People Before Profit blog

Critical Thinking by Educated Voters Burst Neocon Bubble

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:39:00 +0000

11-29-06, 1:46 am

The Democrats got their 7-million vote victory majority November 7th and regained control of Congress in good part from educated voters who think for themselves. Those with post-graduate degrees, people schooled to analyze issues and make critical judgments, were among the first to see through the web of lies spun by the White House. Eventually, even those who initially believed the lie Iraq had WMD learned over time when none were found they had been lied to and got angry and got active. By contrast, despite significant defections, Bush kept the majority of his evangelical Christian following. Perhaps people whose belief requires them to accept Biblical miracles “on faith” have a mindset to believe whatever the White House tells them. It’s not that college-educated voters are unswerving Democratic loyalists. If the Republicans put up another Abraham Lincoln, they’d get my vote, too. But Americans will not tolerate blatant liars forever. And after six years of his lies, more and more voters, starting with best educated, have come to regard Mr. Bush as a pariah. Bush is now so unpopular his congressional backers were scuttled by mere association with the word “Republican.” As columnist Robert Novak wrote November 9th in the Washington Post, “Republicans lost almost everywhere the president campaigned during the past week.” Added the Post’s David Broder, the only New Hampshire Republicans to survive were those not on the ballot. President Bush’s support is found in the states with the lowest education levels. In the 2000 national election, states with lower college graduate populations such as West Virginia (15.1%), Kentucky (18.9%), and Louisiana (19.6%) all voted Republican. States with highest percentages of college graduates--- Connecticut, (36.8%), Massachusetts, (36.6%); and California, (30.6%) voted Democratic. There were exceptions to this but they were few: Colorado, with a population of 35.5% college graduates went for Bush. Wisconsin, where just 25% of residents holds a college degree, went for Gore. But if you added up all the “Red” states in 2000, you’d find, on average, only 24.7% of their populations hold a college degree. And if you averaged the percentage of “Blue” State college-educated, the figure is 31.2%. That’s a significant difference. Massachusetts, which may have the most universities per acre, voted strongly Democratic that year. South Dakota, with many fewer colleges, was Bush Country. According to ABC News of Nov. 14, “College graduates voted 53-45 percent for Democrats---the Democrats’ best margin in this group in exit polls since 1982.” ABC added, “voters by a 14-point margin were more apt to say they were voting to show opposition to Bush(36%) than to show him support(22%)…the anti-Bush voters were great enough in number to make the difference for the Democrats.” There are political scientists who believe voters’ college education plays little, if any, role in how they mark their ballots. Professor Thomas Holbrook of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee says there is “some correlation” between voting and education but “level of education is not among the important factors.” Holbook thinks “party identification” and whether people consider themselves liberal or conservative, is far more important than education. But might it be possible, though, the more college-educated voters in a state, the more likely it is to vote Blue? One group that does correlate closely with Blue voting are holders of post-graduate degrees. In the 2004 election, Kerry got 55% of those who had done postgraduate study compared to 44% for Bush, although Bush that year won among college graduates, 52% to 46%. Now, college voters favor Democrats by eight percent. It’s also been noted more women than men are voting Democratic and columnist Ellen Goodman writes “Women voters swung election.” (November 28th) But the reason may not have to do with their gender. As political scientist Thomas Schaller of the University of Maryland has written, “Women, who are already a majority of college graduates and law school students, continue to further feminize the American electorate with each passing election cycle.” (Italics added) Might the reason be women today are better educated? As for religion, evangelical votes might have to do with whether the believer accepts the miracles of the Bible on faith. There are millions of church-goers who take the Gospel literally. If they believe a miracle because the Bible says so, might they not also believe the political gospel preached by the White House? Fundamentalists, said to form the backbone of the religious right, predominate in the Red state strongholds stretching across the mid-South from Virginia through Texas. My evidence is anecdotal, but my travels suggest patriotism is defined by many in this region as whatever the president says it is. They are “God and country” folk, even when the country is off-track and it's getting harder each day to believe God is Bush’s advisor. Dr. Thomas Schaller, an associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, has written “poorer whites vote more Republican” and “the South remains, as ever, the most religious region of America.” He describes it as a region of “NASCAR men” who are “white, non-college educated, rural, married Christian men.” In the 2004 election, President Bush got 78% of the white evangelical/born-again vote compared to 21% for Kerry. My belief is anger over a president’s lies begins with those individuals best able to see through a web of political deceit. It only makes sense those holding post-graduate degrees, particularly Ph.D.’s, who have written dissertations requiring considerable analysis, are likeliest to lead such a charge. And as they tend also to be “opinion molders” who are more politically active and more likely to vote, they are able to sway others. Red states and Blue states that have traditionally gone for one political party may not remain that way. Just as Americans suffering from the Depression swept the Republicans from office virtually everywhere in 1932, so every state could go to the Democrats if anger at Bush rises. I could be wrong. Voting patterns may correlate with skim milk consumption or the purchase of economy cars. My hunch, though, is it is education that inspires inquiring minds and evangelism that influences people to accept authority without question. In sum, rather than gender, party affiliation, income, or religious denomination, the key to how people vote turns on their ability to think for themselves. It’s critical thinking on the part of educated voters that burst the neoconservative bubble in 2006.

--Sherwood Ross is a Charlottesville, Va.-based media consultant to political candidates and labor unions. Reach him at

The Nov. 7 Elections and Our Path Ahead

Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:34:00 +0000

11-29-06, 1:42 am

Contribution of the Communist Party of the United States of America to Lisbon Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, 10-12 November 2006

I am very happy to be here. I bring greetings from the leadership and membership of the Communist Party USA. And many thanks to the Communist Party of Portugal for hosting this meeting. We have long admired Portuguese Communists for their valiant struggle against fascism, their struggle for democracy, against Portuguese colonialism and for socialism. The beloved Alvaro Cunhal was an immortal hero of those struggles.

We value highly these annual conferences. It is proof positive that our science, Marxism-Leninism, endures and grows despite the tragic setbacks we suffered at the end of the last century. These meetings should be open to all Communist and Worker parties without any preconditions. That is what makes these meetings such a valuable forum for exchanges on both theory and practice. Open dialogue here can lead to stronger bonds of unity and joint action against imperialism.

The theme of this meeting is expansive: 'The dangers and possibilities of the international situation; the imperialist strategy and the energy issue; the people's struggle and the experience of Latin America; the prospect of socialism.'

It has long been clear that the main danger facing the world community is U.S. imperialism. In our view, curbing the interventionist war policies of U.S. imperialism is crucial to the self determination and sovereignty of all nations. Victory in that fight will mean breaking the blockade of Cuba, giving the Cuban people breathing space in their struggle to construct a socialist society. It will open the way for other nations and peoples around the world to take the socialist path.

The stunning popular victories throughout Latin America, including Lula's recent landslide victory in Brazil, has stirred the hearts of hundreds of millions of working people around the world seeking a way out of the transnational capitalist nightmare. In Mexico, the masses continue to struggle against a Florida-style theft of their victory in electing Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

The masses in these countries are showing that Margaret Thatcher was wrong when she taunted us, 'There is no alternative.' A different, non-capitalist path is possible. As we proclaim on a colorful CPUSA tee shirt, 'Another World is Necessary: Socialism.'

That Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution took power in Venezuela by way of the ballot is doubly significant. That method has now spread throughout the hemisphere as voters oust neo-liberal governments long under the domination of the U.S. State Department and U.S. transnational corporations.

These victories, employing peaceful, non-violent forms of struggle, stand in stark contrast to the indiscriminate violence of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban in their drive to impose feudalist, anti-working class, anti-women, anti-Communist regimes around the world. We should not forget that these groups had deep historic links to the CIA and continue to have suspicious connections with Washington.

Al-Qaeda terrorists fly passenger planes into the World Trade Center. Clearly the aim was to kill thousands of innocent people and enflame hatred and enmity between Muslims, Christians and Jews, between the people of the U.S. and the people of the Middle East. They played right into the hands of the ultra-right neo-conservatives in the U.S. scheming to find a pretext for war in the Middle East.

By contrast, Cuba sends thousands of doctors to treat the poor around the world. Venezuela sends CITGO tankers to cities and towns in the U.S. delivering home heating oil to poor people freezing in their homes. Cuba and Venezuela win the hearts and minds of the people while proving that socialism is a humane system that puts people before profits.

We have long embraced the struggle against U.S. imperialism as our internationalist duty. We know that victory hinges on winning the U.S. masses to the cause of peace. Over thirty years ago, the peace movement's success in winning the American people against the Vietnam war was crucial to victory for the Vietnamese people. We are winning the struggle now to turn the majority of the American people against the war and occupation of Iraq.

Under the command of the Bush-Cheney administration, U.S. imperialism has reached new lows in arrogance and recklessness. Bush publicly espouses a doctrine of unilateral, preemptive war. He justifies the aggression with brazen lies that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda. This war has killed an estimated 600,000 Iraqis.

Last month 105 U.S. soldiers died, the fourth most deadly month since the war began. It gives the lie to Bush claims that progress is being made in stabilizing the country. This was has already cost U.S. taxpayers $400 billion and in the next five years the cost will exceed one trillion dollars.

This administration detains thousands of so-called 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay, and other secret CIA prisons around the world. A majority are innocent of any ties to terrorism. They are denied all rights of due process, subjected to torture and abuse in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law.

This administration is an empire of greed, the most corrupt in U.S. history. Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon-Mobil, Lockheed-Martin and other firms with crony ties to the White House have waxed rich from no-bid contracts, war profiteering, and direct tax subsidies by the federal government.

The war came home with a vengeance when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in August 2005. Thousands of poor, Black residents of New Orleans were left stranded on the roofs while Bush and Cheney dallied. Day after day, the people watched on their television screens this spectacle of Bush-Cheney criminal negligence.

Katrina has become a symbol of this administration's incompetence and its indifference to the plight of poor and working people. The Bush-Cheney Administration has lavished trillions in tax cuts on the richest one percent while slashing programs that benefit working people, public education, health care, affordable housing, worker health and safety and environmental protection. They seek to privatize Social Security and public education. They would end all health and safety regulation of oversight of corporate America. They have stripped 10 million workers of their union rights, the most concerted union-busting drive in U.S. history.

A powerful democratic movement has sprung up to fight this rightwing Republican gang. We call it an 'All People's Front' and it is led by the labor movement, by Black, Latino, and other racially and nationally oppressed people, the women's equality movement, the environmental movement and the peace movement.

In this democdratic movement of today, we see the embryo of tomorrow's struggle for socialism. I am proud that our Party across the length and breadth of the U.S. is deeply engaged in helping build that movement.

Last April 29, over half a million marched in a huge demonstration in New York sponsored by United for Peace & Justice to demand an end to the Iraq war. Marching in the vanguard were military families, the wives, parents and children of soldiers trapped in Iraq. Also marching were some active duty soldiers, Iraq war veterans and Veterans for Peace. Tens of thousands of trade unionists marched. Many people of all religious faiths also joined the procession down Broadway. More and more, this movement reflects the popular majority that has turned against the Iraq war.

This All People's Movement played an enormous role in last Tuesday's midterm elections. For the first time in 12 years, the Republicans lost majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives and nearly lost control of the U.S. Senate too. The Bush Administration and the Republican National Committee tried to use their well-worn strategy, whipping up hysteria that only Bush and the Republicans can protect us from Osama bin Laden and other jihadists. The U.S. must 'stay the course.' Bush branded the Democrats, the Party of 'cut and run.'

It backfired so badly that the White House publicly announced that Bush would no longer use the words 'stay the course.' And 'cut and run' was also rarely heard as Republicans scrambled to distance themselves from Bush and the Iraq war.

The Republicans attempted to gain traction with other 'wedge issues.' They rammed through Congress an insane scheme to build a 700 mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. They attempted to whip up support for mass deportation of undocumented workers to incite racist, xenophobic hysteria. They attempted once again to stir evangelical Christians with hysteria about homosexual marriage, abortions, and embryonic stem cell research.

Voters saw through Karl Rove's flim flam. With crystal clarity they saw that the overriding issue was George W. Bush and his criminal folly in dragging us into a nightmare war in Iraq. A powerful consensus emerged that it is time for a change. Voters cast their ballots for the Democrats because it was the only way for them to say NO to Bush, the war, and the rest of his rightwing agenda.

Republican loss of the House means that Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich), a leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, a former Detroit auto worker, will become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. His legislation calling for a full investigation of Bush and his decision to invade Iraq can now go forward. Conyers also introduced a 'Resolution of Inquiry' on possible grounds for impeaching Bush and Cheney.

