-Don Show).

Newspaper articles have noted with despair that Americans must now turn to (non-taxpayer funded) fiction for depiction of the blood and horror of war, because the TV news (in this country, unlike others) does not show it. But these reports have been less forthcoming about the shortcomings of our print media's war coverage and the shortcomings of 'Over There,' co-produced by Stephen Bochco, who brought us 'Hill Street Blues.'

I watched the first episode before reading a word about it, but have since read a number of the reviews by reporters who've seen the first three episodes and interviewed the creators (or at least copied and pasted lines out of their press release).

The episode I watched was 40 minutes, and for the first 20 there was nothing positive I could say about it. After that, the only positive thing I could say was that it began to show war in a way that included injuries and deaths. That may prove a significant contribution, particularly if the fictional version opens the door to showing us the real thing.

The first episode briefly showed some soldiers departing the United States, and then focused on one battle in which this small band of men went up against a heavily fortified building in the middle of a desert. Those opposed to the war may view this sort of drama and complain that there is no information provided as to what the war (or even this battle) is about, no scenes depicting the decision makers who sent these kids to kill and die. I'd like to see that done, and I think it says something about our democracy that such a thing is unimaginable. But I think it's unfair to demand that of every war show.

However, I have another complaint. 'Over There,' is clearly intended to have 'no political point of view,' and its creators have said as much. At the same time it's intended to be a serious drama that deals with tough issues. In episode one we see racial conflict, sexual conflict, and class conflict play out among the U.S. soldiers. We see conflicts between troops and their commanders and between soldiers and their families back home. We even see U.S. troops handicapping themselves by trying to avoid endangering an Al Jazeera reporter (a nice switch from real life incidents in which evidence strongly suggests that the US targeted and killed them). That's a lot of issues to pack into 40 minutes largely devoted to flying bullets. And it's done in a third-rate sort of way that clearly satisfies the reviewers.

But what is meant by having no political point of view? The view from one POLIS, or political state, is always different from that of another. This show (at least in episode one – and the reviews suggest this doesn't change in the next two episodes) takes exclusively the point of view of the United States. The Iraqis in this show have no names and for the most part no faces, no stories, no families, no nicknames, no annoying and endearing habits, no motivations or regrets, no insecurities, no NOTHING.

If a reporter from Mars were to hover her spacecraft over a battle in the desert of Iraq, she would know nothing about what lies a distant leader told to start the war, but she would see the fighting between two groups of people of the same species, not one group of people and another group of dangerous objects or evil beings. To its credit, episode one shows dead Iraqi soldiers on the ground, and shows American soldiers contemplating them. But one of the first Iraqis we see actually hit by a flying projectile is a man running toward us whose entire torso is blown away, so that a trunkless-headless-armless pair of legs briefly continues running toward us on its own. The laughter this will elicit from sadistic viewers can hardly be accidental.

Those inclined to see the horrors of war will see them here. Those inclined to think of foreigners as evil ones, as non-humans, will confirm that world-destroying prejudice. And by design.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed Bochco:

'MATTHEWS: Who are the bad guys? Are they nationalist Iraqis? Are they Baathists? Are they outside Islamists who came into the country to fight us? How do you define the enemy in your series?

'BOCHCO: We are defining the enemy as those individuals who are trying to kill us, who are shooting at us. And we don't put names on them or labels on them. They are just trying to hurt us, and they are the bad guys.'

Never mind that in the real world EVERYONE has a name and lots of labels. Never mind that one side's soldiers are not 'good guys' and the other's 'bad guys.' Although one side may be fighting for its home, and the other may be fighting for corporate profits and empire, the soldiers are all human beings.

A 'bad guy' in the tradition of Western literature and Hollywood is not a human being.

Because of this revolting simplification, I was almost sorry to see all the intra-American drama and identity issues in 'Over There', because I knew the reviewers would call the show daring and complex. I wasn't disappointed:

The Daily News:

'In tomorrow's premiere episode, we meet the soldiers, they meet each other, and we watch as they form their easy bonds and uneasy conflicts. After a first mission, they're rewarded by getting to send a video E-mail home, and that's where 'Over There' first kicks into a higher gear. From that point, it never slips. Episode two has the unit defending a roadblock; episode three has them involved with interrogating a prisoner. Each episode contains shocks and surprises, from unexpected reactions and sudden explosions to the unusual move of ending, rather than beginning, each episode with the show's major credits and theme song. 'Over There,' like combat, is unpredictable, confusing, horrifying, shocking and comprised of several different perspectives. But though war may be hell, 'Over There' is brilliant.'

The Philadelphia Inquirer:

'Wednesday's premiere is heavy on the shooting scenes. The show moves toward a more exalted presence next week, as characters define themselves more clearly and the action frequently moves away from Iraq. Bochco says Over There will spend about 40 percent of its time on the home front. The series, more a revelation than entertainment, will not be for everybody. Many will be fascinated by and addicted to this amazing production, agreeing with Bochco that 'art is supposed to... ask provocative questions.' But the combination of Bochco and FX assures excessive rawness, and many viewers will simply be offended by the whole too-much, too-soon exercise.'

In fact, attacks on this series as a creation of the 'liberal elite' are inevitable. Never mind that its stated intention is simply to make piles of money by 'entertaining.' And never mind that it never shows us an Iraqi as a human being.

Whatever that may be, it ain't liberal.

LINK TO ARTICLE

--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. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

Bush Stonewalls, Demands Rubber Stamp on Roberts Nomination

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:10:00 +0000

7-29-05, 9:15 am

After revelations that Judge John Roberts misrepresented his membership and role in the extremely conservative, judicially activist Federalist Society, the White House continues to withhold key documents related to his ideological views on overturning key legal principles considered settled by most Americans. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has the legal responsibility for examining nominees to the federal courts, have asked the White House and Roberts to release documents authored by the nominee when he worked in the first Bush administration as deputy solicitor general. In that position Roberts worked under Kenneth Starr, who known primarily for his later role in spending hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars to bring President Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadillos before the American public.

Commenting on the failure of the White House to release the documents, People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas said earlier this week that the White House is releasing a handful of already publicly available documents written by Roberts in order to hide the fact that critical documents from his tenure in the Reagan and Bush I administrations are being withheld.

The purpose of withholding key documents is to not only hide Roberts’ views but also limit the time Senators have to examine the record. And contrary to claims by the White House and right-wing pundits that such requests are extraordinary, the Senate has followed this procedure many times before.

And while a limited number of Roberts’ papers are already available, the White House is slow-rolling release of the overwhelming majority of the documents so there will be insufficient time for Senators to assess the papers before Roberts’ confirmation hearings.

According to People for the American Way, Roberts was a key figure in the Bush campaign in 2000. His performance earned him a nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003. In an administration that openly punishes its enemies and critics (even when they are in the administration and the Republican Party), such rapid advancement would not have occurred without sharing the ideological agenda of those whom he worked with and for. Roberts, says a PFAW statement, was also a top political and legal strategist under Reagan and Bush I during contentious debates in the 1980s and 1990s over voting rights, affirmative action, reproductive choice, school desegregation the separation of church and state, environmental protection and discrimination in federally funded education programs against women, minorities, people with disabilities, and older Americans.

On the subject of women’s reproductive rights, Roberts’ views won him ringing endorsements from anti-choice organizations. 'Roberts has shown strong conservative credentials with indications he will not uphold Roe v. Wade.' said Cheryl Sullenger of Operation Rescue, which Roberts’ had defended in an amicus brief in a lawsuit that appeared before the Supreme Court.

Roberts argued, against the eventual position of the Court, that the anti-choice organization had the right to harass women entering women’s clinics known to provide abortions, among other medical procedures. Roberts is 'exactly the kind of judge I want to appear before when I bring my case to the Supreme Court,' says Joe Scheidler of Pro-Life Action League.

Memos and documents that have been released from Roberts’ work in the Reagan administration detail Roberts’ own thinking on these issues. It is well known that the Reagan administration fought to roll back individual privacy rights and freedoms, but Roberts’ own views were to the right of many conservatives in the administration.

According to a report in the New York Times, Roberts’ work in the Reagan administration argued for stripping courts of their Constitutional responsibility to oversee and decide on issues such as de-segregation of schools, sex discrimination law, and other matters related to civil rights, privacy rights, and so on.

Now, as some memos show, Roberts intends to use the full power of the Courts to dismantle decades of Constitutional law and precedent that mandate against discrimination, protect privacy rights, and other matters enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

But even these documents do not tell the whole story and other key papers have yet to be made available. 'What are they trying to hide? John Roberts was at the epicenter of debates on the most critical civil rights issues of our times. Those documents could tell the Senate and the American people whether John Roberts will be a Supreme Court justice who will protect our most fundamental rights, or roll them back,' said Neas. 'The White House should release all the documents to the Senate and to the public as appropriate as quickly as possible.'

While stonewalling to hide Roberts’ full record, the White House is simultaneously pressing for confirmation hearings in August to push the Roberts nomination through with unprecedented speed.

'What’s the rush? What questions do they want to avoid? John Roberts lacks a public record on key constitutional issues, yet the most ideological members of the radical right are wildly enthusiastic about this nomination. What do they know that we don’t?' Neas asked. 'This is the highest court in the land. The American people deserve a painstaking and thorough examination of this nominee.'

Just because Bush was elected in 2004, and one must use that term loosely to account for massive election irregularities in Ohio, does not mean that the Senate should rubber stamp his nominations. Most Americans, even a large portion of those who voted for Bush, did not vote for him on his positions on abortion, civil rights, privacy, and other federal protections. Bush held these cards close to his vest while campaigning exclusively on the issue of his 'war on terrorism' – a failed policy one might add.

