People Before Profit blog

Broad Coalition Urges Passage of DREAM Act

Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:15:00 +0000

With comprehensive immigration appearing less and less likely during the "lame duck" session of Congress, many are pushing for passage of the DREAM Act this month as an important partial measure.

Supporters of the law include a broad coalition on the left and the right, including the labor movement, immigration reform advocates, non-partisan students' organizations, the Obama administration, as well as self-identified conservatives.

Speaking on a media conference call organized by Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Monday, Nov. 29, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan urged passage of the bill, which would provide an estimate 65,000 immigrant youth with the opportunity to access higher education and a path to legal status through public service.

"I just think for our young people, for our country, for our country's economy, we desperately need to pass the DREAM Act," Sec. Duncan told reporters. "I don't think we can afford to wait."

In addition to being an important Obama administration agenda item, passage of the bill has personal significance for Duncan. He said it stems from his days as CEO of Chicago Public Schools when he was forced to watch hard-working young people complete high school with good grades and great potential and be denied access to college because of their immigration status. "These are great young people, absolute assets to their communities and to the country who have nowhere to go," he said.

Partisanship and ideology have no role in getting the DREAM Act passed, Duncan explained. Speaking of his own efforts to lobby members of Congress for passage, Duncan said, "I try to make this very human to them. I try to talk to them about some of the students I've worked with, what they were overcoming in their own lives. This has to be bipartisan. We have to take the politics out of it."

"We have to educate our way to a better economy," he continued. "We have to find ways to expand educational opportunities, not deny it."

He stated that the administration is working hard, pressing members of Congress this week for passage of this bipartisan bill, including the 11 Republican members of the senate who have endorsed or co-sponsored the bill in the past. "I simply see no reason why it can't have bipartisan support today," Duncan added.

Former Bush administration Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez said, "This is as much a human issue as it is an economic issue."

Gutierrez noted that passage of the DREAM Act shouldn't be a substitute for comprehensive reform. "This needs to be positioned as a first step in a comprehensive solution," he said. "We need to keep that bigger picture in mind."

Notably, conservative support for the DREAM Act has met with hardline resistance in the Republican Party. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., for example, misleadingly stated that the DREAM Act would provide amnesty to criminals and would overlook fraud and abuse by non-citizens.

Despite the obvious fact that the bill would provide a path to legal status for immigrant youth who are in the circumstances they are in by no choice of their own, other Republican Party leaders and media mouthpieces like Glenn Beck have chosen instead to promote fear and hatred of immigrants.

The United States Student Association (USSA), in a separate action, urged its members and supported to pressure Congress to pass the law. In a an e-mail, the USSA provide online tools for writing letters to the editor, signing a national petition, and blogging in favor of passage. The group also provided a telephone hotline directly to members of Congress in both houses.

In a recent statement, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka also called on Congress to pass the law. "Now is the time to pass the DREAM act and give hope to our nation's youth," he said. "Every year, thousands of students graduate from high school and are barred from serving in the military or attending college – solely because of their immigration status."

Don't Deport Brian Pastor

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:05:00 +0000

Young Man of Faith Tells Congress: Give Me a Chance

Bernard Pastor of Ohio Shows What’s at Stake for Politicians, Our Country in DREAM Act Debate

Washington, DC – As the DREAM Act moves toward a vote during the lame duck session of Congress, Republicans are busy dusting off their excuses for intransigence, inaction, and opposition to DREAM. But the story of a young future pastor out of Ohio illustrates the compelling need for the DREAM Act, and what’s at stake for policymakers and our country if Republican lawmakers oppose this bill.

The story of Bernard Pastor, an 18-year old from the Cincinnati, OH area, puts a “human face” on the DREAM Act debate. Pastor, who aspires to be pastor of his own church, was brought to the United States from Guatemala at the age of three and subsequently graduated in the top five of his class at Reading High School, near Cincinnati, last May. Yet according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, after being involved in a minor car accident, Pastor was sent to a federal detention facility for deportation after police discovered he was undocumented. Pastor’s high school principal Chuck LaFata called him “a very good kid academically and a good soccer player…There was never a problem with discipline.” Andy Callahan, a teacher at the high school, said, “Truly, he is an upstanding person of great moral character. The whole family is wonderful. It’s like another teacher just said to me, ‘Bernard is one of the good kids.’”

Since Pastor’s arrest, dozens of his high school classmates, along with Rep. Steve Driehaus and Senator Sherrod Brown, have rallied to his defense. As Daniel Wicks, a soccer teammate told the Enquirer, “He’s as Reading as any one of us.”

According to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America’s Voice, “In what distorted reading of American history does it make sense to deport Bernard Pastor, or avoid a vote that would allow young people just like him to contribute to the nation they call home? Bernard’s story is a compelling reminder of what’s at stake with the DREAM Act and the larger immigration debate. While some Republicans have the audacity to call advancing the DREAM Act a ‘political’ move and offer half-baked excuses for standing in the way of these young people achieving their dreams, Bernard and thousands like him wait for these Senators and Congressmen to do the right thing. Not only for these young people, but for the country—let these young immigrants become full Americans, so they can continue to give back to the only country they know as home.”

As Bernard’s story was being reported in the local press, Senate Republicans were busy trying out their talking points and excuses for potentially opposing the bill. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who says he supports immigration reform, called the vote on DREAM a “game” that is “more designed to play politics than…to try to solve the problem.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), through his spokesperson, said that DREAM was irrelevant to the American people, stating, “It's like the election didn't happen.” And Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that Democrats were bringing forth DREAM due to “some promises to some political constituencies…in order to appeal to certain segments of the Hispanic community” and implied that there wouldn’t be enough time to vote on the legislation during the lame duck session of Congress.

Sharry continued by noting, “What the Republicans lack in shame, they are making up for in message consistency when it comes to excuses for not voting for DREAM. The Republicans clearly do not want to take a vote on DREAM and would rather point fingers than fix a glaring problem with a sensible and popular solution. Let Cornyn, Kyl, and McConnell tell Bernard Pastor and the community of classmates and supporters who have rallied to his side that this is merely a ‘political’ vote and ‘irrelevant’ to the American people. This is no time for temerity or excuses – the Senate knows this issue, has voted on this issue in the past, and can do something immediately to ensure that Bernard can fulfill his ambitions and live up to his potential as a future bedrock of his community.”

Photo by futureatlas.com, Flickr, cc by 2.0

Will Congress Continue Jobless Benefits to Help the Unemployed, Their Families and the Economy?

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:02:00 +0000

Original source: Coalition on Human Needs

Unless Congress acts when it returns from the Thanksgiving holiday, millions of hardworking Americans who have exhausted their 26 weeks of state benefits—including 2 million in December alone—will lose their federal unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. Currently there are five applicants for every job opening in our economy. If Congress allows UI benefits for the long-term unemployed to lapse on November 30, economists warn that the loss of income to millions during the holiday season and beyond is likely to put our economy further at risk.

Since the 1950s, emergency UI benefits have kept workers afloat and kept the economy moving until unemployment declined and job prospects began to improve. Over this half-century eight rounds of federal emergency benefits have been enacted, none allowed to expire while the unemployment rate remained as high as 7.2 percent. Today, more than a year after the recession has officially ended, unemployment remains at 9.6 percent and is expected to remain high well through the end of next year.

A House bill (H.R. 6419) to extend jobless benefits through February 2011 was rejected last week, driving home the fear that benefits will likely lapse on November 30. H.R. 6419 was defeated on November 18 by a 258-154 vote under rules which require a two-thirds majority.

UI benefits have already lapsed twice this year—in April and in June. When the program expired last June, more than two million unemployed Americans had their benefits cut off during the seven weeks it took Congress to extend the program. Although benefits were retroactively restored, struggling for almost two months without this lifeline put a huge strain on unemployed workers and their families, making it hard for them to afford necessities such as groceries, utilities and other basic goods.

With the continued fragile state of the economy, the cost of discontinuing UI benefits again would be high. According to a new report by the Center for American Progress, every dollar spent on benefits for the unemployed since the recession’s start has generated $2.00 in economic growth. The $60 billion dollar cost of continuing the UI program for one year is well worth the economic payoff, as economists point to these benefits as the most effective type of stimulus spending. Goldman Sachs estimates that economic growth would fall by half a percentage point if UI benefits were allowed to expire. In contrast, extending the Bush tax cuts for the top two percent of Americans would produce far less economic growth than continuing unemployment benefits, while also increasing the deficit by $700 billion over the next ten years.

It is estimated that continuing the existing UI program through next year will create the equivalent of more than 700,000 full-time jobs in 2011. Polls show that 60 percent of Americans favor continuing UI benefits for long-term unemployed workers who have exhausted their state benefits but still cannot find a job (see poll conducted by NELP and Half in Ten, page 11).

If Congress does not pass an extension of benefits, unemployed workers will lose about $2.5 billion dollars this December. The economy, and especially the retail sector, will suffer during the holiday season and thereafter if unemployed workers do not have money to spend.

The People of Watsonville 1 – Picking the Colonizers' Vegetable

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:09:00 +0000

The California coast, from Davenport south through Santa Cruz, Watsonville and Castroville, is brussels sprouts country. Most of this vegetable in north America comes from these fields, although a growing harvest now takes place in Baja California, in northern Mexico.

In both California and Baja California, the vast majority of the people who harvest brussels sprouts, like those who pick other crops, are Mexican. In Baja they're migrants from the states of southern Mexico. In California, they're immigrant workers who've crossed the border to labor in these fields. On a cold November day, this crew of Mexican migrant workers picks brussels sprouts on a ranch outside of Watsonville.

Many people love this vegetable, and serve it for dinner on the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday. Native people in the U.S. point out that Thanksgiving celebrates the beginning of the European colonization of north America, which drove them from the lands where they lived historically. The brussels sprouts came with the colonizers. While the Romans probably grew and ate them, the first plants came to this continent with the French to the colonies of Quebec and the Atlantic seaboard.

