People Before Profit blog

No Democratic Party 'Win' Next Week

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:36:00 +0000

10-30-06, 11:42 a.m.

Next week, it looks like the Republicans are going to lose big. They deserve to. They'be been corrupt, dishonest, more loyal to corporations and religious extremists than to our nation, our workers, our industries. The Republicans have been loyal rubber stampers to the worst president in the history of the US. They have enabled and supported, unflinchingly, the most hated, the most despised man in the history of the planet.

But let's get one thing straight, when the Democrats win, it will not be because of the Democratic leadership, not because of their advocacy for the working class. Oh sure, there are a batch of extraordinary candidates-- in spite of the DCCC and DSCC. Those individual candidates deserve lots of credit. But the Democratic leadership has not been at all successful or effective in elucidating a vision, a plan that captures and inspires the imagination of Americans. They have been timid when they should have been tough. They have been short-sighted when vision was needed.

Howard Dean has been a notable exception among the Democratic leadership and he's been hamstrung by the other wimpy, spineless 'leaders' in the Democratic party, who are really not leaders. They're more like anchors.

One of the biggest problems the Democratic party has is that it is afflicted by 'DLCism.' These Republican-lite losers would turn the Democratic party into what the current extremist, far right wing Republican party used to look like. Sorry. That doesn't cut it for me. And it really doesn't cut it for the vast majority of Democrats and moderate independents.

People want guts, commitment, vision. They want candidates and a party that will take a stand. The DLC is getting ready to take responsibility for any wins the Democrats eke out of this election cycle. Any such claims will be a fraud. The Democrats will win IN SPITE OF the DLC and it's spineless wimp factor policies.

Commenting on the elections, Charlie Rangel says, 'This is a referendum on the war and the incompetency of the Bush administration.' He's right. And it's outrageous that at this time the Democratic party has been unable to clearly express a vision that stands above the war. It is a failure-- a dismal failure on the part of the Democratic 'leadership' that they have not been able to get out even the simple message that they are going to return to balancing the budget by returning to taxing the rich while continuing the tax breaks to the middle class. That's why the Republicans have been able to run ads all across the country stating that the Democrats will be raising taxes for the average family.

Next week, when there is a political landslide, it will be one that buries a lot of Republicans. But the Democrats won't deserve much credit. Oh there will be some candidates who had the guts to stand up and take a stand. But there will be a lot more who were literally advised not to, even threatened by the DNC, DCCC and DSCC with witholding of campaign funds if they took a stand.

So, when folks like Al From, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer claim they performed miracles, and that their approaches to policy made the difference, expect them to start telling you they deserve the credit-- that their approach, their weak, luke warm, non-policy policy made the difference. Don't believe it.

David Sirota, writing for In These Times, says,

'...the progressive movement that exists outside the Democratic Party will be more important than it is now--but only if it serves as a progressive ideological force, and not simply a partisan one. If organizations like Moveon.org, unions and the consumer/environmental/civil rights advocacy groups are willing to prioritize their policy agendas over the Democratic Party insiders' desire simply to win the next election through expediency, the progressive movement will become a kingmaker that lawmakers will rely on for their survival and success. Say goodbye to the era of Democratic lawmakers laughing off the grassroots like they did after the Lamont primary victory, and say hello to Democratic lawmakers pleading for grassroots support.

But, again, getting to that point will require the progressive movement to be comfortable not just going up against Republicans, but going up against lawmakers of both parties who cross its agenda. And if recent trends are any indication, the progressive movement is more than ready to assume this role. The Lieberman primary as well as other lower-tier primaries against Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Al Wynn (D-Md.) indicate that progressives are not about to allow a Democratic majority to become complacent. On the contrary--Democratic legislators could be scrutinized even more closely by progressives.'

We progressives, on the left, will be in a great position, better than we've had for a long time, and we must make sure that the DLC republican-lites don't take the credit or the power. Once the election is over, when the Dems have taken back one or both house of congress, will be the time when we raise our voices and claim our role, our power in the new political environment that emerges.

-Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com

From

Thoreau, Unjust Wars, Voting, and Impeachment

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:09:00 +0000

10-30-06, 9:23 am

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s warning the War on Terror promises to be a long, drawn-out struggle akin to the Cold War comes from an eminent authority on war-making and must be taken with the utmost seriousness. The Pentagon may say it doesn’t relish protracted wars, but if Joe Taxpayer gave me half a trillion bucks a year to make wars I might be persuaded to breathe a few tongues of fire myself.

Apart from the CIA spooks that blew $130,000 of your tax dollars in just one week in Italian hotels while arranging the kidnapping and rendition of a suspect for advanced torture elsewhere, nobody likes the High Life better than Yours Truly. I could have had one hell of a good time in Milan for half of what the CIA spent, and without ticking off the Italian government, embarrassing only myself, at which I am, happily, an expert. Thomas Jefferson opposed the creation of a standing navy for America of the sort Great Britain then floated claiming it would soon dictate public policy. He anticipated the oracle who prophesied, “If you build it they will come.” Jefferson didn’t start any wars during his term in office. But Mr. Rumsfeld and his employers have not been so sensible. Such office holders, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his essay on “Civil Disobedience,” rarely make any moral distinctions and “are as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God.” Of course, Thoreau never heard of Donald Rumsfeld, so it is only conjecture on my part that he might have concluded the Secretary is serving the Devil. But Thoreau did take up the question of how a man should behave toward a government that made an unjust war (on Mexico) with, “he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.” The Defense Secretary, of course, is in no way disgraced; he’s proud of his role in obliterating Iraq and he sees it as necessary. Unfortunately, there are a few others to be blamed for the Iraq aggression as well, meaning us. Thoreau observed, “There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing…” Thoreau went on to complain such people “will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil” and on election day will satisfy their consciences by voting for the right, which he pointed out is but a “feeble” palliative. Thoreau famously spent a night in jail for refusing to pay his poll tax, but millions of our citizens who oppose the aggression against Iraq are paying their taxes. What’s more, they are sitting on their hands, waiting until the next election in the hope of voting for a candidate who will not spill the blood of their children in a dishonest war. Impeachment is messy. It’s destabilizing, perhaps even dangerous. But it is about the only tool left to a public that now largely opposes the President’s aggressive war. To delay this step costs human life. Each day, ever larger portions of Iraq and the Middle East go up in flames as the Bush Administration’s incendiary policies stoke the fires of anti-Americanism. People are dying by the thousands; a nation is being destroyed. The Iraq War has claimed more civilian lives(650,000) than Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, (70,000) and the end is not in sight. At issue here, as during President Polk’s war of aggression against Mexico, is whether Americans will continue to sit on their hands. “The people must…cease to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people,” Thoreau wrote. That is also true of the war against Iraq. If you’re sitting on your hands, don’t blame Rumsfeld. The least every American can do is to work to get out the vote in the upcoming election, hoping for the seating of a Democratic Congress whose members will investigate the crimes of the Bush White House and begin the impeachment proceedings for war crimes its occupants so richly deserve. Children of Washington! Children of Franklin! When will you stand up? --Sherwood Ross is a Virginia-based reporter and columnist. Reach him at

Chavez and Supporters Condemn Destabilization Plans for Venezuelan Elections

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:50:00 +0000

10-30-06, 9:01 am

Caracas, October 25, 2006 (Venezuelanalysis.com)— Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan officials, politicians and others denounced over the past week, what they believe are plans to destabilize the Venezuelan Presidential Elections, which is set to be held in less than six weeks, on December 3rd.

Last Sunday, President Chavez once again warned of destabilization activities and an assassination plot against him. Chavez further pointed out that the opposition has attempted to fix opinion polls to make it appear as though opposition candidate Manuel Rosales was gaining ground.

While the most reliable polls, including a recent survey from the University of Miami, consistently show Chavez with a 30% advantage over opposition candidate Manuel Rosales, other polls have been released over the last couple of weeks, which suggest that Rosales is actually tied or ahead of Chavez in the race for President.

“Operación Amanecer Rojo”

Lina Ron, head of the pro-Chavez, Popular Venezuelan Union (UPV) party, condemned the “electoral coup” Monday on VTV, which she said was taking place and consists of the goal to sabotage the elections through the manipulation of the polls and through the convoking of violent street demonstrations accusing electoral authorities of “fraud.”

Ron also condemned the existence of what she called “Operación Amanecer Rojo” (Operation Red Sunrise), which she said was designed by the United States, and includes the participation of paramilitaries paid by the State Department and the CIA. The Venezuelan National Assembly Commission of Foreign Affairs is currently analyzing these denouncements.

Maracaibo Destabilization Plan

Last Wednesday in an interview with Panorama, Maracaibo mayor, Giancarlo Di Martino, also condemned and outlined a destabilization plan that he had been made aware of, “with the goal of attacking the National Government and causing violence before the elections.” Di Martino acknowledged that the plan was brought to his attention by people at the University of Zulia (LUZ) and informants from Venezuelan Armed Forces at the Colombian border.

According Di Martino, “a student would be assassinated by paramilitaries” during one of a number of opposition marches that would be held at the University of Zulia a few days before the close of the electoral campaign in late November..

“The conspiracy is coordinated by the candidate Manuel Rosales together with the North American Government, in the figure of the CIA and the Dean Leonardo Atencio,” said Di Martino.

According to Di Martino, “the paramilitaries would follow the orders of Rosales and would be dressed as students. The death of the student would be blamed on the national guard or a metropolitan police official.”

“This would be an ideal scenario in order [for Rosales] to convoke his follows to civil disobedience and unleash a wave of undetainable violence from the University,” said Di Martino. “Salvemos el Proceso”

The alternative media website, Aporrea, recently condemned “the manipulation of sectors of the opposition, who are working for the empire and for the group of Yankee psychological warfare advised by the CIA, a campaign that is being carried out in the internet with the sending of messages of intimidation and/or the utilization of false identities to emit judgments that have nothing to do with the true identification of the signer, with the only goal of creating an environment contrary and negative of the Government of President Chávez.”

According to the editors of Aporrea, an article was published titled “Salvemos el proceso” (“let’s save the process”), signed by an email account identified to be the leader of the Miranda Electoral Campaign, Fernando Bianco. However, in a phone call to Aporrea, Fernando Bianco “categorically denied that the article had been written by him.” Bianco further denied that he had a yahoo.com email account and resented that his name had been used to “carry out a proposal that doesn’t have anything to do with my convictions.”

Although the article was taken off the Aporrea website, it appears to have at least also been published with the Diario de Guyana, where it is still available on the website and where, by reading the comments, it appears to have succeeded in its mission to cause a wave a resentment against Bianco and the Bolivarian Process.

From

Washington Legalizes Torture

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:47:00 +0000

10-30-06, 8:58 am

USA: Congress has just approved a bill legitimising the detention of certain detainees for an arbitrary period. This means it violates the very foundations of democracy.

In response to the Bush administration’s commands, the Republican majority and several Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate have opened the way to a legitimisation of torture, as well as detention without a time limit, without charge or trial, for foreign nationals, whether residents of the USA or not. Also authorised from now on is the use of indirect proof or evidence obtained by torture.

To this end, in the general language framework of Bush’s “lasting war on terror”, a new category of suspect has been created by the law: the “ alien unlawful enemy combatant”. An unusual qualification which totally sidesteps general principles of law. So in fact, what can the criteria be of the “lawful” or “unlawful” nature of an “enemy combatant”, and who will decide? [note 1 - trans]

The text voted through by Congress carries the title: “The Military Commissions Act of 2006”. These commissions, which are a kind of substitute for military tribunals, will be made up of at least five military personnel, lawyers or otherwise. They will have absolute freedom to pass secret judgement on all foreign nationals suspected of endangering or trying to endanger the interests of the United States.

The accused cannot claim the right to choose his defence counsel, nor can he know the charges against him, or, if the need arises - “when the security of the United States is at stake” - the nature of the evidence brought against him. Able to be detained without time limit, there is not even any right to demand a trial.

The presumed terrorist may not question either the legality or the conditions of his detention, or the “techniques” of interrogation which may have been used on him.