There are several bills introduced by Democrats that call for an 'exit strategy' to end the U.S, occupation of Iraq. They include a bill by Rep. James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, to terminate all funding for the Iraq war except for funds earmarked to bring the troops home and for the reconstruction of Iraq. All this legislation, successfully blocked when the Republicans had majority control on Capitol Hill can now be moved forward.

It is worth contemplating just how quickly the neo-conservative fantasy of permanent U.S. global hegemony is coming unraveled. Just before the Iraq war began three years ago, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the neo-conservatives were proclaiming the dawn of a new epoch in which the U.S., with its enormous military power, would impose a Pax Americana. The war in Iraq would be a 'cake walk.' American soldiers would be greeted as 'liberators.'

Back in those heady days, the Republicans saw their control of all three branches of the U.S. government reaching out for generations. A few days ago, I interviewed the leader of a group called Texans For Public Justice in Austin, Texas. He told me of Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay's tactics in redistricting in House districts across Texas. His plan was to make it impossible for challengers to unseat Republican House incumbents, a plan bankrolled by unlimited corporate cash and the GOP system of vote suppression aimed at disenfranchising Black and working class voters. 'This is not about one election,' he told me. 'This is about long term Republican hegemony over every branch of our government.' Now Tom DeLay is gone, indicted, facing trial and a jail term for money laundering.

This past Tuesday, voters delivered the first real blow aimed at ending one-party Republican rule in Washington. It reflects a deep shift in mass political consciousness in every region of the U.S., among all sectors of the population. The ideological dimensions of this shift are immense. We have an opportunity for the first time in forty years to shift mass thought patterns among the American people against dog-eat-dog 'free market' capitalist ideology. The people are now more open to support a foreign policy based on peace, toward domestic policies that promote racial and gender equality, that favor the needs of the people over profits for the rich.

Now the challenge for us is to exploit that breakthrough, to fight the chronic tendency of the Democrats to waver, compromise and retreat. Candidates who vowed to oppose the war and the Bush agenda must be challenged to keep their promises. We must prepare to generate 'street heat.' Thank you.

--Tim Wheeler is the National Political Correspondent of the People's Weekly World, a member of the National Committee and National Board of the Communist Party USA. He lives in Baltimore, MD.

In Order To Teach, We Must Impeach!

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:14:00 +0000

11-28-06, 10:20 a.m.

The 14 hour trip back from South Korea, found me sitting in the front row seat, shifting pillows, putting my feet up against the wall and pushing, standing in the attendants' den, rubbing my back on the cots, ... and saying poorly in Korean, 'I'm going to die!' The cots! I've got a handicap card; I could have used a bed and made the trip in a piece of cake. Next time. Otherwise it was a 14 hour trip in hydrocordone hell.

But between my unparallelled pain, I finished John Nichols' book entitled, 'The Genius of Impeachment.' The Founders Cure for Royalism.' So who hasn't heard the term, King George? Who hasn't cringed at Dick Cheney's know-it-all, my-way-or-the-highway attitude throughout this White House 'occupation?' While our voters listlessly voted Post Traumatic Syndrome Disorderly, for a second term for the White House Royalists, Bush was talking about 'political capital. Frankly, England's king and queenship is not a recognized subject around our house.

Let me say this, I have apologized to my kids millions of times, and I have apologized at my work place to people who thought they deserved it and to some who did deserve it. My dad never apologized for anything, including his addiction to road-rage. I vowed I would never be that way as a parent. Maybe that is why I haven't liked Dick Cheney and his sidekick, moron, from the get go.

Nichols spends the first half of his treatise about the history of and the genius of impeachment. It has only been used twice, but the threat of impeachment has molified many a trigger happy president. It is NOT a Constitutional new idea. It came from the British, to get rid of power holders, who thought they owned the power. I was amazed to find out that even Truman was threatened by impeachment. Clinton is in good company, and Nichols would probably have voted to impeach, since Clinton lied, even though, it wasn't worth the time and money spent on it.

Impeachment decisions come with a heavy mandate, and impeachments should be worthy of the events that bring them. And in that, Clinton's doesn't measure up and doesn't come close to the absolute mandate that is in store for President George Bush and Vice President Cheney. If impeachment is NOT pursued and achieved, then presidents in the future will tear off other pieces of the Constitution. The Constitution is a living, breathing document and when a president by-passes it by using signing statements or out-right ignoring its mandates, we absolutely MUST impeach.

Nichols describes and compares the process of impeachment of President Nixon and is quick to point out the mirror-like scenario of this administration to Nixon's. Both won their second term and had done things that absolutely deserved impeachment. Both have absolutely lied, covered-up, and distorted to cover up lawlessness in their offices. But with President Bush, his lies, cover-ups, and ineptitude has cost American lives, and with that fact, hands down, we, as a nation, must demand impeachment.

Leaking information to discredit someone who has caught the president in lies was substantive in both administrations. 'Both in 1971 and 2003, the actions of these zealous presidential aides had dire results.' (P 105) But by the end of the year, the president was revealed, '... to have authorized a program of warrantless wire tapping of phones of Americans that was so disrespectful of the Constitution,' that Republican congressman from Texas Ron Paul to have had his faith shacken in Republicanism.

Even the Republicans MUST impeach, because, without it, there party will be shackled with the unlawfulness of the Bush presidency for decades. Read the book and you will know that if Theodore Roosevelt were in the Senate today, he most assuredly would vote for impeachment.

If this has not convinced you that 'To Teach, We Must Impeach,' a reading of Nichols' book will give you a shot of adrenaline, and on Amazon, the paper back is selling, used so cheaply, that even a homeless person could afford it. And it is the poor people who have hurt the most under this idiocy of an administration.

With apologies to Johnnie Cochran, 'In Order To Teach, We MUST IMPEACH!' We cannot allow Pilosi to ignore it. Bush's administration is replete with lawlessness. Take some time out and write down the number of impeachable actions of this administration, and you will get carpal tunnel syndrome. We are duty-bound, as US citizens to impeach, Bush and his gang of degenerates.

Me? I am still recovering from my 14 hours, in air, flying back from Korea to see our youngest son marry a beautiful and smart Korean lady. And, yes, we deserve a LONG time vacation from Bush's in the White House.

In the show, 'Fastest Indian,' the motorcycle owner, gave the little boy next door some good advice. While he took his hopped up Indian motorcycle to the White Planes in the US to set a new world record, he put his hand around the boy and sagely said the following.

'Every time you go out to the garden, pee on that bush.'

It's a good idea, for giving a tree some needed nutrients, and, as far as I am concerned, it's good advice to the people of the United States.

'Every time you see a Bush, pee on him and watch him become molified, as he and his lawless cohorts are kicked out of the White House, and Nancy Pelosi can straighten out what is wrong with this decadence we call an administration.

-Dale Hill is a 34 year retired educator with a Masters Degree in Counseling and is a free-lance writer.

From

Britain: ‘Speech Covers up New Labour's Failures’ say Communists

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:34:00 +0000

11-28-06, 9:40 a.m.

The Queen’s Speech may have promised action to provide ‘strong, secure and stable communities’, but its proposals to attack civil liberties and privatising public services will do exactly the opposite, Emily Mann told the Communist Party of Britain’s executive committee last month

'The emphasis on crime and security serves to distract people's attention from all the things the Labour government has failed to deliver such as full and fair employment. decent education and healthcare services, efficient public transport and more harmonious community relations. Instead, New Labour and the gutter press continue to demonise Muslims and young people', she declared.

'How much use to our pensioners is free bus travel on bus services which have been decimated by 20 years of privatisation - and how exactly will the welfare reform bill bring security to the sick and disabled by slashing their benefits and forcing them into unsuitable work?' Ms Mann demanded.

Perhaps the most contradictory part of the Queen's speech, Ms Mann pointed out, was the claim that Britain would work with the UN to 'prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction' while remaining completely silent of plans to introduce a new generation of nuclear weapons.

'There is an alternative', she said, 'but it is not Gordon Brown, who supports war, privatisation, 90 days internment and a new generation of nuclear weapons'.

'Rather, the people of Britain need a left-wing programme for public ownership and controls on big business to save the planet, progressive taxation, the repeal of anti-trade union laws and an end to imperialist wars', Ms Mann said, 'which is pretty much the programme being put forward by John McDonnell MP as a contender for the Labour leadership'.

The Communist Party executive committee supported CND in its demand for a full debate on the replacement of Trident before any decision is made.

In the light of the ongoing 'disaster' in Iraq and Afghanistan, Britain's Communists also backed the Stop the War Coalition in calling once more for the immediate withdrawal of British occupation forces.

The CPB welcomed the latest UN resolution condemning recent Israeli massacres of Palestinians and calling on Israel to end its attacks on the Gaza Strip, and demanded that Israel, Britain and the US uphold international law as the first step to achieving peace in the Middle East.

From Communist Party of Britain

Canada: Capitalism: the ugly contradictions remain

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:18:00 +0000

11-28-06, 9:22 a.m.

Despite bourgeois claims to the contrary, capitalism remains the same crisis-ridden economic system it has always been. The Canadian economy continues to be hit by cycles of boom and bust, recovery and crisis. The long-term trend is towards further concentration of wealth and ownership at the top, and increasing desperation and poverty at the bottom.... Even at the height of this economic upturn, over one million Canadians are officially counted as jobless. In some parts of the country, the spike in resource prices has led to a shortage of certain skilled trades and some limited wage gains. But the bigger picture remains - an overall decline in manufacturing employment, cuts in the public sector, and a long-term trend towards low-wage, part-time and precarious employment. There are ominous signs of a new economic crisis, such as the downturn in US housing prices which may foretell a collapse with severe consequences for Canadian working people. There will be another recession here - the only question is how soon, and how deep.

The real winners in today's economy are the corporations. Profits are at record levels, yet wages are falling as a share of the overall economy, and inequality is growing wider. Over the past fifteen years, productivity in Canada has advanced by close to 2% per year, while the real wages of the bottom half of the workforce have barely increased....

Corporate pre-tax profits now account for a record-high share of Canada's national income - 14.6% of GDP compared to a twenty-five year average of 10%. Pre-tax corporate profits in the second quarter of 2006 were $196.1 billion, compared to $183.7 billion in the same quarter of 2005. Yet the corporate tax-rate was cut from 28% in 2000, to 23% in 2006....

Taking account of inflation, minimum wages and social assistance rates are far below the levels of the 1980s, driving millions of Canadians deeper into poverty. One fifth of Canadian children live below the poverty line, making a mockery of Parliament's vow to end child poverty by the year 2000. Homelessness is skyrocketing; in Vancouver, the number of people living on the streets is projected to nearly triple by the year 2010, as low-income housing is closed down leading up to the Winter Olympics.

There is a sharp racist edge to poverty in Canada. Right across the country, Aboriginal peoples remain by far the poorest section of the population, with the highest school dropout, unemployment, and incarceration rates. On many reserves and other Aboriginal communities, residents lack clean drinking water, and health conditions are abysmal.

-From the December 1-31, 2006 issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper.

From People's Voice

After Election Push, Employee Free Choice Act at the Top of the Agenda for the AFL-CIO

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:58:00 +0000

With International Human Rights Day, December 10, less than two weeks away, the AFL-CIO and its affiliates are preparing to commemorate the day with renewed vigor, resolve, and hope that we can restore fundamental workers' rights in America.

For three years now the AFL-CIO has maintained that restoring American workers' freedom to form unions and bargain collectively is the Federation's top political and legislative priority.

This election season was no different. The Federation believes that politics and organizing must be linked and that the nexus is legislation to restore workers' rights. Federation political director Karen Ackerman said repeatedly that political activity must generate organizing. President John Sweeney asked state federations and central labor councils to make sure endorsed candidates were either already co-sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or pledged to co-sponsor it if elected. The Employee Free Choice Act is the federation's legislative vehicle to make the first major step to restore workers' rights. EFCA would amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow private sector workers to form unions by simply signing a card or petition, impose real penalties on employers who violate the law, and allow for arbitration to settle first contract disputes.

The stunning victory of Democratic Congressional candidates created a pro-worker and pro-worker rights majority in the House of Representatives and a much more supportive Senate.

In the past three years the AFL-CIO has commemorated International Human Rights Day with a nationwide grassroots demand to restore human rights in America's workplace.

This year the AFL-CIO will commemorate the day with an organizing summit. The summit will bring together 500 of the nation's best organizers, union activists, union allies, and national and grassroots labor leaders to plan the next stage of the campaign to win workers' rights and pass EFCA in this very different political environment. The summit will also showcase the best non-NLRB organizing campaigns, campaigns that allow workers to win despite a failed law and broken process.