In addition to this, most Americans support keeping Roe v. Wade as it is, do not want to eliminate the separation of church and state, and rely on federal protections of civil rights. Appointing a judge who will counter the will of the majority is a typical Bush maneuver, but it isn’t a reflection of the people’s opinions.

Further, right-wing pundits insist that because Bush was re-elected and because his party holds power in the Senate, it means he should be able to have any of his appointees confirmed.

The real point of this line of reasoning advanced by seriously such vitamin-deprived right-wing pundits as Tucker Carlson, is that the American public has to accept the agenda of the Party in power (only when its Republican, of course).

Taking this line of thinking to its conclusion, however, might look like this: every four years, the public chooses between two options, red or blue. If blue wins, Democrats get to make all the decisions. If red wins, Republicans makes all the decisions. No debate. The right-wing pundits might call it an elective dictatorship.

But that is not how the system works, or is supposed to work. The Constitution was designed to check the power of any one group or party and any on ebranch of government. This means that the Senate’s Constitutional role is 'advise and consent,' not rubber stamp. It has the legal responsibility to scrutinize John Roberts and block his confirmation if Roberts fails to reflect mainstream values, isn't qualified, has the intention of hurting the Constitution, or fails to be forthright and forthcoming about his opinions.

This requirement seems to be something the right doesn’t understand. But of course, as even the thin Roberts’ record suggests, the right has a dramatically different view of the Constitution than the rest of the American public.

--Contact Leo Walsh at pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net.

US military lawyers’ warnings against torture ignored

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:38:00 +0000

7-29-05, 8:44 am

Senior US military lawyers had strongly opposed the harsh interrogation methods against foreign terror suspects in 2003, but their voices were neglected by the US government, according to newly declassified documents.

Rather than listening carefully to the lawyers’ opinions, an administration legal task force concluded that US President George W. Bush had authority as commander in chief to order excessive interrogations of prisoners at the US naval base of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Thursday’s New York Times quoted the documents as saying.

The task force claimed that US military interrogators and their commanders should be immune from prosecution of torture under federal and international laws because of the 'special character of the fight against terrorism.'

But in memorandums written by a number of leading military lawyers two years ago, they warned that the government’s position on the issue could endanger US interests.

In one of the documents, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, the deputy judge advocate of the US Air Force, advised the Bush administration that several of the 'more extreme interrogation techniques amount to violations of domestic criminal law' as well as military law. Rives pointed out that these interrogation methods would be unacceptable in the international community and could put the interrogators at risk of criminal accusations abroad.

Other senior lawyers also warned that the aggressive interrogation techniques could diminish the country’s standing as a leader in 'the moral high road' approach to the laws of war.

However, the US government and the Pentagon were largely unmoved by suggestions from the military lawyers.

The memorandums were declassified recently at the request of US Senator Lindsey Graham.

Graham and several other Senate Republicans are pushing for legislation in order to set rules for the treatment and interrogation of terrorism suspects in US custody, despite a White House veto threat.

From Xinhua

Brazilian Government Forces Multinational Pharmaceutical Company to Back Down over AIDS Medications

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:36:00 +0000

7-29-05, 8:43 am

On June 24, Brazil issued an ultimatum to the Illinois-based pharmaceutical corporation Abbott Laboratories that it must lower the price it charged for the AIDS medication Kaletra, or the government would move to break the patent and manufacture the drug generically in its own laboratories. Abbott was given ten days to respond with a more favorable price, and on July 9, media reports indicated that it had reached an agreement with Brazil. In spite of the apparent compromise, the wrangling over Kaletra is likely to produce reverberations in future relations between Brazil and U.S. administrations, with the latter being under increasing pressure by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to assertively and extraterritorially defend the intellectual property rights of American industries.

Brazil, Leader in AIDS Treatment

Brazil’s comprehensive AIDS treatment program, first introduced in 1996, has been extolled as a model to be employed by developing countries across the world in their fight against the disease. Dramatic statistical evidence indicates that Brazil’s efforts are worthy of the praise: in 1995, there were 12.2 AIDS deaths per 100,000 people, whereas in 2000, only 6.3 people per 100,000 were killed by the disease. According to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), in 1998, Brazil had the second highest number of documented AIDS cases in the world. In 1995, the World Bank projected that in excess of 1.2 million people would be HIV positive by the year 2000. As a result of its Herculean prevention efforts, only 600,000 Brazilians, 50 percent of the projected figure, are now living with AIDS or HIV.

The pillar of the program is the government’s distribution of free anti-retroviral drugs to 170,000 patients. In order to keep costs down, Brazil manufactures generic AIDS drugs in its state-owned plant Farma Manguinhos. However, Brazil cannot produce generic drugs at will; it is constrained by its obligations to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which it joined in 1997. As a member, it agreed to abide by patent laws in effect for pharmaceuticals, limiting its copying operations to drugs commercially distributed before 1997.

Patent Rights versus Prevention Efforts

Since the first AIDS medications were introduced, scientists have continued their search for more effective treatments. For drug companies, significant sums of money are expended on the research and development (R&D) phase of a medication’s proprietary life-span. Patents provide a drug company with the exclusive right to control the release of its product into the public domain for a predetermined time period. The fact that a corporation holding a patent is insulated from competition for a fixed period allows it to charge consumers a high price for a particular medication, even though its associated manufacturing costs are extremely low. Pharmaceutical companies justify this large windfall on the grounds that they, as for-profit entities, must recoup the money spent in R&D. The logical extension of this argument is that if companies are not sufficiently assured that their patents will be respected, they will not bother to develop new medications as there will be no financial incentive to do so.

Conversely, AIDS activists and humanitarian organizations have criticized pharmaceutical companies for their self-serving business practices in countries where poverty and lack of development make combating diseases like AIDS an exceedingly difficult task. In the late 1990s, respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) and Oxfam publicly lambasted the pharmaceutical giants for the prices they charged for AIDS medications in Africa. Similarly, Sezifredo Paz of the Brazilian Consumer Protection Institute commented in Brazzil magazine that “intellectual property of medicines gets in the way of public health and universal access to remedies, due to high prices.”

Both sides of the debate on the breaking of pharmaceutical patents claim that international trade law supports their position. In November of 2001, at the Doha Ministerial, the WTO issued a “Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health,” a move designed to assuage the concerns of member countries who felt that intellectual property laws were hampering their efforts to contain deadly diseases. As part of the agreement, the WTO recognized that “each member has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency” and asserted that “public health crises, including those relating to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, can represent a national emergency.” As such, “each member has the right to grant compulsory licenses and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licenses are granted.”

The Brazilian government believes that its AIDS problem is sufficiently grave to constitute a national emergency in accordance with the Declaration, providing it with reasonable grounds on which to break the patent held by Abbott. Unsurprisingly, this is not the view held by Abbott, American and European pharmaceutical companies, and other professed defenders of intellectual property rights. Many observers claim that the passage of the legislation, with its implication that the patent would be broken and a license fee paid, was nothing more than a negotiating tactic employed by Brasília to force Abbott’s hand. Most likely, there is more than a grain of truth to this explanation. Since the Doha Declaration, no pharmaceutical patent has been broken. For the majority of developing nations, a cost benefit analysis would reveal that breaking a pharmaceutical patent is not worth the inevitable punitive economic backlash from the United States and its private sector allies.

Sultans of Spin: The Corporate Lobby and the Brazilian AIDS Problem by Numbers

As personnel from Abbott Laboratories strategized behind closed doors, their private-sector affiliates and the think tanks which they help fund employed the OP/ED pages of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times to launch broadsides against the Brazilian government. Robert Goldberg, Director of the Center for Medical Progress at the Manhattan Center, a prominent rightwing think tank, discounted Brazil’s argument that it intends to break the patent to make medications affordable, because its AIDS infection rate of 0.6 percent is roughly equivalent to that of the United States at 0.5 percent. Similarly, Mary Anastasia O’Grady, perhaps the U.S.’ most reactionary columnist today, writing in the Wall Street Journal, posited that Brazil’s breaking of the patent will have disastrous effects on both its economic development and future R&D for needed vaccines. She scathingly grouped Brazil’s efforts to protect intellectual property with those of traditional Washington pariahs Iran and Cuba, as well as the recently disfavored Venezuela, in her latest fulminations.

Goldberg and O’Grady examine AIDS from a calculating, detached perspective, much like the analysts that refer to civilian war casualties as “collateral damage.” Yet, even a cursory examination of relevant economic statistics can quickly discount Goldberg’s comparison of Brazil to the United States. Brazil’s GDP per capita for 2004 was estimated to be $8,100 compared to the United States’ $40,100 for the same indicator. Moreover, according to USAID, Brazil’s income distribution “continues to be among the world’s worst.” In 2003, the Economist reported that the poorest fifty percent of Brazil’s population accounted for only ten percent of the national income. Just as Brazil lags far behind the United States in terms of economic clout and wealth distribution, its infrastructure very much reflects the skewed condition of a developing country. Fifty million of Brazil’s 186 million inhabitants live in the rural areas while millions more impoverished citizens reside in urban favela shanty towns. With the exception of agribusiness barons and their servitors, those who live in Brazil’s countryside are desperately poor and many are forced to survive on less than $1 per day.