The Act confers on the US President the “authority” to “interpret the significance and applicability of the Geneva Conventions” banning torture and defining the rules of war, notably the rules relevant to the treatment of prisoners. These cannot be invoked “as a legal source before any US tribunal”. In a more general way, section V of the Act stipulates that: No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

Consequently, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

The heavy style does nothing to relieve the anti-democratic, freedom-stifling and terrifying nature of such legislation. It confers to the executive power the right to fix the rules of detention and interrogation of prisoners, and to define what is torture and what is not. Now the White House has always refused to indicate precisely which interrogation practices are prohibited. At the same time, all the abuses committed by the CIA and the military in detention centres either stateside or overseas, are forgiven. Worse still, confessions obtained through torture perpetrated in foreign prisons on behalf of the United States are also legally admissible from now on.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims to have proof of numerous acts of violence perpetrated by Federal Agents against foreign detainees, such as “soaking the prisoner’s hand in alcohol prior to setting fire to it; administering electric shocks; inflicting repeated sexual violations including sodomy with a bottle”; and the new practice of waterboarding, “where the prisoner is tied to a plank with their head lower than their feet and water is poured over their head, provoking an unbearable sensation of drowning.”

Let’s not kid ourselves: the so-called Military Commissions Act threatens all foreigners, whether actual combatants captured with their weapons in hand, or a simple visitor imprudent enough to provoke, even unknowingly, the American Intelligence Services. In the same way, the USA’s Patriot Act violates the elementary rights and freedoms of US citizens.

How can the regime in power in Washington still aspire to impose on the rest of the world its idea of what it persists in calling “Democracy”? A model that certain European politicians, however, would like to import, raising the spectre of “insecurity” or the “terrorist threat”.

--Translated by B. G.. Translator’s Note 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant has a lot of useful discourse. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-6166 has the full text of the Act.

From l'Humanite

Canada: Right-wing offensive in Toronto election stalls

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:44:00 +0000

10-30-06, 8:55 am

TORONTO - After three years of relatively progressive municipal government, the right-wing has launched an offensive to take over City Hall and the School Board.

Mayor David Miller, elected to clean out the lobbyists and the cronyism connected to former Tory Mayor Mel Lastman, has made some improvements - more modest than many hoped. However, even these are too much for the developers, builders, corporate landlords and financial interests.

Jane Pitfield is backed by these interests, but is increasingly seen as not up to the job. Starting with a call to eliminate unions and contract out municipal jobs, Pitfield has stumbled in public debates - flip-flopping on policy while displaying temper and frustration.

Fortunately for Miller, another right-wing candidate, Stephen LeDrew, was a last minute entry, reflecting divisions in the corporate camp around Pitfield's performance.

While no cake walk is expected, Miller looks like he'll be re-elected. Provincial and federal funding for public transit, social housing, property tax reform and uploading the costs of welfare, health, housing and transit are key issues for Miller, along with waterfront development, the city airport, urban planning, and the problem of disposing of Toronto's garbage.

The new four-year term of office, pushed through by the provincial Liberals, has encouraged more candidates for Council, as well as the School Board, where the honorarium has been raised from $5,000 to $20,000 a year.

The new City of Toronto Act, which gives Council a little more taxing power, carries with it obligations to create a super powered executive body. This 'super-executive' is to make the key decisions over the city's future, while Council acts as the rubber stamp. If Council does not establish the super-executive, the province has the authority to impose it. This 'sleeper issue' needs more debate, as a continuation of the fight for civic democracy and autonomy.

Progressive candidates (and voters) are facing challenges from the right-wing. But Joe Mihevic is also up against former Mayor and civic reformer John Sewell, who played a key role in mobilizing against the Tories' forced amalgamation of Toronto. Sewell's decision to run against Mihevic, who has an excellent record on Council, is a big mistake. Rather than fighting each other, progressives should work out a division of labour so that the right-wing voices on Council are diminished.

The Campaign for Public Education (CPE) has played an excellent role, putting forward virtually a full slate of progressive candidates across the city's 22 school board wards (each school board ward is twice the size of the 44 Council wards). Comprised of parents, progressive trustees, unions, and the public, the CPE operates year round on the basis of progressive education policy and campaigns directed at the provincial government and the School Board. A key issue has been the funding formula brought in by the Tories, which the Liberals promised to fix, but haven't.

Indeed the Liberals, whose leader Dalton McGuinty campaigned to be the 'Education Premier' in 2003, are proceeding as their predecessors did with more cuts to both public and separate schools. Across the province, School Boards have said they cannot balance their budgets with the meagre provincial transfers. The biggest Catholic Boards (Toronto and Peel) have flatly refused to make the cuts and are facing provincial government Trusteeship - exactly what the Harris Tories did four years ago.

The public Toronto District School Board has also resisted the cuts, though as PV went to press the Board was considering a new packaging of the $91 million in cuts that would shift $40 million from the capital budgets to the operating budget, cut a lot of jobs by attrition, substantially increase user fees and could include the sale of assets.

Progressive Trustees Elizabeth Hill, Stan Nemiroff, Irene Atkinson, Chris Bolton, Stephnie Payne, Rick Telfer and others were expected to oppose the newly configured cuts, which change nothing but could give the appearance of a solution to the provincial funding shortfalls.

'These cuts are real, and they can't be made without huge damage to the system and to the day to day education of our students', said Hill, recognized as the leader of the left on the School Board.

Two-time Board Vice-Chair Stan Nemiroff echoed Hill's comments. 'This is smoke and mirrors aimed to help the Liberal government solve the problem of failed promises about fixing the flawed funding formula as they head into a provincial election next year,' said Nemiroff. 'Make no mistake, these cuts are going to hurt kids and the public should know that the Liberals are responsible for it.'

Hill and Nemiroff face major challenges from Liberal and Tory candidates with political machines behind them. both candidates are asking parents, supporters and friends of public education to come out and help as the race enters the final lap.

Volunteers and donations can be sent to Elizabeth Hill at 209 Oakwood Ave, Toronto, M6E 2V3,and to Stan Nemiroff at 338 Concord Ave, Toronto, M6H 2P8, 416-533-6479, email stan.nemiroff@primus.ca.

From People's Voice

Communists Express Solidarity with Banned Czech Youth Group

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:40:00 +0000

10-30-06, 8:51 am

Dear Comrades of the KSM,

The Communist Party, USA expresses its concern and outrage at the anti-democratic dissolution of your organization, the Communist Youth Union of the Czech Republic.

The assault on the KSM is an assault on democracy, an assault on all of those who seek to join together to create a better world, and to defeat the ideologues of capitalism and extremism who have taken over greater portions of the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.

This is part of a long-running campaign of anti-Communism in Europe and the United States. The deplorable attempts to introduce the anti-Communist bill into the European parliament, the disturbingto say the leastspeech made by the American vice-president linking Communism and fascism and the speeches made by U.S. President Bush declaring that extremist religious terrorists are somehow today the successors to the 'failed Communist ideology of the 20th century,' we see signs of that campaign everywhere.

While the Czech interior ministry listed all sorts of technicalities as reasons to ban KSM, the simple reason, as we all know, that your heroic organization was banned was its advocacy of Marxism-Leninism and its goal of transforming the barbaric capitalist order into the more humane world of socialism.

The Communist Party USA resolutely applauds the decision of the KSM to take the courageous stand of maintaining its organization in the face of serious government repression. We offer you our solidarity and will do all that we can to ensure that the anti-democratic action taken by the Czech Interior Ministry is reversed.

The anti-Communist campaigns are not a sign of strength, but of weakness, of the forces opposed to democracy. They have unleashed these campaigns simply because they want to divert from attention from the fact that their system, capitalism, offers the people nothing. And they are also worried by fact that the KSM, and the Communist Parties and youth organizations of the Czech Republic and the world, are, instead of getting weaker and disappearing as they had expected in 1991, are actually getting stronger.

Once again, we express our fraternal solidarity, our commitment to help your struggle, and our strong conviction that you will win.

With warm comradely greetings, National Committee Communist party USA www.cpusa.org

India: Mid-term Reappraisal of Foreign Policy Needed

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:37:00 +0000

10-30-06, 8:49 am

THE completion of two and a half years of the UPA government has more or less coincided with the appointment of a new foreign minister. This is an appropriate juncture to assess the foreign policy pursued by the government and in particular the focus on India-US relations. The mid-term provides the backdrop to see how the Manmohan Singh government has undertaken to implement the CMP provision to pursue an independent foreign policy and promote multi-polarity in international relations. The Left parties, in their note on two years of the UPA government, summed up the performance on foreign policy as follows: “The UPA government’s foreign policy faces serious distortions because of the obsessive drive to somehow harmonise positions on regional and global issues with the US’s global strategies. This runs counter to the commitments made in the Common Minimum Programme to promote multi-polarity in international relations.” NEGATIVE DEVELOPMENTS The period since then has only confirmed the negative consequences of harmonizing our stand in tune with US global strategy. The US is experiencing today some of the backlash due to the arrogant, unilateralist drive of the Bush administration to extend and consolidate US hegemony. The US is trapped in a bloody quagmire of its own making in Iraq. The bloodletting goes on daily without respite. Iraq, a modern Arab secular state, has been destroyed with sectarian strife plaguing this unfortunate land. The government put in place by the United States and the police forces raised by them are themselves part of the internecine strife. Police and security forces, which are often armed militias in disguise, prowl around as death squads. Iraq is proving to be the US’s “Vietnam” of the twenty first century. But the imperial ruling classes do not learn any lessons. The Bush administration is flailing around for a non-existent solution, because it refuses to accept that the agony of Iraq today is due to its criminal aggression. The more they got bogged in their stupid adventure, the more Bush and his cohorts looked to widen the circle of enemies. The targetting of Iran, the threats to Syria and the backing of the Israeli aggression on Lebanon have neither advanced the fight against terrorism nor won the US friends in the Middle-East. During the Vajpayee government, India had begun to acquiesce in the charade enacted in occupied Iraq. Having failed to find the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the Bush project of planting democracy in Iraq found quite a few takers in the Indian establishment. Unfortunately, the UPA continued this approach. The July 2005 Joint Statement issued during the prime minister’s visit to Washington declared India to be partner of the US in the global democracy initiative. Having seen how democracy has been implanted in Iraq and how “democracy” has become the rallying cry for regime change in country after country, it is imperative that India dissociate from this disgraceful enterprise. INDIA MUST DISTANCE ITSELF FROM US Equally, the enthusiasm displayed by the BJP-led government for partnering the US in the war on terrorism needs to be re-examined. The Bush regime has sown a dangerous harvest with its global war against terrorism. It is now precariously placed in Afghanistan. It has got the NATO involved for the first time in Asia in a warlike situation, and this has already created a crisis for the newly extended Western military alliance. The Taliban have resurfaced. The fundamentalists and extremists who did not exist in Saddam’s Iraq are multiplying in numbers. Thanks to Bush’s Christian rhetoric, condemnation of “Islamic fascism” and brazen support to Israel’s aggression on Palestine and Lebanon, the serious problem of terrorism has got devalued. It has been reduced to the US gaining hegemonic advantage over its perceived rivals. Making India party to the “war on terror” has resulted in closer identification and deepening strategic cooperation with Israel. Israel is the frontline state in the US global strategy to reorder the oil-rich Middle-East. India has to distance itself from the US idea of a “Greater Middle-East”. The aggression on Lebanon which Condoleezza Rice described as part of the travails of the birth of a “new Middle-East” has shown the pitfalls of such a concept. The failure of the Israeli military to crush the national resistance led by the Hizbollah has isolated the US further from the Arab and Middle-Eastern popular feelings. India’s identification with the “war on terror” and the strategic alliance with the US and Israel will have unfortunate consequences. As the US and Israel harp on the battle against Islamic terrorism, the idea of a “Christian-Jew-Hindu” line-up is propagated by the conservative Jewish lobby and the neo-conservatives. This would be palatable to the RSS and echoes Brajesh Mishra’s notorious advocacy of a US-Israel-India axis. But the UPA has to seriously consider where this would lead India to. It was shortsighted on the part of the UPA government to have sought the help of pro-Israeli neo-conservative and Jewish lobbies in the US to canvass support in the US Congress for the Indo-US nuclear deal. Such a stance encourages Washington and Tel Aviv to coordinate their India policies still further. The argument that Israel is indispensable for our defence needs is also specious. Apart from the traditional supplier of weaponry, Russia, there are a host of countries who would be prepared to meet India’s needs for sophisticated equipment whether, for instance France, Sweden, Germany and Italy. There is also the harm done by the corrupt nexus that Israeli arms companies have fostered as seen in the Barak anti-missile deal. The UPA government uncritically accepted the US declaration in March 2005 that the United States aims to help India become a world class power in the 21st century. It has not looked deeper to see what the US motives are. The implications of the Defence Framework Agreement are unfolding. The visit of the US Pacific Command chief Admiral Fallon last week indicated how this agreement will be implemented. The United States is pressing India to go forward with the Defence Missile Cooperation and the Maritime Cooperation Framework. In a newspaper interview, the US Pacific commander said that given the emerging threat from North Korea “and the very offensive rhetoric from Iran”, the US is speeding up the defence missile capability. He also said that “the most immediate area of overlap between India and the US was concern over Beijing’s military build-up.” Under Maritime Cooperation, the Indian navy is to conduct joint operations with the US navy to “enhance military security” that will include anti-piracy, anti-terrorism measures and address “emergent threats” which will presumably cover counter-proliferation measures. As far as the joint military exercises are concerned, they continue apace, the aim being to achieve “inter-operability” between the two armed forces. All the briefings to the media about the growing military collaboration with the United States show that there are determined lobbies at work within the foreign policy and defence establishments to make India a reliable junior partner of the United States. US IMPERIALISTS’ VULNERABILITY The US vulnerabilities have been glaringly exposed in the past few months. That Bush is a president with his powers in decline, is not in doubt. While this is a welcome development for the world, what is troubling is the facile manner in which the government hitched India’s fortunes to a presidency and an administration which has the worst record in trampling on international laws. This administration has reduced the United Nations to irrelevance, and repeatedly justifies with brazen arrogance aggression, mass murder and torture as inherent rights to protect the US from terrorism. Under Bush, the US has single-mindedly aimed for nuclear primacy and is today faced with the collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation order. The Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement will not go ahead easily. It is extremely unlikely that the lame-duck session of the US Congress will see the passage of the bill in the Senate and the reconciliation of the two bills passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate before the life of the Congress ends. Given the prime minister’s clear exposition in parliament on the vital issues pertaining to the agreement, which has been widely endorsed in both houses, it is extremely doubtful that the Bush administration can accept the framework set out. On energy security, the US is clearly trying to bind India to its side. Hence, its hostility to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline and its attempts to dissuade India linking up with any energy grid outside the US ambit. The earlier votes against Iran in the IAEA meetings were inimical to India’s interests and energy security. Despite all the US talk of India being the largest democracy and an emergent world power, when it came to Shashi Tharoor’s candidature for the Secretary General to the United Nations, the US exercised its veto power. The logic being it is better to have the representative of a “trusted ally” than from a country that only aspires to be one. REVIVE INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY At the same time, the recent period has shown the potential for realising the genuine content in foreign policy as set out in the NCMP. The visit of the prime minister to Brazil, the holding of the IBSA summit with Brazil and South Africa, two of the most important developing countries, one in Latin America and the other in Africa, and the NAM summit in Havana, showed how India can play an important and constructive role in advancing the platform of defence of national sovereignty against hegemonic trends, strengthen multilateral relations and forge South-South ties. The correct stand that India has taken in supporting Venezuela’s candidature for the United Nations Security Council seat through 35 rounds of voting in the General Assembly is also in line with India’s position as a major developing country and as part of the Non-Aligned Movement. This in a situation where the United States has aggressively campaigned to get Guatemala elected to the Council. The other arena which can play a major role in promoting multi-polarity in international relations is the immense potential for the trilateral cooperation between Russia, China and India. The prime minister did have a joint meeting with President Putin and President Hu Jintao during the G8 summit in St. Petersburg. This interaction, coming in the background of the meetings of the three foreign ministers, indicates the convergence of interests and the growing potential for cooperation between the three countries. India has not given due importance to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which has emerged as a regional security organisation and a regional cooperation grouping in the field of energy and economic relations. All these steps, however, do not contribute to an overarching framework of an independent foreign policy, as the trend of accommodating to US interests remains dominant. Pranab Mukherjee is the member with the most political experience in the Union Cabinet. The new entrant to the cabinet is A K Antony who has taken over the defence portfolio. Both are well acquainted with the earlier role of the Congress party, particularly during the time of Indira Gandhi, in formulating a foreign policy based on non-alignment and the safeguarding of India’s vital interests. Assuming their new responsibilities, it would be expected that the UPA government will reappraise the foreign and security policies so that a proper direction can be given in these spheres during the UPA government’s remaining term in office.