The summit will begin December 8 at 11:00 a.m. at the Capitol Hyatt. John Sweeney and Larry Cohen will frame the challenge and issue the charge for the summit. At noon, the 500 summit attendees will march to the Senate Park to be joined by 2,000 union activists, House Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, Senate Labor Committee Chair Ted Kennedy, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, CWA President and AFL-CIO Organizing Committee Chairman Larry Cohen, AFT President Ed McElroy, and NEA President Reg Weaver to call for the rapid passage of the Employee Free Choice Act and the restoration of human rights in America's workplaces.

The participation of the Chairs of both Congressional Labor Committees, the very different Congress, the changed political environment, and the role the AFL-CIO and union activists played to change the political landscape provide a much more hopeful frame for this year's Human Rights Day.

Friday afternoon at the summit, December 8, three of America's best organizers will talk about their campaigns to organize tens of thousands of workers outside the strictures of the National Labor
Relations Act. Ed Sabol, organizing director of CWA, will talk about their campaign that organized 20,000 high tech workers at Cingular Wireless. Jim Schmitz, organizing director at AFSCME, will talk about their Chicago campaign to organize 10,000 healthcare workers at Resurrection Hospital. Leticia Zavala, organizing director and vice president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), will talk about their historic campaign that organized 7,000 Mexican workers who work in North Carolina's fields.

The summit participants will then return to working on the plan and campaign to pass EFCA, breaking into eight groups to strategize next steps and to work on the training and plan to create an array of 250,000 grassroots worksite leaders to push EFCA in this Congress and to elect a president who will sign and enact it.

Saturday night the summit will recess to a banquet to honor George Miller and former Senator John Edwards. Radio host, actor, and comic Jackie Guerra will emcee the banquet. American Rights at Work Chairman and former House Democratic Leader David Bonior and grassroots organizing leaders will talk about all that Miller and Edwards have done to fight for workers' freedom to form unions and pass EFCA and earn the federation Paul Wellstone Aware. John Sweeney will present the award to both men who will then speak.

Saturday's summit agenda will begin with AFSCME President and federation political committee chair Gerry McEntee speaking about the link between politics and organizing followed by a panel discussion and Steelworkers President Leo Gerard.

Late Saturday morning we will break into eight workshops to focus on how to run and win strategic, non-NLRB organizing campaigns. Organizers will share what has worked for them, what to avoid, how to better work together, and build the internal capacity to organize in the most difficult environments.

Pat Friend, President of the Association of Flight Attendants/CWA and chair of Global Union Federation will lead a discussion global organizing featuring Violet Seboni of South Africa's COSATU, Peter Olney of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, and Sharon Burrows of Australia's ACTU.

The summit at this historic moment will focus on what it takes to organize and win in this climate and how to change the climate to restore workers' freedom to form unions and bargain collectively.

--Stewar Acuff is Organizing Director for the AFL-CIO. For more information, on the 2006 AFL-CIO Organizing Summit contact Katrina Blomdahl (kblomdah@aflcio.org or 202-637-392).

Be All That You Can Be: Leave the Army

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:41:00 +0000

11-28-06, 8:48 am

As long as there has been a U.S. military, people have been leaving it. That choice has never been more appropriate than today. Individuals who signed up to defend the United States are engaged in a war that was sold on the basis of lies, was entirely unnecessary, is making us less safe, has nothing to do with defending anyone, and which involves the horror of slaughtering men, women, and children by the hundreds of thousands. The majority of Americans want the war to end and just voted accordingly in the Congressional elections. The majority of Iraqis want the war to end. The majority of American service men and women in Iraq want the war to end. And taking part in this war is illegal, whether you are ordered to do so or not. Approximately 6,000 Americans have refused to report for duty or deserted in order to avoid taking part in this war, or to avoid taking further part in it. Many have objected to the stop loss program that requires them to serve longer than they had agreed to. Others have objected to the rationale behind the war and the horrors that are part of it. Many are best able to support their families by avoiding military service that is poorly compensated. In the cases we know the most about, one motivation for desertion that is clearly absent is cowardice. While quiet desertion tends not to result in any penalty, public opposition and resistance often means prison. Lt. Ehren Watada, the first U.S. military commissioned officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq, has said that he will not obey an illegal order. He faces court martial on February 4, 2007, for obeying the law. Sgt. Camilo Mejia was one of the first Iraq War vets to publicly refuse to return to Iraq – for which he served 9 months in prison. Mejia objected to the war as based on lies and to the murdering and torturing of civilians that he witnessed. Sgt. Kevin Benderman is serving a 15-month sentence for the crime of applying for conscientious objector status and refusing to serve any longer in Iraq. Marine Corps reservist Stephen Funk was the first enlisted man to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq, and he spent 6 months in prison as a result. He said: 'I will not obey an unjust war based on deception by our leaders.' Dan Felushko enlisted as a Marine after September 11, 2001. When ordered to Iraq he deserted, commenting: 'I didn't want 'Died Deluded in Iraq' over my gravestone. I didn't see a connection between the attack on America and Saddam Hussein.' Some who have deserted and been AWOL for months or years have decided that it is their proper duty to turn themselves in and face court martial. Ricky Clousing has done this. He explains why in this video: http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/video/rickylow.wmv Agustin Aguayo has done the same and faces charges with a maximum penalty of 7 years. In many cases, turning yourself in is not easy. Pvt. Kyle Snyder, who spent Thanksgiving helping restore houses in New Orleans with Iraq Veterans Against the War, is currently AWOL and says that his lawyer has tried to contact the military 75 times. The Army used to pay bounties for turning in deserters. Now the U.S. military leaves deserters alone but requires the troops who don't desert to serve longer than they agreed to. (These days we even elect deserters president. Bush was AWOL during the Vietnam War, and Clinton too avoided serving.) This is a break with the past, but much about resistance to the military has changed little since 1776. Robert Fantina has just published a careful survey of past wars titled 'Desertion and the American Soldier, 1776 – 2006.' During the Revolutionary War, he tells us, one reason for desertion was the corporal punishment endured in the military. Men were often given 100 lashes. When George Washington was unable to convince Congress to raise the legal limit to 500 lashes, he considered using hard labor as a punishment instead, but dropped that idea because the hard labor was indistinguishable from regular service in the Continental Army. Soldiers also left because they needed food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and money. They signed up for pay, were not paid, and endangered their families' well being by remaining in the Army unpaid. During the Mexican-American War, in a tribute to a future president, soldiers were branded on the face with a 'W' if for some reason they were deemed worthless. This sort of treatment, as in the Revolutionary War, was one reason for desertions, but another reason played a large role and would play an increasingly prominent role in desertions through the course of later wars: lack of belief in the cause. Through the course of recounting the types of desertions prevalent during the various U.S. wars and peace time, Fantina slowly begins to make a case for reforms in the military that he believes would reduce desertions. By the time he's discussing World War I he's arguing as follows: 'Without fundamental change that allows a man or woman to be, first and foremost a human being, and a soldier only by chosen occupation, the military will continue to struggle with desertion.' But if, as Fantina proposes, soldiers are permitted to resign at any time, will we not see mass resignations? If troops now serving in Iraq could legally choose to quit, wouldn't many of them do so? Fantina lists the various rights that soldiers die fighting to supposedly protect but which, as soldiers, they are denied. He views this as hypocrisy and injustice. But is it not necessary in order to get people to kill each other? Fantina describes cases in which deserters have been executed, deserters whose desertion put no one at risk, whose desertion was arguably justified, whose current lives were a threat to no one. 'One can only wonder what good such [executions] accomplish,' writes Fantina. But those who make war don't wonder much, I think. Does Fantina not see that he is calling into question the entire logic of war? In the book's final pages, Fantina writes: 'The following list of military reforms was suggested in 1903: over 100 years later, most of them are yet to be implemented, yet they would certainly contribute to a more stable military force: 1. Private soldiers to receive a substantial increase in pay. 2. The employment of trained cooks. 3. Recognition of the right of all soldiers of whatever position to engage in criticism and in free speech at all times and under all circumstances. 4. All the food a soldier wishes to eat, instead of being limited as at present, to an inadequate 'ration'. 5. Absolute amnesty to all deserters from the army and navy. 6. The erection of modern sanitary buildings at all places where troops are quartered. 7. Service in the army to be limited to two years. 8. Abolition of military salutes and all other imbecile and servile practices. 9. Thorough practice in mobility, rapid field movements, quick concentration, with special attention to supplying the troops promptly and regularly with abundant, wholesome nourishing food. 10. All soldiers and officers, whatsoever, to eat exactly the same food, and to be housed or quartered alike at all times and in all places. 11. Prohibition of all forms of torture and violence.' Of course, Fantina is right. It is a disgrace the way we mistreat those who risk their lives for us. But would rectifying this produce a more stable force or a force likely to collapse when ordered to kill innocent people for power-mad cowboys and their oil profits? Then again, would that be such a bad thing? Does anyone doubt for a minute that if the United States were actually threatened soldiers would sign up to fight proudly in its defense? Many did so following September 11, 2001. Many of them have since deserted. And rightly so. They, the deserters and resisters, are the ones to whom we owe the most gratitude.

Ghosts of Massacred Armenians Could Haunt Turkey’s Chances To Join European Union

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:37:00 +0000

11-28-06, 8:45 am

Turkey’s bid to join the European Union could suffer by its refusal to admit the genocide of its Armenian Christian population nearly a century ago. When European Union leaders meet in Brussels Dec. 14-15, the debate to admit Turkey likely will hinge on, among other issues, its failure to open its ports and airports to Cyprus, which opposes all talk of membership. The Netherlands, Germany, Austria and France are cool to admitting Turkey and are backing Cyprus. Lingering in the background, though, will be the ghosts of the Armenian genocide, a crime Turkey has denied at every turn and is still “investigating” to this day. As recently as March, 2005, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for an “impartial study” into the genocide as if the facts of the slaughter of a milion Armenians were ever in doubt. When the “Young Turk” nationalists created the Republic of Turkey after World War I, they refused to punish the perpetrators of the 1915 genocide. Mustapha Kemal formed a new government in 1920 that forced the Allies to sign the Treaty of Lausanne, ceding Anatolia, home of the Armenians, to Turkish control. Two years earlier Anatolia had been parceled out to Italy and Greece after the Ottoman Empire’s surrender to the Allies. As author Elizabeth Kolbert put it in the November 6th The New Yorker, “For the Turks to acknowledge the genocide would thus mean admitting that their country was founded by war criminals and that its existence depended on their crimes.” “Turkey has long sought to join the European Union, and, while a history of genocide is clearly no barrier to membership, denying it may be; several European governments have indicated that they will oppose the country’s bid unless it acknowledges the crimes committed against the Armenians.” So opposed is Turkey to discussion of the subject, when the U.S. Congress sought a resolution in 2000 to memorialize the Armenian genocide, Turkey threatened to refuse the U.S. use of its Incirlik airbase and warned it might break off negotiations for the purchase of $4.5-billion worth of Bell Textron attack helicopters. President Clinton informed House Speaker /Dennis Hastert passage of the resolution could “risk the lives” of Americans and that put an end to the bill. Like his predecessor, President George Bush has bowed down to Ankara’s wishes and issues Armenian Remembrance Day proclamations “without ever quite acknowledging what it is that’s being remembered,” The New Yorker points out. The cover up denies Turkey’s historic victimization of some 2-million Christian residents treated as second-class citizens by special taxation, harassment, and extortion. After Sultan Abdulhamid II came to power in 1876, he closed Armenian schools, tossed their teachers in jail, organized Kurdish regiments to plague Armenian farmers and even forbid mention of the word “Armenia” in newspapers and textbooks. In the last decade of the 20th Century, Armenians were already being slaughtered by the thousands but systematic extermination began April 24, 1915, with the arrest of 250 prominent Armenians in Istanbul. In a purge anticipating Hitler’s slaughter of European Jewry, Armenians were forced from their homes, the men led off to be tortured and shot, the women and children shipped off to concentration camps in the Syrian desert. At the time, the U.S. consul in Aleppo wrote Washington, “So severe has been the treatment that careful estimates place the number of survivors at only 15 percent of those originally deported. On this basis the number surviving even this far being less than 150,0000…there seems to have been about 1,000,000 persons lost up to this date.” In our own time, the Turkish Historical Society published “Facts on the Relocation of Armenians (1914-1918”). It claims the Armenians were relocated during the war “as humanely as possible” to keep them from aiding the Russian armies. In 2005, Turkish Nobel Prize recipient Orhan Pamuk, was said to have violated Section 301 of the Rurkish penal code for “insulting Turkishness” in an interview he gave to a Swiss newspaper. “A million Armenians were killed and nobody but me dares to talk about it,” Pamuk said. Also, Turkish novelist Elif Shafak was brought up on a like charge for having a fictional character in her “The Bastard of Istanbul” discuss the genocide. Fortunately for him, Turkish historian Tanar Akcam resides in America. His new history, “A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility”(Metropolitan) otherwise probably would land him in jail. As there are few nations that have not dabbled in a bit of genocide, one wonders why Turkey persists in its denials? After all, genocide is hardly a bar to UN admission or getting a loan from the World Bank. Turkey has every right to membership in the same sordid club as Spain, Great Britain, Belgium, Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, France, China, and America. Why must it be so sensitive? Let them confess and sit down with the other members to enjoy a good cup of strong coffee. They’ll be made to feel right at home, as long as they don’t mention Tibet, Iraq, Cambodia, the Congo, Chechnya, Timor, Darfur, Rwanda ad nauseum. After all, there are ghosts everywhere.