The Brazilian government, as part of its AIDS treatment programs, spends $2500 per year per patient for drug cocktails, including a total of $107 million annually on Abbott’s Kaletra. Taxpayers in Brazil, as in any other country, are entitled to expect that the government act as a responsible steward of public money. If the government could spend less while maintaining the high quality of its AIDS programs, then it behooves it to explore any such option. Specific details of the deal reached between Abbott and the Brazilian government have not been announced, but the annual amount that Brazil pays to Abbott will be frozen for the next six years, allowing for $259 million to be saved.

Many of the hysterical ululations coming from the property rights lobby accuse Brazil of “drug patent theft” (copyright O’Grady and the Wall Street Journal). Yet, although Brazil does not seem poised to break Abbott’s patent, many would argue, as the New York Times did in a recent editorial, that the South American nation was working within the rights accorded to it as a member of the WTO. If Abbott genuinely believed that Brazil was acting in violation of WTO rules, then it likely would not have backed down over the perceived hijacking of its intellectual property. Or, even if Abbott was aggrieved over Brasília’s actions, the company made a pragmatic decision to retreat from a direct confrontation.

It is in the above context that Abbott’s decision to broker a deal with the Brazilian government must be analyzed. In 2004, Abbott’s net sales were $19.6 billion – an amount far in excess of the GDP of many small nations. On July 14, the Financial Times quoted Abbott as saying that its “Brazilian business was small compared to worldwide sales of Kaletra” and that it “continued to expect good growth for its Aids treatments.” Therefore, it seems as though the revenue generated by Kaletra in Brazil represents little more than a drop in the bucket for Abbott. The company is performing well financially and globally; its net income for the second quarter of 2005 was up 38 percent from the same period last year.

The role of pharmaceutical companies in AIDS treatment programs is an extremely sensitive topic. If Abbott had refused to compromise with the Brazilian government, then it could have become embroiled in a controversy that would have generated substantial negative publicity that shareholders and executives would certainly wish to avoid. Moreover, by appearing flexible in its dealings with Brazil, Abbott feels that it has enhanced its reputation for “global citizenship,” a quality with which the company, as its website suggests, is keen to be associated.

From Council of Hemispheric Affairs

Events in Turkey

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:28:00 +0000

7-29-05, 8:32 am

Patriots’ Oath: 'We Will Defeat Imperialism!'

Members of the Patriotic Front held a demonstration on June 18 for the anniversary of the opening of Incirlik Military Base, which has been under the US control since its foundation. Patriots gathered in front of the Galatasaray High School on the Istiklal Street with banners and TKP flags.

In the press statement, which was red out by a member of the Patriotic Front, it was declared that the patriots, who had the will to shut down the Incirlik Base, had no intention to replace it with the headquarters of the European Army. The press statement ended with call to the struggle against the US and the EU imperialism.

After the press statement, patriots marched with slogans to the Beyoglu Branch office of TKP, which was also on the Istiklal Street. In front of the TKP's Beyoglu Branch office, the patriots red out altogether the oath of a patriot, and pledged to shut down the Incirlik Base, kick the US imperialism out of our country, and save it from the trap of the EU.

Workers' Council Held The 2nd Labor Symposium

The 2nd Labor Symposium, which was organized by the Workers' Council, took place at the Nazim Hikmet Culture Center on June 19. While the title of the symposium was 'The EU and Working Class Patriotism', participants discussed on the policies of the EU about the working class, the situation of the working class in the EU member countries, the place of trade unions in the struggle, the impact of the EU membership process on the working class in Turkey, the judicial changes done for adjustment, and the role of trade unions and unionists in the process. George Boulougaris from PAME in Greece also attended the symposium and talked about the resistance of the working class of Greece against the EU policies.

The symposium started with an opening speech by Erhan Nalcaci, who was a member of the Executive Board of the Workers' Council and Central Committee of TKP. In the first session titled 'What does the EU demands from the working class?', the speakers were Onder Atay, who was the Organization Secretary of DISK Bank-Sen, trade union of bank workers, and member of the Executive Board of the Workers' Council, Ilhami Alkan, who is researcher and member of the Left Council, and George Boulougaris, who was the representative of PAME. The speakers explained how the central policies of the European Union affected the lives and organizations rights of the workers in the EU countries. The also talked about the situation of trade unionism and how some trade unions cooperated in the labor hostile policies of the EU.

In the second session, which was titled as 'The EU and the working class of Turkey', the speakers were Ilhan Akalin, who was a member of the Executive Board of the Workers' Council, Ali Onder Ondes from the CC of TKP, Ozan Gulhan, who was the editor of the 'Gun Isigi Magazine' and member of the Patriotic Lawyers' Initiative, and Alpaslan Savas, who was the former organization specialist of the United Metal Union. The speakers talked about the meaning of the EU membership process for the working class of Turkey, the new legal adjustments, which implemented new work conditions, and the role of the trade unions in this process.

In the last part, the audience contributed the meeting with questions and comments. Throughout the symposium, speakers stressed out that the best response to the capitalists' assaults to the working class would be struggling against imperialism and carrying the working class a patriotic identity.

In addition to that, the foundation of the 'Patriotic Front Metal Workers' Initiative of Gebze' was announced at the symposium. It was also declared that many new patriotic workers' initiatives would be founded in the upcoming period. Parallel to the building of the patriotic identity of the working class, the Workers' Council would concentrate on exposing trade unions and unionists, which support the European Union, and tracking the connections between privatizations and imperialist institutions and companies. Sivas Massacre Commemorated

In the 12 anniversary of the Sivas Massacre, at which Islamist fundamentalist murdered 33 leftists intellectuals in Sivas on July 2, 1993, TKP branches all over the country commemorated them with various activities. At the commemoration events, communists stressed out the cooperation of Islamist fundamentalists, fascists and the state officials.

Among the many commemoration events, the most significant one took place in Sivas, a city in Middle Anatolia. As TKP is getting organized in Sivas, communists joined the commemoration events in Sivas on July 2. TKP members gathered at the Hukumet Square and marched to the Madimak Hotel, where the massacre took place. The event ended with a press statement. Meeting of the anti-imperialists from Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey

The anti-imperialist meeting, which was hosted by Peace Committee of Greece, took place in the past week in Alexandroupolis, which is a town near the Turkish border in Greece. Peace Committee of Bulgaria, Eastern Macedonian and Thracian Peace Committee from Greece, and Peace Association from Turkey participated at the events, which were titled as 'Long Live the Fraternity of Peoples - Down with the New Order of Imperialists'.

The events started on June 4, as the Committees met at the border. The meeting was followed by a symposium on the 'developments in Balkans and the role of the anti-imperialist movement'. The opening speech of the symposium was made by Manolis Lironis from the Peace Committee of Greece. In his speech, Lironis stressed out the seeds of hostility planted by the presence of NATO and European Army in Balkans and their military and political interferences. Lironis mentioned that the interests of the Balkan peoples were common, and warned that these relations shouldn't be distorted by the forces in service of the capital. He concluded his speech by emphasizing that the hope was in the strengthening and spreading out of the internationalist struggle of peoples in Balkans. George Havatzas, who spoke in the name of the Balkan Anti-NATO Center, talked about NATO and the 'preventive war' doctrine of the USA and the EU. Havatzas explained that imperialist states were trying to reset the borders in an attempt of forming states in their own control, and he said that Balkan operations of NATO and the Greater Middle Eastern Project should be seen in that way. He commented that the only barricade against the aggression of imperialism would be the rise of the anti-imperialist and anti-war struggle at the national level and its coordination at the international level, and that these activities were serving to that purpose. Emin Cetin, who talked in the name of the Peace Association from Turkey, said that the prime responsibility for the wars and massacres in Balkans belonged to the imperialist powers, who were planting seeds of hostility among the peoples. Cetin also mentioned that the conflicts between the US and the EU imperialisms in Balkans shouldn't be exaggerated, and added that the collaboration among imperialists for the plundering of Balkan countries is dominant. He concluded his speech by saying that the imperialist aggression in Balkans should be stopped and that the common struggle of the Balkan peoples was capable of doing that.

On the next day, the anti-imperialists from Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey attended the 'anti-imperialist march' and events. The meeting started with the march in the city center, while the anti-imperialists from the three countries demonstrated an important example of the fraternity of peoples and anti-imperialist struggle with their songs, marches and slogans. The meeting at the lighthouse of Alexandroupolis started with poems of peace. The famous Turkish communist poet Nazim Hikmet's poem 'Kerem Gibi' was also red out in Greek. Afterwards, the representatives of peace committees once again had to chance to appeal to the people of Alexandroupolis. The meeting continued with songs and short drama performances by Greek artists, while Irfan Ertel from the Executive Board of the Peace Association of Turkey performed folksongs.

June 15-16 Commemorated

Communist Party of Turkey held a demonstration in Ankara on June 15, which was the 35th anniversary of the workers' resistance of June 15-16. The demonstration took place in the industrial zone called OSTIM, where over 70 thousand people work. The demonstrators met in front of the Yenimahalle Branch office of TKP and marched through OSTIM to the metro station. While by standing workers applauded the demonstrators in solidarity, slogans like 'The unity of workers will defeat the capital', 'The workers of OSTIM won't let the country to be sold', and 'Nor the USA, neither the EU, socialist Turkey' were chanted.

After the march, a meeting was held with the participation of many workers at the metro station. Patriotic Front's OSTIM Workers' Initiative and Public Workers' Initiative were also at the meeting.