From People's Democracy

American Voters Must Not Reward Failure

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:47:00 +0000

10-29-06, 8:58 am

How critical is the situation in Iraq? It depends on who you ask and when. Common sense tells us that the situation there has always been critical. In fact, one could dare claim that the country has been stricken with political and social upheaval since the early 1990s, when the US led its ‘coalition of the willing’ to liberate Kuwait.

Unfortunately, since American intent was hardly freedom for Kuwait for its own sake, the violent episode didn’t end right there and then. The war established a completely different mood in the region where a permanent American military presence and subsequent built ups threatened a second, and much larger war.

Unlike the dominant narrative, however, the 1990-91 war never brought peace or tranquility to the region; rather, it agitated internal strife within Iraq, positioning the entire region through the barrel of a gun. Over the next decade, US-led UN economic sanctions wrought untold destruction to the very fabric of Iraqi society, as hundreds of thousands perished because of lack of medicine and food. The US government calculated that a weary Iraq could not withstand a future military action, and that ravished Iraqis would welcome the toppling of the Iraqi dictator.

Much of that came to fruition in March 2003. Although the televised statue toppling near the Palestine Hotel was at best cheesy military propaganda. In truth, many Iraqis were indeed content to see the end of the Saddam era, while some felt utterly uneasy about replacing an Iraqi dictator with an American one; literally.

But there was no honeymoon to speak of, even during those early stages of occupation. The fact that Shia areas initially welcomed the Americans and largely Sunni population centers fought them, tells us more about the sectarianism of Iraqi society than a particular event that served as a turning point in the anti-occupation struggle. Sectarianism in Iraq is deep-rooted indeed, but it was even further infuriated by a determined US policy that sought an alliance with Shias and Kurds to achieve what it termed ‘Debaathification of Iraq’, similar to the ‘Denazification of Europe’ decades earlier. This policy was founded on the misguided hypothesis that the Baath party was largely an ‘anti-Shia and Kurd’, exclusively Sunni club. The process entailed the dismantling of the Iraqi army — an icon of stability and order in Iraq — and replacing it with an army that consisted largely of Kurdish militias in the north and Shia militias everywhere else; both groups had vengeful and murderous intents.

Like always, the situation was critical then, as it continues to be so, but Iraq, nonetheless, was losing its appeal as a primary news item, for those who were being killed were simply members of the crowd most hostile to the occupation, even if civilians. Only when Al Qaeda militants capitalized on the Sunni communities’ feeling of betrayal, vulnerability, ceaseless demonization and eventually being factored out of the political equation altogether, did the Iraq story regain its sense of urgency. It’s much easier to sell the American public a fight against Al Qaeda than one against disfranchised Iraqi Sunnis, for obvious reasons.

The Bush administration, its faithful strategists and PR managers have done their utmost to carry out the president’s vision for a new Iraq that would serve as an icon of democracy for a new Middle East, and have worked tirelessly to sell the ‘achievements’ of the administration to an unimpressed public, who slowly but determinately realized that that the Iraq war was a colossal mistake.

I do remember the days when I predicted similar scenarios to what is taking place today, only to be shouted out by right wing radio show hosts, for my apparent lack of patriotism. Now the president himself, accompanied by leading army generals and senators, is saying more or less what progressive writers and intellectuals have contended for years: Bush is finally seeing some similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, and top American officials are candidly talking of Iraq as a ‘’problem’ and a ‘very difficult’ one at that. (A similar storm was unleashed in Britain when General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, said in a newspaper interview that the presence of foreign troops might be 'exacerbating' the situation in Iraq.)

But why did it take the Bush administration all of this time to reach such a simple conclusion, that was deduced by almost three quarters of the US population before it was inferred by the administration itself? Did 650,000 Iraqi and nearly 2,800 American lives have to be wasted in order for the president to summon General John Abizaid, overall US commander for the Middle East, and General George Casey, in command of the American troops in Iraq, to discuss the country’s other options out of the quagmire?

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, appointed by the US Congress and co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker to examine alternative solutions to the growing Iraqi nightmare, will not reveal its findings and recommendations until next January. Leaks made to the media predict that the very gloomy report could make extraordinary recommendations, including phased withdrawal, diplomatically engaging Iran and Syria, among other options. But even with such a dramatic shift in approach, Baker warns “there’s no magic bullet for the situation in Iraq. It’s very, very difficult.”

President Bush meanwhile continues to wow his ardent followers with tired speeches of wars that must be won, democracies that must be achieved and is still industriously infusing his preverbal ‘cut and run’ mantras, knowing deep inside that his dream of a clean Iraq victory is long gone.

At the time of the drafting of this article, Al Sadr militants seem to be controlling the streets in Amara, south of Baghdad, ready to ‘liberate’ other cities, while British forces are preparing a grim return to a city they victoriously handed over to the Iraqi police. America’s allies, the militias and their deaths squads, are increasingly determined to fight the ‘occupiers’; as if the Iraq nightmare could possibly get any more frightening.

But I am still not sure why the situation is critical now, as opposed to last March, for example. Is it a last resort change of strategy prior to the US legislative mid-term elections? The Republicans are trailing in the polls and a deciding factor in that is their botched Iraq strategy; maybe a more pragmatic president who appreciates the intensity of the crisis and is doing his outmost to face it is the best image that Bush’s advisors can conjure up at such short notice. It’s anything but one of Karl Rove’s other ‘genius’ ideas, but is certainly worth the effort. On November 7, however, only the American voter has the power to decide: whether to reward failure or to gracefully search for a way out.

--Ramzy Baroud’s latest book: The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

Republicans for Slave Labor

Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:58:00 +0000

10-28-06, 3:09 am

What if there were Republicans in Congress who supported forced abortions and prostitution and slave labor? And what if there were progressive Democrats running against them. Meet Republican Congress Members John Doolittle and Richard Pombo and their challengers in California's 4th and 11th districts Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney. Now visit the beautiful tropical islands described by disgraced House Majority Leader Tom Delay as 'a perfect petri dish of capitalism.' What's so perfect about Saipan and the other 13 Northern Mariana Islands? Primarily this: items produced there can carry the label 'Made in USA' and be sold in the U.S. without tariffs or quotas, but the scandalously low U.S. minimum wage does not apply, and the pathetically minimal rights of immigrants and workers in the U.S. do not apply. There are no labor unions. Any worker can be terminated and deported at any time for no cause. The workers, mostly Chinese women, sew clothing for J. Jill, Elie Tahari, Ann Taylor, Liz Claiborne, The Gap, and Ralph Lauren, among others. They pay so much money to obtain work and for shelter and food, that they can labor for a decade and still not pay it back. They serve, therefore, as indentured servants, sharing rooms and beds, lacking health care, and working extra unpaid hours for the reward of being permitted to also work paid overtime. Pregnancy is unacceptable, costs of it not covered, and amateur abortion encouraged. The island of Saipan does great business in prostitution for Asian businessmen and American soldiers. Approximately 90 percent of the prostitutes are former Chinese garment workers. Others had been recruited for jobs like waitressing but were forced into prostitution instead. Over the past decade, 29 bills in Congress have sought to apply a minimum wage standard and/or immigration law to the Mariana Islands or to deny use of 'Made in USA' to items produced there. Every one of these bills has failed. Some have won support in the Senate but been blocked by the House Resources Committee. Others have won the support of a majority of House Members but still been killed in that same committee. Guess who earned $11 million in fees from the Marianas government and garment manufacturers? A fellow by the name of Jack Abramoff. The chair of the House Resources Committee is Pombo. A former member of that committee who was part of a Congressional fact finding mission to the Marianas that found no facts, a man whom Abramoff called the islands' hero, is Doolittle. Watch these videos of Doolittle denying everything and changing the subject: Then do what you can to throw him and Pombo out of the United States Capitol: .

'We are in the midst of regime change'

Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:51:00 +0000

10-28-06, 2:58 am

Ferndale, Mich. (October 27) -- About 100 enthusiastic people gathered earlier this week at Soho, a gay bar in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale, to express their opposition to Proposal 2, a measure that would ban affirmative action programs in the state of Michigan.

The rally was called to urge lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people to get out and vote no on Proposal 2. It was sponsored by a coalition of organizations that included the Human Rights Campaign, Michigan Equality, the Triangle Foundation, the ACLU of Michigan, Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, Emily's List, Michigan Citizen Action and others.