--Sherwood Ross is an American reporter and columnist. Reach him at

Move Australia forward: Defeat Howard

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:35:00 +0000

11-28-06, 8:42 am

Here are ten reasons why the Howard Government should be thrown out in next year’s Federal elections: His government has:

Imposed the most horrendous IR legislation attacking trade union rights and the wages and conditions of all working people. It is forcing workers onto AWAs and already has seen real wages fall; Attacked social welfare rights and benefits for pensioners and those who need health care and child care centres; Legislated away fundamental democratic rights in the name of a phoney 'war on terror', treated those coming to our shores seeking asylum in the most barbaric manner and contrary to international law; Cut funding to the public education system while boosting its handouts to private schools and attempted to impose a school curriculum which would promote conservative values and individualism; Given big corporations (profits rising to record levels) and high income earners huge tax breaks while increasing the tax burden on low income earners, particularly through the GST; and has wasted over $55 million a day on military spending. Introduced a racist, genocidal policy of assimilation, dismantling ATSIC and taking many other measures to smash land rights and deny Indigenous Australians of the opportunities to manage their own affairs; Imposed its control on the programs of the ABC by its one-sided ABC Board appointments; Sold out Australia’s independence by its subservience to the US Government of George Bush, in the process taking Australia into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Established a government of liars – children overboard, the war in Iraq, the AWB scandal, climate change, and many other issues; Neglected the urgent need to take radical steps to promote renewable energy sources.

To defeat the Howard Government voters need to ensure that they are on the electoral roll and on polling day put the Liberals last on their ballot paper.

At the present time the only alternative to a Liberal/National Party Coalition Government is an ALP Government.

But on many issues the ALP leadership does not clearly and forcefully differentiate the ALP from Liberal policies and there remains some scepticism because on a number of important issues, the ALP leadership seems weak and compromising.

Another option is to vote for Green candidates in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The Greens have been unequivocal in their opposition to the IR legislation and have been in the forefront of the campaign on environmental issues and the call for a major program to develop renewable energy sources.

The Labor Party and the Greens should exchange preferences to ensure that no second-preference votes leak to the Liberal and National Parties. This is a principle that should be consistently applied.

The Coalition gained a Senate majority in the last Federal election only because in Victoria the ALP gave a higher preference to the very right-wing Families First Party rather than to The Greens and, thereby, gave Howard for the first time, a majority in the Senate.

For a long time Australia’s electoral scene has been dominated by the two-party system in which Liberal and Labor alternate in government with many similarities in economic and many other policies.

We advocate a government of left and progressive political forces – progressive members of the Labor Party, The Greens, socialists and communists – a government which gives priority to serving the interests of the working people, small business people, small farmers, teachers and intellectuals in all fields. It would not be a government giving priority to the needs of big business as the Howard Government does. It would limit their profits and oblige the corporations to meet the legitimate needs of workers in employment.

The needs of the working people will not be met merely by electing better representatives to parliament. It is also necessary that the people themselves take a hand and are directly involved and participate in government and in the running of the country. Instead of parliamentary candidates being selected in backroom party deals or by stacked branches, they would be put forward by community organisations, including trade unions. This is real democracy – not just democracy once every three or four years.

From The Guardian

Volkswagen (Brussels): 12,000 families on the streets?

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:30:00 +0000

11-28-06, 8:37 am

Press Communique Volkswagen (Brussels): 12,000 families on the streets? A resharing of models and a redistribution of work on all the VW sites is necessary. Press Service of the Workers' Party of Belgium 21-11-2006

The Porsche family wants to sack 3,700 blue-collar and 500 white-collar workers in VW-Forest (Brussels). Among with them, around 8,000 wage-earners from the subcontracting factories nearby would also lose their jobs. In total, more than 12,000 families would be thrown on to the streets.

If the management's decision to stop production of the Golf in Forest is maintained, that means a death sentence for VW-Forest. For if production of the Golf were stopped, the backbone of the factory would be broken.

The management and the big shareholders of VW are responsible for the near closure of VW-Forest. The new restructuring has been carried out on the orders of the Porsche family, VW's largest shareholder.

Throughout the group, thousands of workers have been sacked, while those who remain must submit to an infernal work pace, work longer for the same wages and be super-flexible.

The competition for the same market among the different automobile groups leads to overcapacity. The consequences in Belgium have been the closing of Renault-Vilvorde, the 3,000 redundancies at Ford, the threat to 1,000 jobs at GM-Antwerp and now VW-Forest.

The big parties in the North of the country have tried to put the responsibility for this social tragedy on the German trade unions. In Germany, 20,000 jobs have also been done away with. International solidarity among workers and unions is the only way to guarantee the preservation of jobs, through the sharing out of available work..

'The decision of the VW management can and must be withdrawn. The models must be reshared out and work redistributed over all the production sites. This is possible if the work pace is lowered throughout the VW group. And if work is redistributed through the diminution of working time with no loss of wages. It's also reasonable if you realise that VW made a 1.2 billion euro profit in the nine first months of 2006. The downward spiral can't be accepted when profits like that are being made.' declared Raoul Hedebouw, WPB spokesman.

The Belgian government has given tens of thousands of euros to Volkswagen in the name of jobs. In the form, among others, of lowered employers' social security contributions and reductions in taxes on shift and night work. VW has also benefited from a land transfer from the STIB (Société des Transports Intercommunaux Bruxellois -- Brussels public transport system) for the creation of a completely new Automotive Park. If the VW management and the Porsche family refuse to discuss a redistribution of work, measures must be taken.

'The state has invested a lot in VW-Forest. That can't be destroyed by a private group. The WPB is of the opinion that in the case of a refusal by the VW management to go back on its decision, all the money and all the investments made in the name of jobs must be completely refunded. So that these means can be used for what they were intended for: preserving jobs.' concluded Raoul Hedebouw.

The WPB supports the actions of the workers and unions of VW-Forest and the subcontractors in their determination to prevent the closure of the firm. The WPB appeals for national and international solidarity to support the workers of Forest in their resistance.

--Contact : Raoul Hedebouw, spokesman of the WPB00 32 477 986 510 For more information, consult www.ptb.be

You can post your solidarity message on . It will be transferred to the trade union delegations of VW-Forest (Brussels)

Ecuadorean Elections: Correa’s Most Surprising, Most Important Victory

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:27:00 +0000

11-27-06, 7:44 p.m.

The astonishing comeback of Rafael Correa from what appeared to be a definitive first round defeat marks one of the most extraordinary reversals of the political fate of a South American leader within memory. Correa’s victory also represents a significant triumph for the average Ecuadorean who refused to be beguiled by Álvaro Noboa’s well-fueled, so-called populist, but splash-dash campaign. In a poor country like Ecuador, Noboa’s unparalleled expenditure of money – some of it handed out personally by him – was a hardly-concealed effort to buy an election. Meanwhile, Correa ran an issue-oriented campaign centered on alleviating the dead-end plight of the nation’s poor.

As important as any other aspect of the presidential race was that its outcome represented a stinging defeat for Washington’s Latin American policy, which already had hit rock bottom throughout the Bush presidency. Key U.S. policies like free trade, privatization and market integration, anti-drug trafficking, increased regional military presence, and the pursuit of isolating Cuba and Venezuela, were being challenged and dismissed as being irrelevant.

The White House has touted recent elections in Mexico and Peru as a sharp defeat for the “Pink Tide” movement of left-leaning governments in the Americas (Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina and, to an extent, Chile). But the more recent victories of leftist candidates Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (after a blatant intervention scheme led by U.S. Ambassador in Managua Paul Trivelli), and now Rafael Correa in Ecuador, represent a humiliating rebuke for Washington’s chief goals.

Another major winner in yesterday’s vote was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Although Chavez was somewhat restrained in getting involved in the Ecuadorian race, the same was certainly not true about Correa, who made repeated complimentary references to the Venezuelan president throughout his campaign.

In Mexico and Peru, Chavez had played the role of poison pill, fatal in his ability to inadvertently strike dead his electoral allies in other countries through guilt by association. In Ecuador, to the contrary, he proved to be an imposing plus factor in Correa’s victory, a fact that cannot make the State Department’s Nicholas Burns, a key administration functioning when it comes to Chavez bashing, other than completely frustrated.

The Correa victory is much more meaningful because his campaign was pegged in favor of an autonomous path of development, including a more muscular Latin American definition of its sovereignty than was the case with Daniel Ortega’s win in Nicaragua. Ortega’s victory was much more muddied by his two-tier policy of presenting himself as both a friend of business, the Church, and Washington’s free trade policies, while at other times projecting himself as a prospective candidate of Pink Tide dissent, and that his victory should be seen as a challenge to U.S. hegemony.

But there was nothing ambiguous about Correa’s victory, which must be seen as yet another piece of evidence that the U.S. continues to pay a heavy price for the near fatal damage done to its good name throughout the hemisphere by Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, during their archly controversial reigns as State Department’s assistant Secretaries for Western Hemispheric affairs. The arrogance that the two displayed to Latin America’s opposition to the Iraq war and an insistence that their brand of raw ideological extremism be disseminated throughout the continent alienated many of Washington’s closest allies.

During his tenure, Secretary of State Powell yielded to hard core White House partisans in reluctantly accepting Reich and Noriega to serve under him. The fact that they at all times had an independent and politicized access to the top tiers of the administration through their Miami connections, allowed them to advance a rightwing agenda outside of the State Department’s formal chain of command. This process continued with Secretary Rice’s ascension to the State Department, but with even more gusto, since her congruency with the spirit of Reich’s and Noriega’s view of the region, if not their antagonistic style, was not in doubt. Particularly, policy regarding Venezuela and Cuba has continued almost unmodified under Thomas Shannon, who is the first career foreign service officer in the Bush administration to head up the Western Hemispheric Bureau. Shannon, unfortunately, mainly followed the substance if not the style featured in the Bush administration’s first term.

As an extension of the Bush administration’s Opera Bouffe approach to Cuban policy, one can only point to the shameless antics of head of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, Michael Parmly, whose talents seem to lie in the direction of low theater and whose juvenile pranks emanating from his base in the Cuban capital cannot possibly be confused with professional diplomacy. In addition, the conduct of U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua Paul Trivelli, who repeatedly has intervened in the internal affairs of Nicaragua, acting as the major domo in efforts to unify the conservative opposition to the eventually victorious, Daniel Ortega, reflected Washington’s traditional scorn for Latin America’s self-dignity.

The importance of the Correa triumph can be found both within and outside of Ecuador and deserves being dealt with in each arena. Opposing Washington’s free trade model as well as not renewing the lease of the Manta air base were among his specific pledges. By not fulfilling his platform, he will risk being ousted by the indigenous population as was the case with the country’s last democratically-elected president, Lucio Gutierrez.

What the Correa victory will mean for the future of Latin America’s ties to Washington and what role the Pink Tide movement will have for the hemisphere is of the utmost importance. Initially, the Correa victory will provide renewed momentum to the moderate leftist, New Deal-style leadership, which characterizes most of South America. After setbacks in Colombia, Mexico and Peru, the Pink Tide grouping seemed to have lost its spirit, not counting the more radical initiatives being put forth by Venezuela and Bolivia. Because of Washington’s preoccupation with Iraq and the mid-term elections, Latin American countries were able to pluralize their relationship with other parts of the world and think globally, not just hemispherically. As a result, we may be witnessing a decline in the centrality of a hemispheric orientation as represented by the OAS and an increase in importance of outward looking associations like the Ibero-America Summit and the budding Brazil-South Africa-India and China ties. Because of timing and the immense achievement of overcoming his enormous first round deficit, Correa’s electoral victory may be one of the most important hemispheric political events witnessed in the past several years.

From Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Dick Cheney's Contempt for Congress

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:37:00 +0000

11-27-06, 2:37 p.m.

Many years ago, I received as a birthday gift an LP (also known as 'vinyl' to those unfamiliar with the format of sound recordings prior to compact discs and MP3's) entitled 'Richard Nixon Superstar' by vocal impressionist David Frye. One of the tracks featured Frye, as Rev. Billy Graham, saying of Richard Nixon: 'He ignored his critics. He ignored the polls. He ignored the wishes of the American people.' I am getting somewhat that same sensation about Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Vice President, according to respected journalist Seymour M. Hersh's article, 'The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?' that appears in the November 27, 2006 issue of the New Yorker magazine, reports in its opening paragraph:

'A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting 'shorteners' on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put 'shorteners' on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.'

