People Before Profit blog

The Otherworldly Attack on Public Education

Mon, 31 May 2010 09:06:00 +0000

Original source: The Black Commentator

The crisis in U.S. public education is beginning to read like something out of the theater of the absurd.

Now they are getting rid of summer school.

The Associated Press reported Sunday: "Across the country, districts are cutting summer school because it's just too expensive to keep. The cuts started when the recession began and have worsened, affecting more children and more essential programs that help struggling students." A survey found that over one third of the school districts in the country are looking at cutting out summer school starting this fall. And who are the students who will be hit hardest by this move? "Experts say studies show summer break tends to widen the achievement gap between poor students and their more affluent peers whose parents can more easily afford things like educational vacations, camps and sports teams," said AP.

"Most people generally think summer is a great time for kids to be kids, a time for something different, a time for all kinds of exploration and enrichment," Ron Fairchild, chief executive officer of the National Summer Learning Association, told the news agency. "Our mythology about summer learning really runs counter to the reality of what this really is like for kids in low-income communities and for their families when this faucet of public support shuts off."

The same day this news was broadcast, the New York Times magazine ran a lengthy front page article about the ongoing efforts to confront the teachers unions and pictured classroom instructors as the impediment to improving the quality of education. At the same time, ironically, the cartoonist Jeff Danziger drew a classroom where two heavies are dragging a teacher out the door while proclaiming: "Good news, we figured out what was costing so much about public education." In the background, someone is hooking up a video monitor.

It remains a mystery to me that an administration that can spend millions of dollars to bribe states into facilitating its quite controversial school "reform" programs can't come up with the resources to stave off the pending mass layoffs of teachers. It can't be that the White House has adopted the reactionaries' tactic of starving public education until it falls to privatization. Education Secretary Arne Duncan appears to be genuinely alarmed at the economic crisis in public education.

"The cuts come even as President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan call for longer school days and shorter summer breaks," observed AP. "But in many states, districts cutting summer school outnumber those using stimulus money to expand their offerings." "At a time when we need to work harder to close achievement gaps and prepare every child for college and career, cutting summer school is the wrong way to go," Duncan told reporters. "These kids need more time, not less."

The question that arises in my mind is, why, at this point in time, go after the teachers unions and appear impotent in the face of the school budget slashers and the Neanderthals on Capitol Hill?

There is legislation before Congress to provide some emergency funding to diminish the impact of the teacher layoffs - now projected to be as many as 300,000 - but it's not getting much media attention. While in New York last week, Duncan issued a plea for Congress to act but that hardly rated any mention in the major media, overshadowed as it was by the ongoing controversy about charter schools. The Administration can hardly be said to be building public support for Congressional action and it's clear at least some of the Republicans will oppose it. Some politicians can become virtual Chicken Littles when it comes to the Federal budget deficit and church mice when the subject is the future of education.

At the risk of repeating myself I have to ask: why is it that the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, one that produces more and more billionaires each year and can spend one million dollars each on the soldiers it sends off to war, can't afford to educate its kids?

Make no mistake about it, a campaign is underway to radically alter the country's educational system - from kindergarten to graduate school - as surely as there is a coordinated effort to diminish or eliminate Medicare and Social Security. Starving schools is part of it. Right now, we're being softened up for the kill.

"Economists have been keeping close watch on the states' problems and now the chief economist of one of the country's largest banks is weighing in," said San Francisco television KGO report David Louie. He interviewed John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo, who he says warned that "more pain is ahead." It is time, Silva told Louie, for state and local government to live within its means. He then went on to talk about the sacrifices needed, observing that: "You think about the cost of educating a student at university compared to the tuition they're paying. There's a huge subsidy there."

Subsidy? Since when was paying for public education a subsidy? Well, it's easy to see where this is going. Lower income and minority students are already be priced out of the system by escalating tuition and the opportunities provided by the alternative community college system are being sharply curtailed.

"We're going to have to look at state benefits for pubic workers. We're going to have to look at retiree benefits," said the banker. "How generous are these? Can these benefits be here in the 21st century?"

Two prominent California educators had something more worthy and relevant to say about the outlook for the next 100 years. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, Henry T. Yang chancellor of UC Santa Barbara, and chair of the Association of American Universities, and David Marshall, executive dean of the College of Letters and Science and dean of Humanities and Fine Arts at UC Santa Barbara, wrote, "If public education has been an engine of class mobility, helping to create a middle class, then it benefits the public more than it benefits individuals. Public education provides the educated workforce that is vital to the state's economy, and it produces graduates with the creativity to sustain and renew California's economic competitiveness. A UC liberal arts education prepares students to be citizens in 21st-century global California."

"California's elected leaders would do well to remember [George] Washington's words about `a flourishing state of the arts and sciences.' In today's knowledge-based economy, the threat to the University of California and the state's Master Plan for Higher Education is a threat to California's prosperity and reputation. At a time when California's economic future depends on producing more college graduates and better-educated citizens, the state must invest in public education. As Washington knew, both democracy and prosperity depend on it."

We should be clear: education per se is not threatened. What is being undermined is the democratic concept of equal education, the idea that all children should start off on equal footing. Schools will continue to exist and quality instruction provided; the danger is that it will increasingly be available to those who can afford to pay for it and restricted for those who cannot. What the deficit hawks and some of the "reformers" are saying is: we can no longer afford to give quality education to all of y'all.

Photo: Patsy Lynch, FEMA, courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Global Warming Causes Snowstorms?

Sat, 29 May 2010 08:50:00 +0000

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: The U.S. got socked with several major storms this past winter. Local weather reports never mentioned this as odd. But is it a sign of global warming? -- R.A. Forbes, via e-mail

Weather patterns and trends are notoriously unpredictable, varying due to a great many different inputs. While it’s true that snowier, stormier winters could be the result of global warming, many meteorologists believe that El Nino—a climate pattern involving warmer-than-usual sea temperatures across the tropical Pacific that affects weather all over the globe—is mainly to blame for this past winter’s ongoing white misery.

According to Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist with the Pennsylvania-based AccuWeather forecasting service, the current El Nino—they occur once every three to seven years—has been “very strong, prompting many major blizzards for the mid-Atlantic region.” By altering the intensity of the atmospheric jet stream, El Nino can force cold air from Northern Canada to push down into the United States, converting the moisture in clouds into falling snow as temperatures drop.

Bastardi believes that El Nino is exacerbating an already ongoing trend of cooling in the Pacific that is part of natural cyclical patterns of heating and cooling unrelated to global warming. “When you get an El Niño with a cold Pacific, you get crazy winters in the East,” he told National Geographic News.

Of course, global warming could also be playing a role, according to Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist with the National Wildlife Federation. “It’s hard to determine global warming’s effect on any particular storm, but it’s highly unusual to have these really large winter storms in one winter,” she says. “Oddball winter weather is yet another sign of how uncontrolled carbon pollution amounts to an unchecked experiment on people and nature.” Staudt reports that warmer temperatures cause more water to evaporate off the oceans and settle in clouds in the sky, where it eventually falls back to the Earth’s surface as rain or, if temperatures are low enough, snow.

The same types of atmospheric conditions have conspired at times to dump multiple feet of snow in the Great Lakes of the Midwest at unseasonable times. A 2003 study in the Journal of Climate found that as global temperatures have risen; the winter ice cover over the Great Lakes has decreased, leading in turn to more moisture in the atmosphere and snowier winters throughout the region. This is sometimes referred to as the “lake effect.”

Whether or not this past winter’s storms were exacerbated by global warming, scientists maintain that we must keep in mind the difference between climate and weather. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), climate is the average of weather over at least three decades, which means that specific storms or even individual snowy winters, let alone other types of extreme weather, cannot be considered evidence of either the existence or nonexistence of global warming.

CONTACTS: Accuweather, www.accuweather.com; National Wildlife Federation, www.nwf.org; Journal of Climate, journals.ametsoc.org/loi/clim; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), www.noaa.gov.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Photo: Patrick Kennedy, courtesy Wikimedia Commons, cc by 2.0

‘The Internet is a Game Changer’ - A Paperless World

Fri, 28 May 2010 10:07:00 +0000

The debate is no longer confined to a few academics in distant universities. It is now a widely prevalent, mainstream topic of discussion.

How will the news of the future be distributed? The jury is still out, but not completely. Increasingly, we are driven to believe that the future will be paperless. Some argue that the “paper” will be taken out of the “newspaper” within a few years. Their logic might have come across as far-fetched in the late 1990s, but it can hardly be dismissed in 2010.

Two American intellectuals added their voices to the chorus of those predicting that the print media would not continue to define the news for long. In October 2009, Leonard Downie Jr., vice president at large and former executive editor of The Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, professor of Communication at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, co-authored a 98-page paper entitled, “The Reconstruction of American Journalism.”

Here, they made the assertion that: “Newspapers and television news are not going to vanish in the foreseeable future ... But they will play diminished roles in an emerging and still rapidly changing world of digital journalism, in which the means of news reporting are being re-invented, the character of news is being reconstructed, and reporting is being distributed across a greater number and variety of news organizations, new and old.”

The idea is not a new one. In August 24, 2006, The Economist published an article entitled, “Who killed the newspaper?,” which claimed that, “Of all the ‘old’ media, newspapers have the most to lose from the Internet. Circulation has been falling in America, Western Europe, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand for decades ... in the past few years the Web has hastened the decline.”

While we freely refer to the digital media revolution as “new media,” few dare classify print newspapers as “old.” The Economist did, nearly four years ago. Considering the speed at which the digital media world is moving — with the introduction of new gadgets and the level of Internet penetration throughout the world — print papers are now most definitely old and aging.

The magazine also made an interesting reference to Philip Meyer, whose works include, “Precision Journalism: A Reporter’s Introduction to Social Science Methods and Newspaper Ethics in the New Century: A Report to the American Society of Newspaper Editors.”

In his most recent book, “The Vanishing Newspaper,” Meyer calculates that “the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint dies in America as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition.”

More, digital media are making waves not just in the constant improvement of news and information technology, but also influencing the level of trust readers have in the new media. Indeed, it is not just about how the news is conveyed — digitally or on paper — but how our perception of the news is changing altogether.

American intellectual and best-selling author John Mearsheimer didn’t neglect to refer to the Internet in one of the most important and honest assessments on “The Future of Palestine.” In his recent speech, he stated that “The Internet is a game changer. It not only makes it easy for the opponents of apartheid to get the real story out to the world, but it also allows Americans to learn the story that the New York Times and the Washington Post have been hiding from them.”

Those familiar with the book Manufacturing Consent, by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky understand well that traditional media coverage of news is largely determined by “filters” which allow competing interests to determine what we read and watch, and thus our perception of the world. The Internet, despite all its shortcomings, is much more equitable and democratic. That should not discount the fact that poorer countries still do not have the kind of Internet availability, speed and access that is common and widespread in the developed world. But the fact that an online community newspaper has a fighting chance, like any other mainstream newspaper, is certainly worth celebrating as an achievement.

There is also another reason why we will continue to go digital, and why it will only be a matter of years before the pendulum turns in favor of paperless media world.

The latest Climate Change conference in Copenhagen failed to set limits on carbon emissions or to come up with any serious or binding agreements. It was a colossal disappointment. But that failure was political more than scientific. Very few still argue that global warming is a hoax, or believe that the environment is sustainable, considering our long-unchecked way of life. More, recycling is no longer a fad. Some countries are debating laws that make recycling mandatory, and to punish violators. Considering all of this, it is difficult to imagine that years from now we will continue to use and discard newspapers so readily, as if the paper on which news is printed doesn’t come from trees, and as if discarded papers don’t constitute landfill.

Bob Dylan continues to be right. “The Times They Are a-Changin.” And it’s time that we also appreciate that change, not resist it; work with it, not against it. There is no shame in embracing change. When the first commercially successful trans-Atlantic telegraph cable was completed in July 1866, some must have thought that humanity had reached the zenith of achievements as far as the field of communications was concerned. Now telegraphs are only found in museums and are coveted collectors’ items. Instead, hundreds of millions of people routinely and conveniently send texts, sounds, images and videos through their cell phones without much fuss or excitement. Although the concept is still the same, the medium has changed dramatically.

The same can be said about news. The news industry will never die; in fact, in a globalized and interconnected world, we will seek news more than ever before. But the medium will inevitably change, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. It is telling that the most featured and best-selling item from Amazon.com is the Kindle digital reader, and that iPad has been topping news related to publishing technology all around the world.