The first speaker of the meeting was a worker from OSTIM, who said that the exploitation of the workers was not their destiny, and that it was in the workers' hands to change their destiny. They had to get organized to do, he added. After the OSTIM worker, the author Ilhan Akalin, talked about the importance of the resistance of June 15-16 and stressed out that the organized struggle of the workers would be the best response to the attack of capital.

The next speaker was a worker from the Extrametal factory in the Organized Industrial Zone of Sincan. He talked about their hardships as they got unionized and stressed out that the workers should trust in their own power only and that this power could only be realized through the determination for struggle and getting organized.

The meeting ended as the workers and party members marched back to the Yenimahalle Branch office of TKP.

From the Communist Party of Turkey’s (TKP) Bulletin, No. 94, July 25th, 2005, Solidarity Network

Cuba: Far From Crisis, Economy Will Grow 9% in 2005

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:25:00 +0000

7-29-05, 8:30 am

President Fidel Castro rejected rumors that Cuba is experiencing an economic crisis, explaining that the Cuban capacity for resistance actually allowed the economy to grow 7.3 % in the first six months, despite drought and scarce energy, and all indications show an expected 9 percent growth for the year.

Addressing the ceremony on Tuesday night on the 52nd anniversary of the storming of Moncada Garrison that initiated the liberation war that ended with the triumph of the revolution in 1959, the President detailed significant positive behavior in 13 of the 22 economic branches, proving Cuba 'is on the right path.' He particularly noted the growth in metallurgy (15.5% in ferrous, 9.2% non-ferrous), food, dressmaking, liquor and tobacco, and remarked on the notable increase in construction, communications, trade and services.

Highlighting the 1.9 million tons of crude oil and gas production -four times that produced at the beginning of the 90s- the statesman recognized the forces made by the country to explore and drill new oil and gas wells using advanced technology in order to eventually reach national energy self-sufficiency.

On the problems of electricity generation, which was down four percent in the first half of the year due to protracted plant maintenance, President Castro said maintenance resources have been doubled to $100 million and an additional $50 million has been allocated to improving electrical networks to reduce energy loss from 16.5% to 11%.

The Cuban president pointed out that the Island is making strides in a revolutionary concept of production and use of electricity, with new equipment and material now in process of installation that will generate more than a million more kilowatts within a year and double generation capacity by the latter part of 2006.

The current power problem is among the more serious domestic challenges for the Cuban government. It was worsened by damages caused by Hurricane Dennis.

'We will overcome. Have a little bit of faith,' the Cuban leader stressed in an address of nearly four hours.

He explained that Cuba has very clear plans for energy over the next 10 to 20 years and cited measures taken to encourage less consumption of electricity, giving as an example the distribution of millions of rice and pressure cookers to substitute for present high-consumption equipment.

Nickel has brought a significant increase in profits through export, the President reported, with sales of 38,200 tons bringing in some 545 million dollars in the first six months of this year alone.

In this same period tourism had an 11.5 percent earnings increase and expects to host the record figure of 2.3 million foreign visitors by the close of the year.

President Castro informed that production in other areas, such as the pharmaceutical industry and yogurt, soy, chocolate, coffee, pasta and eggs, is also expected to experience substantial increases.

The construction industry was also singled out by the dignitary, who mentioned Cuba’s increased capacity to repair and restore homes damaged by hurricanes -completing by the end of the year 30,000 such reparations to those most damaged by recent Hurricane Dennis.

For 2006, the President announced that materials are being readied to build 100,000 new homes, the greatest number in the history of the nation.

Fidel Castro insisted that recent attempts to depict Cuba as being in crisis were fabrications by the nation’s enemies.

'No other revolutionary process has been able to count on as much consensus and overwhelming support as the Cuban revolution has,' the Cuban leader stressed.

India: Atrocity In Gurgaon On Honda Workers

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:23:00 +0000

Let My People Go: US Labor Fights the Travel Ban

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:18:00 +0000

7-28-05, 10:20 am

The Bush administration doesn’t believe that people in the US should have the right to travel wherever they want. It believes that the US government has the right to restrict freedom of movement and to enforce laws selectively to punish people who do not agree with the administration’s foreign policy towards certain countries. The administration has specifically aimed the federal government’s resources at punishing those who travel to Cuba without obtaining a government license. Recalling that Bush secured his 2000 Florida “victory” with the help of well-financed anti-Castro Cuban exile groups, the White House launched a “crackdown” on travel to Cuba in late 2003 just as the 2004 presidential campaign season opened. (“Crackdown” on travel has been the administration’s official policy since its installation in 2001, but tighter, more severe punishments were handed down in 2003). Several dozen travelers who failed to acquire one of a limited number of Treasury Department travel licenses to go to Cuba were ordered to appear before a judge, provide details about their trips to later be used as evidence against them and to pay fines of up to tens of thousands of dollars.

Until this crackdown on free travel, people accused of traveling to Cuba without a government license had three choices: pay the fine levied by the Treasury Department, negotiate a settlement for a lower fine or request a hearing before an administrative law judge.

The administration’s 2003 efforts to punish people who travel to Cuba came just as Congress adopted an amendment attached to the Treasury Department’s funding bill by a wide bipartisan margin that would have withheld funds from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which enforces laws that restrict travel to and trade with Cuba. OFAC, in fact, focuses on just two things currently: fining people who travel to Cuba and ferreting out Al Qaeda’s international financial network. Sources say that while as many as 50 treasury agents and government lawyers are working on fining tourists for going to cuba, only two agents are currently working on Al Qaeda. Many Republicans in both houses supported the measure because they feel that OFAC’s resources are being wasted on the Cuba travel issue. More importantly, a growing number of Republicans, especially from states who rely on agriculture, feel that restrictions travel to and trade with Cuba hurt their local economies. GOP Senate leader Larry Craig of Idaho, a state that has benefited from trade with Cuba but would like to see restrictions lifted, said that OFAC should not be focusing on the Cuba embargo. Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, has long pushed for repealing trade and travel restrictions on the island country.

When the Treasury funding bill went to a joint conference for final approval, however, a veto threat, Karl Rove’s late-night threatening phone calls to several Republican conference committee members demanding cooperation and pressure from Representative Tom DeLay killed the amendment. Critics of the GOP leadership maneuver against the amendment describe it as a backroom deal and an undemocratic move that mocks the freedoms and rights a democratically elected Congress is legally responsible to protect.

Mavis Anderson of the National Lawyers Guild, an association of lawyers and legal workers that focuses on human rights, characterized the GOP leadership’s move as a “travesty” and told Knight-Ridder, “Even though it was anticipated, it’s still a very disappointing and undemocratic maneuver.” Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, a supporter of ending the travel ban and restrictions on trade with Cuba, noted, “For a few individuals in backroom negotiations to override the will of a majority of Congress sets a dangerous, undemocratic precedent.”

Various laws, including the Trading with the Enemy Act and the Cuban Assets Control Regulation limit the right of citizens to travel to, engage in business with, and bring their property to countries the Bush administration happens to dislike. Specifically, these laws govern the Treasury Department’s authority over travel to Cuba and, until the 2003 crackdown on free travel, were only rarely enforced. Most of the people brought before the government’s judges have agreed to pay smaller fines and have put their confrontation with the Bush administration behind them. One couple, Michael and Ande McCarthy, refused to legitimize what they regard as an unjust law and an unfair process by paying a fine. Motivated by deep religious convictions about their responsibility to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need, they traveled to Cuba in early 2001, bringing medical supplies they had legally gathered in their work as health care professionals. Upon their return, the initial response from the border authorities was only a modest interest. But after the Bush administration announced its crackdown on free travel, they received a letter ordering them to appear before a judge and to pay a fine close to $16,000.

Feeling as though they hadn’t done anything morally wrong or even outside the will of most Americans, they decided to fight the government imposed fines. After their appeal, the Bush administration offered lower fines in order to convince the McCarthy’s to accept the legality of the policy, but so far they say they are going to fight the fines all the way.

Following the crackdown on travel, the Bush administration sought to put economic pressure on Cuba by ordering limitations on how much money Cuban Americans could send to their families, in “remittances.” Remittance is a common practice among immigrant families around the world and an important source of income for many families. Bush also ordered severe restrictions on how often Cuban American immigrants could visit their families living in Cuba and who counted as family. Under the new rules, Cuban Americans are allowed one 14-day visit every three years to members of their immediate family.

Additionally, the administration imposed much tighter restrictions on the ability of university-affiliated people to travel to and engage in educational activities in Cuba. New restrictions give OFAC bureaucrats the power to determine if an educational activity is worthy of their granting it a license.

The Bush administration also aimed its sights at the US/Cuba Labor Exchange, an organization of trade unionists who believe in the right to travel where they choose, but more specifically in fostering exchange, discussion and friendly relationships with trade unionists in Cuba. Its members are also members of such unions as the Teamsters, UNITE, AFSCME, UAW, SEIU, and others.

OFAC issued a letter (dated March 30, 2005) to the US/Cuba Labor Exchange threatening that organization with fines and its leaders with imprisonment if it failed to “cease and desist” its sponsorship of a trade-union delegation to attend the International Conference to Confront Neoliberal Globalization – FTAA in Havana, Cuba.

The conference was critical of “free trade” agreements and especially condemned the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement that is strongly endorsed by the Bush administration.

The threat was based on the refusal by the Bush administration to issue a “license” to the Detroit, Michigan-based labor group to travel to Cuba. The delegation traveled to Cuba on April 25 and returned April 30, 2005.