Although Cheney's office issued a statement to Hersh that they had 'no record of the discussion,' a prime example of what became known to journalists covering Nixon's Watergate scandal as a 'non-denial denial,' there is no doubt that Cheney and his ultra-right allies have genuine contempt for Congress (even when it was controlled by the GOP) and that Iran has been in their cross-hairs for a while.

Hersh's article goes on to site an analysis produced by the CIA on the issue of how close Iran is to becoming a nuclear threat. The Bush administration, notes Hersh, is hostile to the analysis, as are their neo-conservative allies. One such individual, Joshua Muravchik, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, began his op-ed that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on November 19 with the words 'We must bomb Iran.'

There are a number of questions which bear (rhetorical) asking, one being 'Are we going to see an Iran-focused version of the 'Downing Street memo' in which intelligence is 'fixed' to conform to a policy the ultra-right wishes be pursued? A second question is: What impact will Robert Gates, Bush's nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary have on this, as Gates has previously served as Director of Central Intelligence? (The president's father, it is sometimes forgotten, also served as CIA director).

Apart from foreign affairs, Cheney's overt contempt of the Congress in his stated willingness to 'get around' any obstacle posed by the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, merit the closest attention.

On one hand, it is really nothing new. The ultra-right playbook has always been to view Congress as either a pliable tool at best or the equivalent of a legislative speed bump at worst. The Iran-Contra affair was one such example, resulting in the Boland Amendment.

On the other hand, there is much that is new. Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez is not only firmly anti-imperialist, but has also made tangible efforts to provide heating oil and funding for school clinics in working-class communities; FSLN leader Daniel Ortega was elected president in Nicaragua; Evo Morales and his Movement for Socialism emerged victorious in that nation's presidential contest; and the Democrats control both House and Senate following the November 7 elections in which the US electorate voted NOT to 'stay the course.'

While it might be somewhat comforting to believe that this is causing Vice President Cheney, also known as 'Mr. Undisclosed Location,' a bit of distress the fact is that it probably causes him no distress at all. If Hersh's account of the Vice President's statement are accurate, and a journalist of Mr. Hersh's reputation deserves belief in the absence of contrary evidence, there is every reason to take Mr. Cheney at his reported word.

While the Bush administration may be less able after November 7 to rely on the mechanism of 'signing statements' to interpret legislation as they will and to avoid submitting reports to the Congress, they will still be able to use the umbrella of 'national security' as a shield. They haven't hesitated to do so in the past, and it can probably be anticipated that they will expand their use of this privilege.

It should be remembered that Richard Nixon attempted to use the CIA to block the FBI investigation into the Watergate break-in, and that he came reasonably close to succeeding. In an interview with David Frost that took place shortly after he resigned the presidency, Nixon denied illegal acts by saying, 'When the president does it, that makes it legal.'

This notion of 'Executive Privilege' was soundly rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Since Watergate, members of the executive branch have been called upon to testify before federal grand juries and the legislative branch asserted oversight responsibilities in realms previously regarded as off-limits, such as the FBI and CIA.

While all governments have had a need to safeguard the security of their nation, the present Bush administration, using the terrible events of September 11, 2001 as pretext, has elevated the principle of secrecy to the level of high political art. Nixon feared and hated the media, and it was the media's reporting of Watergate that had a major impact in forcing Nixon's resignation.

The present Bush administration, in contrast, does not have Nixon's paranoia of the media. They do not need that baggage. Their constant references to September 11th and exploiting fear of further terrorist incidents was all the justification they needed to keep information from the legislative branch as well as the public. They were convinced that that was sufficient to tame the media, control the Congress, and placate the media.

In the wake of the Democratic Party's victory in the mid-term elections, perhaps it is time to remember certain universal truths and chief among these is that government rarely gives up its secrets willingly. It is well to remember that the FBI's infamous COINTELPRO operations came to light only because of a break-in at one of the FBI's small 'resident agencies' in Pennsylvania.

Since Cheney seems bent on ignoring the wishes of the American people and has expressed a willingness to go around the Congress, it does not seem out of bounds to push for increased oversight of the intelligence community. At the same time, Congress should insist on timely, complete, and accurate reports from this administration. The public, too, is entitled to view these reports. Finally, the House or Senate may wish to take on the issue of overclassification; the practice of identifying a document as classified when it has no national security value.

Sir Humphrey Appleby, the fictional Cabinet Secretary in the BBC's 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister' comedy series once commented that Britain's 'Official Secrets' act was not at all about protecting secrets; it was about protecting officials. We cannot and should not allow our government officials to use national security as cover for all their actions. And Iran should not be a military target to satisy the Vice President's lust for 21st century lebensraum.

December 2006: Happy Holidays

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:35:00 +0000

11-27-06, 12:00 pm

DEPARTMENTS 04 Letters

06 Commentary

From Cuba to Queens: Who Needs a Revolution More? By Diana Barahona

The State Should Target the Real Drug Kingpins By Anthony Papa

Colombia's Paramilitaries Go Legit? By James J. Brittain

05 Marxist IQ

07 Nobody Asked Me, But... By Don Sloan

10 Book Reviews Confessions of an Economic Hit Man Reviewed by Alejandra Juárez

Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist islam Reviewed by Gerald Horne

12 Poetry From Exile to Revolution By Sava Radakovich

The Everyday Injustice By Konrad Cukla

Casualties By Dixie Salazar

41 Fiction The Construction Worker By Kenneth W. Smallwood

FEATURES cover story:

20- A Prescription for Failure: Rx Reform and the Republican Medicare Gap Republican-authored Medicare reform continues to hurt seniors. By Edward McKinney

14- Mine and Seek, the Hidden Killers Millions of unexploded landmines around the world lie in wait to kill thousands each year. By Nooshin Shabani

16- Freedom Bound: Eric Foner Talks about his New Book Myths about the post-Civil War era are exploded in this timely interview.

24- Privatized Schools Don't Make the Grade Private education corporations are failing our children. By Lawrence Albright

28- Down the Street from the Death House A personal look at the struggle to end the death penalty. By Meg Brizzolara

32- Written in Red: Phillip Bonosky's Contribution to American Letters Writer Phillip Bonosky's contributions to American letters should be remembered and celebrated. By Norman Markowitz

36- More than a Slogan: Democracy and the Class Struggle Democracy is more than just voting every other November. By Gary Tedman

44- Las escuelas privadas sacan malas calificaciones Por Lawrence Albright

Mine and Seek, the Hidden Killers

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:28:00 +0000

11-27-06, 11:35 am

Treasure hunt is always a great game to play. As the objects are hidden curious children search until they find the winning prize. Children in Afghanistan play the same game, but what they find can cost them their life.

War and politics leave a trail of problems that remain when the fighting has stopped. War is never over until there is peace, and peace is never present until people can walk in their community without feeling fear. In countries such as Afghanistan and Cambodia this is not the case.

Landmines are the hidden killers lingering in fields, roads and schoolyards and silently sitting with no preference for whom their next victim may be. They come in different disguises depending on their power. Any child could easily mistake them for being the next new toy. The placement of leftover landmines is a problem which is not greatly exposed to the public. We see war on the news nearly every day but what is missing is the coverage of the continuous war that the local people are forced to face. Mines remain in unknown locations throughout the world and if you're unlucky enough to come across one of these deadly devices they can cause severe bodily harm, even more so for small children. A cheap weapon which costs only $3 (USD) approximately to produce is used in warfare often to scare the enemy. It is also used in defense. The problem is once the war is over the landmines are still left active. They can remain active for a period of 50 years. At any given moment an innocent civilian may trip and trigger them off. It's an expensive problem to fix as to remove each one it can cost up to $1000 (USD).

Although there are around 350 different types of mines which are produced by 35 different nations, there are two main types, anti-tank and anti-personnel. Anti-tank mines are larger and are much more destructive. These mines are filled with more explosives and can blow up roads, trucks and land. Anti-personnel mines are more dangerous to children as although they don't have as much power, they can be triggered with less pressure and are hard to spot as they are disguised as stones. They were first produced with the intention of protecting anti-tank mines so they would not be removed by the enemy. Mines are carefully placed and hidden by military forces by hand. Butterfly mines on the other hand, which look like toys, are dropped from helicopters and can float to the ground without exploding.

According to the United Nations, there are as many as 110 million unexploded landmines still hidden in 64 countries. Since 1975 landmines have exploded under more than one million people. The most common injuries are loss of limbs, sight, and hearing, and also injury to the genital area. African children live on the most mine plagued continent as 37 million mines are still embedded throughout 19 African countries. Along with Africa, Afghanistan is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. According to a report by Save the Children, nearly half of the mined areas in Kabul are in residential neighborhoods proving no discrimination in its victims.

Children are the most susceptible to the damage caused by landmines especially if they live in a country where poverty levels are high. If education and health are already poor this can increase the risk. An explosive landmine can instantly kill a small and fragile child. If they do manage to survive it won't be for long as countries with high poverty levels don't have the medical resources for adequate treatment, and so they eventually die or continue to live in pain. Education is another problem as a lot of children are illiterate. It's hard enough recognizing a landmine as a small child but if they cannot read they cannot understand any signs warning them that mines may be present.

Mr. Viet Dang, of Danang, Vietnam, lost his father, brother and childhood friend through the placement of landmines.

When I was 5 years old my father took the family out for a day trip to go swimming by the river. We were having a fun day and so we got in the car and my father started driving us home. Suddenly one side of the car exploded tossing me and my pregnant mother 25 meters. My father and brother instantly died. There was a landmine on the road which the car drove over.

Viet's mother suffered memory loss and was placed in hospital for over a year. It was at this time that Viet was in an orphanage for the period his mother was hospitalized.

Not so long after I lost half my family my best friend Tu was collecting shells on the beach when she mistook a small landmine for a shell and calmly placed it in her bag unaware what she was carrying would cost Tu her life. She was on a bicycle and as it made a sharp corner turn she dropped her bag and fell face down. The landmine exploded through her stomach.

Viet Dang now works with Global Volunteer Network helping street children and orphans.

As more innocent civilians continued to lose family members the mine problem eventually became acknowledged. Human rights, children's rights and religious groups all cooperated with the government to put pressure on banning the mines. In 1997 a group of 122 countries drafted an international ban of landmines called The Ottawa Treaty endorsed in Canada. The treaty bans production and the use of mines but also states assistance needs to be provided to landmine victims along with a global mine clear up. The United States and China were amongst the many countries that did not sign the treaty. The aftermath not only causes physical damage to the people but it also increases the economic and social costs in the country. Unwelcome mines can be treaded on by herd which has a knock on effect to the business's of farming. Small farmers then lose their herd and are thrown deeper into the world of poverty with no means of making money for food.

Every morning that we wake up technology is improving. Many countries still place and produce landmines making them harder to detect. More common mines made in modern days are plastic so they are not discovered by metal detectors. Smart mines which self-destruct can also destroy people's agricultural land leaving it completely unproductive. Dogs can be trained to trace mines and a new tool called, ground penetrating radar device can detect plastic mines. According to a report conducted by One World, to remove every mine it will cost 33 billion USD. World poverty continues to be ignored as more mines are continually being laid.

As children carry out their daily chores and play in their villages, mines wait to take their life. They destroy families and increase poverty; life should not be so dangerous.

--Reach us with your comment at

Privatized Schools Don't Make the Grade

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:24:00 +0000

11-27-06, 12:00 pm

A new paradigm has emerged in the field of education that coincides with the ascendancy of the political ultra-right. Elementary and secondary schools can and should be run for profit, right-wing ideologues insist, and, moreover, this profit motivation can provide the cure for all that ails the system of public education.

There is nothing new, of course, in the concept of private schools. At the high school level, parochial schools have seemingly been around forever while in higher education private colleges and universities are an accepted part of the education scene. In the case of parochial schools, the combination of traditional curriculum with religious education placed them outside the public school realm due to the constitutional separation of church and state. In higher education, meanwhile, institutions like Harvard and Yale successfully promoted the concept of themselves as colleges by and for the elite.

One of the individuals at the forefront of this effort is entrepreneur Chris Whittle, the chief executive officer of Edison Schools. Whittle started his efforts with the Edison School in New York and has subsequently expanded into areas like Philadelphia and Detroit. Whittle's philosophy dovetails nicely with the standard conservative and ultra-right attacks on public education over the past three or four decades.

Whittle's educational model, promoted through the Edison Project, is that public schools must remain public to a degree, but should be economically organized along profit lines so that they are made more efficient. But what are the facts?