Today the people picking in this field may be immigrants to the U.S., but in a longer historical view, they are the descendents of indigenous people whose presence in north America predated Columbus and the arrival of the brussels sprouts by thousands of years. Now they cross the border between Mexico and the U.S. as migrant workers, many speaking indigenous languages as old, or even older, than those of the colonizers - Mixteco, Triqui or Nahuatl. In the soft conversations among the workers of this picking crew, and other crews harvesting the sprouts, you can hear those languages mixed with that of the Spaniards.

Brussels sprouts may be a colonizers' vegetable, but it has many healthy properties. It contains sulforaphane and indole-3-carbinol, both of which are believed to play a role in blocking the growth of cancer. In yet another irony, in non-organic fields, picking crews often get exposed to the agricultural chemicals that are one important cause of the explosion of cancer in the U.S. Farm workers get much higher doses than the supermarket patrons who buy the produce they pick.

But it's a job. Putting the food on the table is really one of the most important jobs people do, and one that gets the least acknowledgement and respect. So the next time you decide on brussels sprouts for dinner, first, don't boil them. It removes those healthy anti-cancer chemicals. And don't overcook them either - that's what produces the sulfur taste many people don't like. But then, when they're out there on the table, remember who got them there.

(All photos by David Bacon)

Republicans Stall on START – Harm Global Relations

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:34:00 +0000

If the Senate decides to vote on the new START treaty with Russia, it will likely garner enough votes for passage, an expert with a top Washington think tank predicted Monday, Nov. 22.

"The (Obama) administration is really determined to move forward on this and it is putting a great deal of pressure on those members of the Senate who are likely to vote in favor of the treaty," said Kay King, vice president, Washington Initiatives at the Council on Foreign Relations.

If the Senate refuses to consider the treaty, however, its chances for passage in the next Congress are considerably reduced, King added. "It's prospects diminish because you're going to lose a lot of very knowledgeable Senators about the treaty." She noted that a failure to affirm the treaty would damage U.S.-Russia relations.

She noted that the Senate, even in "lame duck" session has a Constitutional duty to consider treaties placed before it. This particular treaty has gone through all of the parliamentary processes, including 18 Senate committee hearings, over the past year since its submission to the Senate for approval from the White House.

The treaty would reduce the U.S. and Russian long-range nuclear missile stockpiles by 30 percent to 1,550 each.

Despite a year's worth of work on addressing concerns with the treaty and preparing for a vote, Republican Senators are trying to delay the process until the next session of Congress. "That is baffling," King said. She noted that Senate rules allow one Senator to block progress and create gridlock in that body.

Republicans who have not yet been seated in the Senate are demanding the treaty be held over for their votes, presumably to block its passage. King pointed out that this demand is unreasonable considering the treaty was submitted and the hearings were held in this sessions. Currently sitting Senators are the most knowledgeable about the treaty and have the Constitutional right to vote on its passage. "They really ought to be the Senate that votes on this particular treaty," she said. Waiting until the next session is simply a recipe for more gridlock.

Other observers note the logic of the Republican's argument is ludicrous. By their logic, the Senate should never vote on any bill, treaty, or appointment. It should always wait until the next election, putting off all legislative matters until the next Congress.

Photo: President Obama met with Russian President Medvedev earlier this month in Lisbon. (White House Photo)

Guide to Greener Technology

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:39:00 +0000

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Where can I find information on which electronics and their manufacturers are greener than others, with regard to components, manufacturing processes and end use efficiency? -- John Franken, New York, NY

Now that many consumers are beginning to care about their own environmental footprints, manufacturers are responding with loads of greener offerings. One good place to find them is the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics, which ranks the 18 top manufacturers of personal computers, mobile phones, televisions and game consoles according to their policies on toxic chemicals, recycling and climate change. Greenpeace hopes that by publishing and regularly updating the guide they can both educate consumers about their choices and influence manufacturers to eliminate hazardous substances, take back and recycle their products responsibly, and reduce the climate impacts of their operations and products.

According to Greenpeace, the top five electronics manufacturers from a green perspective are Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Philips, HP and Samsung. These companies get high marks with Greenpeace for eliminating or scaling way back on the use of hazardous chemicals linked to cancer and other health and environmental problems, which in turn makes recycling their products less problematic.

Nokia gets top honors from Greenpeace for the second year in a row: All of the company’s new phone models and accessories for 2010 are free of brominated compounds, chlorinated flame retardants and antimony trioxide, three of the most toxic chemicals used commonly in most mobile phones and other consumer electronics today. Toshiba, Microsoft and Nintendo are the last place finishers on Greenpeace’s list for various reasons, including backtracking on or failing to make commitments to phase out chemicals used in the production of vinyl plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs).

Another good place to find info on green electronics and related products is the new website of TopTen USA, a non-profit that identifies and publicizes the most energy-efficient products on the market. The goal of the group—which is part of a global alliance of like-minded non-profits—is to make it easier for consumers to find the most energy- and money-saving models, which in turn encourages manufacturing innovations that will shift the whole market in a greener direction. Besides listing the greenest individual models of desktop computers, laptops, monitors and televisions TopTen USA also lists the greenest refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers and even vehicles.

The non-profit Green Electronics Council, initially set up to help government, institutional and corporate purchasers evaluate, compare and select electronic products based on various environmental attributes, has now opened up its EPEAT green certification database to consumers. Some 1,300 computers, thin clients, workstations and monitors from dozens of manufacturers now bear the EPEAT certification label ensuring compliance with green manufacturing and recycling standards. All federal purchasers are required to choose between EPEAT-certified models when possible, and the database has steadily gained traction across a wide range of industries. Now consumers can freely browse the listings to see how various items from the likes of Apple, LG, Panasonic, Lenovo and Sony, among others, stack up.

CONTACTS: TopTen USA, www.toptenusa.org; EPEAT, www.epeat.net; Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics, www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up.

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 by William Hook, courtesy Flickr, cc by 2.0.

Undercover Cops Infiltrate SOAW Protest Planning

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:34:00 +0000

Original source: The Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) FORT BENNING, Georgia -- Five undercover officers infiltrated a planning meeting of seven School of the Americas Watch protesters in the days leading up to last weekend's protest, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

Hendrik Voss, National Organizer with SOAW, told APN, "Five undercover police officers participated in an action preparations workshop with seven SOA Watch activists who planned to block Victory Highway Saturday. The five officers also participated in the civil disobedience, by blocking Victory Highway with the seven activists, and then testified against them in court."

"All the other people arrested Saturday were bystanders, people leaving the rally area and a Russian news crew filming the action," he said.

As previously reported by APN, two dozen activists, including innocent bystanders, were arrested at a protest on Saturday, November 20. Seven activists--originally believed to be the Puppetistas – had planned to leave the designated protest area in order to march on Victory Highway; however, things went wrong when the police arrested a total of 24 people, including individuals walking to their cars or watching what was going on. [APN originally reported 26 Saturday arrests, but SOAW now says the correct number is 24.]

According to an update on soaw.org, on Sunday the Judge found 23 of the 24 who were arrested by the city guilty on all charges including unlawful assembly, failure to disperse, and parading without a permit. The total of bonds and fines exceeds 75,000 dollars.

The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer newspaper listed 22 of the 24 arrested: are as follows: Curtis D. Thornton, 38, of Columbus; Charity Ryerson, 28, of Washington; Frances Lamb, 72, of Columbia, Maryland; Kenneth Crowley, 68, of Chicago, Illinois; Regina Rust, 25, of Chicago; Tracey L. Odman, 39, of Encinitas, California; Khadja Abdel-Hafiz, 21, of Arlington, Virginia; Jihan Abdel-Hafiz, 24, of Arlington, Virginia; Jamshid Bakhtiar, 19, of Richmond, Virginia; Annie M. Barrett, 21, of St. Paul, Minnesota; Katy Savage, 26, of Nashville, Tennessee; Catherina Tombs, 23, of Phoenix, Arizona; Maria Ramirez, 23, of Washington, D.C.; Kaelyn Eckenrade, 23, of Alexander, Virginia; Lissa McLeod, 43, of Knoxville, Tennessee; Erik T. Johnson, 66, of Maryville, Tennessee; Amelia Ramsey-Lefevre, 22, of Syracuse, New York; Jacob D. Weinstein, 56, of Knoxville, Tennessee; Jonathan R. Conway, 27, of Arlington, Virginia; Austin Srdjak, 24, of Washington; Jessica M. Sully, 28, of Decatur, Georgia; Cecelia Kluding, 17, of Boulder, Colorado.

Sully, a young mother of two small children ages three and five, was arrested at SOA Watch walking, on the sidewalk, with a few friends to have dinner at a near by restaurant. Sully lives in Decatur and works at the Open Door Community.

"I noticed several police officers arresting people and putting them on a bus. I started to film the incident and suddenly three officers grabbed me. I repeatedly said, What did I do? Everyone on my bus was also asking, Why am I being arrested? The arresting police were very rough, the zip cord cuffs were very tight and cut my wrists. The Russian Times journalist, an American, was crying and her wrists were bleeding from the cuffs being too tight. The officers had no regard for us as citizens and did not tell us why we were arrested," Sully said.

"Once we got to the jail, a few of the officers were nicer and did not appear to approve of our arrests. However, the female officer outside of the holding cell made me feel degraded as her pat down felt like a borderline sexual assault," Sully said.

"The city charges were failure to disperse and demonstrating without a permit. We all pleaded not guilty and were found guilty. Only two women decided to appeal the guilty verdict. The state charge was unlawful assembly and all but one pleaded not guilty. We have not been to court on this charge yet. Bond was posted at 1,000 dollars for each charge," Sully said.

"The SOAW legal team told us we could appeal the city charges but it would cost more money and the outcome is uncertain," Sully said.

"I was arrested at 4:30pm on Saturday and not released until 2:00am Monday morning. My friends stayed in Columbus and waited for my release," Sully said.