The Times They Are a-Changin’. And we’d better change accordingly.

17,000 people in ‘human chain’ call for removal of Futenma base

Wed, 26 May 2010 09:07:00 +0000

Original source

On May 16, about 17,000 people braved the strong winds and rain to surround the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station with a “human chain,” calling for the removal of the base and opposing its relocation within Okinawa.

Participants held up placards and banners that read, “Never accept a new U.S. base at Henoko! Prime Minister Hatoyama, keep your promise!”

Leaders of seven municipalities, including Ginowan City Mayor Iha Yoichi and Nago’s Inamine Susumu, for the first time took part in the “human chain” action. Iju Tadayuki, who is a candidate supported by progressive forces in Okinawa in the upcoming House of Councilors election, also participated in the action.

At a rally held in front of the Futenma base, Japanese Communist Party member of the House of Representatives Akamine Seiken said, “Our strong solidarity will put pressure on both the Japanese and the U.S. governments and will help to initiate the unconditional removal of the Futenma base.”

A 34-year-old female participant with four small children in tow stated, “There is no place for a new U.S. base in Okinawa. I want Prime Minister Hatoyama to keep his promise.”

* * *

On May 16, after the “human chain” action, Iha Yoichi, mayor of Ginowan City hosting the Futenma base and relocation candidate site Nago City Mayor Inamine Susumu issued a joint statement opposing the relocation of the Futenma base within Okinawa.

Proclaming, “For citizens of Nago and Ginowan cities and for the future generations, we have to succeed in achieving an Okinawa without military bases so that people can live in peace,” the statement urges the Japanese and the U.S. governments to give up on transferring the Futenma base within the prefecture, to immediately close and return the base, and to reduce Okinawan’s burden of U.S. bases.

Iha said, “If the government plans to build another U.S. base in return for a closed base, Okinawan’s burden will remain unchanged.”

Photo: Okinawa Steve, cc by 2.0

Time of Day

Wed, 26 May 2010 09:05:00 +0000

When asked what time it was, Yogi Berra responded, "You mean, right now?"

For those who are involved in politics, the question is "What's the political time of day, like right now?" What's happening in this country on the large scale? What's the Obama Administration trying to do? What are its internal limitations and its external constraints? And what should progressives be trying to accomplish?

When, during the election campaign, Obama said that he admired Reagan for having captured the mood of the country and shifting the governance of the country according to that mood, I don't believe that he was conveying his approval of the character of the changes. Rather, I think that he was admiring the process of transformation because he envisions his administration initiating a process of change of direction of the nation as well.

Reagan's "revolution" was to distance government on all levels from responsibility for infrastructure, corporate regulation, and social safety net while strengthening the military industrial complex, setting the stage for globalization, breaking the unions, and initiating the most extraordinary transfer of wealth to the ruling classes that this nation had not seen since the 1880's. The slogan, then as now, was free markets and limited government. And that slogan has taken hold; it now represents a deeply held feeling in this country, even among those for whom the absence of government has been crippling.

The Clinton administration, an eight year long hiccup preceded by eight years of Reagan and four of Daddy Bush and followed by eight of Baby Bush, was unwilling or unable to resist the Reagan revolution. Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and happily proclaimed that the "era of big government is over". Even so, the right wing attack machine proclaimed the illegitimacy of the Clinton presidency. The neocon warhawks, who came to power with Baby Bush, had pilloried Clinton and yearned to implement their plans for US global domination. They accomplished this goal with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So we have had 28 years of growing globalization, shrinking domestic manufacturing, deregulation of just about everything, a massive increase in the prison population, two debilitating wars, and a vast increase in the resources of the military – industrial complex. Accompanying and justifying all of this is the complex of right wing think tanks, media and the like. The right has, along with these institutional shifts, succeeded in changing the thinking of a significant portion of the American people, persuading them to organize and vote against their own economic interests. In the process, they have left the United States a wreck.

In the broadest terms, I think that Obama has set his administration the task of beginning the process of reversing the Reagan revolution and bringing government back to the job of providing for the common good, a return to a contemporary version of Keynesian economics and the New Deal. The difficulty is that although Obama is moving many things in a progressive direction, there is great disappointment among progressives about how far he is willing to go. His problems arise when the 'common good' requires taking steps against the prerogatives and interests of large corporations - when those interests stand in the way of the reforms needed to solve the problems facing our society. That's where he vacillates - and fails to fight for a truly effective reform program. The refusal to consistently and adequately pursue the 'common good' where it conflicts with corporate interests is, I believe, the main thing separating Centrists from Progressives. They are trying to ride two different horses.

And I think that in the broadest terms, Obama is looking for ways to stand down from the vision of a permanently engaged US military. I do not think that this should be understood as moving toward a progressive foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States will remain that of a hegemon, but Obama's team seems somewhat more ready to adjust to the realities of the world.

Obama came to the presidency with the support of significant sections of the ruling elites, including many who had financially benefited from the policies of the past decades. For progressives to wrap their arms around this complexity, we must try to understand that some rich and powerful people, movers and shakers can simultaneously work to advance and protect their own wealth and be in favor of changing the direction of this country as a whole. But he also came to the Presidency with the hopes and energy of energy of a people that were disgusted with Republican rule and wanted a different direction.

I would also caution against overstating Obama's mandate for change. Although Obama won a resounding victory in the Electoral College, the popular vote in his favor was a mere 53 - 47. And this was with a Republican ticket that came from a Monty Python show. Obama was trailing McCain until the economic crisis exploded. Were that explosion to have happened a few months later, McCain could very well have won. That's how close the election was. And that's an illustration of the divided mindset of the American people, not only about race, but also about the role of government.

I think that the issue of the role of government is at the core of what the current struggles in DC, as well as in state and local government, are all about. Since the election the Republican Party has shown itself to be interested in just one thing - bringing down the Obama administration and its political vehicle has been "big government". I want to emphasize this point. Although progressives were and continue to be strong advocates for Medicare for All and the Public Option, the resistance of Republicans and conservative Democrats was not, in my view, in the first place to those proposals. Rather, it was resistance to the IDEA that government had a place in health care at all or should be considered a right.

I think that discussing the Republicans should be a starting point for progressives. To restate what everyone knows, the Republicans have continually moved farther to the right in the past decades to the point that there no longer is any significant entity that could be called "moderate Republicans". Those few who could be so characterized have been captured and are held hostage by the right - wing core of the Party. They now have 41 seats in the Senate, making them able to stop most things unless there is full Democratic unity. That power gives conservative Democrats power well beyond their numbers and that power will continue for the foreseeable future unless the Democrats are able to defeat some of the Republicans who now come from quite conservative states. As we have seen, this political and structural reality has dramatic political consequences.

It is important to remember that the Democrats split on issues of globalization during the Clinton administration and that split continues to this day. Clinton Democrats allied themselves with the majority of the corporate (as opposed to libertarian and protectionist) Republicans in opposition to the progressive Democrats to win NAFTA and to loosen financial regulations. The Democrats split over the war in Iraq as well. That means the New Democrats were among globalization's ideological leaders. Major sections of Wall Street, once a Republican bastion, are now firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party, although that may not last as the Obama administration presses for financial reform.

The next big fight, the one that has already started, is over whether big financial institutions should be regulated at all. The Republicans are saying NO and the conservative Democrats will pull the debate to the right. There is no doubt in my mind that Progressives should be prepared to be disappointed with the specific legislative outcomes of this fight. The same thing will happen with legislation about energy and environment, with workers rights, with immigration, and with every other issue of consequence that will arise during this administration.

Aside from taxing the rich, military spending is the elephant in the room. I would argue that the power of the military - industrial complex has increased dramatically in the past decades, not only because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also because of the extraordinary level of privatization of the military establishment during that period.

On all of these issues, the fight that will be fought will be over whether the government should be acting for the common good of all of society or for the narrow interests of the most conservative of the corporate elites. It will not be fought over what is the progressive solution to the problem at hand.

Given all of this, I think that progressives should be giving a continuing shoutout and support for the Progressive, Black, and Latino Caucuses that, for the most part, have been at the cutting edge of advancing progressive legislation, often being forced to retreat and regroup, and remaining the core of efforts to achieve peace and justice.

So all of this poses some interesting challenges to progressives. Who must hold in mind multiple contradictory ideas and realities while reflecting on these goals:

1. supporting the shift that the Obama administration represents, moving to have government assume responsibility for the well-being of the country and its people.

2. advancing progressive solutions to the burning problems of the day.

3. ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

4. increasing the power of progressives in the Democratic Party and build independent progressive movements.

5. defeating Republicans at the polls.

6. holding conservative Democrats to account, pressuring them to support the movement away from Reaganism and support reforms of our corporate culture.

For political activists on the left, this is not simply a mind game. It is at the core of what we do. We do want to advance a progressive agenda; we do want the most progressive proposals to see the light of day, we do want the opportunity to win support for a progressive agenda beyond the ranks of progressives, and we do want to challenge the Democratic Party to consider these more fundamental reforms.

At the same time, we want to defeat the Republicans. We really want to do that because we are now seeing what the Republicans really are. And it's very scary.

I think that we are now in the fight of our lives. The Obama victory has provided an opening for the struggle to place government back into the role of being the economic and structural champion of working people. But it does so with the legacy of Reaganism and neo-liberalism having captured the high ground of the political conversation in this country and the thinking of a major portion of the American people.

I am not offering a playbook or a solution, but rather an invitation to complex and contradictory thinking about complex and contradictory circumstances.

I suggest that this is the time of day.

Photo: White House

In run-up to BP spill, media touted offshore safety

Wed, 26 May 2010 08:58:00 +0000

Media Advisory
Drilling Disasters Can't Happen Here
In run-up to BP spill, media touted offshore safety
5/25/10

As the United States examines the origins of the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, one factor that should not be overlooked is media coverage that served to cover up dangers rather than expose them. When President Barack Obama declared a new push for offshore drilling (3/31/10), asserting that "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills" (4/2/10), corporate news outlets echoed such pollyanna sentiments:

You know, there are a lot of serious people looking at, "Are there ways that we can do drilling and we can do nuclear that are--that are nowhere near as risky as what they were 10 or 15 or 20 years ago?" Offshore drilling today is a lot more safer, in many ways, environmentally, today than it was 20 years ago.
--David Gergen, CNN's Situation Room (3/31/10)

Some Americans have an opinion of offshore drilling that was first formed decades ago with those pictures of oil on the beaches in Santa Barbara, California. Others see it differently. They say time and technology have changed things. They say in order to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and keep gas prices low, we've got to bring more of it out of the ground and from under the sea.
--Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News (3/31/10)

The technology of oil drilling has made huge advances.... The time has come for my fellow environmentalists to reassess their stand on offshore oil. It is not clear that the risks of offshore oil drilling still outweigh the benefits. The risk of oil spills in the United States is quite low.
--Eric Smith, Washington Post op-ed (4/2/10)

Some of the most ironic objections come from those who say offshore exploration will destroy beaches and coastlines, citing the devastating 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska as an example. The last serious spill from a drilling accident in U.S. waters was in 1969, off Santa Barbara, California.
--USA Today editorial (4/2/10)

Since the big spill off the coast of California about three decades ago, the big oil companies have really put a lot of time, money and resources into making sure that their drilling is a lot more safe and environmentally sound.
--Monica Crowley, Fox Business Happy Hour (3/31/10)

Drilling could be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner. We already drill in an environmentally sensitive manner.
--Sean Hannity, Fox News' Hannity (4/1/10)

And even in terms of the environment, we're going to consume oil one way or the other. It's safer for the planet if it's done under our strict controls and high technology in America as opposed to Nigeria.... We've got a ton of drilling happening every day today in the Gulf of Mexico in a hurricane area and it's successful.
--Charles Krauthammer, WJLA's Inside Washington (4/4/10)

We had a hurricane on the Gulf Coast and there was no oil spill. If Katrina didn't cause an oil spill with all those oil wells in the Gulf....
--Dick Morris, Fox News' O'Reilly Factor (3/31/10)

The two main reasons oil and other fossil fuels became environmentally incorrect in the 1970s--air pollution and risk of oil spills--are largely obsolete. Improvements in drilling technology have greatly reduced the risk of the kind of offshore spill that occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969.... To fear oil spills from offshore rigs today is analogous to fearing air travel now because of prop plane crashes.
--Steven F. Hayward, Weekly Standard (4/26/10)

And these messages didn't entirely disappear after the Gulf of Mexico disaster unfolded. In its May 10 issue, Time magazine had a small box headlined, "Offshore-Drilling Disasters: Rare But Deadly," which listed a mere four incidents--the most recent in 1988. But it doesn't take too much research to turn up a slew of other incidents that raise concerns: the Unocal-owned Seacrest drillship that capsized in 1989, killing 91 people; Phillips Petroleum's Alexander Kielland rig that collapsed in 1980, killing 123, and more. The list managed to overlook at least three well disasters in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in oil spills--two incidents off the Louisiana coast in 1999, and the Usumacinta spill in Mexican waters in 2007.