Although public education conceptually dates back to ancient Greece and the first public school in the American colonies was established in Dedham, Massachusetts in 1643, the modern conception of public education as it exists in the early 21st century is a relatively recent phenomenon.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, the US Supreme Court handed down a now infamous decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The Supreme Court found that segregated school facilities were lawful, provided the education afforded to people of color was essentially similar to the education provided to whites. This came to be referred to as the 'separate but equal' doctrine and formed the basis for institutionalized racism in the Jim Crow South.

Fifty-eight years later, this doctrine was overturned by the Supreme Court in its decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote an argument that both devastated the 'separate but equal' fallacy and which remains relevant for today's discussion of public education: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

Of course, the Supreme Court's decision in the Brown case did not bring an immediate end to segregation in public education. The long-standing practice of segregation in housing in areas throughout the United States, a practice which was generally lawful until the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, combined with the manner in which school districts were established, perpetuated segregation in education outside of the South. A court-ordered decision to integrate schools in Boston through busing in the early 1970's saw numerous ugly incidents of racism and racial violence, for example, in areas of South Boston and Charlestown.

As a result of the victories attained by the civil rights movement, aided by progressive legislation at both the national and local levels alongside some very wise judicial decisions, public education today is widely available and is multiethnic, multiracial and multilingual in composition.

While the public education system is far from perfect, it is clear that gains have been made during the preceding five decades. Why, then, have the conservative and ultra-right forces made public education a prominent target for attack during at least half of those years? And why have those same forces promoted the use of school vouchers and, more recently, welcomed the approach advanced by Chris Whittle?

To begin, while the ultra-right is big on discussions of things like classroom size and classroom performance, they are not desirous of a discussion of class itself. While, for most of us, there is no doubt that education is very much an issue of class, the notion of the US as a classless society has a long history. For example, in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan, who dissented from the court's decision in that case, wrote, 'But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens.'

The concept of classlessness, as absurd as it may seem in real life, has the advantage as a construct of fitting nicely the myth of what has become known as 'the American dream.' In its essence, above and beyond the oft-repeated cliché that 'anyone can become wealthy,' the 'American dream' myth postulates that the ultimate dream and goal of the working class is to become wealthy enough to no longer have to work. And a final corollary: the leaders of the US government do not take into account or reflect class interests.

If one can agree that the myth of the so-called 'American dream' is just that, and that the ultra-right does represent a specific class in our society, then it must be seen that their educational initiatives reflect their class interests.

Let's take, for example, the much ballyhooed ultra-right promotion of school vouchers. School vouchers are not a new concept, although the conservative and ultra-right forces would like to take the credit. Adam Smith proposed that the state provide money directly to parents for the education of their children in his 1776 book, The Wealth of Nations. In 1873, Maine developed a school voucher program so students could attend private schools (the majority of schools were private in the 19th century).

In its more recent incarnation, the ultra-right advocates school vouchers as a panacea to what it has identified as deficiencies in public education. In an obvious attempt to appeal to what it perceives as its religious and political base, the ultra-right wants school vouchers to be used for parochial schools, as well as toward non-parochial private school tuition. Scholarship programs have been set up in several states to serve similar purposes.

But the ultra-right sees another advantage in the promotion of school vouchers beyond the appeal to its base. Parochial and private schools are not organized. In the public school systems, teachers are organized primarily into one of two labor unions: the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA). The ultra right would love to break these unions, and by declaring public education a poor second to private models of learning they try to paint unionized teachers with a tarred brush.

The current policy on funding public schools based on standardized test scores must be seen as part and parcel of this overall anti-union drive. If a school performs poorly on the exams, then who can be blamed other than the teachers? If a school gets a 'failing' grade from the state, it must be the fault of the teachers. It's the union.

The union makes it impossible to fire an incompetent teacher. And how dare those teachers want more money, since they only work nine months of the year. Such statements generally come from ultra-right political viewpoints, or individuals who have never taught in a classroom, or from people who haven't set foot in a classroom since they left school themselves. Or all three.

Nowhere mentioned by these critics is that economic factors have a great impact on educational performance; of the household where someone is working two or more minimum-wage jobs just to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads, or the household where the employers have classified them as 'part-time' at 36 hours per week to avoid health insurance. Nor do these critics mention that nutrition has a vital role in educational performance. And, of course, alcohol and drug abuse have ravaged many families.

The ultra-right would rather you also didn't ask about the millions of dollars being paid to private entities to develop state standardized tests. And ever since former Vice President Dan Quayle misspelled 'potato,' none of these ultra-right politicians would be caught dead taking one of their fourth or tenth grade exams.

As if that were not enough, one more thing the ultra-right doesn't want publicized is that private schools are normally exempt from state education requirements for teacher certification in the subject areas they teach. And while some private schools do require their teachers to be screened for criminal backgrounds and sex offenses as a matter of liability, it is optional for them as opposed to mandatory in public schools. Private and parochial schools are also exempted from many federal education regulations, including civil rights.

Under the guise of faith-based initiatives, increasing educational opportunities through vouchers and improving educational performance, the ultra-right is once again cynically, but not without some skill, trying to turn back the clock on every gain made by progressives in education. It is, after all, much easier to promote the idea that what is to blame is teachers' and teachers unions rather than a social and economic system that has overburdened working families to the breaking point.

In his film, The American President, writer Aaron Sorkin has his fictional president say, of his ultra-right opponent, that he is interested in two things, 'having you be afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it,' rather than providing solutions to the problems.

It is against this backdrop that Chris Whittle's Edison schools project must be seen. Whittle has a somewhat checkered record as an entrepreneur, and in keeping with that breed of individual has sometimes taken tremendous risks. But his notion that schools can be run by school districts on a for-profit basis seems attractive to some given that federal funding for education has failed to keep place with inflation.

Whittle says that the United States knows how to run great schools, but not a great school district. He has been, to date, careful not to demand that his brand of school separate itself from the school districts in which they operate – greater community control of public schools was one of the victories that emerged from the 1960's and early 1970's.

But then again, he may not need to demand a separation. While Whittle's pitch has been that his goal in running a for-profit educational system is to reduce taxes, a long-standing mantra of the ultra-right, the NEA clearly saw the ramifications of for-profit education and school vouchers as targeting community control by school districts.

These forces, combined with support services contracting, amount to an attempted private sector takeover of the entire system of public education. If these forces were allowed to continue unabated, one could imagine a system of public education where nearly all administrative, teaching, support, and even cultural functions would be controlled by private companies, reducing the role of elected school boards to glorified contract administrators, said an NEA statement on privatization.

But an interesting thing happened in the years since Edison was established in 1992 and Whittle claimed public schools could be run on a for-profit basis. The interesting thing that happened is that the profit did not. An article in the public education advocacy magazine Rethinking Schools in 2002 revealed that Throughout its history, Edison has projected profits in the near future – not so soon as to get caught empty-handed, but soon enough to soothe worried investors. And as the target date for profitability approaches, the date keeps shifting. Between 1996 and 2001, Edison executives changed their predictions on when their company would turn a profit five times, ranging from 1998 to 2005. The company has yet to report a profit.

Indeed, Edison's stock prices plummeted and an investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was critical of its accounting practices. One of Edison's schools in Boston, the Rennaissance Charter School, severed its ties with Edison in 2002, three years before the expiration of its contract.

As for the contention that private or charter schools provide a better education for their students than traditional public education, a study by the National Assessment Governing Board in 2004 on charter school performance found: Charter schools that were part of the local school district had significantly higher scores than charter schools that served as their own district. Students taught by certified teachers had roughly comparable scores whether they attended charter schools or traditional public schools, but the scores of students taught by uncertified teachers in charter schools were significantly lower than those of charter school students with certified teachers. Students taught by teachers with at least five years' experience outperformed students with less experienced teachers, regardless of the type of school attended, but charter school students with inexperienced teachers did significantly worse than students in traditional public schools with less experienced teachers. (The impact of this finding is compounded by the fact that charter schools are twice as likely as traditional public schools to employ inexperienced teachers.)

In a study that followed North Carolina students for several years, professors Robert Bifulco and Helen Ladd found that students in charter schools actually made considerably smaller achievement gains in charter schools than they would have in traditional public schools, according to the National Education Association.

In the last analysis, whether Chris Whittle succeeds or fails with the Edison Schools initiatives is of little consequence, since the ultra-right sees him and his efforts as simply one wedge to break apart public education. There are other private contractors waiting in the wings. And the battle that must be waged to protect public education is not against Chris Whittle personally, but against the ultra-right.

At the height of the Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley in 1964, student leader Mario Savio spoke of the university as representing autocracy and viewing students as raw material to be used by corporations, which he opposed.

Today, the ultra-right seeks to privatize education and return education to the days when inequality was the norm. This is very much a political issue that reflects both their class interests and class stand. And if we're going to point the fickle finger of blame for any deficits in public education, then let's point it at a socioeconomic system that forces parents to make choices to spend more time with their children or have money to pay the bills. Let's blame a system that makes it possible for an employer not to provide health care insurance or in which the costs of living are increasing while real income is decreasing, and where a family sometimes chooses between poor nutrition or no nutrition at all. Let's point to the system where we put both our youth and our seniors at risk.

The ultra-right will continue to hammer against public education in the absence of a concerted struggle against them. Private education is to them the ultimate provider of knowledge. After all, our current president benefited from private schools. It was the best C average money could buy.

--Reach Lawrence Albright at

A Prescription for Failure: Rx Reform and the Republican Medicare Gap

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:16:00 +0000

11-27-06, 12:00 pm

It has been almost a year since the implementation of Part D, a prescription drug benefit plan for seniors as part of the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. So far, drug and insurance companies are pitching a shutout against the most vulnerable population among us, seniors. The prescription drug policy, to date, has been nothing less than chaos for seniors across the country.

One month prior to taking effect (December 2005), media reports revealed that the Bush administration had withheld valuable information concerning the actual costs of the new legislation, leaving the country in the dark about what will be the real cost to taxpayers. Be assured, however, that the private sector actuaries had a reasonable idea of what their profits would be.

That same month, the administration reported that some 21 million seniors would have prescription drug coverage on the first day of implementation in January. But, at the time of this announcement only one million seniors had actually enrolled. Of approximately seven million of the most vulnerable low-income seniors, only about one million had been enrolled after the first week of the program. By April 2006, only about two million were actually receiving low-income subsidies for prescription drugs. Furthermore, during the early weeks of the program, human service workers who assisted seniors with signing up reported that the 2006 Medicare Handbook provided misleading information and had created much confusion among seniors. Complete bureaucratic chaos reigned during the first weeks. Computer systems responsible for merging the beneficiary data from CMA (Center for Medicare and Medicaid), SSA (Social Security Administration), the 50 states and prescription drug plans for use by pharmacists failed. Pharmacies, in many reported instances, could not determine who was actually covered. There was mass confusion and anger among seniors and their families on discovering that a particular drug needed wasn't covered by their chosen insurance plan. Another problem was the overcharging of low-income patients who thought they had qualified for program subsidies according to the law. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), in a letter to Director Mark McClellan of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMA), complained that many of the low-income seniors in his district were being forced to pay up to hundreds of dollars for drugs, instead of the $1 to $5 co-payment specified in their contracts.

What became so appalling to many during the early days of implementation was the fact that drug companies, according to the law, had the authority to change the costs of a drug on their list, or remove it from the list whenever it pleased. Now, it is obvious that either of those decisions would be profit driven, or what was in the best interest of the company and not the welfare of seniors. Seniors on the other hand did not have a choice. Once a plan was chosen they had to stay with it unless there were some extraordinary circumstances. Every senior would need a lawyer to figure out the circumstances. Some seniors after signing up for a plan soon discovered that it did not cover all of the drugs needed. Now they are stuck with it until the next sign up period.

Shouldn't that senior have a choice to seek a new plan immediately that meets her/his drug need?

Before the end of the first month low-income seniors were leaving pharmacies without their drugs after being told they would have to pay co-payments of $100 to $250 more. Matters became so bad for seniors that the Republican Governor from Arkansas and Chair of the National Governors Association Mike Huckabee called for a public health emergency. Twenty other governors declared public health emergencies and undertook actions to cover prescription drug costs for low-income seniors. President Bush in an attempt to respond to the growing crisis issued an order to insurers that they must provide a 30-day supply of any drug that a senior was taking prior to the law; and no senior should be made to pay or charged more than a $5 co-payment. The insurance companies continued to exacerbate the problem. In April insurers sent out letters notifying thousands of seniors who had properly enrolled that they may get kicked out of the system because their premiums had not been paid. The response from many seniors to the letters was we have already paid. Part of the problem is that it sometimes takes two months to process claims; an example of the computer failures aforementioned.