On Sunday, November 21, 2010, four SOA Watch activists trespassed on Ft. Benning military base property, as part of the annual civil disobedience action which occurs each year. The four, who later appeared before a federal court, included David Omandi, a member of the Catholic Workers from Los Angeles; and Father Louis Vitale, a Franciscan priest from California; both pleaded "no contest" and were sentenced to a sentence of six months in prison. Chris Spicer from the White Rose Catholic Worker in Chicago and Nancy Smith from the Hudon River Valley in New York pleaded "not guilty" and will return for trial on January 05, 2011 as reported by soaw.org.
From 1990 through 2006, 209 SOA Watch human-rights defenders have gone to federal prison and collectively spent over 88 years in prison for nonviolent civil disobedience by crossing over unto Ft. Benning property, as stated in Voices in Solidarity, a SOA Watch pamphlet. APN has previously covered some of these arrests, including that of Mike Casey, who served six months, for an action in 2006. APN also covered the arrest of three students whose crosses were too large in 2008.

So many people do not understand why thousands from around the world converge on Ft. Benning, Georgia, every November while others crawl over the Ft. Benning fence to face six months in federal prison. As one online comment from a Columbus paper put it, "The protesters have drunk so much SOA Watch koolaid, they can't do any kind of critical thinking, they don't care about facts."

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) formerly called School of the Americans (SOA), is better known as School of the Assassins by everyone who knows its dark and bloody legacy. During its 60 year history from Panama in 1946 to Ft. Benning, Georgia from 1984 until present, SOA has trained over 65,000 Latin American soldiers from 18 countries. Many of these SOA graduates return to their respective countries to murder, rape, and torture their own people, according to SOAW. They support US-backed dictators and overthrow democratically elected socialist leaders.

At least 11 Latin American dictators have been trained SOA since it opened in 1948 as reported on the soaw.org website. They are General Leopoldo Galtieri, Military dictator Argentina 1981-82; General Juan Melgar Castro, Military Dictator Honduras 1975-78; General Efrain R. Montt, President Guatemala 1982-83; General Manuel Noriega, Panama; General Policarpo Paz Garcia, Military Dictator Honduras 1980-82; General Guillermo Rodriguez, Dictator Ecuador 1972-76; General Hugo Banzer Suarez, Military Dictator Bolivia 1971-78; General Omar Torrijos, Dictator Panama 1968-81; General Juan Velasco Alvarado, Dictator Peru 1968-75; General Roberto Viola, Military Dictator Argentina 1981; and General Guido Vildoso Calderon, Military Dictator Bolivia 1982.

The purpose of SOA is to stamp out seeds of socialism from taking root in the fertile soil of poverty and oppression in South America, and to support governments that have friendly business relations with US corporations. Governments propped up by SOA officers include those which favor low wages, lax to no environment laws, no unions, and huge profits for the oligarchy.

In 1996, the Pentagon disclosed that manuals used by SOA between 1982 and 1991 appeared to advocate the use of torture, executions, beatings, and other human rights abuses. The manuals have been discontinued but the strategy they embody persists at SOA.

During the 1980's in El Salvador over 75,000 people, mostly civilians, were killed by the SOA led army. In Guatemala, officers trained at SOA were responsible for the majority of the civil war's 200,000 deaths. Honduras's SOA graduates established the infamous Death Squads that terrorized, kidnapped, tortured, and killed so many Honduran citizens. The list of murdered, raped, and tortured peasants grows with each Latin American country that has US supported dictators kept in power by brutal SOA trained officers. US taxpayers pay for this terrorist training of Latin American officers.

The murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the rape and murder of four US churchwomen, the murder of six Jesuit Salvadoran priests, and the ever increasing number of murdered and tortured peasants were the injustices which motivated Fr. Roy Bourgeois and a small group of supporters to form SOA Watch.

In 1990, SOA Watch begin to research the SOA, document the atrocities, educate the public, lobby US Congress, and practice nonviolent civil disobedience at Ft. Benning, Georgia, home of SOA.

The atrocities of SOA officers in the past has not gone away and is still happening today with new SOA officers. The 2009 coup of democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was led by SOA officers. In 2010, seven Peruvian SOA graduates were convicted of murder and kidnapping in two massacres of civilians, and of the murder of a radio journalist who had been reporting on human rights violations. According to numerous sources, many SOA officers in Latin America are heavily involved in drug trafficking.

In November 2002, Luis Eduardo Guerra, leader of the Peace Community de Apartado in Colombia, traveled to Ft. Benning to protest againt the SOA. In February 2005, Guerra was one of eight members of his peace community brutally assassinated. The eight who were murdered included Guerra's 11 years old son and two other children, as reported in Voices in Solidarity.

Over the years many efforts have been made to get resoultions through US Congress to shut down the SOA. On May 21, 2009, US Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) reintroduced the Latin American Military Training Review Act as HR 2567. This legislation would suspend operations at the SOA, and investigate torture manuals and human rights abuses associated with the school. As of today, the resolution has 103 cosponsors and is languishing in the House Committee on Armed Services.

US Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) is currently the only co-sponsor from the Georgia delegation.

"On April 4 through 11, 2011 SOA Watch will sponsor April Days of Actions to Close SOA with educational workshops, demonstrations, intense lobbying of Congress, and letters to President Obama asking him to sign an executive order to close the SOA," Voss said.

Photo: Protesters at the School of the Americas in Ft. Benning , GA place crosses bearing the names of victims of the victims of graduates of the school on the fence. (By upturnedface, Flickr, cc by 2.0)

Unless Congress Acts – A Bleak Holiday Season for Millions

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:38:00 +0000

Original source: Black Commemtator

The U.S. Congress that convened for its limited "lame duck" session this week has a lot on its plate; it will act - or not act - on some of the pressing issues facing the nation, wrap up its business and go home for the holidays. From then until the new Congress convenes in January there will be a lot of occasions when the members will have their actual china plates piled high. But for a lot of people the holiday fare will be skimpier than it has been for quite a while - especially the nearly 15 million people out of work.

If Congress does not vote over the next week and a half to re-authorize federal unemployment benefits through next year, before they expire November 30, nearly 2 million women and men and their families will face a dismal holiday season. One estimate is that the number could reach 4 million by May with the current emergency benefits program having expired and the additional workers left unaided. It's hard to imagine anything more urgent than this.

The workers who will be affected by the extension are those who recently lost their jobs. It would make it possible for them to receive the same number of weeks of benefits as those who previously lost their jobs due to the recession. The 2 million figure does not include those people who have exhausted their jobless benefits and will be on the streets with little or no income at all. Nor does it include the young people entering the job market for the first time.

According to Unemployed Workers.org, "These benefits have helped keep more than 9 million jobless workers and their families going this year alone, while they look for work in a tough economy. More than 5 million Americans who have been struggling to find jobs for six months or more currently rely on these federal unemployment benefits. Combined with state benefits, the expanded federal unemployment programs kept an estimated 3.3 million Americans out of poverty in 2009."

"Never before has Congress allowed extended unemployment insurance to lapse when the national unemployment rate is above 7.2 percent," says Jackie Headapohl of Michigan Job Search at mlive.com. "We'll find out later this month if the lame duck Congress will continue that tradition."

"It is hard to imagine that Congress could deny help to out-of-work Americans, except that is exactly what happened this summer when federal benefits lapsed for 51 days, cutting off 2.5 million people. Senate Republicans and a few Democrats insisted that reducing the deficit was more important," the New York Times said editorially last week. "That did not stop many of the same senators from preserving tax loopholes for certain wealthy money managers."

Congress' failure to pass an extension this summer took a toll in terms of peoples' lives in ways that are seldom chronicled in the major mass media. "I'd been submitting 20 to 30 job applications a week, and finally I got a job," says Lori Hancock, a 52-year-old woman in Weldon, Ill. who lost her job last November. "But, after working for only 2 weeks, my car was repossessed, and without any transportation to get to work, I lost that new job," Writing to wwww.unemployedworkers.org, a website by the National Employment Law Project, she said, "If Congress hadn't let those benefits lapse last summer, I'd still have my car and my new job. Now I have neither. What happened to me could happen to almost anybody."

"Deficits matter,' the Times editorial continued, "but not more than a recovery (benefits are a powerful stimulus) or the economic survival of millions of Americans. Short-term extensions breed uncertainty and anxiety, which are also bad for the economy. The best thing this lame duck Congress can do is extend the benefits for 12 months, with the expectation that things will be better by the end of next year."

"Creating jobs remains the biggest challenge to the American economy," says Michael J. Wilson, national director of Americans for Democratic Action. "The case for public investment seems to have fallen by the wayside in the face of short-term political considerations." He spoke of "the obvious need for the Congress to extend unemployment benefits this month as a "failure to do so will not only devastate tens of thousands of families, but will have a direct impact on the holiday season. We can only hope that Congress does the right thing in the extended session."

While the September jobless figures provided what some have called a glimmer of bright light, the employment depression shows no sign of abating. As economist Paul Krugman put it: the "slump goes on and on."

According to the government, job openings, or listings, decreased by 163,000 in September and there were 109,000 fewer jobs listed in August than previously reported. There were 2.9 million job openings in September, while the total number of unemployed workers was 14.8 million, half of whom have been jobless for 21 weeks or more.

President Obama's welcome announcement that his trip to India produced economic agreements that will theoretically result in 54,000 new jobs should be seen in context. Last month, the U.S. economy created 151,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate remained at a stubborn 9.6 percent.

Congressional Republicans and a few Democrats (fortunately, half of the latter lost their jobs in the last election) are threatening to stick it to the unemployed again. Once again they are demanding the White House cut other vital social programs in return for not killing the extension. Once again, some of them are trotting out the demagogic argument that unemployment insurance discourages people from seeking work.

Outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said one of her top priorities during the lame duck session will be to reauthorize unemployment insurance. However, even with Democratic majority in both houses, passing the measure is uncertain given Republican opposition in the Senate. Even more ominously, when the Republicans take over the House it will probably mark the end of any extensions, despite the fact that joblessness it expect to remain high or even grow in 2011.

Jamelle Bouie at American Prospect magazine takes a dim view of the prospects. "Reauthorization should be a no-brainer in a recession with near double-digit unemployment. But this isn't a sane country, and Republicans have already held up the extension of joblessness benefits on two separate occasions," he wrote on the magazine's web page. "And despite the importance of extending such support to help families and improve the economy, there is no guarantee that Democrats will find enough votes from the GOP - or within their own caucus - to break a likely filibuster."