Speaking on the issue of why LGBT people ought to vote no on Proposal 2, David Coulter (D), an openly gay Oakland County Commissioner who lives in Ferndale, said, 'Our struggle, the struggle of African Americans for civil rights, the struggle for women's equality are the same. If we as gay people expect others to stand up for us, we have to stand up for others.'

Noting that the LGBT community is made up of people of color and women, Coulter added, 'If its wrong for anybody, its wrong for us too.'

Ferndale City Council member Craig Covey talked about the importance of the November 7th election. In addition to defeating Proposal 2, Covey urged voters to send the Republicans in the state legislature home. He accused them of standing in the way of progress by blocking legislative proposals put forward by Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm to expand health care, revitalize cities, and invest in job creation.

Local activist Ann Heler reminded Ferndale voters to support the Human Rights Ordinance that will appear on the ballot in that city. If passed it would provide explicit protections for LGBT members of the community as well as strengthen anti-discrimination laws.

Human Rights Campaign organizer Michelle Brown stated that voting yes on Proposal 2 means that you don’t want women to have access to institutions of power. She expressed optimism, however, about the November 7th election. 'We are in the midst of regime change,' she asserted.

ACLU of Michigan attorney Jay Kaplan asked that, with the hot campaigns that are dominating this election, voters remember to make the right choice for the Michigan State Supreme Court.

One of the candidates running for reelection to the Court is Republican nominated Chief Justice Corrigan. Corrigan is part of a clique of right-wing extremists who have helped to distort Michigan law over the last few years.

For example, in the case of Veenstra v. Washtenaw Country Club (2002), Corrigan, along with three hard right Republican-nominated judges, ruled against a man suing for compensation for having been fired because he and his wife were divorced. Corrigan and her cohorts used an 1846 state law that criminalizes adultery to deny the man compensation after it was discovered that he had had an affair while working at the country club. Corrigan basically said the country club had the right to fire the man because he had committed a crime.

In other cases, Corrigan has ruled that landlords can discriminate against gay and lesbian couples, ordered a county judge to stop allowing unmarried couples to adopt children, and decided that a woman who claimed sexual harassment based on sexual orientation had no right sue her employer (the city of Detroit).

Corrigan is an activist judge whose main role on the court is to scale back civil rights and protections. Alternatives to Corrigan's extremism are Democratic nominee Jane Beckering who wants to protect people's rights which have been seriously undermined under the current Republican-dominated court, and Democrat-nominated Mike Cavanaugh.

Four other such rallies were held simultaneously across the state.

--Joel Wendland can be reached at

The Workers’ Movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:44:00 +0000

10-28-06, 2:55 pm

The First Steps of the Workers' Movement In Bosnia And Herzegovina

As is well known, Bosnia and Herzegovina have passed through civil war and an explosion of nationalism, which has caused not only the devastation of economic resources, but also the division of the working class along ethnic lines. In the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the working class had rights it never knew before, but very often it was not able to exercise them because of the continuous tensions it had with the ruling bureaucracy. Regardless of that, the working class had the possibility of being a decision-maker in some enterprises, and its social position was very strong. The trade unions were under the de facto control of the Communist Party, although not to the degree they were in the countries of the Soviet bloc. Our workers have not had the experience of class struggle. They supported a system that claimed to be socialist, but where they were not, truly speaking, a ruling class.

The destruction of Yugoslavia and its socialist values caused great disappointment and disorientation among workers. Soon after the formal dissolution of the communist regime, civil war began and workers became involved in national armies. They were entangled by nationalist sentiments. Everything that was happening in the country not only during the war, but also following it and up to the present moment, strongly influenced the working class in a negative sense, so that it became incapable of playing an independent role in social struggles. It could even be said that an organized workers' movement does not yet exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Workers in Bosnia and Herzegovina have very little experience in the class struggle. Most of them have spent half their working lives in enterprises where they were highly protected and even had the right to elect their own managers. After that, they fought a war, and many of them lost their workplaces as a consequence of that war and the privatization that occurred following it. Those who remain with jobs do not have many rights as employees, and they are under the constant threat of job losses, not only because of business bankruptcies but also because of employer tyranny.

In such a situation, it is more important than ever to develop an organized struggle for workers' rights. But the situation is difficult. Official trade unions quickly re-established their infrastructure after the war, with the appearance of two organizations created along ethnic lines. The Alliance of Trade Unions of the Republic of Srpska [Ed: the Serbian communal enclave in Bosnia-Herzegovina) is a bureaucratic association acting in the Republic of Srpska, while the Alliance of Independent Trade Unions of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a similar association in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both were formed from remnants of the former Alliance of Independent Trade Unions of Bosnia and Herzegovina that existed until the outbreak of war.

Still, even though the bureaucratic structures were renewed relatively quickly, this did not mean that vitally functioning organizations were established. Although workers in state-owned enterprises continued to be formal members of trade unions, they basically just renewed their pre-war membership status. Trade unions do not really exist as serious, functioning organizations. Basic trade union organizations in enterprises do not hold regular meetings. Workers gather only in order to formally elect their union board, which is not really responsible to its members and in most cases does not engage in many union activities. The trade union leaderships do not submit reports about their activities. The higher-level trade union leadership is elected in a totally bureaucratic manner, without any real possibility for militant workers to successfully run for office. The usual way in which workers pay their union membership fees is that accounting officials at the enterprises where they are employed seize 1% of their gross salary and transfer it to the account of the trade unions. Also, several years ago it was reliably reported that the Alliance of Trade Unions of the Republic of Srpska received a substantial financial grant from the government of the Republic of Srpska.

A few years ago, opposition trade unions appeared. They came into being as the result of factional struggle in the framework of the union bureaucracy. These trade unions don't have a different program or methods of activity from the official ones, and are themselves mostly composed of people from the union bureaucracy. Rank-and-file members of trade unions had almost no role in the decisions that led to the split with the official trade unions. Right now, two official trade union organizations cooperate through the Confederation of Trade Unions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not a new trade union organization, but rather a loose coalition of the two official trade unions. This Confederation, as well as its individual components, is attached to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

It is very difficult to state the exact number of trade union members. On the one hand, it is true to say that practically all workers in state-owned enterprises are automatically union members. On the other hand, rank-and-file unions do not exist in privately owned enterprises, except in formerly state-owned enterprises that have been privatized recently. To understand how important this fact is, one has to keep in mind that the economy of Bosnia and Herzegovina is now composed mostly of small and medium-sized enterprises, following the destruction of the large systems built during the socialist regime. In each of these enterprises, a small number of workers is employed and they do not have even basic social rights. The official trade unions have done nothing in order to organize them and improve their working conditions. Some sources have claimed that 40% of the workforce is employed in what is known as the 'black sector.' Even if we don't know for certain if this data is exact, it can't be far from true, given the following facts: The official rate of unemployment is 44%, although different estimations of real unemployment vary from 21-31%. This contrast between the official and the real rate of unemployment is a result of the method of figuring unemployment. Official agencies register all people who are searching for a job and who do not have regular employment, which includes not only those with part-time jobs but also those with full-time jobs who work in black sector, and therefore are not registered anywhere as part of the workforce. Workers in the private sector are totally without labor protections. Very often they work 12 or even 14 hours a day, although there are strict legal norms about an 8-hour day and a 40-hour work week. Thus, the problem of protecting the working class in the already dominant private sector has now become a very significant one.

Official trade unions have claimed that workers in the private sector have not shown an interest in union organizing. But this is only half true. Namely, it is not correct that workers have not shown an interest, but they are frightened to organize through unions. Keeping in mind that unemployment is very high and that workers are totally unprotected in the workforce, those who presume to protest by organizing unions very easily lose their jobs. Also, those workers who are exploited the most usually work in small enterprises or stores, where it is almost impossible to organize a strike or similar action if workers from other shops are not linked with them in solidarity. Until now we have not seen readiness for such actions. Moreover, workers who work in these enterprises are mostly young and do not believe in the possibility of struggle. Most of them are frightened and inexperienced and also, which is a very big problem, have a provincial state of mind. It is absolutely true that the official trade unions have not tried to organize these workers in alternative forms of organization or given them any help in doing so.

A few years ago, the Alliance of Trade Unions of the Republic of Srpska organized a one-day general strike, which totally failed. It was organized without any clear aims or concrete demands, and workers, who had already lost confidence in the union leadership, in many cases refused to participate. In 2002, the same trade union alliance organized a day of protest all across the Republic of Srpska. Workers and pensioners gathered at city forums to present their demands, but these protests were poorly attended. In the city of Bijeljina, for example, where 50,000 people live, there were only about 400 workers and pensioners who gathered to protest. The Workers' Communist Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina participated in this rally on its own, and distributed leaflets with concrete demands that workers should raise. We also demanded from the organizers to be allowed to formally participate in the rally. Since they rejected our proposal, we sent a comrade to address the protesters as a representative of the 'independent pensioners.'

At the beginning of this year, the Workers' Communist Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina proposed to the local leadership of the trade unions and the pensioners' association in the city of Bijeljina the organization of a joint action to protest against the decision by the municipal parliament to increase the mayor's monthly salary to 1,600 euros (seven times bigger than the average salary!), but they refused to participate on the pretext the issue is 'not in their competence,' and that they do not want to be part of any party's action. In fact, trade unions refuse to cooperate with political parties and do their best to display a non-partisan character. However, a few years ago opposition trade unions in the Republic of Srpska did participate in a protest action organized by the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats, while the leadership of the Alliance of Independent Trade Unions of Bosnia and Herzegovina held a meeting with a delegation from the Social Democratic Party in 2002.

In many cases, rank-and-file unions organize actions which are not approved or supported by the trade union central leadership. Strikes are mainly organized in the areas of health care and education. They are often led by trade union officials who belong to the central trade union leaderships, and they are sometimes quite successful. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the actions of trade union officials in other sectors, especially in those of trade and industry, which are the most economically devastated and where workers are the most exploited. When rank-and-file unionists or workers in such enterprises organize strikes and demand help from their leaders, they are often told it is too late for a strike, and they are not even ready to provide strikers with technical or legal support. On the other hand, strikers in some cases have a strong will to strike, but they do not have any strike experience. Sometimes they are compelled to create rank-and-file organizations anew or create their own strike committees where a trade union organization has not existed at all. At times, they think it is necessary to have more than half of the workers involved in the strike, and if this condition is not met they sometimes quit the idea of a strike.

In some cases, activists of the Workers' Communist Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina have helped militant trade unionists with legal or organizational advice. Such assistance has been rendered in the cities of Modrica, Banja Luka, and Bijeljina. In Banja Luka, during a meeting of 600 workers in a large industrial enterprise, the President of the Workers' Communist Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina addressed those who attended. In the city of Bihac during a 100-day hunger strike, the Communist magazine, Voice of Freedom, wrote about the workers' struggle, and the party magazine was circulated by the strikers themselves. In the city of Zenica, workers from one factory included parts of the Workers' Communist Party platform in the list of their demands, while in Sarajevo workers who blocked traffic read our telegram of support.

Generally, militant workers are more numerous at the rank-and-file level. Thus, even if one cannot yet speak about an organized workers' movement in the country, it can be said that its first contours are appearing in the form of mutually unconnected militants without sufficient experience, and with a very unclear vision of what to do and how to do it. Most of them are clearly left-wingers although non-partisans, with a respect for Yugoslav revolutionary traditions but without a revolutionary outlook. Most of them respect the Workers' Communist Party's wish for its cooperation and assistance, but they are frightened that any connection with communists would make their struggle more difficult. However, dozens of them have accepted our idea of organizing a conference of militant trade unionists and the creation of a Coordinating Committee of Workers' Trade Unions. This conference was supposed to be hosted by our Party. Unfortunately, neither we nor our trade union comrades have had enough money to organize it. And although they expressed a readiness to meet each other and even to participate in this new Committee, they are still not ready to make a break with the trade unions to which they formally belong.

The official trade unions have accepted the dominant neoliberal ideology and give full support to the process of privatization. Although they stress the necessity of the implementation of social programs, they never say how this can be achieved. Developed programs with economic and social measures that governments can apply have never been presented by the trade unions. Therefore, it can be said that the official unions really have neither programs, basic principles, nor any idea about the appropriate means for achieving any of their aims. In 2002, the trade union leaders had a meeting with the High Representative [Ed: a UN official in Bosnia and Herzegovina] and accepted the necessity of a policy of economic bankruptcy. Their official position is as follows: Transition to a market economy based on private ownership is necessary and even useful, although this should be enriched with social programs to support those who will lose their jobs in the process of privatization and bankruptcy.