The deadline for seniors to sign up for the new drug program was May 15, four months after implementation. With all of the problems being encountered by seniors, from eligibility rules, confusion regarding the appropriate plans, misleading information in the Medicare Handbook and/or other instructional materials, and computer failures, some Congressional leaders began calling for an extension of the sign-up date from May to the end of the year. This would have given seniors additional time to figure out the bureaucratic maze, and allow the government, insurance and drug industries to 'get their act together.' But, under threats from Republican leaders to repeal the entire prescription drug program, Congress voted not to extend the deadline. Why not just humiliate the seniors some more?

Windfalls and Profits for Corporate America

Although some of the administrative and/or bureaucratic problems with implementation have been reduced, some seniors have been able to receive some coverage (meager) from the new law, but major problems continue, especially for low-income seniors. But so far, and it is expected to continue, the real benefactors are the insurers and pharmaceutical companies.

While seniors, especially low-income seniors, are struggling to obtain affordable drugs, the drug industry and insurers are reaping great benefits or 'windfalls.' Yes, there is good news for the drug industry as recently pointed out from a research project from Families USA titled: 'Big Dollars, Little Sense: Rising Medicare Prescription Drug Prices.' The first observation was that nothing was being done by the drug plans to control or contain the ongoing astronomical rising costs of prescription drugs. Now, did we really expect the drug plans to have measures for containing costs in a free market economy? Health care in the United States, including prescription drugs, is a major for-profit industry. The new law allows for 'windfalls' or major profits to take place. Let's not forget that the law also provided major incentives to the corporate giants to participate in the program.

Families USA's research projected that drug prices under Medicare Part D are significantly higher than the drugs obtained for veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs. The major reason is that the Department of Veterans Affairs has the authority to negotiate drug prices directly with the drug industry. But, if you listen to the Bush administration officials, specifically Mark McClellan, the rhetoric is that the discounts under Medicare Part D plans are superior to anything that could be accomplished through direct government negotiations as done by the Department of Veterans Affairs. It has been estimated that this year alone the drug industry will earn in the neighborhood of $2 billion in the form of a 'windfall.' This 'windfall' comes at the expense of the poorest of the poor seniors.

This is the population prior to the implementation of the new prescription drug law that was referred to as 'dual-eligible.' In other words, they were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid services. Prior to the law they came under the federal/state Medicaid partnership program for low income, or poor consumers. The new law stipulated that this group would be transferred to Medicare for their prescription drugs, but will continue to receive other health/medical services under Medicaid. They were automatically moved into private Medicare plans even when they did not sign up. The new law stipulates that drug prices be negotiated between the drug industry and the various prescription drug plans, or commercial insurers. Under this arrangement the state governments, unlike before the new law, have no role; they become onlookers in the process. Well, what can we expect from an arrangement between drug companies and the commercial insurance industry? The experiences for this group of seniors are now worse than what they were prior to the implementation of Medicare Part D when their prescription drug needs were under the state Medicaid program.

Let's look at another example of corporate greed taking place. In an examination of prescription drug plans under corporate control prices or the top 20 drugs commonly prescribed for seniors, drug prices have increased significantly since the program took effect. For example, Zocor, a cholesterol-lowering drug, all of the plans or 100 percent of the plans had increased their prices; 99 percent of the plans had raised their prices for Fosarmax, a drug used by seniors for osteoporosis; 99 percent of the plans had increased their prices for Lipitor, another cholesterol-lowering drug; 96 percent of the plans had increased prices for Actonel, Toprol, and Xalatan, drugs commonly prescribed for osteoporosis, high blood pressure, and glaucoma; and 92 percent had increased their prices for drugs such as Aricept, and 89 percent for Plavix, two drugs commonly prescribed for Alzheimer's disease and strokes.

In passing legislation that prohibits Medicare from negotiating and bargaining for lower prices, as the VA does for the veterans, the drug industry is now in a position to greatly benefit from 'windfalls,' while drugs become more and more unaffordable for seniors. The implications for these price hikes are that seniors, most on fixed-incomes, will be called on to pay more of the bill while the drug industry continues to roll up record-breaking profits. So, how does one explain the ongoing public relations campaign by the Bush administration claiming the effectiveness of Medicare Part D, prescription drugs?

Conclusion

Medical care, including prescription drugs for seniors, is a basic human right. Every person, from cradle to grave should have the right to develop to her or his maximum capacity, physically, socially and emotionally. The deciding factor should not be a person's status or social class in life in a free market arena. That seniors are denied or confronted with barriers by corporate greed the opportunity to live a life with dignity is an indication of the country's character. There is little respect for a cohort of Americans on whose backs this country was built. Profits and greed cannot take precedence over human dignity. Until medical care, including prescription drugs, is a basic human right, and all levels of profits are removed, we will continue to see seniors struggling to survive in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. We owe seniors a life with dignity and the opportunity to just grow old gracefully without shame.

The country needs a uniform, comprehensive system of prescription drug coverage, and most important free of influence by a market economy. Seniors do not need to be confronted with multiple prescriptions drug plans and trying to figure out each month if to buy groceries or save for drugs' co-payments. We need a plan similar to the Department of Veterans Affairs but with a cost ceiling, similar to Canada's, for negotiations. It should be the Medicare administration negotiating with drug companies not the private insurance companies. This has to be our most immediate goal where all social actions in the future should be focused.

--Reach us with your comments at

Outsiders in Iraq

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:16:00 +0000

11-27-06, 9:22 a.m.

Those whose forefathers have lived together for thousands of years on this land as brothers ... come today so we can write our history, our present and the future, for our children and grandchildren, in forgiveness . . . Do not let those who are depriving you of security impinge on your unity.' -- Kurdish leaders [yesterday], in a joint statement

One of the proposals being floated from within the 'Iraq Study Group' headed by daddy Bush's concierge, is a suggestion that Iran and Syria should be re-engaged to get their cooperation in ending the sectarian violence in Iraq. The reasoning behind all of that is built around the administration's claims that these two rivals of the U.S. are somehow responsible for fueling the escalation of attacks and counterattacks between Sunnis and Shiites, so, they must have some influence they can exercise to end it.

Yet, these two countries have already reached out to the new Iraqi government in support, well apart from any initiative which may have been contemplated by the Bush regime. Syria is no adversary of the new Maliki regime in Iraq. In fact, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki spent the majority of his 30 years of exile from Iraq in Syria as they opposed Saddam and allied with the U.S. in the first U.S. led campaign against the renegade puppet.

Iran is no adversary of the Maliki regime as the two heads of state have met in Tehran, forged security agreements between their countries, and publicly pledged their affection for each other. President Jalal Talabani is set to make a visit to Tehran as soon as the curfew is lifted and the airport re-opened. If there is a limiting factor to the relationship between Iraq and Iran, it is the Bush regime's prattling on and on about Iran's sponsorship of terror and violence in Iraq and around the globe which keeps Iran at arm's length. For all of the accusations, there has been no concrete proof of any sponsorship of violence by Iran in Iraq. If anything, Iran is encouraged by the emergence of a Shiite friendly regime in Iraq. The incentive for Iran to see the Maliki regime succeed is far outweighed by any nefarious plot to fuel the resistance. According to Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's the U.S. presence in Iraq that prevents Iran from influencing anyone away from their resistance campaigns.

Ahmadinejad vowed to help Iraq . . . if the U.S. would first withdraw. 'Iran is ready to show you the way of deliverance - but first, all alien forces must withdraw from Iraq and stop further bloodshed and chaos,' Ahmadinejad said in a speech Sunday reported by the Deutsche Presse-Agentur. 'Revise your policies, return to spirituality and withdraw your forces and then we will help you to get out of the swamp in which you are struggling in Iraq,' Ahmadinejad reportedly said.

Not even Maliki attributes any of the violence there to Iran or Syria. He has correctly pinned the root of the violence on political divisions within the Iraqi Parliament. In a televised news conference, Maliki laid out his view of the origins of the fighting. 'The ones who can stop a further deterioration and the bloodshed are the politicians,' he told reporters.

'Only when they agree and all realize that there are no winners and losers in this battle,' he said, can the end be achieved. 'Let's be totally honest - the security situation is a reflection of political disagreement,' he said.

All of that is quite true. Politicians are infamous for flailing their followers against each other in vain attempts to conquer and dominate; or for some vague ideological principle which exist mostly in their speeches and declarations and are irrelevant to the struggles to survive their contrived battlefields they've distanced themselves from by their assumed offices. But, Iraq's violence is a bloody reality not experienced in the Rose Garden, or inside of Saddam's palaces which have been transformed into American outposts. The gruesome reality of Iraq's violence isn't found behind the podiums on platforms lined with flags and mission titles on the backdrop. It's in the neighborhoods which suffer repeated raids and collateral killings of innocents by the U.S./Iraqi forces.

Right in the midst of all of the violence and killing, our troops are locked in their own struggle to survive the Iraqi's civil war as they are directed by their commanders to make progress in a struggle that the Pentagon's own Iraq 'study group' concluded they didn't have enough troops in the entire U.S. military to achieve success. If anything, the continued U.S. presence in Iraq has been the main aggravation fueling the violent resistance and escalating the conflicts, according to almost every government intelligence agency. Still, agencies and task forces, at least the republican components, argue about 'outside influences' and outside interference.

It's amazing how hard these 'study groups' have been working to find cause and solution to the escalating violence in Iraq without bothering to take the U.S. invasion and occupation into account as the most pernicious element in all of the unrest. The NYT reported that Baker's group is divided over whether to include Democratic expectations for at least a partial withdrawal in their recommendations they will present to Bush. The 'outside influence' they've been bemoaning along with the Bush regime comes, not from Iranians of Syrians, but from Bush's own blundering attempt to conquer and own Iraq. We are the interfering problem in Iraq, not Iran and Syria.

It was the U.S. who invaded and occupied Iraq on the basis of Bush's lies; not the Iranians or the Syrians.

It is the U.S. who has overthrown the government of the sovereign nation, replacing it under occupation with consecutive, exile puppet leaders; not the Iranians or the Syrians.

It is the U.S. who seized the resources of Iraq and dispersed them at their pleasure, opening Iraq up to unprecedented foreign investment, selling the country out from under the Iraqi citizens; not the Iranians or the Syrians.

It is the U.S. who has detained thousands of Iraqis, indefinitely without charges or trial, not the Iranians or the Syrians. It is the U.S. who has admittedly participated in torturing these prisoners with barbarism rivaled only by the brutal dictator they deposed, not the Iranians or the Syrians.

It was U.S. troops who have admitted to the heinous rape and murder of an Iraqi youth and her family,not the Iranians or the Syrians. It is Americans who are awaiting trial, and have stood trial, for other killings and tortures committed in Iraq, not the Iranians or the Syrians.

It is the U.S. who is pumping money, arms, and armaments into the Iraqi military to better facilitate the killing of Iraqis by other Iraqis, not the Iranians or the Syrians. In fact, the report today in the NYT asserts that the Iraqi insurgency was self-funded through various criminal enterprises like, oil smuggling, kidnapping, and counterfeiting - not waging their battles as paid proxies of some foreign nation.

Bush is the ultimate outsider in Iraq, represented there admist the violence and unrest by the resources and humanity of our nation's defenses while he skirts around the country and the world; safe from suffering the reprisals and recriminations waged against our troops by the very folks he claims to be liberating. He'd like to directly target Iran and Syria in Iraq. Better still, Bush would like to benefit from making Iran and Syria look like they're resisting helping with the cajoling of the combatants to end their feud.

However, right now, both of Iraq's next-door neighbors are content to sit on the sidelines and wait for the real outsiders in the 'hood to stand down before they stand up.

-Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price

From:

Crimes Against Humanity or 'Just Following Orders'?

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:53:00 +0000

11-27-06, 8:59 a.m.

During the Nuremburg trials, a series of tribunals held to arraign Nazi, World War II war leaders and criminals, during 1945 and 1946, prosecutors and investigators were awestruck at their most chilling finding, in what would be known as the 'Nuremburg Defense.' While their comrades were being tried for 'crimes against peace' and 'waging wars of aggression,' many Nazi co-conspirators tried to defy logic for their acts of unspeakable brutality and cruelty by simply claiming they were, 'Just following orders.' This would ultimately become known as the 'Nuremburg Principles' or 'the defense of superior orders.' Many Germany soldiers would unsuccessfully try to convince the international court to uphold their heinous, inhuman, and unconscionable acts in the indiscriminate killing of millions of Jews and others during World War II.

Adolf Eichmann and Wilhelm Keitel were two of the most famous Nazi war criminals that would fruitlessly attempt this insane justification. As current as the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal, accused and now convicted defendants were unable to dissuade a judge from dolling out punishment using the 'just following orders' argument.