"The people who are advocating an end to extending unemployment benefits must be getting different data than everyone else," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "The economy is, at best, barely creating jobs at a fast enough rate to keep the unemployment rate from rising. All the projections show the unemployment rate will be much higher over the next year than it was when we originally extended benefits. It is hard to see what the rationale would be for ending extended benefits."

"Fiscal watchdogs object to spending billions more on payouts, adding to the mountainous federal debt," wrote staff writer Jeff Harrington in the Times November 6. "They cite studies that indicate extending benefits actually lengthens the period of time people remain unemployed.

"Republican leaders, emboldened by their renewed legislative clout, have told Democrats they'll have to cut up to $14 billion from government programs to extend emergency unemployment benefits through Christmas."

"These are scary times," says activist Kian Frederick. "It's getting very difficult and there is a lot of hardship out there. People are losing their homes; their children are being placed in foster care. And all the while people are trying to blame the victims rather than face up to the problem."

Frederick is director of Flasmob4Jobs. Com, a group dedicated to raising awareness of the plight of the estimated 4.5 million "99ers," workers who have already exhausted their 99 weeks of benefits. The group is calling on Congress to pass Senate bill 3706 which would add 20 additional weeks (Tier V) of benefits for those who were laid off early in the recession and ceased receiving assistance in the spring and for those who will do so in the future. The proposed legislation's tile is the Americans Want to Work Act.

"This is a stand-alone measure," Frederick told me. "And like the proposal to extend assistance to those whose benefits are about to run out, it is a band-aid. What we really need is a jobs program. People want to work."

Last Friday, members of the group demonstrated outside the Manhattan office of the Department of Labor where some engaged in civil disobedience. "We're trying to send a message; people have to stand up and be heard," says Frederick.

Last Wednesday, about a dozen Ohioans protested outside the Troy office of incoming Republican House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday. They delivered thousands of petitions urging Congress to concentrate on job creation. The demonstration was organized by Working America, the community-organizing affiliate of the AFL-CIO. One of the picketers, Marvin Bohn said, "Unemployment benefits paid for the gas I needed to look for work when I was laid off, and they put money into our communities that supports businesses and creates jobs. On the other hand, if that money goes to Boehner's wealthy donors, it will simply go into buying even more political attack ads in two years, not creating jobs."

"Boehner, don't do us wrong, stop stringing us along," the demonstrators chanted.

UPDATE

A move by House Democrats to enact an extension of jobless benefits by way of a special "fast track" procedure failed when it proved impossible to secure the necessary two-thirds affirmative votes. In Thursday's vote, 11 Democrats joined with the Republicans to defeat the measure while 21 Republicans broke rank with the GOP leadership and voted yes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) said she will try to bring the measure back to the chamber after Thanksgiving in an effort to secure and extension at last through the rest of the year.However, it is considered doubtful that the Senate will act soon enough to make it really happen.

"It's just inconceivable that in the last gasp of this Congress you would turn all your attention to the top 2 percent of wage earners in the country at the same time that middle class families are struggling to hold their families together because of prolonged unemployment," House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-C) told AP.

Photo: Labor union members demand unemployment insurance extension. (AFL-CIO, cc by 2.0)

Georgia: 8 Arrested at Immigrant Prison in Lumpkin

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:27:00 +0000

Original source: The Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) LUMKPIN, Georgia -- Approximately 100 people gathered today, Friday, November 19, 2010, at the square in Lumpkin, Georgia to make the 1.7 mile walk to the Stewart Detention Center (SDC) where 2,000 immigrants are held.

SDC is privately owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a multi-million dollar for profit business.

The demand of the demonstrators was to bring Pedro Guzman home and shut Stewart down. Guzman has been housed at Stewart for one year without bond. His wife, Emily, and his 4-year-old son are both US citizens. Pedro came to the US with his mother when he was only 8 years old.

During the long march to the Detention Center, the names of 114 detainees who have died in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since 2003 were called out. Two of these deaths happened at SDC.

Conditions at Stewart as cited by Georgia Detention Watch include poor or no health care, no full- time doctor, deplorable food, lack of legal resources, and few bi-lingual staff.

After the protest group reached the gates of Stewart, Emily Guzman holding her small son gave an impassioned speech about the injustice of her husband's imprisonment.

In an act of non-violent civil disobedience, seven activists crossed the line onto the prison property. Atlanta Progressive News observed as each was immediately handcuffed by the sheriff, Larry Jones, and taken to the Lumpkin jail. One additional person was arrested to make a total of eight.

Those arrested include Pamela Alberda, Emily Guzman's mother; Christin and Bryan Babcock; Anna Fisher; Anton Flores of Georgia Detention Watch, one of the protest organizers; Mary Beth Gamba; Ellen McGill; and Jules Orkin. Flores spoke with APN on Saturday, November 20, the morning after being released.

Flores said the 8 were arrested on criminal trespass. "When we were arrested, there were eight of us, we were cuffed and taken in sheriff patrol vehicles to Stewart County sheriff's office; there they placed us holding cells."

"Stewart County doesn't have a jail. They processed us and the magistrate court judge issued a 250 dollar bond per person and we were able to pay that. We were released on bond pending prosecution," Flores said.

"It was about a 3.5 hour ordeal. Because of it being such a rural community, the magistrate judge said Superior Court is only held twice a year, in March of 2011 is the next time, and that docket is already full," Flores said.

"It may take a year, it may take two years, we may even never go court. They might just dismiss it," Flores said.

"The sheriff's department and judge were very cooperative. They were not the target of our actions. We spoke with them beforehand regarding how they would handle [the matter]," Flores said.

"Both the sheriff and judge were very surprised to hear of the length of time Pedro [Guzman] has been detained there, that he'd been here in the US since eight years old and is now married to a US citizen. They actually thought the maximum amount of time someone can be held is 90 days. It was eye-opening for them," Flores said.

"This is the fourth vigil. This is the first time of our vigil to have civil disobedience," Flores said, adding he believes it to be only the second time civil disobedience has occurred in the state in regards to immigration issues. The first had been the arrests of Joe Beasley, Markel Hutchins, Adelina Nichols, and Rich Pellegrino at the State Capitol last week, as previously covered by APN.

Also as previously reported by APN, SDC imprisons undocumented immigrants who are arrested in Georgia counties which implement the controversial 287(g) program, including Cobb, Hall, and Whitfield counties. These counties transfer thousands of immigrants to SDC every year.

Photo by futureatlas.com, cc by 2.0

China not Neocolonialist

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:20:00 +0000

Original source: China Daily

Mutual benefits and respect distinguish China’s presence in Africa from Western colonialists and profiteers

Recently, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC), H.E. Jean Ping, mentioned in his new book, Africa Will Shine Brighter than a Thousand Flames, that Africa is in danger of “being colonized again” by the West in the post-Cold War period, and many African countries fear that their former exploiters are coming back.

This reminds us of a word very popular in the Western media – neocolonialism. It’s a word usually used in connection with China.

Chinese people and most Africans will never accept that China is neocolonialist. They think it absurd. Why then are some Western media so anxious to put the neocolonialist label on China?

There are two reasons. On the one hand, the West, up to now, still enjoys worldwide media dominance. On the other hand, it seems that China’s rebuttals and clarifications are not eloquent enough. It has now become a serious issue that affects the country’s image and a nation’s reputation.

When accusing China of being neocolonialist, Westerners usually say that China is “plundering Africa’s resources” and “dumping goods in Africa” and that Chinese enterprises evade social responsibility in Africa. However, this is not only misleading, it’s wrong.

The fact is that China’s practice in Africa is fundamentally different from that of the Western colonialists. For decades, the development of Sino-African relations in every field has been firmly based on equality, mutual benefit and reciprocity.

China has never defrauded Africa of one inch of land, and has never forcibly acquired even a small amount of resources in Africa. This is a world of difference from the centuries of Western colonialism, which rampantly plundered Africa.

Take energy and resources for example. Each barrel of oil China buys from African countries is priced through equal agreement and in accordance with the international market price.

China’s energy cooperation with Angola and Sudan has made the two war-torn countries acquire a completely different outlook, especially the significant improvements in infrastructure.

Meanwhile, we can see that, even today, the pricing power of Africa’s most profitable mineral resources is still firmly held by Western multinational corporations, and as a result, African countries have benefited little from the exploitation of their resources. This is why African countries universally welcome China’s involvement and insist on cooperation with China.

Some Western media outlets are skilled in substituting the fake for the genuine, taking a part from the whole and employing double standards. An individual enterprise’s behavior cannot represent a government’s African policy and any country cannot guarantee all its enterprises perform as well as expected in Africa.

For example, some Western media have turned a blind eye to the serious environment destruction caused by Western oil giants’ exploitation in Nigeria. While for China, they use a variety of channels and resources and put the propaganda machine into high gear to exaggerate individual problems in Sino-African cooperation and groundlessly accuse the Chinese government for the responsibility of some Chinese enterprises’ problems in Africa and even problems facing Africa in international cooperation.

What is the real purpose of the Western media in doing so? Well, the answer is simple. They seek to smear China’s image and contain Sino-African cooperation. Thanks to the rapid advancement in Sino-African relations, some Westerners want to try and disrupt the momentum.

In a broader sense, the accusations of neocolonialism are an extension of the West’s desire to contain the “China threat”.

Today, the mentality and behaviors of neocolonialism still exist in modern international relations, but they have nothing to do with China. The fact is that, in the name of cooperation with Africa, some Western forces are paying lip service to supporting economic development in Africa, but they continue to use Africa as their raw materials supplier.

By edging out China, which is one of Africa’s most important partners, the West would be better able to control Africa. Far-sighted people in China, Africa and Western countries are fully aware of this.

Recently, more and more Africans are speaking highly of Sino-African cooperation. In the West, objective and rational voices on Sino-African cooperation are mounting.

It’s true that Sino-African cooperation is not perfect, but I firmly believe that as long as China and African countries can constantly strengthen and improve cooperation, share more and more fruits, and genuinely benefit people on both sides, Sino-African cooperation will continue to proceed on a more solid and broader road.

Greenpeace Accuses Walmart in Beijing of Selling Tainted Produce

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:17:00 +0000

Original source: Global Times

“Profit over people,” read the banner held by Greenpeace members at the Dajiaoting branch of Walmart in Beijing Thursday at 11 am, when the environmental protection organization gave the retail giant its Golden Scales Award for allegedly selling tainted produce.