Militant trade unionists take a different position, although they think that anything but struggle for immediate and very modest demands would be purely utopian. In many cases, however, they have demanded revisions in the privatization of their enterprises, and sometimes they have actually been quite successful (for instance, at the 'Alhos' enterprise in Sarajevo or 'Zitoprerada' in Bihac), while in others the process of revision is ongoing (two cases in Bijeljina and in some other cities). Militant trade unionists, without any impetus or support from their leaders at the higher levels of the trade union structure, have utilized radical methods of struggle in order to achieve the aim of revision of privatization. Some of them have organized hunger strikes, while the others have blocked traffic or the operation of government institutions. In these actions they have been supported by workers from other cities, and in a few cases the Workers' Communist Party has organized symbolic solidarity actions. In a big enterprise called 'Cajavec' in Banja Luka, the independent trade union launched a demand that has been one of the most radical until now. It demanded from the government the cancellation of the privatizing of 35% of the state capital in the enterprise and granting the trade union a say in management. We strongly supported this demand. In an enterprise in the big industrial center of Zenica, workers bought shares and became the majority owners. Despite these positive examples, workers in most enterprises don't have a clear picture what to do after there is a revision of the privatization process. We try to convince them not to stop at this basic demand, because after a revision of privatization there may follow new revisions which will not improve their position at all.

In conclusion, it can be said that a workers' movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina exists in its elementary contours. Workers understand quite well who their enemies are and where their problems come from. They also understand that the ethnic division of the working class will lead them nowhere but to new and profound defeats. Most trade unionists belong to an older generation of workers, but younger workers are included in the struggle in negligible proportions. Our workers need help from their trade union comrades from abroad in order to learn how to fight and act in concrete situations, as well as the necessary assistance to facilitate the establishment of class-oriented trade unions.

--Goran Marcovic is the leader of the Workers’ Communist Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Barbarians at the Gates?

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:02:00 +0000

10-27-06, 6:20 p.m.

A frequent theme in conservative rhetoric is the barbarism of Islamist terror groups. The National Review’s Deroy Murdock recited a litany of stabbings, mutilations, and decapitations, titling his essay after a quote by an Al Qaeda member: 'The Americans love Pepsi-cola, we love death.” Utah Senator Orrin Hatch reacted to the decapitation of an American contractor by describing it as an act that “underscores the brutality and utter lack of morality of the enemy.” Conservative writer David Horowitz's online publication Frontpage Magazine prominently features banner ads with an image of a World War II-era soldier accompanied by a modern caption: “He’s over there so they won’t cut your head off over here.” The appeal of this argument lies not in the actual danger represented by the phantom menace of Al-Qaeda but in the irrational horror inspired by their actions. The absolute fear generated by these beheadings provides broad public support for similarly barbaric actions such as legalized torture. It also provides fuel for demonization of Islam in the popular media. But what makes actions like televised decapitations so horrifying to us? Life went on in the Cold War despite the fact that the Soviet Union had the power to end the world. Why do the disgusting actions of a small group of fanatics cause us to shake and tremble? The answer unfortunately lies in our own method of waging war.

America kills out of indifference to human life, not hatred. As Carol Cohn notes in her essay “Sex and Death and the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,” its well-educated defense think-tankers can calmly and cheerfully discuss the annihilation of hundreds of thousands “without any sense of horror, urgency, or moral outrage.” Even when something as direct and barbarous as torture is employed it is cloaked under the euphemism of “alternative interrogation procedures.” Warfare is conducted by pushing buttons that release smart bombs dropped from 10,000 feet, unmanned drones, and cruise missiles. And at least one futuristic weapons system promises to autonomously eliminate other weapons systems without any humans at the controls. When enemy populations are not targets for American bombs they are further dehumanized by the national media. CNN and Time silence the voices of the Arab people with images of angry, flag-burning demonstrators, reducing a complex and vibrant people to an irrational mob. Even seemingly innocuous phrases like 'The Arab Street' make the Arabs out to be a feature of a landscape rather than individuals.

Mainstream public dissatisfaction over the Iraq war is not rooted in the civilian casualties incurred but the bureaucratic mismanagement of the occupation. Hence the firestorm of criticism directed at the “incompetence” of Donald Rumsfeld, as if the deaths of over hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be justified if the war had been carried out more efficiently.

America’s separation from its victims is designed to preserve public support for wars fought for abstract, macro-political goals like creating obedient client states, securing access to riches and maintaining hegemony. Hence, wars of choice must be sold as commodities, because we need to experience them as consumer products in order to avoid feeling guilty about the massive human cost behind their morally dubious aims. Like any other popular product, war must be cheap and convenient. No dead children, no coffins at Arlington, no wailing widows. Just as one buys a pair of Nikes without giving much thought to their origin in Third World sweatshops, one must buy into military intervention. A compliant media ensures that the public views the enemy through the eyes of the pilot delivering the lethal payload, not the civilian whose house it falls on. Allen Feldman notes that during the first Gulf War, “Civilian television observation was continuous with the military optics of the fighter pilot and bombardier. … [Who] killed at a distance with the sensory impunity and omniscient vision of the living-room spectator.” Yet while disquieting images slip under the radar in the United States, they sear themselves into public memory abroad.

And up until quite recently, the product called “Iraq War II” was flying off the shelves. The Bush administration devoted much more of its effort to spinning the Iraq War than planning how to fight it, borrowing heavily from the conventions of Hollywood action movies. With Fox News banners announcing “America’s New War,” Colin Powell’s cheap re-creation of Adlai Stevenson’s Cuban Missile Crisis speech at the UN, the Jessica Lynch story, Bush’s “Top Gun”-aping “Mission Accomplished” speech and the reality-TV dynamic of the “embedded” reporters, the Iraq War will go down as one of the most overtly “cinematic” conflicts in United States history.

But while American violence is abstract, Al Qaeda violence is direct and personal—consciously cutting off the head of a living, breathing human being on television is an action whose ferocity cannot be cloaked by euphemism. Why? Because the terrorist is fighting out of deep political and religious convictions. They do not seek to hide their aggression or smother it in doublespeak—they openly and proudly display it. Because of the wider religious overtones attached to their anti-Western ideology, the terrorists believe in violence as holy and redemptive.

But if we have constructed the process of conflict as something akin to buying a Coca-Cola, the terrorist ruins it for us because he refuses to stick a quarter into the machine. Because he is so fixated on what he believes is the righteousness of his actions, he actually gives us real violence, tearing a cow apart with his bare hands while we are trying to enjoy our hamburgers. Because of his devotion to violence, he gives us an authentic destruction that the government and media try so hard to bury. To an American population accustomed to war as a precise exercise, these images are horrifying beyond belief.

The terrorist's violence also triggers a prudish reaction: a chorus of commentators label the violence as improper and barbarous, implying that the American violence is somehow exalted and “civilized.” When put into the context of the Bush administration’s use of extra-judicial detainment, surveillance, torture, and assassination, one wonders how anyone can miss the obvious contradiction in employing barbarism to save “civilization” from so-called barbarians.

Perhaps there is an unconscious realization of this brutal truth in the conservative call for alarm at the barbarians at the gate. Although barbarians did eventually swarm the gates of Rome, it was not foreign invasion that truly destroyed the Empire. It was devoured from within by corruption and depravity.

--Adam Elkus is a freelance writer living in Pacific Palisades, California. His articles have appeared on a number of websites and in numerous publications.

Opposition to military response to North Korean nuclear issue

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 05:53:00 +0000

10-27-06, 12:04 am

Japanese Communist Party Chair Shii Kazuo on an Asahi Newstar satellite TV program aired on October 17 expressed his view on the North Korean nuclear issue as follows:

UNSC resolution calls for peaceful solution via diplomacy based on UN Charter Article 41.

Q: What is the JCP stance on the North Korean nuclear test?

Shii: The JCP issued a statement in strong protest against the test. At the same time, the JCP has been calling on the international community to adhere to the two principles that are the unity of the international community and the quest for a peaceful diplomatic solution.

The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for a peaceful and diplomatic solution by nonmilitary measures based on Article 41 of Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter.

We welcome this resolution and will work for its implementation. The JCP will strongly urge the North Korean government to swiftly accept the UNSC resolution.

Q: Why do you think North Korea resorted to such an uncompromising step?

Shii: I think North Korea believes that possessing nuclear weapons will enhance its security. North Korea has been repeatedly asserting that maintaining a powerful military capability and deterrence constitute the basis of its national security.

However, the reality is that this is a dangerous path for the national security of North Korea.

The problem regarding the North Korean national security is not the lack of a strong military, but a lack of normal and stable relationships with neighboring countries due to its lawless international activities. North Korea must correct this underlying problem.

Q: The UNSC resolution refers to Chapter Seven and Article 41, but Chapter Seven includes military measures based on Article 42. Isn't it fair to say that the UNSC resolution is a product of compromise?

Shii: The resolution states, 'taking measures under Article 41' and calls for a diplomatic resolution through 'the efforts by all States concerned to intensify their diplomatic efforts, to refrain from any actions that might aggravate tension.'

The resolution urges North Korea to come back to the framework for a diplomatic solution by immediately returning to the Six-Party Talks without preconditions. This resolution, therefore, is not a product of a compromise between Article 41 and 42, but firmly based on Article 41.

Invoking Law on Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan runs counter to UNSC resolution

Q: Even under Article 41, economic sanctions include inspections of ships and their cargo.

Shii: Concerning such measures, the resolution uses very restrained wording.

What is indeed grave is that in the wake of the adoption of the resolution, Foreign Minister Aso Taro and other government officials as well as LDP lawmakers began to openly call for invoking the Law on Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan.

This law provides a framework enabling the Self-Defense Forces to give military cooperation to the U.S. forces outside of Japan. The law allows the SDF to not only conduct ship inspections but also provide logistic support for U.S. forces carrying out combat actions. Thus, this is a framework of military cooperation.

It is totally wrong to call for this law to be invoked using the UNSC resolution as a pretext.

The resolution calls for a solution of the issue by non-military measures or 'measures not involving the use of armed force' as prescribed in Article 41.

Therefore, invoking the Law on Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan, which is to provide military cooperation, runs counter to the UNSC resolution. The government must not do this.

The resolution calls for governments to 'refrain from any actions that might aggravate tensions.' I want to emphasize that Japan must strictly refrain from sending any message that might increase tensions.

Q: North Korea has announced that it will take countermeasures against sanctions.

Shii: All nations must avoid taking measures that run counter to the unanimous resolution calling for a diplomatic and peaceful solution by non-military measures, leading to a dangerous situation through escalation of military confrontation.

What is needed for U.N. member states is to strictly implement the economic sanctions in accordance with the resolution, and make all-out diplomatic efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement.

Q: The U.N. resolution allows member states to conduct cargo inspections.

Shii: Yes it does, but it uses expressions such as 'as necessary,' 'in accordance with their national authorities and legislation,' and 'consistent with international law.' It also states that member states are 'called upon,' not obligated, to take such actions. Most importantly, the resolution was adopted within the framework of Article 41 of the U.N. Charter that provides for non-military measures.

I believe that it is against this U.N. resolution for Japan to jump into a military cooperation with the U.S. forces, invoke the law to deal with situations in areas surrounding Japan, and enact a new special legislation to take military measures.

Q: The current situation arises after the Six-Party Talks reached an impasse. Do you think the Six-Party Talks will resume?

Shii: Aiming at resuming the Six-Party Talks, the resolution provides the sanctions as a means to achieve this. The resolution regards the sanctions not as its purpose but as the means to motivate North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program as well as to bring it back to the diplomatic framework of the Six-Party Talks. Japan as well as the international community should seek such a breakthrough.

In addition to the Six-Party Talks, it is a matter of course that the resolution calls on member states to hold a wide range of bilateral consultations as part of the diplomatic efforts.

'Nuclear armament': outrageous remarks for politicians of A-bombed nation

Q: In the wake of North Korea's nuclear test, there is an increasing concern over Japan's possible nuclear armament. While Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has stated that Japan will maintain the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, Liberal Democratic Party Policy Research Commission Chair Nakagawa Shoichi said that discussions on this question are necessary.

Shii: Mr. Nakagawa's remark does nothing but encourage discussions on nuclear armament as Japan's future option. It is outrageous and must not be condoned.

His remark has already been reported internationally, causing concerns and criticisms against Japan. He must take this seriously.