The international conference they participated in was widely attended by labor and social activists from countries all over the world. The focus of the conference was on the concern that free trade agreements such as the FTAA will foster a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions for workers throughout the Western Hemisphere, including the US. Opponents of FTAA point to the failure of other “free” trade agreements like NAFTA to create jobs or improve living standards.

Trade unionists from across the hemisphere see “free trade” agreements as creating an environment where corporations are able to move jobs and operations overseas easily without having to guarantee the right of workers, protect the environment or pay living wages. Since NAFTA was enacted in the mid-1990’s, hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US were lost due to outsourcing. Meanwhile, no real net gain in jobs occurred in Mexico, a participant in the North American Free Trade Agreement, as a result. Larger companies from the US that have moved operations to Mexico and other countries forced the closure of local competing companies. It has been compared to the same thing that happens to small businesses when a Wal-Mart opens up nearby.

In a public statement after the threatening letter, the US/Cuba Labor Exchange pointed out the inherent hypocrisy in the Bush administration’s policy on travel to Cuba. While threatening trade unionists with fines and imprisonment for attempting to exercise their freedom of movement, the administration has fostered an environment in which US companies freely move jobs, technology and investment overseas without a second thought.

Another sharp hypocrisy in the Cuba policy is that the administration has repeatedly attacked other countries for perceived restrictions imposed on their citizens’ right to free movement. For example, in its annual human rights report published by the US State Department, the Bush administration criticized North Korea for restricting the right of its citizens to travel to other countries by requiring them to obtain a travel license. Restrictions on the freedom of movement are repeatedly cited as human rights violations by the Bush administration when it suits their political goals.

Even further, the US/Cuba Labor Exchange has helped organize numerous conferences that have been held in Canada or Mexico because invited Cuban delegates were denied entry into the US. Neither Canada nor Mexico refuses travel visas to Cuban visitors, nor do they prevent their citizens from traveling to Cuba.

In a statement the US/Cuba Labor Exchange said: The US/Cuba Labor Exchange continues to encourage international discussion, exchange and solidarity between workers in Cuba and the United States. We will continue to see for ourselves the realities faced by workers in other countries, to publish our findings and demand that the US government grant entry to Cuban union leaders whose visa applications are routinely denied. The US/Cuba Labor Exchange joins with a growing nonpartisan effort to end the ban on travel to and trade with Cuba and calls on supporters and others who are sympathetic to the right of free movement to write to their congressional representatives urging their support for an end to the ban. Send messages of support toor write with contributions to Justice for Cuba Coalition, PO Box 39188, Redford, Michigan 48239.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and may be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.

Feeling the Heat: Is Global Climate Change Here to Stay?

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:12:00 +0000

7-28-05, 10:15 am

In early April I rented the video of The Day After Tomorrow, last summer’s global-warming disaster film. Its conceit was that global warming produced a global freezing. A group of young survivors decamped to the New York Public Library, where they burned books to keep warm and await their rescue, while the city was blanketed in so much ice and snow that the Statue of Liberty’s torch rose slightly above it.

A few weeks later CBS aired its own television movie disaster film in which locusts, impervious to insecticides, ravaged the land.

Therefore, when I saw in the New Yorker magazine a three-part article on global warming by Elizabeth Kolbert, beginning with the April 25, 2005 issue, I was happy to read a scientific account on the realities of global warming. I was only slightly amused to see on the last of the three issue’s cover a view of Manhattan from underwater.
There’s no doubt that the world has become warmer than it has been in the last two millennia, and the reason for this warming trend is the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of the burning of fossil fuels. Kolbert reports the results of this warming trend that she witnessed from hopping around the globe.

Villages in Alaska are seeing a dramatic reduction in the permafrost. Glaciers in the Arctic, Greenland, Glacier National Park and Antarctica are melting at a somewhat alarming rate. The perennial sea ice has already shrunk by roughly 250 million acres, an area the size of New York, Georgia and Texas combined. Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels today are significantly higher than they have been at any other point in the last 420,000 years. Scientists predict that the perennial ice cover in the Arctic will disappear by the year 2080.

The Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate sponsored by the National Academy of Science warns, “if carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” A doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels are likely to put the global temperature at two to eight degrees higher.

Before you say, well, that might not be so bad, consider some of the more dire consequences of this temperature rise. As water from the tropics drifts north it sets up a “conveyer belt” that moves heat around the globe, disrupting the climate patterns to which we have grown accustomed.

If Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet were destroyed sea levels around the world would rise by at least 15 feet, inundating areas where hundreds of millions live. Were both ice sheets to disintegrate, global sea levels would rise by 35 feet. This could take hundreds of years, but once the disaster was under way it would feed on itself, becoming irreversible.

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City does algorithm computer simulations forecasting climate changes. David Rind has found that as CO2 levels rose in the past the world began to experience greater and greater water storages, starting near the equator and spreading to the poles. When he applied this index to the GISS model for doubled CO2 it showed that most of the continental United States would suffer from severe drought conditions.

If this were the case, we can only imagine the famine that would ensue, as every food producing area of the world would likewise be affected. All living creatures in their quest for food would ravage the land, as the locusts had done in the fictional television movie.

What Causes this CO2 Increase in the Atmosphere?

We do. The exhaust of the automobiles we drive and the smoke emissions from factories that use coal as their source of energy continually pours CO2 into the atmosphere.

What Can Be Done About It?

Response to such an overwhelming threat to the planet can either originate from governmental dictates or from the people themselves. Sad to say the Bush administration has been lax and self-serving, refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement to control emissions. Some measures could be immediately taken:

• Driving our cars half as much as we are currently accustomed. • Making use of alternate sources of energy, such as solar energy. • Increase the manufacture and sales of hybrid cars in order to drive down their price.

When I finished reading Kolbert’s articles a second time (to absorb their myriad of details) I went to my favorite place in New York City, Brighton Beach. The day was cool. As I walked along the boardwalk and looked out over the ocean and surrounding landscape, I wondered if one day in the not too far future it would be underwater.

Labor in the Era of Globalization

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:58:00 +0000

Up until the early 1990’s the socialist camp including the Soviet Union acted somewhat as a brake on imperialism and on capitalist globalization. In addition to checking military domination and adventures, as trading partners the socialist bloc also provided the means for many developing countries to resist and/or minimize unfair trade and the penetration of foreign capital.

The collapse of socialism in Russia and Eastern European countries released a tremendous capital scramble and global competition for markets. Under a banner of capitalist triumph, deregulation, privatization and unfair, predatory trade agreements swept much of the planet.

To be sure, the technological and communication revolutions that feed and accelerate globalization were already well developed by the 1990’s. Capitalist globalization with its free flow of capital around the world began much earlier, but it took on new aggressiveness and clearly accelerated with the collapse of the socialist bloc. And without the socialist system acting as a brake, US capital became the undisputed top dog – protected and developed by the world’s single remaining military superpower.

Lenin made it clear in his Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, that imperialism is not a policy. It is a stage of capitalist development, an objective process. The same is true of capitalist globalization. It is not a policy of this or that government. It is an objective process of transnational capitalist development. This distinction is important to understanding the class struggle today. While government policy can impact on how capitalist globalization proceeds, as long as capitalism is the dominant economic system, its globalization will continue.

The process of capitalist globalization is important context for understanding the labor movement in the US today. How did we get here? Why such a decline in union membership in the last 35 years? Why such a steep decline in industrial union membership with plant closings etc.? Why have so-called “free trade” agreements like the North America Free Trade Act (NAFTA) become such a big deal for labor? What is behind all these sharp debates within the labor movement?

The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 signaled a sharpening corporate and government attack on labor. It is no coincidence that the early 1980’s also marked the acceleration of plant closings and downsizing in the manufacturing sector and greater investment by US-based transnational corporations overseas. This period also featured increased outsourcing of jobs and work overseas. During the 80’s and 90’s mergers accelerated and created vast new manufacturing and financial empires. Take, for example, the steel industry. Up until the 1980’s steel was, in most countries, a nationally owned industry, whether private or public, with very little penetration of foreign capital. Today, the worlds top three steel companies are based in India, Luxemburg and Japan. Each has vast holdings around the world, including some in the US. US Steel also now owns plants in other countries, including in some formerly socialist countries in Eastern Europe.

The growth and concentration of transnational capital has fueled far-right political trends in many of the industrialized countries, including the US.

In the early years the strongest trend in the US labor movement was to channel anti-capitalist globalization sentiment into right-wing and jingoistic directions. Some fell for arguments that pitted US workers against workers in other countries and against immigrant workers. Japan bashing and “Buy American” campaigns mobilized xenophobic attitudes. Global capitalist competitiveness was packaged as worker-against-worker competition requiring wage and benefit sacrifices to “beat the competition.”

The early 80’s saw big losses for workers in the form of concessions in wages and benefits. It also was a time when unions lost ground in coordinated bargaining with common contract expiration dates, and when unions lost industrywide master agreements that had set higher standards for many manufacturing sectors of the economy.

At the same time, left-center coalitions and rank-and-file movements in labor challenged these setbacks and put forward class struggle alternatives that rejected concessions and give backs. They stressed global labor solidarity and targeted the transnational corporations. By the late 1980’s, many of the leaders of the rank and file movements of the 70’s and early 80’s were moving into leadership positions in local, state and national unions. This process culminated in 1995 with the election of the Sweeney, Chavez-Thompson, Trumka slate to the leadership of the AFL-CIO.
Still, the objective process of capitalist globalization continued to develop. With the establishment of the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, fresh waves of US-based capital flowed off shore, resulting in still more job loss and the destruction of whole working-class communities in some manufacturing regions.