A previous Time.com story (4/24/10) had noted that the Minerals Management Service, which oversees offshore drilling, reported 39 fires or explosions in the first five months of 2009 alone; though the magazine said the "good news" is that "most of these" did not result in death. The website Oil Rig Disasters tallies 184 incidents, dozens of which involved fatalities--and 73 of which occurred after 1988.

Clearly there are different ways to measure such things, but it's hard not to feel that Time's point was to suggest that drilling disasters are really too rare to worry about.

Since the BP/Deepwater disaster, many news outlets have run investigative pieces detailing the long history of negligent oversight of the offshore drilling industry. But when the New York Times tells readers (5/25/10) about the "enduring laxity of federal regulation of offshore operations," one can't help but wonder why this apparently well-known problem got so little attention before the environmental catastrophe.

Arizona Law Highlights Need for Meaningful Reform

Wed, 26 May 2010 08:49:00 +0000

Most Americans want immediate action on comprehensive immigration reform, new polling data revealed this week. A poll conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies found that more than three in four Americans from both major parties and in all geographic regions of the country support immigration reform.

After passage of Arizona's immigration law, which experts believe will promote racial profiling and overwhelm local police forces, many commentators have insisted that Americans are not in the mood for comprehensive immigration reform.

The results of this survey, however, showed that most people view the Arizona law as an unfortunate reaction to federal foot-dragging on reform. Instead of a punitive or enforcement-only response to immigration on the state or local level, Americans, including a significant majority of Latinos, want comprehensive federal action with four basic parts:

1) Increased security at the border
2) Crack down on employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers
3) Require unauthorized workers to register, undergo background checks and learn English
4) Unauthorized immigrants should get in line for citizenship

The poll found that of the people who support the Arizona law, most were likely to be white, male, Republican and supporters of the Tea Party. Others, however, who did not fit these categories say they support the law only out of frustration with the lack of federal action on comprehensive reform.

Opponents of the Arizona law said they believe the law will promote racial profiling and other un-Constitutional police measures, the survey found.

David Mermin, a pollster with Lake Research Partners, explained apart from extremist anti-immigrant sentiments, "the sense that the system is out of control and that there isn't a legal orderly process by which people are immigrating" drives most attitudes about immigration reform.

"The vast majority of Americans think we should still be welcoming immigrants," he said, "but they want that done in a legal way."

"Folks don't want some sort of draconian enforcement effort where you try to round up millions of people," Mermin added, "they want people to register, to get in line, to pay taxes, to learn English, to become American."

"You see enormous support for that approach to dealing with immigrants," he explained.

According to recent analysis published by the Immigration Policy Center, the economic contributions of undocumented immigrants far outweigh perceived costs of illegal immigration. According to that pro-reform group, in the state of Arizona alone, unauthorized immigrants add some $26.4 billion each year to the state's economy annually, including tax revenues and job-creating business activity.

Economists also believe claims that immigrants "steal" jobs in America from citizens remain unsubstantiated.

Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-immigration reform group America's Voice, added that the polling data proves that "people aren't angry at immigrants as much as they are frustrated that the government hasn't solved the problem."

He warned that Congress should not use the fallout from the Arizona immigration law as an excuse not to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. The polling data indicates that most people much prefer immediate action on comprehensive immigration reform over the kinds of steps taken by Arizona.

The labor movement has explicitly rejected the Arizona anti-immigrant law. Describing the law as a violation of civil rights and the legalization of racial profiling, the AFL-CIO and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights earlier this month jointly called on the Obama administration to terminate federal aid to Arizona's law enforcement agencies for immigration enforcement.

Both the United Food and Commercial Workers union and the Service Employees International Union have join several civil rights organizations in a lawsuit seeking to strike down the law.

In a joint statement last year, the country's leading labor federations, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, outlined a comprehensive reform policy that emphasized keeping working families together, avoiding enforcement-only practices, prioritizing workers' rights and workplace protections, and adjusting the legal status of unauthorized immigrants to help them "come out of the shadows."

Photo: CC/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/45976898@N02/4575184210/

Video: 90th anniversary of the CPUSA celebration

Tue, 25 May 2010 19:54:00 +0000

Class and Race in the US Labor Movement: The Case of the Packinghouse Workers

Mon, 24 May 2010 11:57:00 +0000

Racism and the Labor Movement

Historic connections between organized labor and African Americans have been problematic. During the period of modern labor history, that is, from the formation of the CIO in the 1930s, to its merger with the AFL in 1955, and into the present, labor's struggle against racism has been mixed. On the one hand, as Philip S. Foner describes it, the American labor movement throughout much of its history has practiced racism in its internal organizational policies, in its efforts to organize new workers under the banner of labor, and in regard to its advocacy of political positions. Writes Foner, "from the formation of the first trade unions in the 1790s to the mid-1930s, the policy and practice of organized labor so far as Black workers were concerned were largely those of outright exclusion or segregation."[1]

As a prominent institution in American life, perhaps it is no surprise that organized labor has reflected the currents of racism that run deep throughout American history. However, a close reading of labor history will also uncover significant exceptions to the rule. That is, various trade union confederations, such as the Knights of Labor in the 1880s, and the Congress of Industrial Organization (CIO) of the 1930s and 40s, reflected through words, and sometimes in deeds, the position articulated by Robert Baker in 1902, that the organization of workers should encompass "the cause of all humanity, regardless of race, color, or sex." Said Baker: "The more organized labor champions the cause of all labor, unorganized as well as organized, Black as well as White, the greater will be the victories; the more lasting, the more permanent, the more beneficial and the more far-reaching will be its successes."[2]

One of the most striking successes in the struggle against racism in the modern labor movement is a little studied labor union, the United Packinghouse Workers of America (UPWA), which formed as an organizing committee in 1937 and continued to represent packinghouse workers until its merger with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters in 1968. During its 30-years' existence UPWA struggled to organize and fairly represent workers in meat packing plants and collateral industries, fought to overcome racism within the union, and played a major role in building and supporting a burgeoning civil rights movement during the 1950s. In the words of Michael Goldfield: "The racial practices of the United Packinghouse Workers of America (UPWA) are especially inspiring."[3]

The UPWA story below is constructed largely from a set of 128 interviews with former members of the union, both from the rank and file and leadership, conducted by Halpern and Horwitz.[4] Three published books add to the literature on this progressive union, helping to create a history of a trade union led by a coalition of political leftists (many members of the Communist Party USA), liberals, and militant Black workers who stood for peace and social justice during difficult times in the United States, particularly after World War II.[5] In addition to the three new books and selections from the Halpern and Horwitz interviews, I will add a few insights gathered by my own interviews of three leaders of the UPWA.[6]

On Labor History

The industrial revolution in the period following the Civil War planted the seeds for a transformation of the workforce in the USA, shifting workers from farm to factory. With the emergence of modern manufacturing came increasing patterns of control and exploitation of workers. While many workers were initially skilled craftspersons who enjoyed autonomy and expertise, owners and managers of capital sought to increase control over the processes of work, especially in an effort to speed up production. Profits could be enhanced further by extending the length of work days as much as physical survival would allow. Of course, as capitalism grew and grew, profits also would be increased if wages were reduced as much as possible. Increasing managerial control of the work process, speeding up the pace of work, extending the work day, and cutting wages all stimulated the creation of labor movements to challenge capital's prerogatives.

In the 1880s a confederation of unions that embraced the skilled and unskilled, men and women, Black and White, organized as the Knights of Labor. While its history was short"lived, it fought for the eight-hour day and introduced into USA labor history a principle of inclusiveness that would flower and grow in the 1930s and beyond. Also in the 1880s, a trade union confederation called the American Federation of Labor formed, bringing together unions representing primarily skilled workers. Under the leadership of its first president, Samuel Gompers, the AFL built an organization that, despite ups and downs, survives to this day. Whereas the Knights practiced inclusiveness, the AFL as it unfolded gave primary support to the organization of skilled workers, and over time tilted toward segregation among affiliated unions, so that Black workers would be represented in totally Black unions. The AFL also accepted unions into the federation that constitutionally prohibited Black workers from membership.

From 1905 until World War I, a militant union, the Industrial Workers of the World, or Wobblies, organized hard rock miners, textile workers, and others. The IWW rejected political action, championing a syndicalist vision of a new world order, organized around worker control of the economic life of the country. Since the IWW rejected electoral and other more conventional politics, it was not involved in struggles around de-segregation and voting rights. However, the IWW championed the inclusiveness of all workers and rejected racism. Given their brand of revolutionary activity, Wobblies were hounded by the state and by vigilantes until, by the 1920s, they were virtually crushed.

After an interregnum of state repression, company unions, and company welfare schemes to keep workers from organizing, the 1930s saw a huge wave of political mobilization and labor organizing that led to the formation of the CIO. Some union leaders, led by John L. Lewis of the miners, withdrew from the AFL to form the CIO, because the former group refused to organize industrial, or so-called non-skilled, workers. Between 1935, at its founding, until 1940, the CIO unionized four million workers. Unions emerged in such industries as automobile manufacturing, electronics, steel, rubber, and meat packing. The great flurry of working-class mobilization was stimulated by the exigencies of the Great Depression, the exclusiveness of the AFL, and the groundbreaking work of communists and other leftists on the shop floors, who had worked for years to plant the seeds of the idea of industrial unionization. By 1955, over thirty percent of the American workforce was in unions. The AFL and CIO, the two major trade-union confederations, had over 100 member unions in them. Then the two confederations united, the legacy of which survives today as the AFL-CIO. This constituted the melding of the old craft unions founded before the 20th century with the newer industrial unions of the 1930s.

Meat Packing

The processing of meat was one of the earliest mass-production industries, developing a detailed division of labor that became a model for most subsequent manufacturing. The corralling, slaughtering, and dressing of meat products for shipment around the country became possible when the refrigerated railroad car was developed. By the turn of the century, meat was processed in huge centers in Chicago, Omaha, and Fort Worth, with smaller operations around Iowa and Minnesota. Meat packing plants were scattered throughout the South and Northeast as well. The meat processing center from the 1880s to the late 1950s was in Chicago. The stockyards, housing the "Big Four" packers (Armour, Cudahy, Swift, and Wilson), employed thousands of workers. Because the work was so dangerous and unpleasant, it was largely carried out by the most marginalized sectors of the working class. First, this included primarily immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. During the great migrations from the South, both before and after World War I, Black workers gravitated to the packing plants, leaving behind their lives as sharecroppers.

Packinghouse workers, experiencing horrible working conditions and insufficient wages, sought to secure union recognition as the Amalgamated Meat Cutters. Two long and bloody strikes (1904 and 1921) were defeated by the companies. During both strikes, many African-American workers were temporarily employed to break the strikes. Since Black workers suffered from economic circumstances as desperate as those faced by the striking White workers, and since they were excluded generally from unions and consequently the benefits they would gain from unionization, these so-called "scab" workers felt no loyalty to the strikers or the union. In the aftermath of the two defeats, hostility towards Black workers rose, and Black resentment of Whites increased as well. For years, remembrances of racism and scabbing impaired any effort to create a common front against the packers.