Today, the international community is trying to band together to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. In this situation, Japan's move to discuss its possession of nuclear weapons would certainly undermine severely not only the UNSC resolution but Japan's moral grounds for calling on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

As the only atomic bombed nation, Japan must maintain its Three Non-Nuclear Principles and play a major role for the global abolition of all nuclear weapons.

The root cause of the increase in the number of nuclear weapons possessing states lies in the system in which certain nations have been maintaining their nuclear weapons. Therefore, Japan must stand behind initiatives to eliminate all nuclear weapons on the earth.

It is indeed outrageous for the ruling party representative to call for discussions on Japan's nuclear armament in complete disregard of the role Japan should play. As a ruling party of the only A-bombed nation, they deserve censure.

From Akahata

Why Bunny Greenhouse Sits In A Corner

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 05:49:00 +0000

10-27-06, 12:00 pm

Bunnatine Greenhouse sits in a cubicle in a far corner of an office in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., where, she says, “I am treated like a non-person.” Months crawl by yet her immediate supervisor just can’t seem to find the time to meet with her to discuss a work assignment. The taxpayers of the United States of America pay her salary, but, oddly, no demands are made of her. That’s a sad plight for a dynamic woman executive who is the cover girl of the July/August issue of “Fraud Magazine.” She’s not written up for being on the wrong side of the law, only on the wrong side of the Bush White House, now a law unto itself. “Fraud” is published by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners and Ms. Greenhouse is the recipient of the association’s coveted 2006 Cliff Robertson Sentinel Award. She’s been showered with honors and the subject of laudatory press. In another America in another time, an Administration might well have been proud of her. Instead, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has trashed the American Dream of this African-American woman who rose by her own bootstraps from poverty in Rayville, La., to become the highest U.S. contracting civilian in USACE. Hers was the responsibility for passing on $23-billion in contracts annually. A personnel file stuffed with gold star evaluations attests to her zealous guardianship of the public’s money. So why is the woman everyone calls “Bunny” made to sit in a corner, punished like a spoiled child? As she told “Fraud” editor Dick Carozza, it’s over her refusal to sign off on billions of dollars worth of no-bid, no-compete contracts that are enriching Halliburton Corp., the government contractor previously headed by Vice President Richard Cheney. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root(KBR) was named sole source contractor for the Restore Oil Contract, a contingency plan to douse any oil well fires that might break out. Greenhouse discovered there were other bidders qualified to do the job besides KBR. KBR officials showed up at a USACE planning session on the award when none of their competitors were allowed in the door. After KBR presented its planning update, the session continued over other budget projections that could clearly give KBR insider knowledge of future Iraq campaign operations. Greenhouse wanted KBR out of the room. It’s a conflict of interest to have a prospective award recipient involved in the planning stages for missions not yet officially announced, she said. Greenhouse’s worst fears were realized when KBR, in an action mocking the competitive bidding process, got a no-bid, five-year award when a one-year contract would have sufficed in an “emergency.” Greenhouse penned her reservations directly on the contract documents. Otherwise, she said, “there would have been a major risk the five-year strategy never would have been revisited, and no follow-up on limited competition would have been instituted as promised to the American public.” Under the original contract Greenhouse was asked to sign, even if Halliburton fouled up, it couldn’t be dumped. After she cried foul, she was demoted from her top contracts’ oversight job in the Senior Executive Service to a mere program manager. It should be noted, before the Halliburton rip-off, Greenhouse single-handedly wrought a revolution in the Defense Base Act insurance law that saved the Pentagon $20-million in its first six months of operation. Over time, her action may save taxpayers hundreds of millions spent on insurance premiums to cover military contractors working abroad. Looking back, Greenhouse says, “I was never accused of having engaged in any act of impropriety. I was never called on the carpet to defend my actions or inactions for any business judgment I made during the contracting process.” Three Congressional Democrats wrote Rumsfeld asking if it wasn’t a fact Greenhouse’s demotion was retaliatory. The Defense boss, so eager to bring justice to the people of Iraq, did not deign to respond about injustice in his own office. Now, Greenhouse says, every action toward her is designed to inflict as much humiliation as possible. Greenhouse told “Fraud” she is proud to be called a whistle-blower. (She’s got a plaque from the Giraffe Society for people who stick their necks out to show for it.) She defines this as one who “exposes government and corporate misconduct, violations of the law, threats to the public safety, or actions that violate the law.” And she concludes with words Mr. Rumsfeld might underline: “Integrity in government is not an option: it is an imperative.” Being a true American, she plans to sue. Absent the honest oversight of bunny Greenhouse, Iraq has become what one official who served there called “a free-fraud zone.” Billions, not millions of dollars, likely have been stolen from both the Iraqi and American peoples. In the words of Rep. Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.): “The largest single recipient of Development Fund for Iraq funds was Halliburton. The company vastly overcharged to import gasoline into Iraq and to provide other oil-related services. These overcharges, which exceed $200-million, were billed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But U.S. officials arranged for over 80% of them to be paid out of the DFI.” And this undoubtedly explains why Bunny Greenhouse sits in a corner: it’s to keep her out of the way. Come to think of it, if contracts are rigged to shut out Halliburton’s competitors, can you imagine how the Bush White House rigs contracts to sell Iraq’s oil? The Greenhouse affair reminds me of the old Chaplin comedy set in Nazi Germany when a man who being set upon by the Gestapo yells he is going to call the police. It’s just as hilarious for Bunny Greenhouse to expect legal contract regulations to be observed by a Pentagon waging an illegal war of aggression. The motivation of the totalitarian state is, after all, greed: greed first, greed last, greed always, and nothing less than greed.

--Sherwood Ross writes for newspapers and magazines. Reach him at

Hip Deep in the Trickle Down

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:09:00 +0000

10-27-06, 10:18 a.m.

HUZZAH! The old folks are getting a raise in their monthly pittance next year. We are to be eternally grateful that we are allowed to be blessed by the trickle-down that has finally reached us, Compassionate Conservatism at its best. With this Cost Of Living Allowance, their lives will be so much easier.

But wait! Surely they will not be allowed to luxuriate for long with this untold wealth. As with the paychecks over the years, we must count the 'deducts'. While the news reports that the average retiree recieves the grand amount of $1,049 per month currently and will gain $33.00 per month, the average couple now receives $1,658, since the 'dependent' wife receives a much smaller amount than does the wage earner, and that will increase to $1713 in 2007, a whopping $20,556 per year. However, the amounts deducted from these checks will be reduced by the insurance premium for Medicare Part B. This insurance, which pays for doctors' office visits will also increase to $93.50 each, or a total deduction of $2,244 per year. In addition, the people at Social Security tell us that the average charge of Medicare Part D is another deduction of $20. In fact, this deduction will normally be closer to $40 per month for those who receive no State assistance with the cost, another deduction of $960 per year per couple. This leaves a net income of $17,352 per year per couple, a whopping $723 per person per month with which to pay housing expenses, food and clothing.

That is not the end of the primary drain on this glorious windfall. Each of these Medicare benefits carries 'deductible and co-payments', amounts that must be paid by each person before any benefits accrue. Each year, the medical bills must be paid in full by the patient before any doctor's visits or hospitalization are covered until the deductible figure is met, just as with the health insurance that working people carry. Once those amounts are paid, each illness carries a co-payment that must be paid by the patient. Of course, these co-payments will vary with the cost of the hospital stay but it would be safe to say that, after each hospitalization, the patients will find that they will owe a minimum of $1000 more which will need to paid from the Social Security check.

Under Part D, after the deductible is met, each medication requires a co-payment which varies according to which medication is prescribed and some of the newer, more effective medications are not covered at all. Then the patient has the option of buying a generic and, probably, less effective medication which is covered, in effect placing their health further at risk due to possible side effects or dosage instability. And then there is the dread 'donut hole'! When Medicare Part D was intitiated we were told that 'when you have spent $2500 on medications in a year', you will be required to pay the full amount until you have paid a similar amount out-of-pocket when coverage will again kick in. According to the way the program was presented to the public, the elderly and their local pharmacists assumed that it meant the amount that THEY were required to pay as counting toward the $2500 limit. Foolish old people! It counted the TOTAL cost of the medications, a combination of the amounts paid by the patients AND the insurance, and left them being required to also pay from the monthly checks for medications that cost tens of dollars PER TABLET. With the fine print in the law which prohibits Medicare from bargaining for lower prices with the pharmaceutical companies, the elderly are faced with the choice of buying their medicine or eating and heating their homes; in some cases losing their homes or their lives as the result. The major improvement created by the plan is that all the old folks will die at the end of the year, mostly after election day.

Do we suggest that they appeal to their middle-class Baby Boomer children for financial assistance? Those 'children' are also up to their buns in trickle-down, with their own children paying ever-increasing college tuition and, despite the family help, will graduate with thousands of dollars in student-loan debt. In additiion, they are trying like mad to prepare for their own approaching retirement while paying their own mortgage and the rapidly-growing property taxes and insurance, as well as fighting the roller-coaster of gas prices for their daily commute. With the advent of the Bush tax cuts and the resultant cuts in Federal sharing with the states, the states have had to increase the taxes on property, income, and sales to compensate, making the tax burden even heavier on the shoulders of those who live in the less prosperous states. But these elderly people, who were born during the 'thirties and early 'forties,. are accustomed to sacrifice. They are a part of the 'Greatest Generation', who suffered the privation of the Great Depression, lived with the shortages and rationing during World War II, and put their lives on the line in order to 'make the world safe for democracy'. They will die quietly rather than to 'become a burden on their children'.

George W. Bush was elected on his promise to be a 'compassionate conservative', but we have seen little of either. The profligate spending on the illegal war in Iraq has alienated even the most dogmatic conservatives and the compassion is nowhere to be found. Now, all he asks is two more years of a Republican Congressional majority so that he can have another try at 'reforming', (translation: destroying). Social Security, Medicare, and all the other 'compassionate' programs for the benefit of the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. He lauds the 'great and prosperous' economy which would indicate that there is a lot of money out there.......somewhere. But, somehow the matter that is trickling down is definitely not money. And, if the Democrats are not able to regain Congressional control, we will all be drowning in it!

-The author is a very 'with-it' old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and commom sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for societal 'perfection'.

From

Karl Rove Announces Plans to Steal Elections

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 03:56:00 +0000

10-27-06, 10:00 a.m.

White House political head honcho Karl Rove was interviewed by National Public Radio yesterday. He effectively announced plans to steal the coming elections. The polls point decisively to a Democratic majority in the House, and possibly in the Senate. Yet Rove told NPR he was certain of Republican majorities in both houses, and gave laughable reasons for his claim. Rove had no actual evidence to point to.

Now, this could be seen as the obsessive lying of a political hack, were it not for the fact that Rove's party has stolen elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004, has recently increased dramatically the opportunities for election fraud (with new machines, new ID requirements, new purging techniques), and has already begun dirty tricks in a number of states (including machine foul ups already in Maryland, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, and the U.S. military). Rove's strategy is clearly to steal the elections and to put forth a paper-thin excuse to justify it, one he hopes the corporate media will (again) accept. How do we know that's Rove's strategy? Because he announced it yesterday on NPR. Here's the transcript:

MR. SIEGEL OF NPR: We're in the home stretch, though. And many might consider you on the optimistic end of realism about --

MR. ROVE: Not that you would be exhibiting a bias or anything like that. You're just making a comment.

MR. SIEGEL: I'm looking at all the same polls that you're looking at every day.

MR. ROVE: No you're not. No you're not!

MR. SIEGEL: No, I'm not --

MR. ROVE: I'm looking at 68 polls a week. You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally, but that do not impact the outcome ï¿½

[Rove is claiming access to secret polls that he never cites any data from, indicates the origin of, or otherwise documents the existence of. When asked for examples of races Republicans are winning, Rove turns to races we all know they're winning based on 'public' polls. Needless to say, thousands of public polls report on individual races, not just 'attitudes nationally'.]

MR. SIEGEL: -- name races between -- certainly Senate race

MR. ROVE: Well, like the polls today showing that Corker's ahead in Tennessee; or the race -- polls showing that Allen is pulling away in the Virginia Senate race.

[Yes, we knew about those, Karl. But those still leave the Republicans losing the House and possibly even the Senate.]

MR. SIEGEL: Leading Webb in Virginia. Yes.

MR. ROVE: Yeah, exactly.