The process of capitalist globalization continues during both Democratic and Republican administrations. What is different is the amount of room labor and the people have to fight to limit the impact of globalization on their members and working families. For example under Democratic administrations in several states unions were able to get legislation passed to require advanced notification of plant closings. In some cases corporations were forced to repay tax breaks and abatements to communities. Living wage ordinances were passed in some places in direct response to the downward spiral of wages and working conditions due to plant closings and outsourcing.

Under Democratic administrations with a Democratic controlled Congress, labor was able to lead successful fights to extend unemployment benefits and for trade adjustment legislation to provide limited help to those who lost their jobs due to capital flight and trade-related plant closings.

Under Republican administrations and with Republican control of Congress has come sharply more aggressive attacks on workers and any measures that would serve to lessen the blows of globalization. Because the Republican right is much more ideologically driven in their antilabor and pro-capitalist globalization fervor, they have greatly accelerated the process of unfair trade treaties and attacks on labor rights.

These differences in how the two big business parties handle trade issues was clearly visible in the 2004 elections. Bush and the Republicans downplayed trade issues and basically called for maintaining fast track authority for trade agreements. They voiced support for FTAA, CAFTA and other “free trade agreements” and opposed any idea of reopening trade agreements to include labor rights and environmental standards. They attacked the Democrats for “being in the pocket of big labor,” and threatened new legislation to curb labor rights and collective bargaining.

On the other hand, on the Democratic side, several candidates in the primaries called for either ending NAFTA or reopening existing treaties to incorporate strong labor rights and environmental standards with enforcement teeth. Richard Gephardt campaigned on the idea of establishing an international minimum wage. And in the end John Kerry bowed to his labor support and called for reopening NAFTA and negotiating strong labor rights and environmental standards into all future trade agreements, a fundamental shift from his pro-globalization stance in the Senate. Kerry and many other of the Democratic candidates were also sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act, labor’s bill to restore the right to organize. Labor, War and Peace

War and militarization are integral parts of capitalist globalization. For example, the presence of US military force and large military investments in Colombia is not separate from the drive for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). And, of course, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the thrust of military might into the Mideast serve the interests of US based transnational capital – oil in the first place. This reckless use of military power is not wasted on US trading partners and on those who fight against capitalist globalization around the world.

Larger and larger sections of labor are beginning to see the connections between war and capitalist globalization – making the world “safe” for global investment and exploitation. Others in labor are going a step further and demanding that labor adopt an independent foreign policy based on the interests of the working class, not based on the corporate agenda of the US government.

In the end, capitalist globalization, backed up by a single military superpower makes the world a very dangerous place. One big conclusion drawn from this situation has to be that labor and the peace and solidarity movements are the most natural of allies. Making this connection and working to build ties with the peace movement has to be one our most important tasks.

Global Solidarity

Today there is growing recognition that global capital demands a labor response that is global. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels point out, Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lie not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by Modern Industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralize the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. Today we must update the last sentence to say, “It is just this contact that is needed to centralize the numerous national struggles, all of the same character, into one international struggle between classes.”

The slogan “Workers of the World Unite” is back by popular demand! This is a worldwide development. In both developing and industrial countries, the labor movements are increasingly aware of the global nature of the capitalist enemy.

It is far from clear what form global labor solidarity will ultimately take, but it is clear that all manner of international ties are bring built every day.

One problems is that there are still two world labor federations, the ICFTU and the WFTU. And both are still somewhat mired in their cold war pasts. Nevertheless, both are playing an important roles in fighting globalization.

However, increasingly it is the specific global union federations, what used to be called trade secretariats, that are the center of building day-to-day working ties for global labor. These global union federations are built on specific industries such as garment and textile or metal working. In the past, these forms were mostly for sharing information and national experiences in fighting and organizing workers in specific industries. Today, unions go beyond sharing information to coordinated action including around strike struggles. And much of the new global solidarity takes place outside of the two world federations and their global union federations.

Increasingly, US unions are signing specific solidarity agreements and alliances directly with unions in other countries that bargain with the same transnational corporations. For example, the United Steelworkers Union has such agreements across the globe including in Mexico and Brazil. The USW pioneered this approach when it took the initiative to call together many of the specific unions dealing with Bridgestone/Firestone around the world. Now there are regular global conferences of these rubber unions to map out specific bargaining strategy and solidarity.

Road Blocks to Labor Unity

Global capitalism is built on an ugly history of racism and national chauvinism. From slavery through colonialism and neocolonialism, through world wars brought on by imperialism and fascism, capitalism has grown into a global system based on oppression, super-exploitation and bloody conquest. The transnational corporations of today, like all their predecessors, use every tool at their disposal to divide labor and the people.

Apologists for capitalist globalization claim that they are bringing jobs and economic development when they chase low wages throughout the developing world. This was part of their argument for NAFTA. Instead NAFTA has driven down overall wages in Mexico and destroyed many rural based economies and agricultures, driving millions off their land. This is a pattern repeated by all the so-called free trade agreements.

Perhaps one of the biggest products of capitalist globalization is migration. By 2002 there were over 175 million people crossing borders leaving their own countries in search of work. Much of this migration is the result of corporate plunder of developing countries. Large percentages of the victims are racially and nationally oppressed peoples. Whole far-right-wing, even fascistic movements have been built on racism towards immigrants in industrial countries including the US. Just now we see the rise of the Ku Klux Klan-styled Minuteman organization in the Southwest.

While it is global capital that benefits from racism and national chauvinism, unfortunately these ills too often find reflection in the working-class movements and in labor. This even finds its reflection in the divisions in the world trade-union movement: much of the WFTU’s member unions are based in developing countries of Africa, Asia and South America while the ICFTU is more based in the European, US and other industrial countries.

While great strides have been made in the US labor movement including a complete change in policy towards immigrant workers, recent bouts of China bashing have commingled political anti-Communism with racism in targeting Chinese workers and their working-class government. Again, it is important to note the growing movements for world labor unity. When the AFL-CIO and several industrial unions reached out to unions in Mexico, it went a long way in reversing racism reflected in our labor movement. The same can be said for efforts in the Caribbean and other parts of South and Central America. US trade-union involvement in the antiapartheid movements in the 70’s and 80’s also contributed to a better global outlook for US labor.

Millions of women workers around the world suffer some of the worst evils of capitalist globalization. The race to the bottom finds them in the worst global sweatshop hellholes. Transnational corporations make billions off the exploitation of women. Only full representation of women at all levels of the labor movement and commitment to organize industries and sectors of the world economy where women are concentrated can begin to bring equality.

Another horrific feature of capitalist globalization is the rise of child labor. Where the working class fought and abolished child labor in major industrial countries over a century ago – now capitalist globalization has re-established it as a substantial profit making practice in the world. World labor is increasingly putting the fight against child labor at the forefront of its global agenda.

Labor Today

So, with all this background and general information, where does that leave US labor today in a globalized world? First we have to realize that the attacks on labor here in the US are not unique. Capitalist globalization has rained down right-wing attacks and setbacks on labor many places around the globe. These attacks have ranged from changing labor law against the rights of labor, to the use of police force and repression against labor.

Just a quick example – in Australia a new sweeping labor law is being proposed by the conservative government that will allow companies to fire workers at will, force workers to sign individual labor contracts, reduce minimum wages and limit the rights of workers to get information and assistance from their unions. This sounds remarkably like George Bush’s planned legislation for federal public workers.

Indeed, much is made about the decline of union membership in the US. This decline is also true in most of the industrial countries and in much of the developing world. In truth all the factors from plant closings, to union busting, to unfair labor law and limits on the right to organize that have reduced union membership here at home have been factors around the world.

Capitalist globalization has to be met with international labor solidarity. The process of building global labor solidarity is an objective process of the class struggle, just as capitalist globalization is an objective process. While it is too early to picture exactly the new forms global solidarity will take – global unions or global trade federations with international contracts, for example, one clear responsibility for progressive forces in labor is to make the connections and push for greater and greater international ties and contact with workers of the world.

This fight has many fronts. In the first place US labor has to be won to a bigger vision of its place and role in global labor. Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers Union said a profound thing in this regard at the steelworkers convention last month. “We cannot survive as an island of prosperity in a sea of misery.” That applies on many levels. It applies to all the unorganized workers in this country and to all those in deep poverty. It applies to workers and the poor around the world who are victims of global capitalism and imperialist war. Our vision has to be bigger, we have to see ourselves as a component of global labor that will rise only as workers and their families rise everywhere in the world.

Armed with a bigger vision of ourselves as part of the globalization of workers solidarity in the world, we should be that much more confident to take on the big fights we must here at home. In just the past few weeks we have seen the pension and contract crisis at United Airlines. Talk about a global industry! How will there be a global fight in the airline industry for jobs and retirement security? Or what about GM’s decision to cut 25,000 more jobs in the US. GM is a global corporation in a fiercely exploitive global industry. Autoworkers can’t win without a global solution and global solidarity.

As we fight to prevent Bush’s privatization of Social Security and the great pension rip-off, we have to be totally aware that pensions and social security systems are being threatened around the world – for example in Germany and France. As we fight for a national health care solution we have to be aware and in solidarity with the many countries, including Canada and Britain where national health care is under attack. As we fight to pass the Employee Free Choice Act we have to be aware that union organizers are being killed in Colombia and other parts of the world.

Further, we have to focus on critical struggles that help all workers and unionists in our country understand the global solidarity essential to curbing the transnationals.