UPWA (CIO)

The atmosphere and historical circumstances changed in the 1930s. First, the depression hit working people very hard. Twenty-five percent of the work force was unemployed by 1933. Industries were working at 40 percent of capacity. In big cities, vibrant radical movements began to surface. Communists organized Unemployment Councils whose task it was to protect debtors from being evicted from their apartments. Also the Councils organized mass rallies and marches against unemployment and poverty and, on occasion, marched with throngs to city welfare departments demanding relief. Communists and other radicals were particularly active in Black communities. Also, the Communist Party mobilized mass campaigns to save the Scottsboro Boys who had been charged with raping two White women in Alabama, a charge that was clearly untrue. The mood of despair turned to militancy in cities and towns around the United States. Many Black citizens began to participate in the street militancy. These militants included those who were to work in the packinghouses. Inside the packing plants, Black workers had the most difficult and demeaning jobs and worked for lower wages. However, in terms of meat processing, Black workers were situated in strategic locations such as the killing floor. If they chose to stop working, the whole process of slaughtering and dressing meat would grind to a halt. Also in the major packing center, Chicago, the percentage of the work force that was Black was as much as 30 percent by the 1930s.

Both Black and White workers had come to the view that wages and working conditions would only improve when the work force became unionized. Also, Black and White workers both realized that successful unionization would not occur until and unless they combined to support unionization. This recognition, combined with the experience of working with radicals on community action, the clear role of communists in the effort to organize a packinghouse workers union, and the demonstrated work of the left in anti-racism campaigns nationally, all influenced the militant African Americans who assumed significant roles in organizing the union. White workers, often former union members from the days before World War I, and cognizant of the pragmatic necessity for solidarity, joined the struggle as well.

The first independent local of packinghouse workers was formed in Austin, Minnesota, by some old Wobblies in 1933. In 1934 there were general strikes of workers in various industries in San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Toledo, Ohio. In 1935, John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers, walked out of the national convention of the AFL to form the CIO. Thus was launched the effort to organize unskilled industrial workers all across the industrial landscape. Also, in 1935, Congress passed the Wagner Act, which legalized the effort of workers to form unions. In this multidimensional context, Herb March, a communist organizer who had been working in Kansas City, arrived in Chicago to initiate the drive to organize the packing houses. In 1937, Black and White packinghouse workers with CIO approval formed the Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee (PWOC) to begin the union building process.

The "Big Four" meat-packing companies resisted the initial organizing efforts. Armour, the first target of the PWOC, resisted efforts to get a master agreement that would apply to all plants. Such a master agreement would institutionalize the union in the industry, an outcome that all the packing companies opposed. However, despite efforts of a discredited AFL union (the Amalgamated Meat Cutters) to counter PWOC presence in the Chicago Armour plant, and despite a pre-election visit to Chicago unions by the newly formed House Committee on Un-American Activities, the PWOC won majority support from workers for the new CIO union in 1939. Shortly thereafter, PWOC signed separate agreements for all Armour plants, a clear prelude to the master agreements the union sought. The initial accords, while not involving wage issues, did increase vacations, guaranteed at least 32 hours of work, and improved grievance procedures. Almost two years later, contract negotiations between Armour and the PWOC led to the signing of the industry's first master agreement in September, 1941. The accords included a ten-cent-an-hour wage increase. This was followed by agreements with Cudahy in November and Swift in April 1942. Finally, Wilson was forced to sign an agreement in March, 1943 by the National War Labor Board. Also in 1943, PWOC became the United Packinghouse Workers of America (UPWA). CIO militancy, the tidal wave of organizing throughout American industry, the particular role of White left activists and Black militants, and the emerging production needs brought by the onset of World War II all together stimulated the successes of unionization efforts in the meat packing industry.

While a wage-freeze agreement in support of the war effort was accepted by government, the corporate sector, and the leadership of the labor movement, PWOC was able to secure a variety of improvements in fringe benefits and working conditions during the war years. While labor, capital, and government all endorsed wage and price controls over the course of the war, government and capital did agree to not challenge the presence of unions in plants across the country (so-called "maintenance of membership" agreements). However, as the war drew to a close, many unions in the CIO made demands for increases in wages. They claimed that prices in fact had increased by 45 percent during the war, while real wage increases were capped at 15 percent. While workers at the home front saved money, both because of much overtime and limits on commodities to purchase, their wages fell further and further behind prices and company profits. When corporations resisted pay hikes right after the war, unions in auto, steel, electronics, railroads, and meatpacking went on strike. The 1946 strike wave was the largest in U.S. history, affecting 4.6 million workers or 14.5 percent of the work force.

The strike in packing began on January 16, 1946. The next day, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters offered to settle in those plants in which they had locals with a 15-cents-an-hour raise. The packers refused, but a government fact-finding board was established to investigate the claims of the competing sides. Further, the Secretary of Labor ordered the meat-packing plants seized under provisions of the War Labor Disputes Act. After UPWA threatened not to return to work under the order, Secretary of Agriculture Clinton Anderson assured the union that he would urge adoption of any recommendations of the fact-finding board that were accepted by the packing companies" unions. By March, a 16-cent hourly wage increase was recommended by the board and accepted by the packers and the unions. The Office of Price Administration granted the packers a raise in meat prices to compensate for the wage increases. Later in 1946, at its national convention, the UPWA elected Ralph Helstein as its new union president with the broad support of a "left-center" coalition in the union. Over the course of the next several years, the UPWA leadership would tolerate Communist Party members and other radicals in the leadership and rank and file of the union, while walking a careful, straight line in support of mainstream CIO policies that became increasingly anti-communist.

The political stances of each of the ten UPWA districts varied, with radicals particularly popular in Chicago"s District One; District Three covering Iowa, Nebraska, and Colorado; and District Six in the Northeast. As the cold war and anti-communism heightened, some districts would pass resolutions supporting Henry Wallace or opposing USA foreign policy, while other districts would refrain from such positions or overtly oppose them. As packer-union struggles deepened in 1947 and 1948; as the coalition of manufacturers, Republicans, and Southern Democrats moved more actively against labor; and as the AMC sought to gain control of locals in packing plants, conflict between the left-center coalition and right-wingers known as the "CIO Caucus" heated up dramatically in the UPWA. Many of the conflicts involved issues revolving around the cold war and anti-communism, and different conflicts emerged in the late 1940s around issues of racism in UPWA locals and how active UPWA should be in the struggle against racism in communities and the nation at large.

Anti-Communism and Racism

In 1948 UPWA again engaged in a general strike against the "Big Four" resistance to wage increases. Because the USA cold war policy was developing, along with anti-communist zeal and the opposition to the campaign of progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace, the level of support to strikers was not as strong. After nine weeks in which the meat packers held firm, injunctions were issued, police hounded strikers in various locales, and nonunion labor replaced striking workers, the UPWA called off the strike and returned to work. Six weeks after the strike, the UPWA met for the most contentious convention during the entire life of the organization.

In an intensely fought election for union leadership, president Helstein was reelected after a challenge from the CIO Caucus. The Caucus warmly endorsed the Truman presidential candidacy and his cold war foreign policy, favored purging the left from the union leadership, and generally took an anti-communist stance. Helstein's reelection allowed for the continuation of a left-center coalition that would more or less remain intact until the union merged with the AMC in 1968. This left-center leadership would remain critical of USA foreign policy, would endorse trade union militancy, would encourage rank-and-file political activity in communities, and would take a pro-active stance against racism in the union and the nation. Subsequent to the 1948 convention, and throughout the 1950s, UPWA would investigate racism in the union, establish Anti-Discrimination Committees at the national level of the union and in each local, would run workshops on racism in American life, and would fund and actively work for the burgeoning civil rights movement. UPWA would become a significant political force in those communities where it was strong (such as Chicago) and nationally.

To a considerable degree the transformation of the USA political economy was shaped by technological change. In the meatpacking industry, automation decreased the number of workers needed to produce the meat product and increased the possibility that production could be decentralized in hundreds of small-sized processing plants (where work forces are smaller, less organized, and more vulnerable). While UPWA was growing as a progressive political force in the USA in the 1950s, technological change was destroying the material base of the work force in the industry itself. Ultimately, with declining workers in the industry, declining UPWA membership, and continuing competition between UPWA and the old AMC, the leadership realized that it must consolidate to maintain any presence in the meatpacking industry. Consequently, in 1968 AMC and UPWA agreed to a merger. In 1978, the enlarged AMC merged with retail clerks into the current United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), a much larger union with a meat packing division.

Why Study the UPWA?

Even though the old UPWA no longer exists, its story is one of class struggle and a sustained struggle against racism. It is important to revisit this history to better understand the positive role of the labor movement in these struggles as well as the negatives and, perhaps, to learn lessons that might still have value to the role of a revitalized labor movement today.

Roger Horowitz writes that the UPWA was a union engaged in "social unionism". By this he means a union engaged in activities addressing the needs of members as workers, as citizens of local communities, and finally as part of the working class in general. Most trade unions in the 20th century have practiced "business unionism""engaging in bargaining and negotiation on behalf of workers' shop floor interests, but not engaging in broader political struggles. Concretely, this has meant that many trade unions have not engaged in the struggle against racism in their unions, communities, or society at large. As has been suggested above, the history of efforts to organize in meatpacking plants was fraught with defeat and bitter conflicts between White and Black workers. Strikes in 1904 and 1921 were lost because the "Big Four" packers were able to use racism to divide packinghouse workers. Armed with this knowledge, Black and White militants struggled to overcome racism as they built the PWOC and later the UPWA. The 1943 constitution of the new union forbade racism in the union. Generally, from the outset of the CIO mass movement, the UPWA stood for racial equality in the union, but, as with many other unions, the UPWA did not actively engage in the fight against racism.

The failed 1948 strike against the "Big Four" packers threatened to destroy the union. Large numbers of members were forced out, because they were fired by the packers. Factionalism surfaced, and during the 1948 convention an anti-communist slate of candidates ran for the various union offices. While the challenge to the incumbent leadership was defeated, president Helstein used the weakened condition of the union to launch an active anti-discrimination program that included efforts to purge union locals of racism and to commit each and every packinghouse local to the struggle for racial justice. From the late 1940s to the 1968 merger with the AMC, the UPWA distinguished itself in the struggle against racism and engaged in civil rights mass actions, even before the rise of the movement against segregation in Montgomery, Alabama. The movement in support of civil rights was driven by rank-and-file initiatives from militant Black and White workers in various locals of UPWA, and by the leadership of the international union itself. Not all members of the 100,000-member union embraced the civil rights agenda and, in fact, some workers from the South and Southwest particularly opposed the unions" commitment to racial justice and integration of union and society. Over time, these elements were forced out of leadership positions in the union, leaving union members either civil rights activists or passive supporters of union efforts.

An early spark to the building of a commitment to the struggle against racism occurred when president Helstein hired sociologist John Hope to study race relations in the union. Hope found high levels of Black participation in union locals (for example Blacks were stewards in 83 percent of UPWA locals and 73 percent of locals had Blacks on executive boards). However, there were significant reflections of racism among UPWA members (30 percent objected to working with Blacks and 90 percent of southern Whites favored segregated eating facilities). Also, Blacks had a presence in significantly fewer job categories than Whites. As a result of Hope's findings, the UPWA at its 1950 convention initiated a broad-based program to expunge racism from union locals. An anti-discrimination department was established in the union at large, and anti-discrimination committees were established in every union local in the organization. These were not just symbolic gestures, but rather structures by which racism would be eliminated from the life of the union.

Union contracts were to prohibit any discrimination by companies, not only for employees, but for job applicants as well. Anti-discrimination conferences were held in the union on a periodic basis, and networking also occurred through national conventions and conferences of union members working for the same employers. Then UPWA strongly encouraged members to be active in the struggle against racism in their communities. Horowitz summarizes the full range of UPWA activities, from shop floor to political arena. In addition to integrating "lily-White departments" on the shop floor and prohibiting discriminatory hiring practices, especially against Black women, "locals attacked discriminatory practices in their communities, primarily restrictions on Black access to bars, restaurants, and public facilities, as well as employment restrictions by local businesses. Finally, packinghouse workers consciously worked with and influenced community-based organizations, especially the NAACP."[7]

Black, White Unite and Fight

Several points can be made about the UPWA commitment to civil rights. First, as suggested above, the struggle to overcome the long history of racial strife in packinghouses was central to the organizing of the PWOC and UPWA since the 1930s. Second, Black militants and White radicals played a fundamental role in the creation of an integrated union. Third, a high percentage of the workforces in packing centers were Black workers, particularly in the industry's central facility in Chicago, where some 10,000 workers were employed. Fourth, UPWA constructed a union structure that gave real power to rank-and-file workers. Each department had at least one shop steward to represent the workers; and stewards, by virtue of their presence in the various job sites, were accountable to members. Also, many locals engaged in militant job actions when foremen tried to speedup production beyond what was called for in the contract, when particular workers experienced discrimination, or when other actions by management were seen as oppressive and discriminatory. Some locals were more militant than others, but the bottom-up structure of the union encouraged participation.