MR. SIEGEL: Have you seen the DeWine race and the Santorum race and -- I don't want to ï¿½

[You don't want to what, point out that Karl is lying by listing more of the races where the Democratic Senatorial candidates lead in the polls? Now watch how Karl responds...]

MR. ROVE: Yeah. Look, I'm looking at all these Robert and adding them up. And I add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to 'the' math.

_________

Rove probably meant to say something coherent, such as 'You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own math.' He probably couldn't manage to come out with that simple statement because his attention was focused on blatantly lying his ass off. If he had evidence that the Republicans are ahead in polls, he would reveal it. What reason could he possibly have not to? He knows that whoever is leading can often be helped to a larger lead by simply announcing that fact. He's on the air precisely to claim that Republicans are leading. Yet he has no evidence.

Democratic candidates, consider yourselves warned. Don't concede a shady election the next day and then complain weeks later that you didn't realize, you hadn't been aware, or you didn't want to put us through a traumatic experience. Our uncertainty as to whether you will fight for your votes is what is traumatizing us.

Citizens, consider yourselves warned. Go to http://www.mydem.com and prepare yourselves to make sure the votes are counted. Then join a blue revolution: candlelight vigils outside county election offices the evening of November 7th. Let them know we're watching: http://www.bluerevolution.us

-DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.

From

On the topic Scientific Socialism: experiences and contributions for its construction

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:14:00 +0000

10-26-06, 7:25 p.m.

Miguel Figueroa, Leader, Communist Party of Canada to the International Ideological Seminar hosted by the Communist Party of Venezuela Caracas, July 2006

Dear comrades,

Let me begin by expressing our party's appreciation to our host, the Communist Party of Venezuela for convening this seminar. We sincerely believe that the results of this forum, and of the 12th Congress itself will make a meaningful contribution to the work of all communist and revolutionary parties and movements around the world. The theme 'Socialism in the 21st Century' is especially appropriate given that it is precisely here in Venezuela where the working class and popular forces are setting out to build a new socialist society, the first such socialist project of the new century. I'm sure that I speak for all the fraternal delegates and parties in saying that 'we are with you 100%, and confident that the Bolivarian Revolution and socialism will triumph!'

Without doubt, the 'second wave' of socialism — the socialism of the 21st Century — will distinguish itself from the 'first wave' of socialist construction during the last century insofar as the revolutionary forces today have the benefit of analysing and learning from those previous experiences — both their achievements and their failures and distortions — and in this sense we can confidently predict that the 'new socialism' will be better, stronger, and more enduring than the previous wave of socialist construction.

But we also know that in some quarters, the expression 'new socialism' is advanced to differentiate it in an opportunist way from the 'old socialism', to negate not just the errors and failings, but indeed to negate all that was attempted and achieved in the past, and to present in its place a denuded, vulgarised and impoverished conception of socialism, stripped of much of its essential content. We must categorically reject such an approach.

Like many other communist parties, our party went through a protracted period of reflection following the catastrophic overturning of socialism in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, culminating in the adoption of our new party program in 2001. On the basis of that analysis and discussion, we placed special emphasis on our evolving conception of socialism, particularly with respect to the democratic content of socialist construction and development. But we also reaffirmed what we believe to be the essential aspects or features of the socialist alternative, namely: (1) that although socialism can and must involve all social forces that can be united in its construction, the process must be led by the working class and its political representatives; (2) that the socialist alternative must be deeply imbued with the principles of equality, social justice and internationalism; (3) that the working class and its allies have the democratic right and also the responsibility to defend socialism in the face of resistance from its class enemies — domestic and external; and (4) that the economic foundation of socialism must be based on the systematic transformation by degrees of ownership relations from private to social.

It is with respect to this final point — ownership relations — which we would like to focus the balance of our remarks. It is universally understood that the transformation of the economic base of society from predominantly private monopoly control over the means of production to social forms of ownership — including state, municipal, cooperative and other forms — cannot be accomplished overnight. In fact, the term 'by degrees' comes directly from the Communist Manifesto itself. But by how many degrees, and of what duration between each step or phase of transformation? Most social democrats also claim to support social ownership but insist that changes in ownership relations must be extremely gradual and incremental in character.

Certainly every revolutionary process is distinct, and the line of advance cannot be charted without a sober assessment of its unique features and unpredictable circumstances. That said, a muddled or vacillating understanding of the transition process can quickly blur the line of demarcation between a revolutionary and a reformist approach.

The crisis and subsequent overturning of socialism in the USSR and Eastern Europe and the accelerated drive by finance capital and the imperialist countries to impose a new 'economic architecture' regionally and globally have sharpened the ideological debate over transition and even the possibility of socialist transformation under the new prevailing conditions.

In recent years, a loosely-defined 'school' of left social-democrats, post-modernists, development theorists and disheartened 'post-communists' — some of whom still claim to operate from a Marxist perspective — have picked up and advanced the thesis that the construction of socialism, although the preferred alternative to rampant capitalism, is simply not an attainable goal today and into the foreseeable future. The corollary thesis (not always openly stated) is that therefore the working class and the progressive forces must 'focus' their efforts on winning limited social and economic reforms in order to mitigate the worst affects of the dominant neo-liberal agenda of capitalist 'globalisation'. In order to shore up their pessimistic and cynical conclusions, this reformist 'school' point to the following phenomena:

the largest transnational corporations and financial institutions have substantially increased in both size and the reach of their activity around the world, greatly increasing their economic power and hence their political influence within individual states, and in the relations between states; the growing penetration of international finance capital into domestic markets has led to the emergence of a new international division of labour which has increased the relative importance of external trade in relation to domestic production and consumption; the increased mobility of capital — both domestically-based and foreign-controlled — and the impact of financial and currency speculation have rendered national economies and governments much more vulnerable to external economic, technological and political intimidation and blackmail; and the absence of a large bloc of socialist countries (such as the COMECON) has removed any viable economic alternative for fledgling progressive and revolutionary states to rely upon (or to help protect such states militarily from imperialist aggression). These points are usually combined with a ruthless critique of the known economic and structural problems associated with the construction of socialism in the USSR and other countries of 'real, existing socialism.'

The inevitable conclusion reached by this reformist analysis: the ability of the working class and its revolutionary vanguard to undertake fundamental transformative measures of a socialist character will be severely limited, given the prevailing economic and political 'realities'. A gloomy picture indeed!

Clearly, many of the above observations and critiques cannot be easily dismissed. Lenin counselled that we must always look reality squarely in the eye, and never replace objective truth with our subjective wishes. As communists, we must carefully evaluate the new features of the current 'phase' of the development of imperialism in charting the advance toward, and the building of socialism. This implies, among other things, the need to take stock of the changed international economic, political and military environment in which revolutionary change proceeds in any given country, even after state power is secured.

However it would be a fatal error for the communists to concede any ideological ground to the pessimistic arguments and defeatist conclusions of this reformist 'school' of analysis — arguments and conclusions rooted in an exaggerated assessment of the power of finance capital, and a gross underestimation of, and disdain for the capacity of the working class and revolutionary forces to advance, even in the face of an admittedly hostile and complicated international environment.

This is an essential front in the 'battle of ideas' today, because such pessimistic reformist views have a certain resonance with sections of the working class and oppressed masses of the people, who after all are bombarded daily with bourgeois propaganda — an ideological 'shock and awe' barrage designed to convince the people of the omnipotence of capital, to which there is no alternative.

It is precisely because of the need to counter this demobilising effect of bourgeois and reformist ideology about the pre-eminence of finance capital and of the powerlessness of the masses to defeat that power and forge a fundamentally different, socialist society, that it is vital for our movement to undertake more extensive research and analysis on this set of questions. As a point of departure, we might consider the following points for further research:

1. On the mobility of capital: There is no question that capital is more mobile today than previously; however the true extent of that mobility is greatly exaggerated. There is an increasing wealth of experience of governments and people successfully restricting that mobility, and of taking practical steps (such as the ALBA) to limit the vulnerability of states to economic blackmail by transnational monopoly capital. And there are certain sectors of the domestic economy which, by their very nature, are less susceptible to 'capital strikes', such as the resource sector and much of the service sector.

2. On the issue of planning: The claim that collective forms of economic planning — central, regional and local — are inherently inferior and doomed to failure as compared with the capacity of the 'free market' to allocate resources and determine 'value' is a cornerstone of the continuing ideological offensive against socialism. And yet even the most centralised forms of state planning in the former Soviet Union achieved many great successes, as well as failures and disproportions. The historical record of the experiences of the USSR and other socialist countries — both past and present — needs to be set straight on the basis of sound, objective research. What's more, the technological basis of previous planning efforts needs to be placed in its proper context. Today, the large monopolies effectively use 'just in time' production technologies and techniques to instantaneously adjust production targets and product lines consistent with consumer preferences. Naturally, these methods are used to maximise profit, and take place within the context of the overall anarchy of production under capitalism, but how could such techniques be implemented today and in the future to strengthen the efficiency of socialist forms of planning?

3. On the growth of the working class: Socialism in the 21st Century will be built by a working class which is larger, stronger, and more experienced than ever before. It is true that there are ongoing changes — sometimes quite dramatic — in the composition of the working class from country to country, but overall the working class is growing in both size and maturity in every country in the world. It is more educated, and more politically and socially aware. Of course, there are subjective factors relating to the level of class consciousness which continue to hold back its advance in many countries, but when aroused and mobilised to the point of capturing state power, that working class will invariably be a much stronger material force in undertaking and leading the fundamental transformation to socialism.

4. On the military aggressiveness of imperialism: Every revolutionary process today, and into the foreseeable future, will have to contend with the threat of aggression from the imperialist powers, especially US imperialism, no longer inhibited by the counter-weight of the USSR and the socialist community of states. And yet despite this circumstance, the power of imperialism to militarily impose its dictat is not limitless; indeed, its vulnerabilities are becoming more and more apparent. Here too, greater analysis of the role of the world peace and anti-imperialist movements, together with practical efforts to strengthen these forces, is vital to help make these movements more of a material force in curbing and preventing imperialist aggression.

Finally of course, is the power of the real-life example to prove that fundamental transformation along socialist lines is possible even under the current adverse international conditions: the continuing success of socialist Cuba to defend and advance its revolution in the face of immense and unrelenting imperialist efforts to destroy it; the heroic success of the Bolivarian Revolution to thwart continuing counter-revolutionary intrigues and bring about meaningful transformative changes in the interests of the working class and the people, on the road to socialism; and the exciting changes underway today in Bolivia to curb the power of foreign capital, to strengthen national sovereignty, and introduce fundamental reforms that serve the masses of the people. A combination of theoretical work and practical deeds can and are showing that in today's world, not only is socialism possible, but also that socialism will triumph!

Thank you.

-- Miguel Figueroa is the leader of the Communist Party of Canada, This paper was presented to the International Ideological Seminar hosted by the Communist Party of Venezuela Caracas, July 2006.

New Jersey Court Stops Short of Marriage Equality

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:40:00 +0000

10-26-06, 1:51 pm

Thursday, 10-26-06 -- Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to the same state benefits, protections, and obligations as different-sex couples. The court split, however, on how to remedy current state law.

The majority ruled that the New Jersey State Legislature must comply with the constitution by amending state laws to allow equal marriage rights or create a legal status like civil unions. Three dissenting judges argued that the only correct solution, however, is to grant gay and lesbian couples the fundamental right to marry.

The court's majority tempered its instructions to the legislature, however, by stating that the only legal point at issue was that same-sex couples had a right to equal protection, not a right to marry.

Writing for the majority, Justice Barry T. Albin appeared to argue that traditional marriage, as defined exclusively for different-sex couples, was too strong a concept to apply to same-sex couples and as such warranted creating a separate status for same-sex couples without using the term marriage.

Writing for the three dissenting judges, Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz argued that the law does not defer solely to tradition. Justice Poritz pointed out that the US Supreme Court struck down legal prohibitions on interracial marriage by saying that the right to marry was Constitutionally protected regardless of tradition.

Responses to the New Jersey decision were mixed. The limitations in the decision prompted Arthur S. Leonard, of the New York Gay City News to ask, if the aim of the court is to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples, what possible public need could be served by failing to acknowledging the fundamental right to marry?

Journalist Doug Ireland, writing in his blog DIRELAND, described the ruling as a 'a Solomon-like decision that cut the baby in half, so to speak.' The decision appears to give the New Jersey State Legislature far too much room to maneuver on the issue, and may even afford a victory to opponents of marriage equality by creating a 'separate, but equal' status, Ireland suggested.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomonese called the decision a 'a pro-family, pro-equality decision' and asked the state legislature to 'do the right thing' and follow the court’s directives.