One such project is the fight against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is a global behemoth that straddles the world killing jobs and communities everywhere it touches. The battle against Wal-Mart is a fight that opens the door to understanding global capital and our common struggles for global solidarity.

One last note on the internal struggle in the AFL-CIO and the threat of a split. Things don’t look too good at this point but we have to remember that the process of developing greater unity and solidarity is also an objective process of the class struggle. Much of the internalized bitterness and flailing about is based on a very limited view of what globalization is doing to labor both here and abroad. It is not understanding that the fundamental cause of the crisis facing the union movement is not some terrible failure of labor, but due to the pressures of capitalist globalization.

To quote a trite cliché, labor’s salvation is not in rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship, but in navigating the storm. It is in linking up with the global working-class fleet. Our strength is not just in numbers, though that is extremely important, but it is also in our unity and solidarity with workers and the oppressed of the world.

(Illustration by Victor Velez)

August 2005 (editorial comment and table of contents)

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:23:00 +0000

Editorial: Remove The Causes of Terrorism

Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:47:00 +0000

7-28-05, 11:53 am

At each new terrorist act the Australian, British and US governments use the opportunity to tighten the legislative screws directed against alleged terrorists. The latest moves include proposals to ban those holding what are said to be extreme Islamic fundamentalist views, to ban books which are said to contain incitement to terrorist acts, even to deport (to where?) those who are alleged to be preparing terrorist acts, etc.

There is talk of extending the time that ASIO can have a person held in detention without being charged and police and also proposals for private security being able to search people's bags at random.

To add a new element to the armoury, Howard has suggested the issuing of an ID card for every single man, woman and child in the Australian community.

Of course, there is no recognition in the government's discourse that no amount of intrusion upon the civil rights of ordinary citizens will prevent enraged individuals who are hell-bent on taking their own lives and those of others in the community from carrying out their misguided plans.

There is no talk by most of these political leaders of removing the obvious causes of terrorism, even to the point of denying that the Iraq war has anything to do with the upsurge in violence that has taken place since the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

There is a decidedly anti-Islamic and racist coverage of events that is not blunted even where it reports these same dishonest political leaders attempting to enlist 'moderate' Islamic clerics in their 'war on terrorism'.

Let us say it again for the record that the Communist Party of Australia and The Guardian condemn without reservation or exception acts of violence which are solely directed against civilians and kill those who are innocent bystanders. Terrorist acts play into the hands of conservatives and are used by conservative political forces to advance their agendas. Assassinations and the killing of innocent civilians have always been rejected by progressive, revolutionary organisations.

It must be emphasised once again that much of the present (and proposed) legislation has a decidedly undemocratic flavour. It can be easily used against other sections of the community once enacted. Powers are being given to the authorities, one consequence of which is to be seen in the cold-blooded murder in London of the innocent Brazilian who just happened to come under the suspicious eyes of the police. The British police have been issued with weapons to kill and have been given the right to shoot on sight any suspicious person. The Australian military have also been given similar powers to shoot and kill civilians.

The British government thinks an apology from the police will suffice, and stands by the right of police to repeat this murderous act. This is where the present legislation and other supposed counter-terrorist measures can lead.

There is also a warning to be sounded about proposals to start banning books. Banning ideas is a sure way to popularise those very ideas and, in any case, it is today impossible to prevent the circulation of idea across any and all frontiers. Hasn't this truth been demonstrated many times in the past? Their worthiness may vary, but banned books become popular and sought after, banned films inevitably find a way of being shown in clandestine ways. It is not the first time it has been said that it is impossible to impale an idea on the point of a bayonet and that an erroneous idea can only be replaced with a better idea.

Terrorist ideas and actions can only be overcome when the causes that give rise to them have been removed. These causes are the massive social and economic injustices that have become even more prevalent in the world in recent times. Today, the first step that has to be taken towards a more secure, peaceful international community is the ending the monstrous Iraq war and the huge suffering and death it is bringing to the Iraqi people. No matter how many times that John Howard attempts to deny this connection, it will remain until the war and occupation ended.

From The Guardian

Who’s Afraid of the Haitian Media?

Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:45:00 +0000

7-28-05, 11:51 am

One long day in Pointe Noire, on my vacation from volunteer work in the forest, the Congolese painter Trigo Piula and I sat arguing in his jumbled studio about whether there is a spiritual element to canvasses. There was little common ground to be found between us, and after debating at length he gave up on me. He declared that I simply must not be 'tuned in,' and to prove his point about 'active invisible forces,' he switched on a smooth Congolese radio station before conjuring up yet another image.

If only 'tuning in' were always so benign. In 1994, the low droning rant from Hutu extremists on Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines provoked mass slaughter in Rwanda with its lethal mixture of target locations and accompanying calls to arms. 'Exterminate the cockroaches,' said the voice, and a people shaped by a colonial culture of submission dutifully hacked their friends and neighbors to pieces. Now, and in our own hemisphere, Haitian print and electronic media have done comparable diabolic work as they relentlessly polarize their country and help to draw a new roadmap for political persecution. The most recent example is the July 21st mobbing and arrest of Father Gérard Jean-Juste, one of the country’s true heroes, for the still unsolved murder of Haitian journalist Jacques Roche, while he was presiding over the latter’s funeral.

A few days before the arrest, as part of the interim Haitian government’s lawless campaign of violence aimed at eliminating supporters of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s Lavalas party, its potential presidential candidate, Father Jean-Juste, was publicly accused of plotting against the state, instigating kidnappings and importing weapons for distribution to Lavalas, all baseless claims that were repetitions of the ones Karyne Sylvestre broadcasted from Miami on July 14, thesame day that Roche’s body was found in one of Port-au-Prince’s most abysmal slums. In a scenario similar to the strategy frequently invoked by the renegade Haitian National Police of placing a gun next to the corpse of the victim, the murder was officially blamed on Lavalas simply because the poor overwhelmingly support Aristide. The silver bullet that led to Father Gérard’s manhandling and arrest was a rightist newspaper’s front-page announcement that he would be present at Roche’s funeral.

'Arrest and kill the rat,' shouted well-rehearsed militants attending the service, when the prelate stepped out in his formal white robe. Menacing young men, obviously not dressed for the mournful occasion, burst into the church, and the resulting uproar soon escalated into spitting, slapping and punching. Along with a U.S. eyewitness, Jean-Juste was led out of the church and hurried to a police truck that transported him to the Petitionville police headquarters. He was told at the station that public clamor had sufficiently identified him as Roche’s assassin. Bizarrely enough, Jean-Juste is now being held in jail for participating in Roche’s murder, even though he was in Florida at the time of the killing.

Reporters Sans Frontières, the U.S.-funded hard-right covert operator, which is not to be confused with its prestigious medical namesake, has placed Aristide on its list of 'predators of press freedom.' In a burst of pure propaganda, it claims that the media climate has dramatically improved since Aristide was ousted, but CARLI, one of the more prominent human rights organizations presently operating in Haiti, stated in late 2004 that the overwhelmingly anti-Lavalas Haitian media is the greatest obstacle to ending human rights abuses. The organization estimated that roughly 20 of the 25 radio and print outlets now operating in Haiti are owned or controlled by members of the notorious Group of 184, and dutifully spread the elite’s anti-Lavalas propaganda.

The net result of the homegrown media’s malignant influence on Haiti’s political atmosphere, whose efforts are largely supported by Washington and funded by the European Union, is the creation of murderous conditions and the annihilation of pluralistic institutions. U.S. coverage of Haitian political and media developments remains embarrassingly equivocal and exiguous if not downright false. Our recent interest in journalistic responsibility at home should extend to an environment that Washington insists on manipulating abroad. The ongoing saga of the world’s first black republic merits better telling. Every additional minute that Jean-Juste remains detained, his life becomes more jeopardized. More puddles of blood in Haiti are a further indictment of Washington’s shameful Haiti policy and leadership choices, and also reflect its media’s slip into deeper responsibility for beatings, murders and wholly unjustifiable arrests.

From Council on Hemispheric Affairs

How Progressive Young People Can Have an Impact In These Times

Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:43:00 +0000

7-28-05, 11:47 am

(Remarks for gathering of progressive caucus interns at US Capitol, July 27, 2005)

Well, what kind of times are these? They seem to me to be times not just of an increase in plutocracy, but also of a decrease in awareness of it.

A majority of Americans favor single-payer health coverage, a shift to renewable energy, the protection of natural resources, investment in education, and protection of civil rights. And very nearly a majority of Americans – a strong majority of Democrats – favor impeachment of the President if he lied about the reasons for war. And a majority of Americans believe that he did so lie. But a majority of Americans have no idea that a majority of Americans support these things. The same media outlets that do the polls, do their news reports as if the results were quite different.

A majority of Americans distrust those in power and see them as under the influence of corporate money, but a majority of Americans have no clear vision for directing political power to better use. Rather, as people's cynicism about Republican lies and abuses grows, their cynicism about Democrats grows right along with it.

On many majority issues there is a minority in Congress willing to speak up, but the media doesn't do a very good job of communicating that fact.

One thing that I think young people can do is influence our public communications system, through activism and through the creation of better media. There are thousands of people who lack the skills you have for communications. You're needed in that field.

At the very least, you should be submitting regular columns to your local newspapers. Or take a job at a small town newspaper for a while, to influence it and to learn journalism – at most small town papers the pay is lousy, but you can get a job practically by walking through the door, and if you're smart you can improve the coverage.