Fifth, president Helstein was fully committed to civil rights, as were most of the district directors representing regions around the country. Also, since the national leadership of the union refused to purge radicals from its ranks, UPWA had in its employ and as officers in union locals many radicals, including members of the Communist Party of the USA. Since they were among the strongest supporters of rank-and-file union militancy and civil rights, their presence reinforced other factors that stimulated UPWA's activism. Sixth, the most militant members of UPWA worked in plants in Chicago. Since Chicago alone had 10,000 UPWA members, and since a higher percentage of Blacks and leftists were in Chicago locals, that city's packinghouse workers set the tone for the organization.

As a result of these factors, therefore, the UPWA, or at least many locals, participated in active campaigns against racism in plants. They also fought for integrated neighborhoods. When Blacks moved into a public housing development in Trumball Park in the early 1950s, race riots occurred. UPWA members organized campaigns to force the city housing authority to open up public housing to Blacks and to protect them from racist responses. When hotels where UPWA meetings were to occur barred Blacks from housing, the union pulled out of the hotels in protest. When the Swift plant discriminated against hiring Black women, the Swift local and the Chicago district launched a public campaign and pressured government to end such practices.

Perhaps most importantly, UPWA was the first union to support the efforts of the newly formed Southern Christian Leadership Conference led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. UPWA sent a check for $11,000 to SCLC during the Montgomery bus boycott, and leaders of the union marched with Dr. King from Selma to Montgomery; in Jackson, Mississippi; and participated in other mass actions. When Dr. King brought SCLC to Chicago to campaign for fair housing, the leadership of UPWA joined in. Horowitz argues that "UPWA's antidiscrimination program represented a significant expansion of social unionism" or activism beyond the shop floor. "Its aggressive policies contrasted starkly with the laxity of mainstream CIO organizations and represented an "opportunity found and kept" by its Black members in a manner paralleled, to a far lesser extent, only by industrial unions expelled from the CIO."[8]

Conclusion

A reading of the volumes by Halpern and Horowitz, and the numerous interviews with former packinghouse workers that provide the data for their work, suggests that there is much of historic and contemporary significance in the UPWA.

First, the UPWA, to a degree not achieved by many other unions in the CIO and AFL-CIO, created an integrated union in terms of leadership, policymaking, shopfloor protection of workers, and political program.

Second, political radicals and Black militants provided impetus for the construction of an integrated, class-conscious trade union in the 1930s and 1940s.

Third, the UPWA engaged in civil rights activities in various communities in the North and South, several years before the formation of the SCLC. Taken in conjunction with the efforts of other leftwing unions, it is fair to say that progressive sectors of the labor movement served as a major stimulus, inspiration, and resource for the rise of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. While some sectors of the labor movement historically have impeded the path to racial justice, it is also important to point out that other sectors of the labor movement have played a critical role in whatever advances toward racial justice have been achieved.

Fourth, the history of class struggle and the struggle for racial justice in fact go hand in hand. The working class, by virtue of its role in providing labor power for the construction of society, and as the class that experiences the expropriation of the value that it produces, is a leading force in movements of social change. African-American or woman workers, who often belong to super exploited classes within the working class, constitute sectors that have the possibility of seeing most clearly the exploitative nature of society.

Fifth, UPWA was to a considerable degree a rank-and-file trade union. It practiced union democracy. Shop stewards, committees, job actions in the production process, and picketing for civil rights all are expressions of the will of the membership. All of these activities were institutionalized and encouraged in the life of the union.

Finally, the UPWA story is the story of the success of the old leftwing slogan that still is relevant today: "Black, White, Unite and Fight!"

Notes:

[1] Philip S. Foner, Organized Labor and the Black Worker, 1619-1973 (International Publishers, 1976).
[2] Speech by Robert Baker, presented to the Central Labor Union of Brooklyn, January 1902.
[3] Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics (Ann Arbor; University of Michigan Press, 1997).
[4] Rick Halpern and Roger Horowitz, Meatpackers: An Oral History of Black Packinghouse Workers and Their Struggle for Race and Economic Equality (NY: Twayne Publishers, 1996).
[5] See Rick Halpern, Down on the Killing Floor: Black and White Workers in Chicago's Packinghouses, 1904-54, (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1997); Roger Horowitz, `Negro and White, Unite and Fight!':A Social History of Industrial Unionism in Meatpacking, 1930-90 (Champaign: University of Illinois, 1997); and Michael Goldfield, The Color of Politics: Race and the Mainsprings of American Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997).
[6] Harry Targ, Interviews with Charles Hayes, Ralph Helstein, and Les Orear (Chicago, December 1982).
[7] Horowitz, Negro and White, Unite and Fight!, p. 104.
[8] Ibid., p. 108.

Photo: Chicago packinghouse workers protest mass layoffs after World War II.

Hundreds of Union Janitors Fired Under Pressure From Feds

Mon, 24 May 2010 10:28:00 +0000

Original source: Truthout.org

San Francisco, California – Federal immigration authorities have pressured one of San Francisco's major building service companies, ABM, into firing hundreds of its own workers. Some 475 janitors have been told that unless they can show legal immigration status, they will lose their jobs in the near future.

ABM has been a union company for decades, and many of the workers have been there for years. "They've been working in the buildings downtown for 15, 20, some as many as 27 years," said Olga Miranda, president of Service Employees Local 87. "They've built homes. They've provided for their families. They've sent their kids to college. They're not new workers. They didn't just get here a year ago."

Nevertheless, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security has told ABM that they have flagged the personnel records of those workers. Weeks ago, ICE agents sifted through Social Security records and the I-9 immigration forms all workers have to fill out when they apply for jobs. They then told ABM that the company had to fire 475 workers who were accused of lacking legal immigration status.

ABM is one of the largest building service companies in the country, and it appears that union janitorial companies are the targets of the Obama administration's immigration enforcement program. "Homeland Security is going after employers that are union," Miranda charged. "They're going after employers that give benefits and are paying above the average."

Last October, 1,200 janitors working for ABM were fired in similar circumstances in Minneapolis. In November, over 100 janitors working for Seattle Building Maintenance lost their jobs. Minneapolis janitors belong to SEIU Local 26, Seattle janitors to Local 6 and San Francisco janitors to Local 87.

President Obama said sanctions enforcement targets employers "who are using illegal workers in order to drive down wages - and oftentimes mistreat those workers." An ICE Worksite Enforcement Advisory claimed, "unscrupulous employers are likely to pay illegal workers substandard wages or force them to endure intolerable working conditions."

Curing intolerable conditions by firing or deporting workers who endure them doesn't help the workers or change the conditions, however. And despite Obama's contention that sanctions enforcement will punish those employers who exploit immigrants, employers are rewarded for cooperating with ICE by being immunized from prosecution. Javier Murillo, president of SEIU Local 26, said, "The promise made during the audit is that if the company cooperates and complies, they won't be fined. So this kind of enforcement really only hurts workers."

ICE Director John Morton said the agency is auditing the records of 1,654 companies nationwide. "What kind of economic recovery goes with firing thousands of workers?" Miranda asked. "Why don't they target employers who are not paying taxes, who are not obeying safety or labor laws?"

The San Francisco janitors are now faced with an agonizing dilemma. Should they turn themselves in to Homeland Security, which might charge them with providing a bad Social Security number to their employer, and even hold them for deportation? For workers with families, homes and deep roots in a community, it's not possible to just walk away and disappear. "I have a lot of members who are single mothers whose children were born here," Miranda said. "I have a member whose child has leukemia. What are they supposed to do? Leave their children here and go back to Mexico and wait? And wait for what?"

Miranda's question reflects not just the dilemma facing individual workers, but of 12 million undocumented people living in the United States. Since 2005, successive congress members, senators and administrations have dangled the prospect of gaining legal status in front of those who lack it. In exchange, their various schemes for immigration reform have proposed huge new guest worker programs, and a big increase in exactly the kind of enforcement now directed at 475 San Francisco janitors.

While the potential criminalization of undocumented people in Arizona continues to draw headlines, the actual punishment of workers because of their immigration status has become an increasingly bitter fact of life across the country.

President Obama, condemning Arizona's law that would make being undocumented a state crime, said it would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." But then he announced his support for legislation with guest worker programs and increased enforcement.

The country is no closer to legalization of the undocumented than it was ten years ago. But the enforcement provisions of the comprehensive immigration reform bills debated in Congress over the last five years have already been implemented on the ground. The Bush administration conducted a high-profile series of raids in which it sent heavily-armed agents into meatpacking plants and factories, held workers for deportation and sent hundreds to federal prison for using bad Social Security numbers.

After Barack Obama was elected president, immigration authorities said they'd follow a softer policy, using an electronic system to find undocumented people in workplaces. People working with bad Social Security numbers would be fired.

Ironically the Bush administration proposed a regulation that would have required employers to fire any worker who provided an employer with a Social Security number that didn't match the SSA database. That regulation was then stopped in court by unions, the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center. The Obama administration, however, is implementing what amounts to the same requirement, with the same consequence of thousands of fired workers.

Union leaders like Miranda see a conflict between the rhetoric used by the president and other Washington, DC, politicians and lobbyists in condemning the Arizona law, and the immigration proposals they make in Congress. "There's a huge contradiction here," she said. "You can't tell one state that what they're doing is criminalizing people, and at the same time go after employers paying more than a living wage and the workers who have fought for that wage."

Renee Saucedo, attorney for La Raza Centro Legal and former director of the San Francisco Day Labor Program, is even more critical. "Those bills in Congress, which are presented as ones that will help some people get legal status, will actually make things much worse," she charged. "We'll see many more firings like the janitors here, and more punishments for people who are just working and trying to support their families."

Increasingly, however, the Washington proposals have even less promise of legalization, and more emphasis on punishment. The newest Democratic Party scheme virtually abandons the legalization program promised by the "bipartisan" Schumer/Graham proposal, saying that heavy enforcement at the border and in the workplace must come before any consideration of giving 12 million people legal status.

"We have to look at the whole picture," Saucedo urged. "So long as we have trade agreements like NAFTA that create poverty in countries like Mexico, people will continue to come here, no matter how many walls we build. Instead of turning people into guest workers, as these bills in Washington would do, while firing and even jailing those who don't have papers, we need to help people get legal status, and repeal the laws that are making work a crime."

Greening Air Travel

Mon, 24 May 2010 10:19:00 +0000

EarthTalk®  From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: Can airplanes be run on cleaner fuels or be electric powered? Are there changes afoot in the airline business to find cleaner fuels? -- Reema Islam, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Given air travel’s huge contribution to our collective carbon footprint—flying accounts for about three percent of carbon emissions worldwide by some estimates—and the fact that basic passenger and cargo jet designs haven’t changed significantly in decades, the world is certainly ready for greener forms of flying.

But since air travel emissions were not regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement signed in 1997 that set binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the friendly skies aren’t much greener than they were a few decades ago. And most national governments have been reluctant to impose new environmental restrictions on the already ailing airline industry.

Nonetheless, some airlines and airplane manufacturers are taking steps to improve their eco-footprints. Southwest and Continental have implemented fuel efficiency improvements, waste reduction programs and increased recycling, and are investing in newer, more fuel efficient airplanes. Another airline on the cutting edge of green is Virgin Atlantic, which made news in early 2008 when it became the first major carrier to test the use of biofuels (liquid fuels derived from plant matter) on passenger jet flights. Now Air New Zealand, Continental, Japan Airlines (JAL), JetBlue, and Lufthansa are also testing biofuels.

Even airplane maker Boeing is getting in on the act by developing a carbon-neutral jet fuel made from algae. Boeing’s newest commercial jet, the much vaunted 787 Dreamliner (now in final testing before late 2010 delivery to several airlines), is 20 percent more fuel efficient than its predecessors thanks to more efficient engines, aerodynamic improvements and the widespread use of lighter composite materials to reduce weight. Airbus is also incorporating more lightweight composite materials into its new planes.

On the extreme end of the innovation spectrum are zero-emission airplanes that make use of little or no fuel. The French company, Lisa, is building a prototype small plane, dubbed the Hy-Bird, that uses solar power (via photovoltaic cells on the elongated wingspan) and hydrogen-powered fuel cells to fly with zero emissions—and nearly no engine noise. The company claims the Hy-Bird is the first 100 percent eco-friendly plane, and is readying a round-the-world flight punctuated by 30 event-filled stopovers.

Even more unusual is the proposed fuel-free plane dreamed up by Mississippi-based Hunt Aviation. The company is working on a prototype small plane that harnesses the natural forces of buoyancy (thanks to helium-filled pontoons) for lift-offs and gravity for landings—along with an on-board wind turbine and battery to power everything in between—to achieve flight without any fuel whatsoever.

Don’t look for these futuristic planes on airport runways anytime soon. It will likely be decades before this technology filters its way up to the big leagues. Until then, take a train or bus instead. If you must fly, compensate for your flight’s emissions by buying a “carbon offset” from TerraPass or CarbonFund.org, which will use the money to fund alternative energy and other greenhouse-gas reduction projects.

CONTACTS: Lisa Airplanes, www.lisa-airplanes.com; Hunt Aviation, www.fuellessflight.com; TerraPass, www.terrapass.com; CarbonFund.org, www.carbonfund.org.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Photo: Airbus, by Axwell, courtesy Flicker, cc by 2.0

The Historical Significance of Jose Marti´s Death

Mon, 24 May 2010 10:13:00 +0000

Editorial note: This article was written on the occasion of the anniversary of the birth of Cuban poet and independence activist José Martí, who was born May 19th.

Leaving aside the problems afflicting human beings today, our Homeland had the privilege of being the cradle of one of the most extraordinary thinkers born in this hemisphere: Jose Marti.

It would not be possible to appreciate the scope of his greatness without bearing in mind that the drama of his life was written with such extraordinary personalities as Antonio Maceo, an everlasting symbol of revolutionary firmness and the protagonist of the Baragua Protest, and Maximo Gomez, a Dominican internationalist and a teacher of Cuban combatants in the two wars of independence in which they took part. The Cuban Revolution, that for more than half a century has endured the battering of the most powerful empire that ever existed, was the result of the teachings of those predecessors.

Despite the fact that four days of entries to Marti's diary have remained out of reach to historians, what is reflected in the rest of that carefully written personal diary and other documents belonging to him suffices to know the details of what happened. Just like in the Greek tragedies, it was a discrepancy among giants.

On the eve of his death in combat he wrote to his dear friend Manuel Mercado: "...Every day now I am in danger of giving my life for my country and my duty – since I understand it and have the spirit to carry it out – in order to prevent, by the timely independence of Cuba, the United States from extending its hold across the Antilles and falling with all the greater force on the lands of our America. All I have done up to now and I will do is for that. It has had to be done in silence, and indirectly, for there are things that must be concealed in order to be attained: proclaiming them for what they are would give rise to obstacles too formidable to be overcome."

When Marti wrote these lapidary words, Marx had already written The Communist Manifesto in 1848, that is, 47 tears before Marti's death, and Darwin had published his book on The Origin of Species in 1859, just to mention the two works that, in my view, have most influenced the history of mankind.

Marx was so extraordinarily selfless that perhaps his most important scientific work, The Capital, would have never been published if Frederic Engels had not collected and ordered the materials to which the author devoted his entire life. Engels did not only do that but was also the author of a work entitled Introduction to the Dialectics of Nature, where he anticipated the moment when the energy of the sun was depleted.

Man did not know then how to release the energy contained in the matter which Einstein described in his famous formula nor did he have the computers capable of performing billions of operations per second and of collecting and transmitting the billions of reactions per second that occur in the cells of the tens of pairs of chromosomes equally contributed by mother and father, a genetic and reproductive phenomenon that I learned about only after the victory of the Revolution, as I was looking for the best characteristics to be used in the production of food of animal origin in the conditions of our climate, which can be applied to plants subjected to the same heredity laws.

The incomplete education that the people with more resources received in school – mostly private schools which were considered the best education centers – made us illiterates with a little higher level than those who could neither read nor write or who attended public schools.

On the other hand, the first country in the world that attempted to implement Marx ideas was Russia, the least industrialized in Europe.

Lenin, who established the First International, believed that there was not any organization in the world more loyal to Marx's ideas than the Bolshevik fraction of the Social Democrat Workers' Party of Russia. Although a large part of that immense country lived in semi feudal conditions, its working class was very active and extremely combative.

Lenin was a restless critic of chauvinism in the books he wrote as of 1915. In his work Imperialism, Higher Stage of Capitalism written in April 1917 – months before the Bolshevik fraction of that Party seized power from the Menshevik fraction – he showed that he was the first to understand the role to be played by the countries subjected to colonialism such as China and other very important nations in various regions of the world.

At the same time, Lenin's courage and audacity showed in his acceptance of the armored train that, for reasons of tactical convenience, the German army offered him to travel from Switzerland to the proximity of Petrograd. Due to this action his enemies, both inside and outside the Menshevik fraction of the Social Democrat Workers' Party of Russia, would soon accuse him of being a German spy. But if he had not used the famous train, the end of the war would have found him in distant and neutral Switzerland thus missing the optimal adequate minute.

Somehow, chance would have it that, thanks to their personal qualities, two sons of Spain would end up playing a prominent role in the Spanish-American War: the chief of the Spanish troops in the fortification of El Viso, which defended the access to Santiago from the heights of El Caney, an officer who fought until he was mortally wounded and who caused more than three hundred casualties among the Rough Riders – tough American riders organized by then Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt and who were forced by the hasty landing to leave their ardent horses behind – and the Admiral who, following the stupid orders of the Spanish government, set sail from the Santiago de Cuba bay carrying on board the Marine Corps, a selective force, and left with his squadron the only way he could, that is, parading his ships, one by one, in the narrow access in front of the powerful Yankee fleet, which displayed its armored ships with its powerful cannons to shoot against the much slower and weak Spanish ships. As it was only logical, the Spanish ships with their combat troops and marines were sunk in the deep waters of the Bartlett Trench. Only one of them could make it to a few meters from the border of the abyss. The survivors of that force fell captive of the United States squadron.

Martinez Campos was arrogant and vindictive. As he was full of hatred for his failed attempt at pacifying the island like in 1871, he supported the vile and rancorous policy of the Spanish government. Valeriano Weyler was his replacement in command of Cuba; this man, in cooperation with those who sent the warship Maine looking for a justification for an intervention in Cuba, decreed the concentration of the population, an action that brought great suffering to the Cuban people and served as a pretext to the United States for the imposition of its first economic blockade, which caused a great shortage of food and the death of countless people.

Thus were facilitated the Paris negotiations where Spain renounced every right of sovereignty and property over Cuba after over 400 years of occupation in the name of the King of Spain, since mid October 1492, when Christopher Columbus said: "This is the most beautiful land that human eyes ever saw."

The Spanish version of the battle that decided the fate of Santiago de Cuba is more widely known; and, undoubtedly there were shows of heroism. This is clear from the number of officers and soldiers involved and the ranks of the former. They all defended the city in the most disadvantageous situation thus honoring the fighting traditions of the Spaniards who had defended their country from Napoleon Bonaparte's experienced troops in 1808 or the Spanish Republic from the Nazi fascist attack in 1936.

An additional disgrace fell on the Norwegian committee that awards the Nobel Prize when in the year 1906 it looked for ridiculous pretexts to grant that honor to Theodore Roosevelt, who was elected President of the United States twice, in 1901 and 1905. His true involvement in the battles of Santiago de Cuba leading the Rough Riders was not even clear, and there could have been much legend in the publicity he later received.

I can only bear witness to the way in which the heroic city fell in the hands of the Rebel Army on January 1st, 1959.

Then, Marti's ideas triumphed in our country!

Life in the Gulf is Draining

Mon, 24 May 2010 09:02:00 +0000

Three US transnational companies are sucking the life out of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico due to negligence in operating the Deepwater Horizon Platform which caused a catastrophe that is threatening several states in the region.

There are three to blame for the explosion that has provoked the oil spill in the Gulf: BP (former British Petroleum) owner of the oil deposit; Transocean, a firm that has the rights over the deep water platform where the accident took place; and Halliburton, which has a sub-contract to operate the complex installation.

AFP reported that the one mile long pipeline is extracting a fifth of the oil that emanates, but the report does not mention the damages inflicted by the other four-fifths of the oil on the Gulf of Mexico´s flora and fauna whose extension is still unknown.

The three firms, summoned by the US Congress, evaded their individual responsibilities blaming each other for the disaster. However, everyone believes that drastic measures will not be taken against any, despite recognizing the violation of a number of federal regulations for the operation in the Gulf region.

We will have to wait for law suits from those affected on the coast, fishermen and environmental institutions.

These are three powerful capitalist entities, with hundreds of ties with politicians in Capitol Hill that are regular receptors of large monetary donations from these oil firms.

What is incredible is that BP´s chief of operations, Doug Sutiles, told the press that he is satisfied with being able to remove a fifth of the death affecting that part of the Gulf of Mexico whose currents are moving towards Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

Experts coincide that the catastrophe is worse than the one suffered in Alaska by Banker Exxon Valdez, and whose company only received a fine of 500 million dollars despite the enormous destruction inflicted on the environment and serious violations that were committed.

If that accident was less damaging, what will happen with this one?

Thousands of the region´s animal and vegetable species died intoxicated and problems related with the spill: kilometers of beaches were covered by oil slicks and serious damages to the fishing industry were incalculable.

The expansion of the oil reached 120 kilometers of coasts and affected fish, wild animal refuge and national parks in one of the regions in the United States with most natural resources.

The oil spill was so serious that the fishing industry´s food chain was in danger. How will it be now with this major catastrophe?

Will the United States continue to ignore those that inflict natural disasters of such magnitude?

From Prensa Latina

Photo: US Coast Guard

Fox News Airs Extremist Hate Organization

Wed, 19 May 2010 08:42:00 +0000

In a recent article FoxNews.com reported on the dubious findings of a discredited report published by the extremist anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

FAIR claimed that undocumented immigrants drain hundreds of millions from the Arizona's public services without noting that immigrant workers add some $26.4 billion in economic activity to the state.

In a statement, Immigration Policy Center spokesperson Wendy Sefsaf explained the flaws in FAIR's findings. "FAIR's latest data fails to account for the property, sales, and income taxes paid by unauthorized immigrants," she said. "Nor does the data account for the consumer purchasing power of unauthorized immigrants – what they spend on goods, services, and housing – which actually creates jobs and generates additional tax revenue."

"They seem to forget that deporting workers also means deporting consumers and taxpayers," she explained.

The FoxNews.com article gave the FAIR report biased, positive coverage and seemed to describe its authors as objective "researchers." The article failed to note, however, the organization's long history of promoting hate.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), FAIR remains on its list of hate groups because of its ongoing ties to extremist individuals and organizations and its promotion of such views.

SPLC's website notes that FAIR was founded in 1979 by far-right ideologue John Tanton. Since then, "FAIR has long been marked by anti-Latino and anti-Catholic attitudes. It has mixed this bigotry with a fondness for eugenics, the idea of breeding better humans discredited by its Nazi associations."

In fact, FAIR has taken $1.2 million in donations "from an infamous, racist eugenics foundation," the Pioneer Fund, SPLC points out.

Among its conspiracy theories, FAIR promotes the idea that Mexico uses migration to the U.S. as part of a secret plan to recapture the Southwestern states. It also promotes the seemingly contradictory theory that secret plans to merge Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are being implemented.

FAIR's extremist ideas have been systematically promoted by Republican elected officials and the right-wing media. Republicans in Congress regularly invite FAIR staffers to congressional hearings, and right-wing media personalities like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, as well as Fox News, regularly promote FAIR's "findings."

In fact, according to SPLC, in 2008 alone, the group was quoted in the media almost 500 times.

The group's founder, Michigan native John Tanton, earned early concern from SPLC when through his periodical The Social Contract Press he published numerous white supremacist and anti-immigrant essays. As late as 2005 Tanton ran FAIR's Research and Publications Committee. In addition to promoting the conspiracy of a Mexican reconquest, Tanton has written that India is systemically taking over France.

John Tanton also holds a close association with Wayne Lutton, who, according to SPLC, has held leadership positions in extremist, white supremacist organizations like the Council of Conservative Citizens and has written for Holocaust denying publications like the Journal of Historical Review. Lutton works in Tanton's Michigan offices.

Until 2003, Dan Stein, FAIR's current president, served as an editorial adviser to the same publication in which both Tanton and Lutton published their extremist views. In 1997, Stein in no uncertain terms defended his organization's eugenicist views to CNN's Tucker Carlson. Other current members of FAIR's board also advised Tanton's extremist publication, and the organization still promotes it on their website, SPLC notes.

SPLC also documents a number of FAIR field organizers with openly racist and white supremacist views and organizational ties. From 2006 to 2007 John Turner, for example, worked as FAIR's western field representative, helping to push an anti-immigrant ballot initiative in San Bernadino, California. The year before, however, Turner led an extremist group with apparent ties to skinhead and neo-Nazi organization called Save Our State, which SPLC listed immediately as a hate group. During his tenure in that group, Turner wrote, "I can make the argument that someone who proclaims to be a white nationalist isn't necessarily a white supremacist. I don't think that standing up for your 'kind' or 'your race' makes you a bad person."

Other former and current FAIR staffers such as Rick Oltman, Dave Ray, Donald Collins, and Joe Guizzardi have active links to white supremacist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens (the offshoot of the White Citizens' Council) or to white supremacist and anti-Semitic websites like Vdare.com, SPLC reports.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/takomabibelot/ / CC BY 2.0

Anti-union Lobbyist Accused of Illegal Activity

Wed, 19 May 2010 08:38:00 +0000

Anti-union PR boss Richard Berman is on the hot seat after two charity organizations this month asked the New York State Commission on Public Integrity to investigate his firm for illegal lobbying. According to a joint press release by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and The Humane Society, the two organizations have filed a complaint alleging that Berman's lobbying firm, the American Beverage Institute, failed to register and report its activities to the state of New York.

According to New York state law, a lobbyists who spends more than $5,000 on lobbying activities must register with the state. According to reports, Berman's American Beverage Institute spent more than $70,000 for advertisements against pending legislation to crack down on DWI offenders.

The American Beverage Institute is one of Berman's many corporate front groups. He works on behalf of alcohol, fast-food, tobacco, and agribusiness corporations to fight regulations on alcohol consumption, tobacco use, and other health and safety laws. Part of Berman's strategy has been to attack groups like MADD and the Humane Society. As part of his campaign to weaken DWI laws, Berman called MADD a "scare" group.

In 2008, ABI ran full-page ads in New York newspapers in opposition to pending bipartisan legislation requiring anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated to install an ignition interlock device while on probation.

ABI and Berman’s efforts ultimately proved unsuccessful, and an interlock bill was passed and signed into law by Gov. David Paterson in 2009. “Leandra’s Law” was named in memory of Leandra Rosado, 11, who was killed when the van she and six friends were riding in crashed, violently killing her and severely injuring the other young passengers. The driver was charged with DWI and manslaughter.

Berman has also used hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Tobacco companies to fight smoking restrictions by promoting the idea that second-hand smoke is safe, despite a medical consensus on its dangers.

In addition, Berman's lobbying firms have argued obesity is not a public health issue, defended the cruelest forms of animal abuse, and have sought to depress workers’ rights and prevent minimum wage increases – all under the guise of “public interest” advocacy.

In 2006, business interests paid Richard Berman hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight a wave of state laws requiring large employers like Wal-Mart to provide health insurance for their employees instead of forcing them to seek public assistance.

The MADD/Humane Society complaint in New York alleged that according to recent tax filings, Berman and his for-profit public relations firms have funneled 92 percent of donations straight into their own pockets.

In 2006, the non-partisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) expressed concerns that Berman illegally pocketed large amounts of cash donated to his supposed non-profit group. Berman's partisan work on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party violated his groups' non-partisan status, CREW alleged.

“Rick Berman has for years been running a commercial public relations operation and masquerading as a nonprofit organization,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “Now, it appears that he is violating the law by failing to disclose to New York authorities his lobbying efforts to protect drunk drivers. The state should mete out the strongest penalties for this illegal conduct.”

Labor stands for Working Families

Tue, 18 May 2010 08:52:00 +0000

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler K Street Showdown, Washington, DC
May 17, 2010

Rich Trumka wanted to be here, but instead you have a union sister from Oregon who's no stranger to this rain. Some people thought that the rain would shut us down, but we're here to shut K Street down.

Thank you all for coming down here to K Street today. It's good to see so many people on this notorious street that are actually fighting for workers instead of working against them.

K Street. It's just another congested road in DC, right?

Well, no. Actually, it isn't. And here's why. Over the past 30 years, long before the start of this recession, the corporate lawyers and their hired guns on this street made deals and bought friends to undermine America's working families.

It's happening right now—look what the Wall Street lobbyists are doing. We know the financial industry is spending $1.4 million a day right here on K Street.

We're told this is the way business gets done. Everyone's doing it. If you want influence, buy it. That's just the way it is.

Well, it may be the way business has been done…

But we're going gonna change that, aren't we?

The truth is K Street and Wall Street have been ripping off Main Street. It's a corrupt system and it's killing jobs and ruining our economy.

I'm talking about people losing their homes and everything they've worked for. While Wall Street gets richer.

I'm talking about teachers getting pink slips and our children paying the price. While Wall Street gets richer.

I'm talking unemployment rates at a generational high. While Wall Street gets what? Richer.

That's what this street stands for.

We stand for holding Wall Street and K Street accountable.

We stand for rebuilding our economy with good jobs, and we want Wall Street to pay its fair share.

The 11 million jobs lost in this crisis are real jobs.

But they weren't really lost, were they? They were stolen. Collateral damage. The casualties of K Street and Wall Street.

We're not going to stand for that. We need good jobs now. We need to invest in America now. And Wall Street needs to pay.

So now it's your turn to become a lobbyist, too, but not a K Street lobbyist – a Main Street lobbyist. A lobbyist for working families.

We need you to tell our leaders – tell every member of the House and the Senate -- that it's time for Good Jobs Now.

And we need you to join the AFL-CIO, Americans for Financial Reform and our allies like National People's Action and call your senators as they're taking votes on Wall Street reform.

Tell them: Vote for working families, NOT for Wall Street. Give us Wall Street reform that guarantees the Big Bankers will never again destroy our economy and our jobs.

We want good jobs, and we want them now!

What do we want? Good jobs.

When do we want them? Now.

Before we go, let's remember who we're fighting for. We're fighting for people like Joel Hirschey, a science teacher from North Syracuse Junior High School who was laid off. He's married to a math teacher who lives with the constant threat of job loss, too.

See the video:

The Communist Ideal

Tue, 18 May 2010 08:45:00 +0000

A "found poem" from Google search, and other "whole cloth"

We've been walking a dirt road,
but our eyes are opened wide
Now the roads are full of mud,
and we will have to decide
We will have to decide.
Let us confer, and let us agree

It takes all hands
to cast nets
upon the deep of Galilee,
this narrow passage between the ices and fires
of depression economics
this era of sirens
from the mine's mouth's grim choir.

I think we will Agree
More than we disagree
and not just a little, but enough,
--do we not fervently pray?--
enough to take the Tiger's tail
in our hands, together,
No, I'm not lying.

and hold on! hold on!
and Don't get eaten!
Then, bound by solemn oaths,
and
we will sail! Upon the Tiger's back
through all the wildness, and wonders, of this nation
each occupation, and avocation, and aspiration
Each strike, picket, and protestation
Each vigil, fast, and demonstration
Each debate, each advance,
retreat or negotiation,
each lay down of arms,
each arm linked, each hand shaken
each home visitation
each repudiation of exploitation
Ties on the track
of liberation and
emancipation from ALL slaveries --
Away from there, our destination.

Hold on! Hold on! Don't get eaten!
Through the cities, farms, the rain, the deserts, mountains and the thunder sky
Through the lights, the thrills,
Through the darkness that can lie, lie, and lie again.
Through the volcanic ash of broken bones, souls and hearts
across the world
Through the terrors and furies
determined to tear us apart.

But, my friend, its farther back down
than it is to high ground
farther back down
than on to high ground
"Don't mourn! Organize!"
"Don't mourn! Organize!"
"As I would not be a slave; so I would not be a master."
Now that expresses our idea of democracy!
Neither shall we be nature's servant, nor its owner.
As partners, even lovers, WE SAY peoples, like Leviathans,
can glide the oceans of this world in peace,
and who knows, perhaps even to the seas of worlds beyond
our times
to the stardust universe itself
if such is our destiny.

The true currents of working peoples,
the greater object of all their arts and all their works
Their lives and struggles, each a window on a pocket galaxy,
each sacred and each profane, now and forever,
Take a neighbor as a brother,
Take a neighbor as a sister,
and take care of each other,
thats the base, for the vow
To return the just fruits of labor to their creators
Till the shares of human capital exceed all other shares
lift them up, lift them up, thats the real deal
lift them up, lift them up, thats the real deal

And Thats part one of the communist ideal

And Further more...

We bow to NO ATHORITY -- None but Reason
-- with a dose of socialist imagination --
do we offer for your consideration.
Even when winters go long, and
Even when the hills have been hunted dry, and
You've just outlasted your last woodpile
And the singers sing "only one thing is certain
Everybody, Everybody's hurtin'!"

Even then we respectfully submit
science is worth more than rifles
or gods, titans or heroes.
Doesn't matter who they are:
Marx, Lenin, Jesus, Mohammed,
Ghandi Or Dr Martin Luther King
Lincoln, Washington, Douglas, Dubois,
John Brown or the Roosevelts
or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if you prefer
No one gets a pass.
No one gets a pass.
Check everyone's work, trust but verify
science is the poetry of reality.

But once you have it done, you will know the time
When you see that no one will save us but ourselves
When you see that against the nightmares
of broken or savaged societies
we are our own protection.
And to whomever will inquire
What can working people do for themselves?
"The answer is ready," replies Eugene Debs
"They can do all things required."

Then you know.
you gotta go down
You don't have to be alone, but you gotta go down
And join this union, on your own
on your own
this union of cooperators, mutual aiders,
these proselytizers of friendship
between all workers and all peoples
these champions of equality
of races and nationalities
black, brown, yellow, red, white
from every nation
of women and men
of young and old
These agitators, these first-responders,
for advancing all who do the work of the world,
We Present the case that we should be united.
We Present the case that we should be united

Recall Old Joe Figuerido
from Longshore on the West Coast, way back now,
A short American bolshevik
Stood little more than four foot
But he could holler like an eruption
from a mountainside ---
"If the working people sneeze together
The temples of Wall Street tremble!"
Unity of the multitudes
Unity of the multitudes
Thats the game changer, thats the world changer
thats the change you can feel
Thats the change you can feel

And thats part two of the communist ideal.

Now we are gathered in a moment
of grave seriousness in our country and world.
in which more socialism in our economics
more democracy in our politics
and more cooperation in our world must prevail
or catastrophe and war of a scope
no one can foresee lie down the trail.

We are on a dangerous trip.
But its farther back down than on to high ground
We can go around, but We give no ground
We won't go back.

In fact
Its time to prepare
for attack.

Who says there is no future but new empires
and regimes of inequality?

The cynics and bullshitters are not the real people
It was not they who got us this far
There is no pie in the sky.
No big rock candy mountain

But there are wildflowers,
the first to break through spring snows.
Now thats us, my friend,
and when we stand before the sun
even on battlefields
and breath it's elixir for the first time
and know its freedom, and its truth,
that all will soon see
so personal and so universal
from their own ground,
It makes you want to shout!
Who can forget that instant?

So consider further:
from each according to their ability
Now imagine the harvest that THAT can yield
to each according to their needs
when the old tools are laid down
The arts of man bejewel a starry crown
But thats just one more appeal
and part three of the communist ideal

some will ask, is it reform, or revolution?
I guess we won't know
till we get there.
and in either case
its farther back down, than up to high ground!