“The scale has two trays. The lower one holds the dollar, while people’s health and the laws are in the higher one,” said Wang Weikang, chief director of the food and agriculture program of Greenpeace China. “Walmart ignores the health of the Chinese people and Chinese laws.”

According to the report issued by Greenpeace China on October 21, residue from highly toxic farm chemicals, including the pesticide carbofuran and the insecticide parathion, both banned by the Ministry of Agriculture, were found on fruits and vegetables sold by Walmart.

The Food Hygiene Law forbids the selling of any agricultural products that contain banned farm chemicals.

Greenpeace conducted their research in three Walmart supermarkets in Beijing and Qingdao in September. “The research is done in an independent third party lab and the result is solid, but we are not at liberty to reveal the name of the lab,” said Wang Xiaojun, the communications director of Greenpeace China.

A vice general manager surnamed Huang at the Dajiaoting Walmart, where carbofuran residue was detected on the mustard greens, refused to comment on the accusation.

“We strictly follow Chinese laws and standards, and have adopted a series of supervisory measures to ensure that our products reach or even surpass the highest national standards,” said Jiang Wei, a PR representative with Walmart China.

Federal Recycling Program Needed

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:09:00 +0000

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Given the environmental and economic benefits, why doesn’t the U.S. have a federal law mandating recycling nationwide? -- N. Koslowsky, Pompano Beach, FL

The U.S. government has historically relied on state and local governments to handle waste management in all of its forms, including recycling. Although there have been a few attempts to push legislation through Congress to mandate minimum national recycling rates, none have made it out of committee hearings. Federal lawmakers are loathe to take waste management regulatory powers away from individual states which have vastly different needs from one another. For instance, less populous western states with lots of extra land for siting landfills might not be as inclined to push for higher recycling rates as those crowded eastern states with less room to store their trash.

According to Chaz Miller, Director of State Programs at the National Solid Wastes Management Association, America’s very first federal solid waste law, 1965’s Solid Waste Disposal Act—itself an amendment to the original Clean Air Act—didn’t even mention recycling. “Eleven years later, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which remains the cornerstone of federal solid waste and recycling legislation,” reports Miller. RCRA abolished open dumps and required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create guidelines for solid waste disposal and regulations for hazardous waste management, but had little to say about recycling except to call for an increase in federal purchases of products made with recycled content. The EPA also published manuals and workshops on implementing curbside recycling programs, although funding for such programs dried up by 1981.

Nevertheless, the seed had taken root. Pioneering programs in Massachusetts and elsewhere led to the development of curbside recycling programs in more than 600 municipalities throughout the U.S.—mostly in the Northeast and on the West Coast—by the mid-1980s. In addition, 10 states introduced “bottle bill” laws to encourage recycling of beer and soft drink containers. Two states, Rhode Island and New Jersey, both being small, densely populated and short on landfill space, implemented comprehensive approaches to recycling. They began requiring local jurisdictions to pick-up residents’ and businesses’ paper, metal and glass, and helped towns and cities set-up systems for pick-up, sorting and materials recovery. Most of the 8,600-plus municipal recycling programs in existence today are modeled on these early efforts.

Just a few decades ago, Americans recycled less than 10 percent of their solid waste. Multi-material and curbside collection programs were non-existent, paper was only collected sporadically when a local scout troop or similar group organized a paper drive, and family-owned scrap dealers would occasionally buy paper and metal scrap based on limited market demand for additional raw materials.

Today, the EPA estimates that Americans recycle some 32 percent of the 350 million tons of refuse they generate annually. While it still has no federal platform for doing so, the EPA, through its Resource Conservation Challenge program, is pushing for Americans to up that rate. Forty-two states now have their own recycling or waste diversion goals, and 18 are trying to divert upwards of half their waste via recycling or composting.

CONTACTS: National Solid Wastes Management Association, www.environmentalistseveryday.org; EPA Resource Conservation Challenge, www.epa.gov/osw/rcc.

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 by UofSLibrary, courtesy Flickr, cc by 2.0

How Corporate America Is Pushing Us All Off a Cliff

Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:04:00 +0000

Friday, November 19th, 2010

Friends,

When someone talks about pushing you off a cliff, it's just human nature to be curious about them. Who are these people, you wonder, and why would they want to do such a thing?

That's what I was thinking when corporate whistleblower Wendell Potter revealed that, when "Sicko" was being released in 2007, the health insurance industry's PR firm, APCO Worldwide, discussed their Plan B: "Pushing Michael Moore off a cliff."

But after looking into it, it turns out, it's nothing personal! APCO wants to push everyone off a cliff.

APCO was hatched in 1984 as a subsidiary of the Washington, D.C. law firm Arnold & Porter -- best known for its years of representing the giant tobacco conglomerate Philip Morris. APCO set up fake "grassroots" organizations around the country to do the bidding of Big Tobacco. All of a sudden, "normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-Philip Morris Americans" were popping up everywhere. And it turned out they were outraged -- outraged! -- by exactly the things APCO's clients hated (such as, the government telling tobacco companies what to do). In particular, they were "furious" that regular people had the right to sue big corporations...you know, like Philip Morris. (For details, see the 2000 report "The CALA Files" (PDF) by my friends and colleagues Carl Deal and Joanne Doroshow.)

Right about now you may be wondering: how many Americans get pushed off a cliff by Big Tobacco every year? The answer is 443,000 Americans die every year due to smoking. That's a big cliff.

With this success under their belts, APCO created "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition." TASSC, funded partly by Exxon, had a leading role in a planned campaign by the fossil fuel industry to create doubt about global warming. The problem for Big Oil speaking out against global warming, according to the campaign's own leaked documents, was that the public could see the "vested interest" that oil companies had in opposing environmental laws. APCO's job was to help conceal those oil company interests.

And boy, have they ever succeeded. Polls now show that, as the world gets hotter, Americans are getting less and less worried about it.

How big is this particular cliff? According to the World Health Organization, climate change contributes -- right now -- to the deaths of 150,000 people every year. By 2030 it may be double that. And after that...well, the sky is literally the limit! I don't think it's crazy to say APCO may rack up even bigger numbers here than they have with tobacco.

With this track record, you can see why, when the health insurance industry wanted to come after "Sicko," they went straight to APCO. The "worst case," as their leaked documents say, was that "Sicko evolves into a sustained populist movement." That simply could not be allowed to happen. Something obviously had to be done.

As Wendell Potter explains, APCO ran their standard playbook, setting up something called "Health Care America." Health Care America, according to Potter, "was received by mainstream reporters, including the New York Times, as a legitimate organization when it was nothing but a front group set up by APCO Worldwide. It was not anything approaching what it was reporting to be: a 'grassroots organization.' It was a sham group."

Health Care America showed up online in 2007 (the year "Sicko" was released) and disappeared quickly by early 2008. You can still find their website archived here. As you'll see, their "moderated forum" allowed normal, everyday, in-no-way-employed-by-the-insurance-industry Americans to speak out. For instance, here's something Nicole felt very strongly about:

"Moore shouldn't be allowed to call his film a 'documentary.' It should be called a political commercial. We need to fix our health care system, but we shouldn’t accept a Hollywood moviemaker’s political views as the starting point."

Here's what Wendell Potter revealed about the insurance industry's media strategy:

"As we would do the media training, we would always have someone refer to him as 'Hollywood entertainer' or 'Hollywood moviemaker Michael Moore.' They don't want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth."

Thanks for your perspective, "Nicole"!

Now, how big was THAT cliff? A pretty good size -- according to a recent study, 45,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance.

And here we are in 2010. A lesser PR firm might be resting on its laurels at this point, content to sit back and watch hundreds of thousands of people continue to be pushed off the various cliffs they've built. But not APCO! Right now they've taken on their biggest challenge yet: leading a giant, multi-million dollar effort to help Wall Street "earn back the trust of the American people."

We may never know the size of this particular cliff. But we can be sure it's gigantic. According to the New York Times, one of the things Wall Street's recession gave us is "the crippling of the government program that provides life-sustaining antiretroviral drugs to Americans with H.I.V. or AIDS who cannot afford them." Internationally, organizations fighting AIDS and other diseases are "hugely afraid" of cutbacks in funding.

Of course, there are the 101 ways recessions kill quietly. For instance, children's hospitals are seeing a sharp 55% rise in the abuse of babies by parents.

And that's just the previous cliff. If APCO and its Wall Street co-conspirators lull us into turning our backs on them again, we can be sure the next cliff -- the next crash -- will be much bigger.

Anyway, this is all just a way for me to say to APCO: No hard feelings! My getting mad at you would be like a chicken who's still happily pecking away getting mad at McDonald's. Compared to the millions you've already turned into McNuggets, you've actually treated me much, much BETTER! Spying on my family, planting smears and lies about me, privately badgering movie critics to give the film a poor review, scaring Americans into believing they'd be committing a near-act of treason were they to go to the theater and see my movie -- hey, ya done good, health insurance companies of America. And, most important, you stopped the nation from getting true universal health care. Good job!

There's only one problem -- I'm not one of those "liberals" you fund in Congress, the ones who fear your power.

I'm me. And that, sadly, is not good for you.

Yours in good health,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com

U.S., Cuba Seniors Play Softball in Havana

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:22:00 +0000

HAVANA, Cuba, Nov 17 (acn) – Some 40 U.S. senior softball players are currently in Havana city playing a series of games against their Cuban counterparts, the second in two years, in a trip that aims at sharing their love for the sport and closing the gap between the two peoples.

“The first trip was very exciting. Cuba is a mystery for Americans” said centerfielder Mike Frank minutes before the fifth game between one Cuban Veteranos team and the Eastern Massachusetts Senior Softball (EMASS) C squad.

“This time we came to meet old friends. Cubans are great hosts and we really enjoy being here” he adds while stretching. Frank is 62 and is the leader of this C team, made up of 15 players 65 and older. They are wearing blue uniforms displaying the EMASS logo on top of a baseball where it reads Cuba.

Frank said they had arrived on Saturday, and Monday and Tuesday they had doubleheaders, as they are having today.