Get involved in college radio and community radio. I'm working on a project for Pacifica Radio right now and need a volunteer who knows the internet. If you're interested, contact me. But also, simply go over to WPFW in Adams Morgan and volunteer to help with whatever they need. Answer the phones for them. Learn how to edit audio. Get yourself on their advisory board.

Start your own low-power FM station. Contact the Prometheus Radio Project in Philadelphia to get help.

Go to a labor union local in your town, or a community organization in your town, and offer to help with their newsletter.

And, whatever you do, do it on the internet. There are local and national groups in this country in desperate need of websites. Make them one. Call them up and offer to make them a website. You can get help from People-Link.org, a non-profit, unionized ISP that helps set up sites for progressive groups. It's very very easy and well worthwhile.

Start a show on a cable access TV station and put it on the internet as well. Work with existing shows and satellite stations like Free Speech TV.

And use your experience in Congress to tell people that the Progressive Caucus exists and that Congress Members are influenced when they hear from their constituents.

Get active in the nearest chapter of Progressive Democrats of America, where you can develop skills both working with Congress and giving Congress hell.
Another job that you can get by walking in the door, but that you can only hang onto through great dedication and ability is that of community organizer or labor organizer. Talk to me if you want to try to find work for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. They are doing some of the most effective organizing of poor people – those people who are always snubbed when politicians demand concern for 'the middle class.' But it is often only poor people who stick with progressive causes through foul weather and sacrifice for them.

Rumor has it that the labor movement is falling apart. I doubt it very much. Things could hardly have gotten worse, and a serious debate about what's needed has yet to begin. If you want to help resuscitate the force in our country with the greatest potential for progressive action – and the most wasted potential – get a job with the labor movement. But do so by taking a job in a workplace that needs to be organized. Organize as a fellow worker, and do so without any superiority. You'll have better luck and you'll learn more.

A couple of other features that stand out about our times are increased militarism and increased globalization. It is the role of young people to bridge national divides and to take the risks needed for peace.

This may seem unrelated, and maybe I just want to say it, but:

Yesterday I learned that next Spring I'm going to be a father. This means that I need to fight harder for a better world, but it also brings with it hesitation about travel and about risking death or prison. I can't ask you to take greater risks because you're young, but you should think about what you will face later.

It may be that massive civil disobedience will not stop the wars or shift our resources out of the Pentagon to where they can do some good, but I know we will not accomplish this without massive civil disobedience. Contact organizations like CODE PINK that are not afraid to take risks.

--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. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

AFL-CIO Convention Calls for Troop Withdrawal

Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:41:00 +0000

At its 25th Constitutional Convention, the AFL-CIO voted to adopt a resolution supporting 'the brave men and women deployed in Iraq.' The resolution states that US service men and women, which include AFL-CIO members and who mainly come from working families, risk their lives and deserve real leadership.

The resolution thundered against the failures of the Bush administration stating that service men and women 'deserve leadership that fully values their courage and sacrifice.'

'Most importantly,' the resolution continues, 'they deserve a commitment from our country's leaders to bring them home as quickly as possible.'

The document adds that 'an unending military presence will waste lives and resources, undermine our nation's security and weaken our military.'

Criticizing the administration for its failure to present a truthful case for war and its unilateralism, the resolution plainly states that the people were not informed about the validity of the case for war and are being misinformed now about the real situation on the ground in Iraq. 'It is long past time,' states the resolution, 'for the Bush administration to level with the American people and for Congress to fulfill its constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities.'

Applauding the sacrifice of those who've died in the war, the resolution denounced the use of terror in Iraq by the insurgency that is bent on 'a deliberate campaign to frustrate [the Iraqi people's] aspirations to take control of their own destiny.' It recognized the struggles of Iraqis to rebuild their country and their government.

It especially recognized the role of the Iraqi working class in the reconstruction of the country and their right to form independent labor unions, condemning terrorist attacks against union leaders and members. 'The bedrock of any democracy is a strong, free, democratic labor movement.' Specifically, the resolution states: 'In the absence of an adequate labor law, the AFL-CIO calls on the Iraqi government, as well as domestic and international companies operating in Iraq, to respect internationally recognized International Labor Organization standards that call for protecting the right of workers to organize free from all government and employer interference and the right to organize and bargain collectively in both the public and private sectors. These rights must be extended to include full equality for working women.'

The resolution also addressed US workers returning from war. Highlighting the failure of the Bush administration to provide adequately for veterans, the resolution called for allocation of resources for service members returning to civilian life. 'Our returning troops should be afforded all resources and services available to meet their needs. Our members should return to their jobs, with seniority and benefits. The AFL-CIO calls on Congress and President Bush to expand benefits for veterans and assist those affected by military base closings, including a G.I. Bill for returning Iraq veterans and a Veterans Administration housing program that meets current needs.'

The resolution was presented by the AFL-CIO Executive Council and adopted by the convention of almost 2,000 delegates representing labor unions all over the country.

Read the full text here.

The convention also adopted resolutions condemning CAFTA, free trade policies that undermine job growth, and the anti-union 'Wall Street agenda.' Other resolutions adopted called for using more resources for organizing and building the trade union movement, real immigration reform based on the right of all workers to organize, a national campaign against 'Wal-Martization,' and a proactive economic agenda that would create jobs, job security, better wages, and long term economic growth.

The current leadership of the AFL-CIO, led by John Sweeney, Richard Trumka, and Linda Chavez-Thompson, was also re-elected to serve a third term.

Union Members Hit Harder By Job Loss Numbers

Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:38:00 +0000

7-28-05, 11:43 am

Time for Card Check to Reverse the Course

Although high ongoing unemployment in a number of industries has depleted union membership and pushed the unionization rate down to record lows, job losses in heavily unionized sectors do not account for the decline in union membership since the 2001 recession.

Rapid deunionization is occurring among the existing jobs in manufacturing and other industries. Card check recognition is essential to reverse the declines in union sectors.

The decline in union membership in the manufacturing sector shows that the overall deunionization of the U.S. workforce cannot be explained purely by the decline in manufacturing jobs and the rise of service sector occupations since the recession. Within manufacturing, union jobs are vanishing at a faster pace than nonunion jobs.

The decline in manufacturing employment began well before the last recession, with the number of workers sinking from 19,961,200 in 1997 to 18,147,100 when the recession hit in 2001. Manufacturing employment then plummeted to 15,753,500 in 2004, a loss of 2,393,600 jobs. The number of union members in manufacturing, however, declined by 623,900, and the unionization rate fell from 14.6 percent in 2001 to 12.9 percent in 2004.

The key point is that while the number of manufacturing jobs fell by 13.2 percent between 2001 and 2004, the number of union members in manufacturing fell at a faster rate, dropping by 23.5 percent over the same period.

More than one out of every four jobs lost in manufacturing since the recession was a union job, indicating that a disproportionate amount of the job loss was in union jobs.

Construction gained 870,400 jobs between 2002 and 2004, but the number of union construction workers fell by 41,900 and the unionization rate dropped from 17.4 percent to 14.7 percent. Almost 40 percent of the industry was organized 30 years ago.

Even in the public sector, where employment grew by 572,400 jobs from 2002 to 2004, union membership declined and the unionization rate fell from 37.8 percent to 35.4 percent. Public sector unionization peaked at 38.7 percent in 1994.

For the National Labor Relations Board fiscal year that ended in September 2004, representation elections resulted in a gain of 74,166 workers represented by unions, but 2004 ended with a decline of 130,600 in the number of workers represented.

The push for card check recognition is absolutely critical to reverse the decline in union membership. Building membership through the NLRB election process is too difficult and will become more difficult as the Bush administration fills vacancies on the board.

The Bush administration is now moving to fill vacancies on the NLRB that will ensure a Republican majority.

The five members of the Board decide cases brought before the NLRB, including representation cases. Board members are appointed by the president to five-year terms, with Senate consent. Each year, the term of one member expires.

The board is now functioning with only three members: Robert J. Battista (chairman), Wilma B. Liebman and Peter C. Schaumber.

Because the board traditionally will not reverse a long-standing decision without an affirmative vote from three members, there have been several recent decisions where the two Republican members have been unable to overturn the law.

Robert J. Battista, a Republican, was appointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate to serve as chairman of the NLRB for a term expiring December 16, 2007. Previously, he was an employment lawyer representing employers at the Detroit law firm of Butzel Long.

Peter Carey Schaumber, also a Republican, was nominated by Bush on May 10, 2002 and confirmed by the Senate for a term that will expire on August 27, 2005. Prior to his appointment as a member of the board, Schaumber practiced as a labor arbitrator and a corporate lawyer.

Wilma B. Liebman, a Democrat and formerly a lawyer for the Bricklayers and the Teamsters, has served as a member of the NLRB since 1997. She was first appointed by President Clinton and reappointed by President Bush to a second term that will expire on August 27, 2006.

The two vacancies on the NLRB began in December 2004, when the term ended for Dennis Walsh, a Democrat appointed by Clinton, and Ronald Meisburg, a Republican appointed by Bush, who is awaiting confirmation as the new General Counsel for the NLRB.

Bush has now renominated Republican Schaumber to serve a five-year term expiring in August 2010. The nomination of Democrat Dennis Walsh, also a former Board member, is still pending. This leaves one more vacancy that must be filled.

Once someone is nominated for that seat, the Senate will be asked to approve the entire package. This will result in a fully confirmed Board through 2006, with a Republican majority ready to push through anti-labor decisions. With the Board stacked with Republicans, the best hope for unions is to pursue legislation enabling card check recognition.

From Labor Research Association