Expressing some reservations about the wording of the majority opinion, Solomonese added, 'This decision recognizes that New Jersey's constitution protects all families. The legislature should not go down the path of separate but equal, but rather should embrace marriage equality.'

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, congratulated the court on recognizing the 'equal needs of same-sex couples' but also urged the state legislature to amend state law to include full marriage equality.

Foreman warned that right-wing politicians would use the decision to attack both gay people and so-called activist judges in a 'shameless' effort to create 'wedge issues' for political gain in the November 7th election. '[T]hey will use us,' Foreman stated, 'to try to distract voters from the war in Iraq and failures in education, energy and health care. Again they will resort to lies, myths and fearmongering to promote more discriminatory, anti-family state constitutional amendments.'

These concerns were echoed by Pride at Work, AFL-CIO, the labor federation’s constituency group for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender union members. Describing the decision as 'great and long awaited,' a statement on Pride at Work’s website reads, '[W]e are sure that our adversaries will try and use this decision to divide working people, as they have tried to do with LGBT issues, immigration, and race-baiting in the past.'

Pride at Work Co-President Nancy Wohlforth said,'We need to remind working folks about what we think is important in this election: finding an end to the war in Iraq, ending the ongoing cycle of government scandals, holding our government accountable, and finding candidates who will implement policies that will help working people find jobs, healthcare, and decent wages.'

Wohlforth preemptively rejected the accusation of 'judicial activism' likely to be leveled by opponents of marriage equality. 'For those who think this decision goes against the will of the people, it should be noted that 56% of New Jersey residents support legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey, so the court is echoing the demands of New Jersey residents themselves,' she stated.

National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy also guardedly praised the decision. 'We regret that the court did not take the final step by ordering that the term 'marriage' be applied across the board to all couples,' said Gandy. 'No other word has the same power as 'marriage' and no other status can provide the full complement of state and federal protections that opposite-sex couples enjoy without question.'

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling came in an appeal of the case of Lewis v. Harris, a lawsuit filed in 2002 on behalf of seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses. The ruling overturns an appellate court decision, which upheld the initial trial court's rejection of the plaintiffs' complaint against the state for denying the licenses.

Marriage equality activists say that regardless of the New Jersey State Legislature’s ultimate decision on the issue, federal law, with the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (passed in 1996), will not recognize any same-sex marriages and authorizes other states to refuse to recognize them.

--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at

Bush's Iraq Explanations

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:48:00 +0000

10-26-06, 9:57 a.m.

Now, I'm giving the speech -- you're asking me why I'm giving this speech today -- because there's -- I think I owe an explanation to the American people and will continue to make explanations. --Bush news conference, Oct. 24, 2006

My blood is boiling after watching Bush's news conference. It's not enough that he and his republican party came in to office together and wiped our our nation's budget surplus by diverting the majority of Americans' contributions to our government to tax breaks for his fellow wealthy class, and to his invasions and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not enough that he and his republican party diverted our nations defenses from the pursuit of the terrorists who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks to bog out troops down in Iraq to fight and die defending folks who couldn't care less for the American invaders and oppressors.

Now Bush is telling Americans that he intends to keep our soldiers in Iraq until he can manage to declare some sort of victory in Iraq. He says he's waiting for Iraqis to unify. He says he's waiting for Iraqis to train their military and police. He says he's waiting for Iraqis to stabilize their government. He says that 'the only way to lose in Iraq is to leave before the job is done,' but, he also says he 'will not put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear.'

All of the burden for his failure in Iraq is, once again, thrown onto the backs of our soldiers who have never been equipped or prepared to transform Iraq into the ridiculously idyllic, democratic center of the New Middle East that Bush and his regime imagine it should become, just by virtue of their sacrifices. 'Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or standing in the crossfire between rival factions,' Bush told reporters. But, that's exactly where our soldiers have been dumped, right in the middle of the cross fire; more precisely, on one side of a multi-fronted civil war.

Despite his own complaints about media portrayal of the violence in Iraq keeping us from seeing the 'flowers' at our soldiers' feet, Bush had his own narrative about the degrading situation there that gave all of his talk about 'progress' in Iraq an air of desperation.

'There has been heavy fighting, many enemy fighters have been killed or captured and we've suffered casualties of our own,' Bush said. 'This month we've lost 93 American service members in Iraq, the most since October of 2005. During roughly the same period, more than 300 Iraqi security personnel have given their lives in battle. Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups and criminals.'

After over three years, and over 2700 American soldiers' lives later, Bush shows no indication at all that he's finished sacrificing our nation's lives and resources for the Iraq muddle. He's 'adjusting tactics' like a toddler at the wheel of his toy car console. The equation in Iraq remains the same. Over 145,000 troops are scattered around Iraq like kindling for a fire; the rest hunkered down, surrounding the seat of the propped-up regime in Baghdad.

It's a 'serious concern' to him, and a 'serious concern to the American people, ' he says. All of that concern has been registered in numerous polls which show the American people have lost whatever faith they may have had in Bush's Iraq diversion and failure. They don't believe his reasons for invading and occupying. They don't believe Iraq is, as Bush and bin-Laden insist, the 'center' of some 'war on terror'. They don't believe the overthrow and capture of Saddam Hussein has made us any 'safer'.

Americans don't believe that setting a timetable for withdrawing troops is 'defeat'. They are demanding, in increasing majorities, that Bush set a date certain to get out. But, Bush is lost in his own bubble. The demand to withdraw from Iraq 'is not coming from the inner circles in the U.S. government,' Bush said. but the product of the American election campaign. 'We are not much concerned about that,' he said. All Bush is concerned about is using political language which doesn't concede the failure and defeat as Iraq continues its decline.

Bush won't accept the term 'benchmarks', and has adopted the term 'timetables'. It makes no difference in the policy what the term is, however. The 'stay the course' mission is still on, with Bush digging in even further by refusing to rule out reported plans to establish a permanent military base in Iraq. As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said in a statement after the news conference, 'He has conveniently changed his words, but not his policies.'

The Iraqi leadership is apparently just as unconcerned as Bush about the American people's expectations of a timetable for an exit for our troops. Bush says Maliki agreed to a 'schedule' for reconciliation and the formation of a 'democracy'. But, Maliki balked at that suggestion earlier, saying, 'The Americans have the right to review their policies but we do not believe in a timetable and no one will impose one on us.'

Really? With 145,000 of our troops fighting and dying in defense of his puppet regime, Maliki refuses to set a timetable to pull his act together? Why the hell are we supporting him then? Where's the U.S. interest in indefinitely propping-up Maliki's increasingly autocratic regime?

Bush said he 'knows the American people understand the stakes in Iraq . . . they want to win,' he said. 'What will work is a strategy that's constantly -- tactics that constantly change to meet the enemy. And that's what I was describing in my speech. We're constantly adjusting.'

Did anyone, anywhere, understand his garbled defense of the Iraq failure? Any confidence out there at all with the tactics, strategy, timetables, benchmarks, and expectations of Bush for some victory in Iraq? If Americans take the time to listen to this news conference, it will boil their blood . . . before the reality of our country being led by this counterfeit loser chills them right to the bone.

-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

Jane Wyatt: R.I.P.

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:09:00 +0000

10-26-06, 9:20 am

Jane Wyatt died a few days ago at the age of 96. The obituaries dealt with her Hollywood and television career, particularly her role in the 1950s as Margaret Anderson in the quintessential television sitcom celebrating middle class family life, 'Father Knows Best.'

No one mentioned though that Jane Wyatt had been a member of the Hollywood Committee for the First Amendment, which was organized in 1947 to support the Hollywood Ten, ten 'unfriendly witnesses' who appeared before the House Committee Un-American Activities (known as HUAC). No one mentioned that she had been blacklisted in Hollywood before she got the 'Father Knows Best' role in 1954, the year the Army McCarthy Hearings signaled Joe McCarthy's personal downfall, although by no means the end of McCarthyism.

There are upper class people who are on the side of the people, and Jane Wyatt was one of them. A narrow class analysis would be unable to explain her in any way.

Born in 1910, she was raised as the daughter of a wealthy Wall Street investment banker and an upper class convert to Catholicism who wrote theater reviews for the Catholic World. Her distant relatives included signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the last Federalist candidate for President (Rufus King in 1816), and Eleanor Roosevelt, whom she knew from the 1920s on. Her decision to become an actress led to her removal from the Social Register. She met her husband, a stockbroker, whom she married in 1935, at a Roosevelt house party in Hyde Park in the 1920s. They were married for 65 years before he passed away in 2000.

Jane Wyatt worked on Broadway and in Hollywood in the 1930s and 1940s, her beauty and sensitivity earning her a co-starring role in Frank Capra's classic Lost Horizons (1937) and roles in None But the Lonely Heart (1944) with Cary Grant.

She also played in Clifford Odet's Group Theater Production of Night Music in 1940 and William McLeary's largely forgotten social drama, Hope for the Best (1945) in which she plays a factory worker who turns a cynical journalist toward progressive causes. In the late 1940s, she had a supporting role in Gentleman's Agreement, the classic Hollywood film against anti-Semitism (1947) and Boomerang (1947), a powerful film concerning crime and corruption in which she co-starred with Dana Andrews. A major role in a war film Task Force (1949), followed but then offers stopped coming in.

Socially conscious films that Hollywood had produced in small but significant numbers (New Deal Social Dramas, I call them, in which alliances of Hollywood New Deal liberals and Communist leftists had played a central role), weren't being made through the 1950s, until the Civil Rights movement led to a limited revival of such films on Civil Rights issues. Wyatt had been active in The Committee for the First Amendment which in 1947 had sent a delegation to Washington in solidarity with the Hollywood Ten and had held rallies, produced radio spots, and sought to publicize support for them against the red baiters and blacklisters. Unlike Humphrey Bogart, a leader of the Committee, Edward G. Robinson a prominent supporter, and other leading Hollywood liberals who broke ranks with the Hollywood Ten, Wyatt never issued any statements that she 'was no Communist'(which, of course, she wasn’t) and never turned against anyone. The tabloid red baiters even made it a point to say she had hosted a performance of the Bolshoi Ballet during World War II, which Roosevelt had asked her to do. (Besides the fact that the U.S. was fighting a World War with the Soviet Union as its most important practical ally, the Bolshoi was hardly a center of what HUAC called Communist 'agitation and propaganda' then or at any time.)

Her upper class background may explain why the political gangsters in Congress didn't really call her as a witness before congressional committees, but she stopped getting parts in movies and returned to the theater in 1951 in Lillian Hellman's 'The Autumn Garden.' Hellman of course was the lover of Dashiell Hammett and someone deeply and directly involved with the Communist movement whose testimony before HUAC in 1952, refusing to name names, has became one of the most famous moments in the sordid history of the Hollywood blacklist.

Jane Wyatt began her rise on TV the year Joe McCarthy began his fall. Ironically, McCarthy had helped to strengthen the power of the class that she had been born into, even though her social conscience led her to oppose it politically (a bit like Roosevelt himself, who was widely called 'a traitor to his class' during his presidency).

McCarthy's fat jowling, bullying personality, on display for weeks on TV in the 'Army-McCarthy' hearings, was everything that middle class suburban America was not about. Father Knows Best, with its large strong family, male executive breadwinner and female housekeeper, played by Jane Wyatt, a blacklisted popular front liberal who never turned her coat or lost her bearings, was.

Jane Wyatt went on to play Spock's mother in Star Trek in the 1960s and in the 1986 Star Trek movie, and she had a regular role on the 1980s hospital series, St Elsewhere. Her role in the Committee for the First Amendment is highlighted in the brilliant documentary, Legacy of the Hollywood Blacklist (1987) narrated by Burt Lancaster, in which she along with surviving family members of the Hollywood Ten comment on the blacklist and its effects. That documentary ends with a warning that the blacklist must never be forgotten lest it be repeated.

Jane Wyatt's role in opposing the blacklist and suffering career damage for it deserves to be remembered along with an appreciation of her long and serious career as an actress in movies and television. She deserves to be remembered and honored for representing an honest and honorable tradition of American liberalism which fought seriously for labor's rights, civil rights, and civil liberties by allying itself with radicals in mass organizations and standing firm against reactionaries who used guilt by association, libel and slander to strike at labor's rights, civil rights, and civil liberties. That is a tradition which we needed then and very much need now.

--Norman Markowitz is a contributing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at