Outfielder Bill Green jokes when asked about the previous games results: “we won the first day; we didn’t win yesterday” and laughs. This is his first trip to Cuba and he is having a great time.

“It is a shame we have to request for a travel license (to the U.S. Treasure Department)” He said it is because the old-timers in South Florida. “Florida is too important for the US elections and they don’t want us (American citizens) to come”

Most of the American team says they would love to come to Cuba with their families, but getting a license is hard.

“Stu (Gray) handled the license process. You should ask him, but he is in another field” adds Green and he gets back to business.

Meanwhile Cuban pitcher Enrique Piedra, a retired baseball star, now 82, warms up. “I am ready to win this time. Last year I pitched three games and won them all, but this Monday I was too wild and lost”

Short-stop Aurelio Torres, an impressively fast 72, dubs this series as “the greatest thing we can do. I played last year against them, and we also shed sweat and blood on the field. They are great athletes and very humble.”

“We are just people. We should be able, Cubans and Americans alike, to share more events like this. This is not about politics. Our peoples can be friends” says Carlos Alfonso, a mechanical engineer, who plays first base as a teenager. “They are real nice and this way we can get to know how they (Americans) really are.”

The umpire calls both team to the foul lines, where they hug and share jokes in broken Spanglish. The game stars, and they forget all about politics and age. Softball is all that matters now…and friendship.

After returning to the United States in 2009, Stu Gray wrote: “Our EMASS athletes who participated in the trip did so because of their love of the game as well the lure and panache of Cuba and were profoundly rewarded with one-of-a-kind memories for their boldness and spirit of adventure.”

Photo by cliff1066, courtesy Flickr, cc by 2.0

Senate Rules Block Progress

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:33:00 +0000

The U.S. Senate should revise its rules on filibusters and consent for judicial nominations in order to stop a recently growing trend of gridlock and indecisions, argues a new report from the Council on Foreign Relations.

According to the the report, over the past two decades, "[r]egular order has been breaking down in the Senate." The report's author Kay King, a former congressional staffer and now vice president of Washington Initiatives at CFR, pointed to legislative devices used to limit debate.

King specifically highlighted the abuse of the filibuster to shut down progress on legislation in the Senate. "A growing number of filibuster threats have led the leadership in both parties, when in the majority, to limit opportunities for debate and amendment of legislation that could be filibustered," she wrote.

Senate rules require either "unanimous consent" or a supermajority of at least 60 votes for "cloture," or an end to debate, so a bill may proceed to a vote. Filibuster rules allow a single Senator to block or delay Senate business under cover of extending debate.

According to the report, this filibuster procedure came into practice only since the 1970s when Senate rules were changed to accommodate objections by the minority. Between 1985 and 2006, King reported, the number of filibusters grew from 40 to 68. After the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, however, Republicans used the filibuster a record 139 times in the 110th Congress.

In the past two years, according to ThinkProgress.org, that number grew to 250, grinding action in the Senate to a snail's pace with a disproportionate influence by a minority of U.S. Senators representing an even smaller minority of the U.S. population. In the 111th Congress, 41 Republicans represented only about one-third of Americans, and those who usually supported wasteful and harmful filibusters represented even fewer.

This abuse of the filibuster has resulted in costly stagnation on meaningful legislation. Filibuster threats meant that the economic stimulus package was smaller and more indirect than it could have been. The filibuster effectively killed the most cost-efficient and least-expensive portion of President Obama's plan for health reform, the public option. It blocked meaningful labor law reform that would have increased democracy in the workplace.

It has stalled progress on civil rights legislation, such as passage of the repeal of anti-gay "don't ask, don't tell" rules for the military and passage of the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to legal status for tens of thousands of undocumented immigrant youth through public service. It has stalled climate change legislation that would reduce pollution that causes global warming and creates important new investments in clean energy jobs. It has forced a delay on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would close the gender wage cap, as well as prevented passage of the Employment Non-discrimination Act, which would eliminate job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

In addition, Republican abuse of filibusters delayed, weakened or blocked financial aid to small businesses and states. It delayed funds to extend unemployment benefits to the country's 15 million officially unemployed workers. It stopped stronger regulations on big polluters like BP and Wall Street con artists.

The U.S. Senate was created overtly as a conservative institution to slow down real change by checking the will of the majority. The reason why it has been referred to as the "upper" house of Congress is that historically it has represented the class politics of the richest Americans. Because the filibuster isn't a Constitutional issue, the Senate itself can vote to change its own rules and decide on the procedures it will use to pass laws. It is time for a change, and Democrats in the Senate need to take the lead on making that change as the new session of Congress opens in January.

Let's Pass Some Laws Before the Republicans Head Into Town

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:18:00 +0000

Let's Pass Some Laws Before the Republicans Head Into Town (after all, that's what they'd do) ...an open letter to Congressional Democrats from Michael Moore

Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

Dear Congressional Democrats:

Welcome back to our nation's capital for your one final session of the 111th Congress. Come January, the Republicans will take over the House while the Democrats will retain control of the Senate.

But Dems -- here's something I don't understand: Why do you look all sullen and depressed? Clearly you're not aware of one very important fact: YOU ARE STILL COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, LEGALLY IN CHARGE! When (and if, mostly if) you wake up to the reality that you can do whatever you want for the next seven weeks, you will realize that you have two clear options:

1. You can continue your "Sit Quietly and Hope No One Hits Me" strategy and thus lay the groundwork for an even bigger ass-kicking two years from now;

Or...

2. You can actually use the power you hold for the next seven weeks and have the Senate pass the legislation that the House has already passed!

Wake up, Democrats! You are in an awesome position right now. The House of Representatives, in this current session of Congress, has already passed an astounding 420 bills since January of 2009 -- 420 bills that are just sitting there on the Senate leader's desk. The Senate has refused to take up these House bills because they've been afraid of a Republican filibuster. Well, Dems, here's the truth: You can pass all of these bills and turn them into law RIGHT NOW, TODAY, by simply calling for a majority vote of 50 Senators (plus Vice President/President of the Senate Joe Biden). Yes, you will need to change the filibuster rules. So do it. You have the votes! And yes, the Republicans will scream bloody murder -- so let them! Make them. Let America see them in all their hateful, spiteful ways -- it will act as a beautiful coming attraction trailer for all the world to see. Let all of America watch the Republicans as they try to derail democracy by holding up a bunch of bills that nearly every American I know would want to see as the law of the land. Many of these bills are so safe, so innocuous, I have a hard time understanding what the heck the problem was in the first place. Like the bill that's already passed the House to name a post office after Jimmy Stewart. I know, I know, the idea of a post office named after Jimmy Stewart is really, really, incredibly controversial and divisive and somebody on the other side of the aisle might yell at you. Be brave, Democrats!

There's a whole slew of these bills the House has passed. Some are no-brainers; others are absolutely necessary. You can pass them in the next seven weeks. And because you Dems seem to have a problem with properly naming your bills and communicating effectively with the average American, I have helpfully renamed them for you so they sound like what they actually are -- things people would really want. Here's a partial list of the bills the House has already passed and are now just in need of approval by the U.S. Senate:

• The "Give Mom a Raise Act," officially known as the "Paycheck Fairness Act," which addresses pay gaps between men and women. Now, who out there still believes women should be paid less than men? I REALLY want to see Republicans try to stop this one.

• The "Don't Amputate Our Feet Act," aka the "Eliminating Disparities in Diabetes Prevention Access and Care Act of 2009." Which Republican will stand to speak out in favor of diabetes?

• The "Pay Up, BP Act," aka the "Audit the BP Fund Act," which makes sure BP is paying people hurt by the Gulf oil spill as quickly as possible -- and makes BP pay the cost of keeping track of where the money's going.

• The "Stop Foreigners From Hitting Grandma Act," aka the "Elder Abuse Victims Act." This doesn't really have anything to do with foreigners, but our fellow Americans seem to automatically dislike people from other countries, so this should help just in case the Republicans think an "elders abuse victims act" doesn't sound patriotic enough.

• The "Let's Try Not to Destroy Planet Earth Act" (aka Cap and Trade, a lousy half-way measure to begin with, but about the best you can expect from you Democrats these days).

• The "National Bombing Prevention Act" (it's actually already called that, which is hard to improve on).

And while those of you in the Senate are taking care of all that, the House can come up with a better version of Michelle Obama's "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act" to improve child nutrition. The Senate has already passed this bill. (The House should fix it so that it isn't paid for by cutting food stamps to poor people. Yes, you, a Democratic Senate, did that.)

Then there are also things that neither the House or Senate has dealt with. These would take more work during the next two months, but that's what highly-caffeinated "energy" drinks are for.

Jenni Suri of Ligonier, Indiana, has set up a petition with a good list, which anyone can sign here to tell the Congressional leadership to get started. Among the "to do" items on the list:

• Extend emergency unemployment benefits

• Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

• Pass the DREAM Act (to provide young immigrants with a path to citizenship)

• Pass the Disclose Act to force corporations to say what politicians they're giving money to

• Pass the Employee Free Choice Act, so we can have unions again in the U.S.

• Pass Rep. Donna Edwards' constitutional amendment that -- in the wake of the Citizens United decision -- would give Congress the power to regulate corporate spending on elections

So what do you say, Democrats? What's the worst that could happen -- you'd lose an election? You already did that! C'mon, here's your one last gutsy chance to show us that you're made of something other than wish and wash.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Is Immigration Reform Possible in "Lame Duck" Session?

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:11:00 +0000

A broad coalition of faith-based groups and community organizations that supports comprehensive immigration reform is calling on Congress to address its concerns about this issue in the lame duck session.

"No action is a vote for the way things are," said Dr. Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, on a conference call with reporters this week. "No action is a vote for de facto amnesty. No action is abdication of federal responsibility."

Joining this call was Sen. Robert Menendez, D. N.J., who is seeking to bring together a bipartisan supermajority in the Senate to pass comprehensive reform. He noted that the lame duck session may be the best opportunity to pass comprehensive reform in the near future.

He called on members of Congress to put aside "political grand-standing" and to come together on an issue that has "generated a lot of talk but little action."