In what would eventually help shape the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, the adjudication of such a fanatical excuse for horrible viciousness was deemed, 'The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.' While this is in fact written into the U.S. military code, and known as 'unlawful orders,' some intriguing examination of whether or not we have failed our own principle of military justice is worth an intellectual probing.

After almost four years now, the United States has engaged in a pre-emptive war of choice in Iraq. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, hundreds of thousands of lives have been senselessly lost, and two countries – Iraq and ours – are now near hopelessly torn apart. This begets a few queries such as when and if do we start asking our troops to make moral choices against an immoral war? At what point does the military – and therefore the troops themselves – bear some responsibility for following 'unlawful orders?' When the military is no longer defending the Constitution, our borders or our people – engaged in an act of a baseless and pointless war – do we ask them to make a 'moral choice' and rise up in opposition to the continuance of a crime against humanity?

History is littered with people blindly following orders of erroneously revered leaders – from Hitler in Germany, to Jim Jones in Guyana and the Salem Witch Trials – where people obeyed less-than-altruistic commands for vacuous and insane reasons to kill. In Iraq, with near countless dead, when as a nation do we ask our troops to be human above all things and to value individual life? Should we ask if they have a responsibility to administer the ability to decide which orders are truly rational, lawful ones and which are morally and ethically bankrupt? Following orders, long after a soldier knows they are wrong on every conceivable level seems unacceptable at best and criminal at worst.

Our current President, George W. Bush, engaged in a concerted and unified effort to deceive Congress and the American people. He lied that Iraq was a threat and that Iraq not only possessed weapons of mass destruction, but also their intent was to cause us immediate and pernicious harm. George W. Bush did so willingly, and with great malice. This is a violating of his oath of office and in doing so also violated the Constitution. Even after incontrovertible evidence showed his massive dishonesty, he furthered and continued a 'war of choice' and used mass propaganda and lies to ask others to engage in his crimes against the United States and humanity. These actions are tantamount to sedition and treason and can no longer be discussed in the context of dubiousness but irrefutable facts.

In the path of Bush's treacherous exploitations in Iraq rests the uncomfortable question of whether those that continue to engage in anticipatory warfare, support, justify, or approve of such egregiousness are guilty too of sedition or are they 'just following orders?' Where is the proverbial line that must never be crossed – from justifiable defense to transgressions against humanity – and how do we define it? As nation, are we so full of hubris, patriotic pride, and inerrant beliefs in our nation that we cannot see through the eyes of the people of Iraq that we may have already crossed that 'proverbial line?' If we cannot at least indulge that thought, we are on a fast track to fascism and more hegemonic, imperialist wars for political and profiteering gain for a chosen, aristocratic few.

The truth is every American – man, women, child, and even soldier – must begin to realize we are more than merely blemished by this war. We are all tainted with blood and guilt – as a communal society – for the needless bloodshed in Iraq. A reassessment of our total and real priorities is needed. Just how many will die for a lie? How do we stand here in America so self-confident that we, as a nation, should ask someone to be the last person to die for a war of choice and a bag full of fabrications? How much do we spend and at what point does 'being right' actually say we are 'oh so wrong?' How many deposed people of New Orleans do we continue to cast aside while we conduct a war that never had to be fought and continue to fight after we know it should never have been waged in the first place?

When our troops begin to lack any sense of appreciation for human life, often due to and after multiple tours in hell, is it not our place to tell them they do have choices? These soldiers do indeed have a choice. Every human being has the power of choice. Maybe this is waxing philosophically, but if we all stopped believing in the impossible, so much in the world that is possible today simply would not be in existence now. Solemnly, we must now ask this – in the same way that over 3,000 conscientious objectors already have, laid down their weapons and refuse to follow 'unlawful orders' – what would happen if 'All 140,000 men and women serving in Iraq exercised their right to chose life over mayhem, butchery, and death?' There is nothing cowardice about what this suggests, for it takes far more bravery to stand up to evil and defy it, than to destroy, maim, and kill people. The ability to resist is far more courageous than the compliance to follow orders of liars, criminals, and despots.

War is seldom justified and wars of choice are unequivocally unforgivable, cold-blooded and depraved, whatever the purpose – be it for oil, land, domination or any other object of materialism or political gain. The penalty for not standing up is far greater than the penalty for following immoral, illegal, and inhuman orders to kill and torture and to invade sovereign nations based on a mountain of lies and concocted 'proof.' The penalty for not standing up is the loss of our morals, our principles, and our soul as a once proud – but now shameful – nation.

Ask yourself, 'Exactly what are we defending in Iraq?' Certainly, we no longer can claim to be honorable and driven by integrity. Can we candidly claim we are offering reverence to those that truly died in vain so this country could exist? Maybe it is simpler than that. Maybe we are failing as a nation and long ago lost in Iraq because we lack modesty and the ability to practice restraint, while ceaselessly longing for victory in the face of assured futility.

Just how much blood will it take, how many more tortured detainees, civilians dumped-on with incendiary white phosphorous, and how many statements of, 'just following orders, sir,' will it take until we soil the American flag and render it unrecognizable? It's all about choice and we all have it as long as we have air in our lungs, dreams of the impossible as possible in our minds and the courage to resist tyranny. To resist unprovoked bloodshed, and orders to commit murder in the name of national arrogance and false assertions that we and we alone, must eternally be forever righteous and blameless for our depraved conduct in the world. After all, violence and destruction are easy. Peace and diplomacy are hard.

-Frank J. Ranelli is a free-lance political writer, researcher and author.

From

Hanging Hussein after an Unfair Trial could Ignite Apocalyptic Firestorm

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:30:00 +0000

11-27-06, 8:38 am

Hanging deposed dictator Saddam Hussein after a seriously flawed trial, one in which he was denied due process, could provoke an apocalyptic firestorm by his followers. Above all else, the Iraqi High Tribunal(IHT) needed to conduct a trial that was a model of impartial jurisprudence. Instead, international observers found it riddled with errors. And IHT’s verdict of hanging with no appeal smacks more of revenge than justice. Nehal Bhuta of Human Rights Watch(HRW), termed the proceedings “fundamentally unfair.” Asked why Washington chose to have Hussein tried in Iraq in the first place, Bhuta said the U.S. had “a real concern about embarrassing information” about USA’s “history and support for Hussein” that might have come to light before a world body. There may be more to it than that, though. Trying Hussein before a world court could establish a precedent for trying President Bush before one. Some international legal scholars think that’s a pretty good idea. Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois believes Bush’s policies “constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and U.S. domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles.”

Hussein and two co-defendants were sentenced November 5th to death by hanging, four got stiff prison sentences, with one acquitted. The accused were charged with the reprisal executions of 148 men and boys in Dujail in 1982, after an alleged try on Hussein’s life. When the verdict was announced, Miranda Sissons, of the International Center for Transitional Justice, told The New York Times: “This is not a sham trial. The judges are doing their best to try this case to an entirely new standard for Iraq.” That may be, but HRW issued a 97-page report “Judging Dujail” exposing previously undocumented and “serious procedural flaws in the trial.” Among them: # “Regular failure to disclose key evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the defense in advance.” # “Violations of the defendants’ basic fair trial right to confront witnesses against them.” # “Lapses of judicial demeanor that undermined the apparent impartiality of the presiding judge.” # “Important gaps in evidence that undermine the persuasiveness of the prosecution case, and put in doubt whether all the elements of the crimes charged were established.”

HRW blasted the lack of “the right to be presumed innocent;” the right to be promptly informed of charges; the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense; and “the right to examine witnesses against the accused.” The HRW report also faulted IHT and the U.S. occupation authorities for not providing adequate security. At least five persons working for the court, including an investigative judge and the chief of security, were killed even before the trial opened. “Up until the assassination (Oct. 20, 2005) of (Sa’doun) al-Janabi, the lawyer for defendant Awwad al-Bandar, neither the court administration nor the (U.S. Embassy) appears to have developed specific proposals to ensure the security of defense counsel,” HRW said. Defense lawyers complained the salaries of the armed guards hired to protect them were never paid. But when they tried to buy gun licenses, they were given a hard time. HRW said given the deficient state of justice under the Hussein regime, it was doubtful legal machinery could be established to provide a fair trial. HRW claimed the five-member judicial panel was under substantial pressure from political figures to convict. As for the mandatory application of the death penalty without any opportunity for clemency, pardon, or commutation, HRW said this violates international legal statutes. What’s more, since the Iraqi constitution requires the President to ratify death sentences, the court’s prohibition of amnesty “appears to infringe upon the constitutional authority of the president,” HRW said. Given the escalating, bloody civil war in Iraq, the last thing needed was a flawed trial of the deposed head of state liable to inflame his partisans. In the ever lengthening list of crimes and sorrows perpetrated by George Bush, the unjust trial of Saddam Hussein will rank among his most strategic blunders.

--Sherwood Ross is an American reporter. Contact him at

Israel between rhetoric and reality over Iran

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:28:00 +0000

11-27-06, 8:35 am

The recent American overtures to induct Iran in any political settlement over Iraq have immensely troubled the Israel. So perturbed has been the government in Tel Aviv that she has mounted a concerted campaign in America to keep alive the notion that Iran poses a grave danger to the US and must be thwarted at any cost. On 12/11/2006 The Jerusalem Post reported that an Israeli Self-Defence Force (IDF) spokesperson told the newspaper that 'Only a military strike by the U.S. and its allies will stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.' While Israeli Defence Minister Ephraim Sneth was more blunt about attacking Iran. He said, “I am not advocating an Israeli pre-emptive military action against Iran and I am aware of its possible repercussions. I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort.” The Israeli Prime Minister on his visit to Washington earlier this month said in an interview on NBC's 'Today' show. “I know that America will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons because this is a danger to the whole Western world.”

American think tanks also joined in the foray against Iran. In an opinion editorial piece in the Los Angeles Times, Joshua Muarvchik, resident scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute said, “We must bomb Iran. The path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere. Our options therefore are narrowed to two: we can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it. John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a military issues think-tank, said. “They are going to bomb WMD facilities next summer. It would be a limited military action to destroy their WMD capabilities.”

Clearly uncertainty has permeated the corridors of power in Washington regarding Iran. On the one hand the Bush administration is prepared to entertain the idea that force against Iran cannot be ruled out. While at the same time the Bush administration is warming to the idea of reaching out to Iran to help US extricate itself from the quagmire in Iraq. The muddled signals stem from the ongoing conflict between the realists who are in ascendancy and the neoconservative who are in bitter retreat. The neoconservatives believe that America’s strategic interests in the Middle East are intertwined with Israel’s security. Therefore any of Israel’s neighbours that pose a danger to Israel’s security must be neutralised. This not only involves disarming the so called menacing country, but also dividing the country along ethnic and sectarian lines—a sort of Lebanonisation (term first used by Barnard Lewis the chief patron of the neocon movement) — where new countries curved out from the bloodshed perpetrated by the US Army pledge their allegiance to serve the American Empire. From Israel’s perspective, the Muslim populace surrounding her borders must be kept busy in perpetual conflicts manufactured by exploiting ethnic and sectarian tensions, and thereby creating new countries that are weak and incapable of threatening Israel’s security— this is commonly known as the Kivunim plan.

The desire to Lebanonise the Middle East came to the fore in US foreign policy with the emergence of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration. Their rise to power neatly fitted with Israeli aspirations and hence their respective interests converged. With the debacle in Iraq, the realists have regained the upperhand and are exerting their influence over all foreign policy matters—included in this revision is Iraq, Palestine and Iran. What this means for Israel’s supporters inside the Bush administration is that time is running out for neconservatives likes of Bolton and Abrams and they will soon be replaced with realists. A more calibrated approach that is inclusive of the concerns expressed by America’s allies will be adopted.

Thus the belligerent statements emanating from US and Israeli officials regarding Iran should not be interpreted as the manifestations of a hostile US policy towards Iran. Rather, it should be read as the vestige of a discredited neoconservative theory that is in its last throes. This was aptly summed up by US Foreign Secretary Rice who mentioned three reasons why the United States is currently unable to carry out a military operation against Iran: the wish to solve the crisis through peaceful means; concern that a military strike will be ineffective – that it would fail to completely destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities; and the lack of precise intelligence on the targets' locations.

Without US assistance, it is very unlikely that Israel would carry out such strikes. Leaving the military capability aside, there is another major factor that makes its difficult for Israel to contemplate military action against Iran. The Iraq war, the re-occupation of Palestinian territories and Hizbollah’s stiff resistance has not made Israel any safer. On the contrary, these events supported and engineered by the neoconservatives have not only shattered the myth of Israel’s invincibility, but also exposed her population to perpetual insecurity.

--Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises in Muslim affairs