From another passage, in another time
Abraham Lincoln, hardened by war
to persevere, spoke to his countrymen:

"With firmness in right, as we are given to see right,
So shall we strive on, and finish this fight
Bind now their wounds who see with the battle sight,
And care for the orphan, and wife

"Through the long night, without malice, but charity
We come flying
We come flying
We come flying to light"

Fredrick Douglas heard these words of Abraham Lincoln
and replied:

"The Almighty has his own purposes.
The Dreadful Calamity came not unbidden,
nor by Accident, nor was the truth from any hidden
Shun not the harvest of blood sown beam-deep

"Seeds of Freedom, sow now on sacred ground
To tiller and soldier return that which was bound.
The evil now seeks not slavery but degradation
A caste without rights, without land, without nation.
Beware what you do! Forever expel the abomination!

"Come common liberty, and common civilization."

We still await the last chapters of this conversation.
We continue it here.
We cross the valley to the mountaintop
Few who leave will come back
And not all who strive will succeed.
But each performs the hand off
And the seas of lights and torches
shift to the next link
in the chain of human destiny
Will we make it?
Who knows, you and I, what time will decree?
I only know, and believe
Dr King will be believed:
"we as a people will make it to the mountaintop!
As a people we will make it!"

And that's just the next reel
when we do the show for real

like in baseball communism
where all the teams
are owned by the players.
When you stand alone at the plate,
to shine at bat and
bring the multitudes to their feet
who could dream for more?
But we field as a team
and discover there which dreams prevail.

We learn to umpire
To master conflict resolution
To expel foul play from the game.

The game gets better and better
When the play of all gets better and better
Through revenue sharing
When winners invest in losers
And seek the rise of working people
But not to rise above them!

I won't deny it. I admit it!
Its a game field of dreams, like in that movie
where the farmer brings to life all the
generous aspirations of his
family, his comrades, his mentors and his country,
including those gone before

Sing it Out

Paths will be revealed
and we shall be released
from burdens past and vast
as it is given us
and as we strive, to live and breathe
the compassion
of the communist ideal!
Long live, the communist ideal!

--John Case, April 21 2010
Harpers Ferry, WV

thanks to inspirations from Jakob Dylan, Joe Hill, Dr King, Abe Lincoln, Fredrick Douglas, EV Debs,
Diane Gilliam Fisher, and many others

Ecosystem in Peril after Gulf Coast Oil Spill

Mon, 17 May 2010 10:32:00 +0000

Original source The Atlanta Progressive News

ATLANTA, Georgia, May 14, 2010 (IPS) - With engineers giving a best-case scenario of "weeks" before the catastrophic oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is sealed, some scientists are warning that the region's ecosystem could face major long-term damage.

As many as 70,000 gallons of oil per day have been gushing into the waters of the Gulf Coast since an oil rig operated by British Petroleum exploded on Apr. 20. The well itself is located at a depth of about 5,000 feet, presenting formidable obstacles to efforts to shut it down.

The spill is expected to ultimately eclipse the 11-million-gallon Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, the worst oil spill in U.S. history. It is not known how much oil could potentially pour into the Gulf before the leak is plugged.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says water sampling collected on May 1 and 2 along the Louisiana coast found chemicals associated with oil. "However, these results still indicate that water quality does not pose increased risk to aquatic life, such as fish and shellfish," the agency said in a statement.

"As of May 4, 2010, water sampling results off the Gulf Coast still indicate that water quality does not pose increased risk to aquatic life," the EPA said.

However, Riki Ott, a toxicologist who wrote two books about the Exxon Valdez spill, says she believes the scenario is far worse than officials are presenting to the public.

"BP is trying to say we're winning because oil has not hit the shoreline. That is far from the truth: we're losing. So much toxic oil is spilling every day, they're hammering it with dispersants, another toxic chemical," she said.

BP says it has used about 400,000 gallons of dispersant, which breaks down the oil, and has another 805,000 gallons on order.

"This dispersed oil is extremely toxic to young life forms," Ott told IPS. "BP is saying that it's not that toxic, not that much of a problem. That is extremely misleading because the only toxicity data [is based on an experiment where] they douse adult shrimp and minnows in static beakers of dispersant or oil for 48 or 96 hours, and count how many die or live."

"But young life forms are a lot more sensitive to toxic chemicals than adults," she said. "What we have in the open Gulf is a continuous exposure. The oil goes a mile down...It's in the whole water column."

She said that studies of dead herring after the Exxon Valdez spill found that parasites that normally lived in the fish's stomach had migrated into the muscle tissue to avoid toxic exposure, thus weakening its immune system and causing reproductive problems.

Some "99.9 percent of herring eggs exposed to oil died", she explained.

Ott added that the continental shelf ecosystem and open ocean ecosystem are linked very closely. "The shrimp that depend on wetlands and marshes for nurseries, when they migrate offshore, they become food for red snapper and grouper," she said.

"It's too much oil, too fast, not to have a pretty big impact on generations of wildlife that's in the water column. Birds eating shellfish getting sick and dying, marine mammals, land mammals getting sick and dying. You have birds feeding oiled fish to their chicks, the chicks have stunted growth," Ott said.

Meanwhile, families who depend on the fishing industry are seeing their livelihoods in jeopardy.

BP has been paying out up to 5,000 dollars in individual claims to fishermen and others who suffered economic losses. Ultimately, some estimates put the total figure for clean-up operations and damages at four billion dollars, although it could be even higher depending on when the leak is stemmed.

The Barack Obama administration has said BP and the other firms with some degree of liability should pick up the entire tab for the clean-up and damages. He is seeking 118 million dollars of emergency funding to deal with immediate costs related the spill, which BP would be expected to reimburse the government.

Orissa Arend of New Orleans, Louisiana told IPS most locals are still eating the fish, because 80 percent of it comes from areas not yet affected by the spill. The other 20 percent used to come from fisheries which have stopped producing for the time being.

New Orleanians are also concerned about the upcoming hurricane season.

"People are worried that next time there's a hurricane, instead of getting flooded with just water, we'll get flooded with disgusting oil water," Arend said.

Photo: US Coast Guard

Don’t Burn the Books – Ban the Courses that Use Them

Mon, 17 May 2010 09:30:00 +0000

The state of Arizona recently passed an "immigration law," which pandered to peoples' worst chauvinist sentiments. The law is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which establishes both national citizenship and federal supremacy over the states on such questions. (Actually, rules governing immigration and citizenship were explicit in the Constitution and national matters before the 14th amendment was enacted).

The law has been denounced by President Obama and anti-chauvinists through the U.S. Although the law is popular among those who are susceptible to arguments which scapegoat immigrants for the loss of jobs and the increase in crime, it has hurt Arizona's reputation and most probably the tourist sector of its economy as various groups have been to cancel conferences and conventions in the state

Arizona has now passed a state law barring the teaching of ethnic studies courses in public schools which "promote ethnic solidarity." The law stems from a Chicano studies program in the Tucson school district, but it has much broader implications. Although the school board has pledged to continue its program, which reaches three percent of the 55,000 students in the district, whether it can sustain this is questionable, since the law, which goes into effect on December 31st, gives the state the power to cut state funding by as much as ten percent for districts that refuse to comply,

First, the law is clearly an act of censorship, a restriction on both academic and intellectual freedom and a violation of the First Amendment. I am immediately reminded of the World War I attacks on "hyphenated Americans" (Irish Americans, German Americans, etc) the official banning of German language teaching and sudden name changes, e.g., calling sauerkraut "liberty cabbage" and hamburgers "Salisbury steak," all in the name of "100 percent Americanism."

There was also a great deal of violence directed against German Americans and others considered to be anti-war-violence indirectly sanctioned by state policy.

Arizona has not yet announced that Cinco de Mayo events will be banned in schools and tacos will now be called chip sandwiches in school lunchrooms, but these are certainly possibilities.

The movements over the generations for African American studies, Asian American studies, Latino studies programs, and women's studies program, have enriched and broadened education. They have been open to all students and in many states students who seek certification to teach in public schools are encouraged to take such courses to make them better teachers.

Do such courses promote ethnic solidarity? I have certainly known various nationalists who teach them in such ways, but they are really a small minority. I have also known those who teach that the U.S. was a middle-class democracy from the time of the revolution, that slavery was relatively unimportant and not so bad, and that all U.S. Foreign policy from the Mexican War to the Spanish American War to the A-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the interventions in the Korean and Vietnam Wars were wholly justified. They are also a relatively small minority (and one that I would never ban) although what they encourage is chauvinistic nationalism and they are far more privileged and supported by public and private funding than any ethnic nationalists.

Arizona reactionaries and their collaborators in the Arizona legislature may think that they have the right as a state to do what they want to people who cross the U.S. border from Mexico and to deny Mexican Americans and others the right to study their history in a state that was until 1849 a part of Mexico.

But an attack on one is ultimately an attack on all. In principal, this law will be applied to African American and Asian American studies programs. And one can ask how it will affect general curriculum. What will happen to the history of Native Americans, the history of the Civil Rights movement, the history the United Farm Workers, the history of the incarceration of Japanese Americans during WWII, in which the Arizona political authorities played a significant role, albeit far less known then their compatriots in California.

The only exemption in the law is for courses devoted to the Holocaust, even though as some have pointed out, such a courses may promote "ethnic solidarity" among Jewish student, and depending on how they are, taught a negative view of Germans. Also although former Vice President Dan Quayle was unsure of this when he was asked about it long ago at a press conference, the Holocaust of course didn't happen in the United States.

We should stand with the Tucson school district and all other non Anglo chauvinists in Arizona who resist this law. Its contemporary version of "100 percent" Anglo-Americanism is an affront to the best traditions of the United States, largest multiethnic democratic republic in history.

We should also demand that the U.S. Department of Education stand with the Tucson district in opposing this law and inform the State of Arizona, which has threatened major funding cuts for those who do not comply with this act of censorship, that it will re-examine its funding of Arizona educational programs because of the laws negative effects on education.

Iran Charges Political Prisoners with Terrorism, Suspends Legal Rights

Mon, 17 May 2010 09:28:00 +0000

A call to organize a united campaign to confront the execution of political prisoners

As proclaimed in the notice issued by the Public Court and the "Islamic Revolution Court" of Iran, early on Sunday May the 9th, five political prisoners were executed in Evin prison in Tehran.

Farzad Kamangar, Shirin Alam Hooli, Farhad Vakili, Ali Heydarian and Mehdi Eslamian were the 5 prisoners who were hanged without a fair and public trial and and on the basis of manufactured and unsubstantiated allegations. "The Islamic Revolution Court," which is one of the suppression machines of the coup perpetrators, claimed in its notice that the political prisoners who were executed were engaged in "terrorist acts, such as setting bombs" in state buildings. Such baseless allegations are manufactured by the security organs of the theocratic regime. These individuals and in particular Farzad Kamangar, the martyred teacher, and Ms. Shirin Alam Hooli, had many times and on different occasions rejected the allegations and charges made in their cases. Farzad Kamangar, who was a committed and dignified member of the educators community of our nation, had repeatedly rejected the false accusations such as bombing and membership of PJAK, and had called the process of his prosecution and trial as unfair. He and Farhad Vakili and Ali Heydarian had been in jail since 2006. Shirin Alam Hooli was arrested in May of 2008 and during the entire time in prison was subjected to psychological and physical coercion by torturers. Mehdi Eslamian was also arrested last year, shortly after his brother had been executed.

The time chosen by the theocratic regime for these executions is not accidental. Approaching the anniversary of the election coup d' teat, generating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear and casting a shadow of police state over the political landscape of the country, is the goal that the ruling reaction has in its agenda. In addition to attempting to split and divide the popular movement and creating national and ethnic divisions by executing Iranian-Kurdish political prisoners, this crime is part of the plots of the regime to cast a shadow of security-military atmosphere over our nation to lay the grounds for further intrusion of organs such as the Guards Corps (Sepah). The coup perpetrators committed this crime today and executed these five political prisoners in fear of the continuing struggle of masses as we approach the anniversary of the election in which Ahmadinejad was installed as the president in the course of a coup and widespread [electoral] fraud.

We must not lose our sight and alertness in dealing with the conspiracy of the criminal reactionaries and shouldn't stay silent. The way to confront the plots of the coup perpetrators is a united, joint and organized struggle.

Tudeh Party of Iran strongly condemns the execution of political prisoners. While warning about the continuation of executions and the danger that threatens the lives of all political prisoners, especially the followers of other schools of thought [other than Islam], Tudeh Party of Iran calls for the organization of a joint campaign to prevent crimes and executions committed in the prisons [of the Islamic Republic].

Tudeh Party of Iran
May 9th, 2010