Unfortunately, many Republicans who either previously voted for reform or are current cosponsors of immigration-related bills have backed away from supporting their own initiatives.

Menendez said that Republican Party-authored enforcement-only proposals aren't enough to fix the broken immigration system. Reform must also address illegal hiring, but it should also provide the 11 million or so undocumented workers with a means to gain legal status, and "work their way to permanency residency." He also favors provisions that keep immigrant families together.

Some of the incoming Republican members of Congress seem unwilling to work in a bipartisan way to achieve a comprehensive bill, he added. He noted that during the campaign hostile anti-immigrant political discourse caused him to worry that many newly elected Republicans may favor political grandstanding over common sense solutions. "The reality is that we need a bipartisan effort in this. Unless we get some Republicans to join us, we won't move forward," he pointed out.

Hardline anti-reform Republicans who push "enforcement-only" measures will likely stand in the way of reform in the new Congress, Menendez hinted. "I think that that doesn't deal with the totality of the problem; it will only give us more of what we have."

"I hope that we can do this in 'lame duck,' but if not, if their are no Republicans who are forthcoming, then I just look at the numbers and the views of those who will be in critical positions and know it will be more difficult," Menendez said.

He stated that many Republicans are going to have to decide if their best political capital lies in some of the anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by Republican candidates during the campaign or in resolving a serious national issue.

The comments came the same day a coalition of business, religious and community groups in Utah formally rejected efforts to pass Arizona-type anti-immigrant legislation. According to the a statement from the coalition that adopted the so-called Utah Compact, which includes Utah's Republican Attorney General, immigration enforcement should remain a federal priority and reform measures should provide a path for undocumented immigrants to be integrated into society. One conservative supporter of the pro-reform "Utah Compact" said, “Arizona-style laws amount to nothing but a ‘round them up’ and ‘starve them out’ approach – neither of them are ethical nor consistent with our conservative principles, and in no way will I participate in such policies."

The latter viewpoint likely results from observations of the campaign season and election results, especially in southwestern states. While several Republican candidates used harsh and racist anti-immigrant messages during their campaigns, these did not always resonate with voters. Notably, in neighboring Nevada, Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle routinely attacked Latinos and immigrants as part of her campaign. Her decisive defeat and the enthusiastic support Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., received suggests that Republicans may be hesitant to adopt the same tactics in the future.

According to exit polling released this week by America's Voice, an immigration reform advocacy group, Reid likely won at least nine in ten Latino votes in this election. The data showed that Latino voters played a huge role in preventing far worse election results for congressional Democrats nationally.

Photo by FibonacciBlue, courtesy Flickr, cc by 2.0

Fast Food Waste

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:03:00 +0000

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I work at a fast food place and I am appalled by the amount of unpurchased food we throw away. The boss says we can’t give it away for legal reasons. Where can I turn for help on this, so the food could instead go to people in need? -- Ryan Jones, Richland, WA

Many restaurants, fast food or otherwise, are hesitant to donate unused food due to concerns about liability if people get sick after eating it—especially because once any such food is out of the restaurant’s hands, who knows how long it might be before it is served again. But whether these restaurants know it or not, they cannot be held liable for food donated to organizations, and sometimes all it might take to change company policy would be a little advocacy from concerned employees.

A 1995 survey found that over 80 percent of food businesses in the U.S. did not donate excess food due to liability concerns. In response, Congress passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, which releases restaurants and other food organizations from liability associated with the donation of food waste to nonprofits assisting individuals in need. The Act protects donors in all 50 states from civil and criminal liability for good faith donations of “apparently wholesome food”—defined as meeting “all quality and labeling standards imposed by Federal, State and local laws and regulations even though the food may not be readily marketable due to appearance, age, freshness, grade, size, surplus or other condition.”

While homeless shelters, elder care organizations and boys and girls clubs are frequent beneficiaries of food donations, the most common recipients are food banks and food rescue programs. Food banks, according to California’s CalRecycle website, “collect food from a variety of sources, save the food in a warehouse, then distribute it to hungry families and individuals through local human service agencies.” They usually collect less perishable items like canned goods, which can be stored and used any time. In contrast, food rescue programs typically trade in perishable and prepared foods, distributing it to agencies that feed hungry people, usually later that same day. Mama’s Health, a leading health education website, maintains an extensive free database of food banks and food rescue programs state-by-state.

Unused or even partially eaten food waste can also be utilized even if it’s not edible by human standards. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approves of food businesses giving or selling food waste to local farmers for use in composting or as animal feed. If such food contains or has come into contact with meat, it should be boiled for 30 minutes to reduce the risk of bacterial infections in the animals that eat it. Many states have complementary laws on the books regulating the donation of food waste at the local level.

Many cities and town are now expanding curbside pickup programs to include kitchen scraps and yard waste and then diverting the food waste into profitable compost. Still, some 6.7 percent of the solid waste going into landfills consists of food discards, reports the North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. Diverting food waste to feed hungry people or for animal feed or compost is a winning scenario for all concerned parties as it not only provides relief to overburdened landfills but also helps meet social welfare, agricultural and environmental needs. Also, those restaurants, grocery stores and other businesses that donate food will likely reap the additional reward of saving money on their actual waste removal bill as their trash bins and dumpsters won’t be filling up quite so fast.

CONTACTS: CalRecycle, www.calrecycle.ca.gov; Mama’s Health, www.mamashealth.com; North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance, www.p2pays.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 by Brand X Pictures

The Elimination of Poverty in China

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:41:00 +0000

Original course: People's Democracy

The elimination of poverty is an essential requirement of a socialist system. Poverty is an essential concomitant of a capitalist system. So long as the capitalist society exists in a country, poverty will never be abolished. The slogan of ‘Garibi Hatao’ given in a capitalist system is only an election gimmick. Child labour as a product of poverty will continue to exist so long as poverty exists in a society.

Even in the richest capitalist country, the USA, millions of people continue to be poor and find it difficult to get elementary requirements of human existence.

Even the millennium goal of reduction of poverty by 50 per cent by 2012 is not going to be achieved all over the world.

The world hunger report 2009 clearly points out that a large number of human population in the world continue to remain hungry while growing prices of food products will make the task of providing food for all, more difficult.

The United Nations’ international agencies are paying lip sympathy to the task of elimination of poverty. They claim that the present high rate of hunger is unacceptable to them but they in practice accept it and no concrete steps are being taken to provide food for all.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that every human shall have the right to enjoy the living standard required to maintain health and welfare of himself and his family members including food, clothing, housing, medical service and necessary social services. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, expressly specifies that every human shall be entitled to obtain a certain living standard for himself and family including sufficient foods, clothing and housing and keep improving the living conditions.

The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the world conference on Human Rights in 1993 specifies that all the human rights are Universal, inseparable, interdependent and interrelated.

The 47th United Nations General Assembly decided on December 22, 1992 to make every October 17, the international day for the eradication of poverty. As noted earlier, at the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000, the leaders of various countries in the world identified the clearly defined objectives and indicators known as the millennium development goals, with regard to the issues of the eradication of poverty, hunger, disease and illiteracy. The goals specify that the proportion of the population living on less than one dollar everyday will be cut down by half by 2015 and the proportion of population threatened with hunger will also be reduced by half. Specifically speaking, the population living on less than one dollar will be slashed from 1.25 billion in 1970 to below 625 million in 2015.

According to the World Bank, a person having an income of less than two dollars per day can be considered as poor while a person having an income of less than one dollar per day is considered to be suffering from acute poverty!

In spite of global lip sympathy towards the starving population in the world, the stark poverty levels continue to dog the world. The recent global economic crisis has only aggravated the situation with large number of unemployed people trying their best to some how or the other keep themselves alive. The bailout packages of various capitalist countries have only brought additional miseries for the common people. The exploitation of the working class and the people all over the world had only added to the poverty conditions of the vast masses of the society. Naturally, the global documents and declarations however much they express noble intentions, but in reality poverty at the global level only gets aggravated with rise in assets of the big business houses and their speculative gains in the share market, adding to the continuously growing inequality and gulf between rich and the poor all over the world.

According to the 2008 World Bank report, the people living in acute poverty conditions have declined from 1.8 billion in 1990 to 1.4 in 2005. However, much of the reduction was due to reduced poverty conditions in China. The extremely impoverished population in sub-Saharan Africa increased by 100 million in 2005. In 2009, the population living in the extreme poverty is estimated to grow from 55 million to 90 million compared to that before the global economic crisis.

NO UNIFORM DEFINITION

The definition of poverty in developing and developed countries is not uniform. According to the poverty line determined by the American government the proportion of the impoverished population in America is usually 10 per cent. However, in 2009 the impoverished population was 35-80 million, i.e., 13.3 percent of the total population. The impoverished population represented 12.5 percent of American total population in 2004. The poverty rate was likely to reach 12.7 percent in 2008. The data clearly underlined how the richest capitalist country in the world is showing growing incidence of poverty conditions. The tall talk of superiority of capitalist system is exposed by the official data in America. The Federal statistics office of Germany data shows a 14.9 percent poverty rate in the country in 2009. The poverty rate in France stands at 13.4 percent in 2009.

The government of India has been claiming reduction in poverty levels in the country since the advent of globalization in 1990. However, it was due to manipulation of data and keeping the poverty level so low at Rs 13 per day of per capita consumption. The controversy relating to BPL and APL has only exposed the hollowness of the government’s argument. Arjun Sen Gupta Committee’s report said that 77 percent of our population is living below Rs 20 per day. The government of India is not even prepared to take into account the World Bank’s calculation of poverty levels in the world! The World Hunger Report observed that the largest number of hungry people in the world are from India. Its condition was considered worst that among the most backward countries of Sudan in sub-saharan Africa.

The official data reported by the World Bank has clearly shown the bankruptcy of the capitalist system in its utter failure to eliminate poverty from the globe.

SITUATION IN CHINA

In the six decades of establishment of socialism, China has been trying to abolish poverty.

There was some progress in the direction of reduction in poverty prior to the cultural revolution and remarkable improvement in the standard of living of the people had taken place. However, during the cultural revolution period, there were some problems. By the year 1978, there were 250 million people in China facing poverty levels.

Since 1978, the Chinese government adopted a policy of economic reforms which paid special attention to faster economic development and eradication of poverty. According to a statement by the state council of China in 2008, “In the past 50 years since the founding of New China especially since the initiation of reform and opening up to the outside world, the Chinese government has always put the people’s right to subsistence and development first, focused on economic construction and made efforts to develop social productivity. Consequently, China’s economy and society have advanced by leaps and bounds, its comprehensive national strength has been raised and the people’s livelihood has improved by a huge margin thereby realizing two historic leaps bringing the people from poverty to having enough to eat and wear and then to living a better life.”

During 1980 and 2010 the per capita real standard of living of the entire population increased eight times bringing a large section of the poverty stricken people towards a decent living standard. In the year 1980, more than four billion Yuan were allotted to poverty eradication programs. Thus from 1978 to 1986, the people below the poverty line came down from 250 million to 120 million.

In 1986 during the seventh five year plan poverty alleviation was given a top priority. People were given tax concession and other facilities. From 1986 to 1993 the impoverished people nationwide were reduced from 120 million to 80 million. Poverty was thus reduced by 6.4 million per year.

Sustained efforts to improve the standard of living of people and quality of life had a very important role to play in poverty eradication program. More job creation was a crucial measure taken up by the government. In three decades since 1978, 37 crore (370 million) jobs were created by the government of China. Nine year compulsory education was introduced and in 2008 the rate of enrollment stood at 99.5 percent and junior middle schools reached 98.5 percent. Due to improved health care and social security measures the life expectancy increased since 1978 by five years to reach 73 years! Over 1978 infant mortality rate declines by 56 percent reaching 15.3 percent, while the maternity mortality rate dropped by 60 percent since 1978. All these measures had a positive impact on reducing overall poverty levels of the Chinese population.

One of the different problems China is facing today in the task of elimination of poverty is that a large part of the impoverished population belongs to ethnic minorities. They live in remote backward areas like Dingri, Gansu, Ningxia, Guaxi, Yunan, Guizov, Sichwan and Tibet. They were victims of century’s old feudal exploitation, slavery, primitive society and serfdom. People from inner Mangolia also to some extent come in this category. In 2007, the incidence of people in absolute poverty in autonomous areas of minorities in China was 6.4 percent – 4.8 percentage points higher than the country’s average of 1.6 percent. Their number stood 77.4 lakhs (7.74 million) accounting for 52.3 percent of the country’s total of one crore forty seven lakhs and nine thousand poor people (10,709,000). However, available statistics show that in 2007, a total of 18.5 lakh (1.85 million) people came back to absolute poverty due to natural calamities. The government of China has prepared a special package to overcome the problem.

A section of the ethnic minorities oppose economic reform, which is also an obstacle in this task. In Tibet, every step taken by the government to reduce poverty is considered as a step towards destroying Tibetan culture by Dalai Lama whose thinking practically means continuation of poverty and backwardness is preserving age-long Tibetan culture.

The government of China is taking steps to develop road and railway network, airports to extricate Tibet from the poverty conditions. Indian press backed by US imperialist agencies has been making stories that the economic developments in Tibet have security concerns for India.

In Xinjiang, with 16 lakh 59 meters area in 1978, there were 53.2 lakh (5.32 million) people living without enough food and clothing. However, due to huge spending by the Chinese government, by 2000 the problem of basic subsistence was solved satisfactorily. Social security benefits were also provided to the vast masses of the people.

Since 1994, the Chinese government increased investment in poverty alleviation programs, three times in comparison with the investments made between 1986 to 1993. As a result of this the absolute poverty declined by an average of over 60 lakh (6 million) per year. During 2000-2003, the poverty was reduced by over 30 lakhs (3 million).

The global economic recession however slowed down the poverty alleviation program. However, at the end of 2008 the impoverished population in rural areas was reduced to four crore (40 million)! As the number of impoverished people is declining the task is becoming more and more difficult, since it is concentrated in remote areas where developmental needs are more and more complex. Yet efforts are being made by the Chinese government to provide funds for poverty alleviation programs.

The Chinese 12th five year plan which is under consideration of the government is likely to emphasize faster economic growth of less developed regions and give special emphasis on eradication of the vestiges of poverty prevailing in the country. The plan (2010-2015) will further reduce the extent of poverty in the country and will pave the way for accelerating the economic growth of the country.

Photo by ernop, courtesy Flickr, cc by 2.0

Economic Recovery Strangled by Big Business – Premeditated Abuse and Sabotage

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:27:00 +0000

Big business take warning: you are accused of knowingly sabotaging the welfare of Americans to extract an obscene share of our abundance. Your premeditated actions to disrupt federal economic policy, to abuse and indenture American workers, and to damage America's ability to secure itself, are documented below. American citizens should take notice now in order to prevent further erosion of their rights, before big business removes any remaining freedoms necessary to cauterize this metastasizing tyranny.

Sponsorship by corporations of neo-liberal economic policies implemented during the Reagan Administration generates an excessive business surplus (see Chart #1) that is incommensurate with traditional American values. A rising share of production allocated to business surplus has a necessary corollary in falling shares allocated to workers and government. Primary-school arithmetic can prove this1. Marginal business surplus is generated only through reductions to employee compensation and government revenue. This explains business animosity towards both workers and government. Neo-liberal ideology, hailed by big business, merely supports the selfishly base interests of big business to aggrandize workers and to starve popular government programs of funding. This selfish interest to increase business surplus serves as motive for big business to abuse American workers and sabotage rational government policy.

Big business has large power to shape the public's awareness and perception. Through outright media ownership and advertising, big business influences how Americans see both themselves and the world in which they live. By ridiculing simple truths about big business's unethical behavior, and by casting doubt on very demonstrable cause-effect relationships that are not favorable to the interests of big business, big business has created a country of citizens who are incapable of independent thought or assessment. This helps further the agenda of big business to acquire more American abundance as business surplus because incomprehension of this agenda by the majority of Americans makes it nearly impossible for defensive reaction to arise. Recent hijacking of widespread discontent with “Wall Street” and redirection of the anger against government is an instructive example how big business manipulates public perceptions to its advantage.

Workers in the USA are suffering from trauma and shock at the hands of big business. American jobs truly protected by the legal right to collective bargaining have already disappeared. Big business uses the multinational corporation (MNC) as a tool to achieve this. By moving production to locations where MNCs pay workers less, pay less taxes to support government programs, and circumvent national laws and regulations, international trade has exploded over the past twenty-five years. This trade occurs largely through internal movement of goods and resources within MNCs across national borders. This is popularly called “globalization” – an attempt by big business to increase business surplus. The intended effect by big business is to take from workers and governments in order to increase business surplus.

Big business now has powerful means at its disposal to punish workers who do not remain silent in the face of growing tyranny. At-will employment, denial of assured access to proper health care, administrative oversight by financial corporations: these and worse serve as retribution and warning when any worker challenges the status quo. Those willing to bend under this pressure are promised rewards of continued employment, pay or promotion. Woe to anyone who fails to understand the implied employment contract when one side, big business, has all the advantages. Collective bargaining's utter disappearance leaves atomized individuals to face the enormous resources of big business.

Big business promotes hatred of government through enormous public-relations campaigns. Traditionally understood as “We the People,” government has become the boogeyman who causes all America's problems. As real problems multiply because of big business's selfish agenda, linking these problems to government both achieves more, by further weakening government, and becomes more necessary to screen big business's actions. Citizens who are duped into choosing less government as the only solution to their problems confuse the interests of big business with their own. There are many important services that government is the most capable and efficient institution to provide. Today, big business alone has the necessary resources to provide the services it needs. Neither citizens nor government are capable any longer of independent action without directly confronting big business.

Big business has intentionally weakened government in order to realize its selfish agenda. As a traditional protector of America's citizens from big business, big business has a long and deep antagonism to American government. By playing on America's longstanding aversion to taxes, big business has reduced taxation to levels that cannot fund our popularly-enacted government programs. Big business does not attack openly most of these programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, veterans' programs, etc.), it merely supports lower taxes and then makes accusations of fiscal irresponsibility. This tactic has won many battles for big business against citizens and government. It now threatens American security unless our citizens awaken to the threat.

Recent reprehensible actions by big business intentionally weaken American economic activity. Although companies are reaping record profits, they are not rehiring Americans laid off during the period of economic decline. They are content to squeeze the remaining workers until they break, safe in the knowledge that there are plenty of unemployed workers who will take any job for much less. Because the American economy is funded largely through private consumption, an army of unemployed workers leaves effective demand too weak to generate strong economic recovery. It seems contrary to reason, but economic recovery is not a necessary condition for growing the business surplus, since this can be achieved at worker and government expense. As long as this business surplus grows, big business has no interest in economic recovery. The quick action big business lobbied government for at the beginning of the economic crisis was aimed minimally at fixing corporate balance sheets.

Government options to defeat this crisis are limited due to decades of starving government of tax revenue to pay for programs that government must by law fund and administer. This creates fiscal pressure that constrains government's available response to the economic crisis. Monetary policy has been sabotaged directly by big business. For all the recent talk about quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve's increase in holdings of financial assets and the monetary base has been castrated by premeditated action to hold more reserves (see Chart #2) by financial corporations. There has been no consequent increase in lending to consumers, which was the intermediate outcome desired by monetary policymakers to strengthen economic recovery. So far big business has defeated official American fiscal and monetary policy to revive the economy. For anyone suffering from this economic mess, big business obviously owes you something as reparation.

To recap, big business is guilty of: (1) premeditated abuse of America's citizens; and (2) sabotaging official American policy to combat the current economic crisis and to provide security to our citizens. As both cure and restitution for the many ills suffered at the hands of big business, citizens should demand the following:

                     1. Compensation to employees for lost benefits and earnings over the last 30 years.
                     2. Immediate reinstatement of capital gains taxes.
                     3. Reinvestment in popular government programs through adopting progressive income taxes commensurate with traditional American values.
                     4. Nationalization and incorporation into the Federal Reserve System of all banks holding assets or deposits valuing $10 million or more in one state or $5 million or more in two different states.
                     5. Confiscation and incorporation into Medicare of all health insurance policies.

Charts: