People Before Profit blog

Republicans Pledge to Kill Jobs for More Rich Tax Cuts

Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:12:00 +0000

In order to provide new tax cuts for the very rich, the Republican Party has proposed to gut investments in job creation, education, and basic human needs for working families. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the Republican Party's plan would kill as many as 1.1 million jobs.

Republicans claim their goal is to reduce the federal deficit. However, data analyzed by EPI reveals that, at best, despite massive job-killing cuts, the GOP proposal reduces the federal deficit by a mere 5 percent.

According to the Republican plan, to achieve this meager goal in order to protect tax cuts for the rich, non-military spending would have to be gutted by some $350 billion.

The EPI notes such steps "would result in drastic and politically unrealistic cuts to many human needs and investment programs." Say good-bye to investments in expanding broadband access, research and development in clean energy alternatives, improved healthcare infrastructure, improved roads and bridges, new mass transit, improvements in waste management, environmental clean-up, higher quality education, additional community health centers, and anti-poverty protections for unemployed workers and their families.

While the GOP plan would deliver this harsh blow to working families, it would add some $629 billion to the deficit in order to provide new tax cuts for the riches two percent of Americans.

By increasing the deficit to pay for a tax cut for the richest Americans, EPI found, the Republican Party's plan would offset "savings" accrued by gutting programs for working families.

In addition, EPI found using data from the Congressional Budget Office, the GOP would put at risk the economic recovery by shrinking the GDP by at least 1.1 percent.

Because tax cuts for the rich is "the lowest bang-for-the-buck" stimulus plan, it would simply fail to offset jobs lost due to shrinking government investments in those areas listed above.

Simply put, the Republican Party's plan to give tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working families would result in a net loss of 1.1 million jobs.

So far the Republicans have refused to get specific about what they would cut. They have refused to do so because they know their ideas would meet massive public resistance. But their proposal for "across the board spending cuts" would mean eliminating schools, roads, railroads, sewers, hospitals, community health centers, energy improvements, and research that would improve our lives, strengthen the economy, and modernize the country.

All in the name of benefiting a handful of rich people.

Michigan GOP Governor Ticket Favors Outsourcing, Privatization

Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:11:00 +0000

The Republican candidate for governor in Michigan is "proud" of his record of outsourcing as an executive with Gateway Computers. His ultra-rich running mate opposes health reform, ending tax loopholes that protect outsourcing corporations, and wants to privatize Social Security.

Rick Snyder, the dubiously successful venture capitalist and a former Director and CEO of Gateway Computers who wants to be "hired" as Michigan's next governor, claims to have created jobs. The record, however, tells a different story. According to numerous media reports, Snyder sat on the company's board of directors when it outsourced thousands – as many as 19,000 – jobs out of the country.

Apart from his job-cutting skills at Gateway, Snyder has dabbled in venture capitalism. He told some supporters recently that profits from speculation and "picking winners and losers" is "hard work" that "governments just can't do." His campaign is even centered on his supposedly successful role in venture capital investments as important experience for a governor.

But even the Republican Party leaning Wall Street Journal isn't buying into Snyder's claims that his venture capitalist investments created some jobs in Michigan or was even very successful. In a recent blog post WSJ reporter Scott Austin noted that Snyder's role as a venture capitalist didn't actually create jobs.

As Austin writes, a venture capitalist group like Snyder's only raises cash for start-up companies who it speculates will be profitable and plays no role in hiring decisions or the ultimate success of the company. Only 10 of three dozen start-ups that got money from one of Snyder's companies were in Michigan.

Simply put, Snyder makes most of his living speculating on the hard work of other people, most of whom live in other states or other countries.

Even then, Snyder's efforts have proven to be less than remarkable Austin added. Most of the companies that got Snyder money have gone out of business, and others seem to be so unstable they have moved from company to company. For Snyder, picking losers seems to have been the easiest work of all.

"We may never know exactly how well his investments have panned out, unless he’s compelled to release that information during his campaign," Austin wrote. Even Snyder's Republican friends were skeptical of his business acumen. Democrats have called for full disclosure of Snyder's financial records, but so far he has refused to allow much public light on them.

Why does a supposedly successful venture capitalist want to become governor of Michigan, many wonder? If government can't do the sort of job creating activity Snyder claims to have done, why is he so anxious to leave the private sector? Whatever the reason, Michigan working families can believe it isn't int heir interest.

With ties to the Republican Party shadow group Americans for Tax Reform, Snyder's running mate, Rob Steele, has an even shadier history. According to that group's website, Steele supports tax laws that provide benefits and tax breaks to companies that move jobs out of the country. No wonder Snyder likes him so much.

According to media accounts, Steele even stood with those Republican Party leads who objected to U.S. government efforts to hold BP financially accountable for its Gulf Coast oil spill.

Steele doesn't stop there, however. He opposed the new health reform law which prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions and closed the so-called Medicare donut hole. Steel wants insurance companies to be able to deny as much care as possible in order to make more profits. He wants retirees and other Medicare beneficiaries to have to pay higher out-of-pocket expenses to get their prescription drugs.

And if that weren't enough, Snyder is a devout proponent of Social Security privatization. Some may say that issue isn't important because, after all, no lieutenant governor has authority over Social Security. But can Michigan voters risk elevating a Republican Party politician who is so clearly opposed to the interests of working families and seniors?

Snyder and Steel like to present themselves as something new. But when you scratch the surface even a little, you find the same policies that cost Michigan tens of thousands of jobs over the past two decades. You find the same economic ideologies that caused the financial crisis in 2008 and offer no solutions for today's recession.

Florida Still a Battleground for Labor, Progressives

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:14:00 +0000

TALLAHASSEE – The hotly contested Senate and Gubernatorial races here are once again establishing Florida as a key, battleground state as organized labor and progressives seek to defeat the ultra-right combination of the “Tea Party” movement and the Republican Party.

The Senate race, in particularly, is being closely watched. Florida Governor Charlie Crist was heavily favored by many political pundits to win the Senate seat, but faced a serious challenge from ultra-right backed Marco Rubio, compelling Crist to leave the Republican Party and run his campaign as an independent. Crist had high “favorable” numbers among Floridians, but never courted the combination of neoconservatives and paleoconservatives which are the GOP’s base, leaving that field open to Rubio who received support from those forces on a nationwide scale.

Current polls show Crist trailing Rubio by two percentage points. The Democratic candidate for Senate, Kendrick Meek, once regarded by the mainstream media as an also-ran, has seen a surprising surge in his numbers which once were in the mid-teens. The current poll by CNN and Time magazine shows a jump in his support, with 24 percent of voters polled now favoring him.

While these numbers are still 10 to 12 percentage points less than the poll numbers for Crist and Rubio, they attest to the efforts of organized labor and progressives both inside and outside of the Florida Democratic Party. As governor, Crist was supportive of many of the economic perspectives of his predecessor, Jeb Bush, while abandoning conservatism in favor of a kind of homespun populism. But Crist is finding running as an independent has some distinct disadvantages, and has not fared well recently.

And while Marco Rubio may be the darling of the ultra-right, the Florida Republican Party was rocked earlier this year by a lawsuit alleging secret contracts, lavish spending, and the departure of Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer. While this scandal had a major role in derailing Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s effort to win the Republican nomination for Governor, it remains to be seen whether it will prove equally detrimental to Rubio’s campaign.

Florida’s other US Senator, Bill Nelson, a Democrat, is not up for reelection this year.

The Gubernatorial race is pitting Democratic (Ms.) Alex Sink against multi-millionaire Rick Scott, the former Chief Executive Officer for the Columbia/HCA hospital chain. Scott spent millions of his own money to squeak by GOP favorite McCollum by only 3 percentage points in the primary.

But Scott’s virtually unlimited campaign coffers may be the only thing he has going for him. GOP regulars regard him as an “outsider,” and it has been reported that the during his tenure as CEO of Columbia/HCA, the hospital chain paid $1.7 billion in fines for Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

Recent CNN/Time polls show Sink with a 13 point lead among independent voters, and a 49 to 42 percent lead over Florida’s registered voters. Ron Littlepage, writing in the Jacksonville-based Florida Times-Union on September 12, reports that “In one of her campaign ads, Alex Sink correctly points out that her opponent, Rick Scott, is talking more about President Barack Obama than about what he would do as governor of Florida.”

“That’s not a surprise,” Littlepage continues, “[i]t was the same tactic he used in his primary battle against Bill McCollum when it appeared he was running for Arizona’s State House, not the Sunshine State’s.”

“There’s a reason he’s running on red-meat national issues like health care reform, the federal stimulus package and a proposed Mosque in New York city,” note Littlepage. “That’s because his platform for governing Florida, what there is of it, is worn out and a proven failure.” (Sink has a Big Edge over Scott on the Real Issues,” Florida Times-Union, 9/12/10).

William Harris, a retired Teamster now living in the Jacksonville area, says the stakes for him in Florida’s mid-term election are clear. “I don’t know whether I would call myself ‘progressive,’” he says. “I’ll tell you that I am a working man, just like my Dad and my Granddaddy. Well, I am retired now, but I’ll always be a working man and I vote like one. These people, like Rubio and Scott….they’re not for people like me. Never have been, never will be, no sir. But I know how important this election is and that’s why I’ll make sure that me and a bunch of other seniors will be giving people rides to the polls.”

Then, using language that was famously described in Nixon’s phony “White House Transcripts” as an expletive deleted to describe how he felt about the ultra-right, Harris got back into his car, a car that still sported an Obama/Biden bumper sticker.

Photo by Erik (HASH) Hersman, courtesy Flickr, cc by 2.0

IRWIN SILBER, a Craftsman of the Folk Revival, Dies at 84

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:10:00 +0000

Irwin Silber (1925-2010) is recalled today as a primary craftsman of the urban folk song revival, that which grew out of the 1940s and culminated in the early 1960s. He died on September 8 in Oakland California from complications of Alzheimer’s disease.

Founder of the celebrated ‘Sing Out!’ magazine, Silber was a noted writer, social activist and cultural organizer and like many of his time, he focused on his mission with unwavering eyes, even when it brought him nearly to the point of blows with many inside the movement. His notorious battles with Bob Dylan on the pages of ‘Sing Out!’, chiding the songwriter as he strayed away from the acoustic genre and expanded his lyrical spectrum beyond the topical, added to the generational tear between Lefts old and new. Still, Silber’s commitment to progressive ideals remained cherished; in recent decades he came to be seen as a sage who’d been present for many historic struggles for social change and chronicled them in real time.

Silber was born in Manhattan on October 17, 1925, just in time to experience the formative years of the Great Depression. Like many of his contemporaries in New York City’s working-class Jewish community, Silber came to quickly understand the relevance of fight-back. Rapidly he developed into an activist, joining the ranks of the Young Communist League and then the Communist Party itself. As a student at Brooklyn College he organized the American Folksay Group and through his associations with the likes of Pete Seeger and Alan Lomax, Silber became an integral part of Seeger’s post-war People’s Songs organization. Here was an independent artist-run collective which not only sought to publish the songs of veteran Left-wing folksingers, but it also grew into a national network for the publicity and management of same. Silber was on the founding committee of People’s Songs, ultimately growing into one of its leaders and became a frequent contributor to its newsletter. ‘The People’s Songs Newsletter’ was deemed a very important means of communication among the folksingers of the Left and many important songs were published within its pages. But by 1948 pressures from the increasingly rightward trend in the nation saw the organization falling victim to red-baiting and ultimately disbanding. By 1950, the newsletter, too, was gone. Silber, recognizing the strength in a national magazine to publish and popularize new topical songs, created ‘Sing Out!’ later that year. He served as its editor until 1968, publishing articles and songs by Woody Guthrie, Seeger, Malvina Reynolds, Leadbelly and many artists found then within college campuses and in coffee houses.

As the icons of the initial folk revival gave way to the next generation of the early ‘60s, Silber’s magazine (along with Sis Cunningham’s ‘Broadside’) became most noted for its publication of songs by Dylan, Phil Ochs, Joan Baez, Judy Collins and other rising stars then selling out folk festivals. Coverage of these artists, as well as having their latest songs in print and available to young people rushing out to buy guitars and banjos, allowed ‘Sing Out!’ to be seen as the folksinger’s bible. Yet in 1965 as Bob Dylan went electric, Silber found himself in the midst of battle and his fiery criticism saw Dylan refusing to publish any more songs in the magazine. The confrontation with this most prized celebrity songwriter and Silber’s attacks on other notables of the day, including Phil Ochs, saw him eventually fall into disfavor among the youth movement. He was asked to leave ‘Sing Out!’ by ‘68 due to his hard-line stand—one which appeared to reflect the old Left he’d already removed himself from; he’d severed ties with the Communist Party by 1955. Ironically, Silber had by then become a driving force in an SDS offshoot, the decidedly Maoist organization, the New Communist Movement, and went on to write and edit their newspaper, ‘the Guardian’.

Throughout his life, Irwin Silber can best be described as a cultural worker. When in the late 1950s he was called into questioning by the House Un-American Activities Committee , he memorably told the Committee that his work at the Party-led Jefferson School of Social Science was in the teaching of square dancing. During his years with ‘Sing Out!’ he was sure to publish a progressive magazine and made an effort to focus on songs of protest---topics such as civil rights, the Vietnam War, the women’s movement and any number of struggles for liberation were of primary focus. In 1964 Silber married Jazz vocalist/activist Barbara Dane and the two embarked on a journey to seek out, record and publish songs of revolution around the world. He and Dane maintained their own record label, Paredon, to preserve the music, throughout 1980, at which time it was wholeheartedly given to the Folkways label.

Though Silber published several books on folk music, he also authored a number of works on politics and in 2004 a biography of Lester Rodney--prized sportswriter for Communist Party newspaper ‘the Daily Worker’ , completing the circle of his avowedly radical life and times.

Privatizing Water Resources

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:08:00 +0000

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that some countries have turned over public water supplies to private companies, effectively denying local communities much-needed access? -- J. Johnson, Lancaster, PA

Water is such an important part of life that it has long been regarded as a public good worth entrusting only to public entities. But given the mixed track record of municipal, regional and national governments to properly manage water resources, outsourcing to private companies is becoming more common. But critics of such privatization point out that the end result for consumers is not always so positive.

Perhaps the best known example transpired in Bolivia in the 1990s, when water systems in poor regions were put up for sale to private investors at the urging of development agencies intent on steering poor countries away from state control of industries and toward free market systems. Bolivia hired U.S.-based Bechtel Corporation to take over and manage water in the Cochabamba region there. Bechtel made good on its pledge to provide water to many previously underserved Cochabamba areas, but it also raised prices significantly. “Many were unable to pay such high rates, and even though water was now available to them, they couldn’t access it because they couldn’t afford it,” reports the non-profit World Savvy.

In 2000 riots erupted in Cochabamba as hundreds of residents filled the streets, angry that a private, foreign entity was preventing them from accessing water. “The violence shook the confidence of the local government and international investors,” says World Savvy. “Bechtel was forced out, resulting in not only chaos in water delivery in the area, but also in a serious blow to foreign investment in the country.” Similar conflicts have played out in other parts of Bolivia as well as in Ghana, Uruguay and the United Kingdom.

In the U.S., the federal government ensured the protection of waterways and drinking water in the 1970s through passage of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, which among other benefits increased funding for community water systems to help cities and towns maintain high standards and inexpensive access to fresh water. “However, since the 1980s, the federal government has been cutting back funding to communities for water infrastructure, with assistance falling to historic lows under the Bush administration,” reports the non-profit Food & Water Watch. Without federal funding, communities that can’t afford to keep fresh water supplies clean and safe are increasingly turning to private companies.

But at what cost? Food & Water Watch cites dozens of examples from across the country where water privatization has gone woefully bad: “[H]igh rates and bad service plague communities who transfer control of their water service to the hands of corporations.” Common complaints include skyrocketing rates, sewage flooded basements, broken pipes, bad water quality, and cost overruns. “The water barons prioritize stockholder returns over public wellbeing and leave municipalities to clean up the mess.”

Not everyone thinks water privatization is all bad, especially when governments can’t efficiently manage the sourcing, sanitizing and distribution of life’s most vital resource. “There is evidence that privatization may work when the cost of water is subsidized for poorer populations,” reports World Savvy. Regardless, the debate will rage on as more and more governments turn to water privatization as stress over accessing water becomes more commonplace in a quickly warming and increasingly drought-stricken world.

CONTACTS: World Savvy, www.worldsavvy.org; Food & Water Watch, www.foodandwaterwatch.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 Kris Krug, courtesy Flickr.

Commons as an Active Producer

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:05:00 +0000

Original source: People's Democracy (India)

Today, the new digital age is recreating a number of much older ideas. Producing software collaboratively and with various free software licenses is building a new digital commons. This is not all. We also have the Wikipedia, which at least in less politically contended areas, has produced a new encyclopedia, again built collaboratively. Music, films and various other forms, earlier regarded distinct from software, are also in the process of discovering the new world where copyright rules only in the courts and cannot be maintained in the real one. It is this new age of knowledge, creativity and software commons that is confronting the old world of “intellectual property.”

The idea that private property is integral to economic production assumes that without property, production will come to a grinding halt. It is this deifying the current form of capitalist property that we need to demolish. Eben Moglen, in his talk in Delhi on September 2 did just that, when he traced the rise of property to the destruction of the older commons – the state of nature. More importantly, he also talked of the commons as an active producer in the new digital economy, ending with the hope that as knowledge penetrates all spheres of production, the most important commons of all – our collective brain power – will create a future for the human race very different from the property-bound, hierarchically organized current mode of production.

There are significant similarities between the earlier enclosure of the commons and the current enclosure; as well as dissimilarities. The earlier commons enclosed were passive and limited. The forests, common lands, water bodies, all provided humanity with food and other resources. With the development of private property, these commons were gradually enclosed, for example, the colonial enclosure of forests in India and the enclosure of common lands in England by the powerful land-owners. Such enclosures still continue. Capitalist production is dumping industrial wastes – CO2 – in the atmosphere and creating global warming. The refusal of the rich countries to address global warming by cutting CO2 emissions is an attempt to “enclose” the global atmospheric commons.

FENCING COMMONS

The attempt to create “intellectual property” in software and life sciences is another attempt to fence in what was earlier regarded as belonging to commons. Earlier, mathematics and algorithms were thought to be non-patentable as was all life forms. Today, software is sought to be patented as is genetic code. The current patent regime in the US – also being pushed elsewhere including India – is attempting to put patent fences around such “commons.” Science is no longer what you do to understand nature but is being converted to property of private corporations.

The significant difference between the commons of yore and the current commons is that the earlier commons were finite, even if they appeared as relatively infinite. Land was always a limited resource, but it is clear today so is air and water. While fencing in of the commons to create property helped the rich and the powerful, it could still be argued that this was “more economically efficient”. This is the argument that is advanced by a host of economists who talk about the tragedy of the commons – that commons not being anybody's private property, gets over-exploited. Therefore the “need” to fence it in and exploit it privately as a more economically efficient form of production.

This has also produced a lot of literature regarding the tragedy of the anti-commons, showing that rules of the commons do work quite well, and fails only under some conditions. But even if we disregard this literature, the key difference between the earlier finite commons and the current knowledge commons – science, software, mathematics – is that they are not finite. A software or a scientific law, used again and again does not wear out – you cannot over-exploit these commons. They are infinite human resource.

This brings us to the next question. If human production is indeed increasingly knowledge based, is there a contradiction in the way it is being produced and the way goods are produced? If we look at production of goods, it is still dominated by economies of scale, particularly the metallurgical and energy industries. Despite all the technical innovation involved, the technology in these areas is still as it existed in the last 100 years. In other areas, there is a real possibility of de-scaling technology, even if it is in its infancy. For the time being, we can still accept that though economies of scale do not work so well in a range of goods, it is still the dominant form of production of material goods.

The scene is radically different if we take the production of knowledge itself. The 20th century saw the rise of scientific research being corporatized in a big way. Huge research laboratories were what big corporations set up – Bell Laboratories being of course the leading example. But this was not an exception. The 20th century saw the role of individual innovators reduce and the rise of big corporate research centers.

ECONOMIES OF NETWORKS

However, by the end of the 20th century, the economies of scale in producing knowledge that led to the setting up these laboratories had disappeared. What we have today are economies of networks. A set of people working independently have written 204 million lines of source code, producing what is known as Gnu/Linux operating system. For just the kernel alone (the part that really drives the CPU hardware), 3,200 developers from 200 companies and over a 100 countries have contributed for the current release. This is the power of network that no economies of scale can give within a company, however large it might be. It is this power of the network that is creating the new digital commons.

Most people have who have focussed on copyright and patents miss one central point in this. Copyright and patents give rights over copies or rights over reproduction. What is fundamentally changing is the mode of production of knowledge, and this is qualitatively different from what we have seen earlier.

This is what Eben in his talk called the active commons. Commons by virtue of producing new “goods” is forcing even large corporations to adopt free and open source software – not because they want to but because they can no longer compete with this form of production. IBM did not set out to promote open source software, that it does is because it sees in this a superior model of producing software and would like to piggy-back on it for its business.

This is no longer restricted to software. The phenomenon of copyrighted music distributed by music labels is giving way to free distribution through peer to peer sharing. But this is only the first step. The music world is moving from distribution monopolies to concerts being the major money maker. In India, major labels promote events as the record sales are falling. The crucial element is once the distribution monopoly of music labels is broken, the individual producers who in any case were the primary producers, can directly reach the market. The labels no longer control music production.

Film making is also undergoing a major change. Both in distribution and in film making, the role of the studios are dwindling. Yes, there is still the block-buster movies with huge budgets. But it is also possible to produce films with much less costs and distribute directly. Economies of scale are breaking down here as well, though not as obviously as in music.

Eben raised the issue what happens if we get a production system that is based on nano technologies at the atomic level shaping goods. Will such techniques of micro production make economies of scale obsolete? He passionately believes it will, as knowledge and the economies of networks will drive this form of production. In such a world, economies of scale will give away to collaborative networks creating new goods the same way we develop software. And if economies of scale disappear, so will the dinosaurs of today – large, centrally controlled, hierarchically structured corporations that are central to the capitalist mode of production.

A part of this phenomenon is already visible. In the developed economies, particularly the US, the large manufacturing companies have given way to companies that live off copyright and patents – big pharma, software and media companies. Or deal with re-distribution of the surplus – the financial companies that produce nothing and just skim off the top. Already, the producers are quite often the small producer – either an ancillary or sometimes producing the product itself under a big corporation brand. The breakdown of the economies of scale is already under way in a number of different ways. Even without Eben's vision of atomic scale production of goods using nano technologies. Whether it will extend to all spheres of production still remains to be seen, but the demise of large, vertically integrated monopolies are visible over a range of industries.

One can argue that Eben does not address the politics of capital – that even if a property form is dying – its physical reach and control can be enormous. Capital is quite capable of taking the notion of Madam Pompadour, “After me, the deluge” much further. After all, French Revolution confronted an aristocracy with rather limited fire power. Today's defender of capital come armed with nuclear weapons and drones for remote kills.

But that is missing the point. If a system of production is becoming obsolete, no amount of fire-power can stop this change. The real question is whether the movement from commons to property is really being reversed today? Even if this phenomenon is small, is it growing and does it therefore pose a threat to private property? After all, when Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto and described the enormous expansion of production that capitalism was bringing in, capitalism was actually in its infancy. What was prophetic in Marx's vision is that he saw capitalist production, not as it existed then, but as it was becoming. And this is what we have to see today. Not the existing form of production as it is today but what it is becoming. The active commons creating new knowledge and as an agent of breaking down the older forms of production.

The key to the control of capital over production has been its ability to create continuously new knowledge and technology. Its ability create new knowledge that has given big capital its edge over other forms of production. It is here at the heart of capital that creation of new knowledge and technology – the active commons – is emerging. This is the active commons driven by the collective brain power of humanity. If capital can no longer control the production of new knowledge, it loses control over technology. Its use of WTO and TRIPS – creating a larger domain of “intellectual property” – shows not its strength but its weakness. It is its inability to control the physical process of knowledge creation that it now seeks to control it through legal means. That is why this new form of collaborative knowledge creation spells the doom of capital, even if its death throes are going to be long and painful.

Georgia WAND Lobbies US Sen. Isakson on US-Russia Treaty

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:01:00 +0000

Original source: The Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA -- Activists from Georgia Women's Action for New Directions and other organizations have been lobbying US Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, to vote yes on the new US-Russia START agreement.

On April 08, 2010, the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) was signed in Prague by the United States and Russia, a treaty which would reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads to levels not seen since the 1950's.

The new START will reduce nuclear warheads from each country by 650 which will bring the total down to 1,550 deployable nuclear weapons from the current level of 2,200. Deployable means the nuclear weapons are on a 15 minute hair trigger to being launched.

This is still far more than enough nuclear weapons to annihilate everyone and everything on the planet many times over. New START is a positive but small step in the right direction to make the world safer from nuclear destruction for all future generations.

Georgia WAND works on many levels to educate citizens about nuclear weapons issues and to advocate for nuclear disarmament. Some of their projects to get information out to the public and elected officials about the new START have included writing letters, submitting opinion articles, giving presentations on START to Georgia groups, making petitions and letters to representatives available for the public to sign at different events, phone banking across the state, conducting educational programs, participating in panel discussions, and lobbying.

Delegations from WAND have met with Senator Johnny Isakson in DC and with his staffers regularly on New START. Every spring WAND takes a delegation from the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) to lobby in DC.

"I have met with Senator Isakson on at least four occasions regarding New START and also had discussions with him about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)," Bobbie Paul, Executive Director of Georgia WAND, told APN. CTBT prevents other countries from conducting tests that could lead to new and more deadly weapons.

"We believe that New START is a critically needed step to make our nation more secure and to increase our credibility as we move to decrease the number of nuclear weapons here and in Russia and promote securing loose nuclear materials worldwide," Paul said.

Numerous former Democratic and Republican professionals, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Colin Powell, James Baker; former US Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA); former Secretaries of Defense William Perry and James Schlesinger; and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft have endorsed New START. Former U.S. military commanders of Strategic Air Command and U.S. Strategic Command have written letters to the Senate supporting the treaty. The Secretaries of Defense, State and Energy have all spoken out in support of New START.

"This treaty will provide for inspections that the United States would not otherwise be able to hold," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement.

"For 15 years, START provided us access to monitor and inspect Russia’s nuclear arsenal. START expired last December. It, therefore, has been more than eight months since we have had inspectors on the ground in Russia. This is a critical point. Opposing ratification (of New START) means opposing the inspections that provide us a vital window into Russia’s arsenal. This treaty in no way does or will constrain our ability to modernize our nuclear enterprise or develop and deploy the most effective missile defenses for the sake of our security and for our allies, friends, and partners," Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State said.

However Republican Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC), James Inhofe (R-OK), Jon Kyl (R-NV), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) have repeatedly criticized the treaty. Mitt Romney, a 2008 Presidential candidate, is also adamantly opposed to the treaty in the run up to the 2012 election.

US Sen. DeMint, R-SC, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, says New START will weaken US national security. "New START is another Obama giveaway at the expense of US citizens," DeMint said in an US News and World Report op-ed.

Some advocates believe the Republican holdouts are basing their position more on election politics--that is, for the sake of opposing the Obama Administration--rather than the facts or merits of the treaty. They may also be pandering to antiquated, Cold War thinking that more and more nuclear weapons equates safety.

New START will protect all people against nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. It will increase US national security by dismantling excess nuclear weapons and making it less likely for an accident to occur or for terrorists to obtain fissile material to build a bomb. It will also allow the US, once again, to inspect Russia's nuclear arsenal. The treaty places no constraints on US missile defense plans now or in the future.

The original START treaty was proposed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, and START I was signed by Republican President George H. W. Bush. The fact that most Republicans in the past had no problem in ratifying START shows how petty partisan politics today have become.

"START I passed 93-6 under President George H.W. Bush. It has always enjoyed bi-partisan support and has been effective. Military advisors from the past seven administrations all support START," Paul said.

In May of this year, Secretary of State Clinton explained to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "This is a treaty that will reduce the permissible number of Russian and U.S.-deployed strategic warheads to 1,550. In addition, each country will be limited to 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic missile launchers and heavy bombers. These targets will help the United States and Russia bring our deployed strategic arsenals, which were sized for the Cold War, to levels that are appropriate for today’s threats. This is a treaty that will help us track remaining weapons with an extensive verification regime."

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote September 16--or this Thursday--on the New START.

US Sen. Isakson is a critical Republican vote on that committee. If the treaty is not approved by a bipartisan coalition including at least a few Republicans on the Committee, it will be more difficult for the treaty to pass the full US Senate.

Paul has said that she is hopeful Isakson will vote yes. She believes that the senator "sees himself as a statesman."

Isakson and US Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) will both vote when New START comes before the full Senate. Sixty-seven (67) votes - a two-third's majority - are needed to ratify the treaty in the full Senate.

One thing being negotiated by Republicans for their yes vote is more money for the massive nuclear weapons complexes throughout the US. This money will be used for modernization or to upgrade new systems at nuclear weapons facilities. As previously reported by APN, this could include building new plutonium bombs to replace ones the government says are aging.

US Sens. Isakson and Bob Corker (R-TN) are the key holdouts on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who have not confirmed their plans to vote yes or no.

Isakson is being lobbied heavily by the very wealthy and conservative Heritage Foundation which wants New START defeated. That is in part why WAND is calling people across Georgia asking them to call US Sen. Isakson (770-661-0999) and tell him to vote "YES" on New START. WAND's goal is 3,000 calls to Senator Isakson's office before Wednesday.

Georgia WAND has delivered over 1,000 letters to each Georgia Senator urging them to vote YES to ratify the New START treaty.

A clerk in Isakson's office told APN that the Senator had not yet made up his mind and was considering both sides.

Other local and national groups engaged in supporting New START are the Daisy Alliance; the Atlanta Presbytery, North Decatur and Central Presbyterian Church, the Quakers, the Methodist Church, the Unitarian Church, and many other faith groups; the League of Women Voters; student groups with Global Zero at the University of Georgia; Global Voice; Physicians for Social Responsibility; the United Nations Association chapters in Georgia; and others

Photo: President Obama and Russian President Medvedev meet to sign historic nuclear weapons reduction treaty. (White House Photo)

Action Needed to Create Clean Energy Jobs

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:58:00 +0000

Original source: Apollo Alliance

In honor of Labor Day, and to address the ongoing national unemployment crisis, President Obama released a proposal on Monday to spur job creation through investment in America's transportation infrastructure. The proposal, which includes investments in transit and high-speed rail, would move the United States forward on a path toward a cleaner transportation system geared to the 21st century.

If implemented, the six year plan-which would replace the currently expired federal transportation legislation-would rebuild 150,000 miles of roads; construct and maintain 4,000 miles of rail; and rehabilitate or reconstruct 150 miles of runways. It would also establish an infrastructure bank and make a sustained and effective commitment to high-speed rail. The plan would be funded, in part, by the elimination of oil and gas company subsidies. Click here for a White House fact sheet on the proposal.

In his speech introducing the infrastructure proposal, President Obama said, "We want to change the way Washington spends your tax dollars. We want to reform a haphazard, patchwork way of doing business. We want to focus on less wasteful approaches than we've got right now. We want competition and innovation that gives us the best bang for the buck."

James Corless, the director of Transportation for America, a transportation reform group with which the Apollo Alliance works closely, said of the new initiative, "What is most is encouraging is that the Administration has recognized that the earmark-driven, unaccountable spending of the past must end. The President today has promised to press for carefully targeted investments in those projects that compete best in satisfying clearly articulated national goals for energy security, safety, affordability, environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness. We look forward in coming weeks to more details on how the Administration fulfills these goals for reform. The proposal to pay for the initial installment by removing some of the unnecessary subsidies to oil and other highly profitable corporations also strikes us as a sound approach."

The Apollo Alliance joins Transportation for America in applauding the president's transportation infrastructure proposal. But, as Apollo Alliance supporters well know, the way to get the "best bang for the buck" is to make sure the transit vehicles, equipment and infrastructure generated by the proposal are manufactured by American workers. Stay tuned for a major Apollo report on this very topic, the Transportation Manufacturing Action Plan.

What's Next for the Senate on Clean Energy?

This week, at the Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would not push for a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in the next Congress, but rather would pursue a "piecemeal" approach focused on the electricity sector. He also said he hopes the Senate will pass a limited energy bill this year that includes the home energy efficiency retrofit program Home Star.

None of this comes as a surprise to those of us who watched with disappointment as the Senate failed to pass clean energy and climate legislation this summer.

In this month's Green Labor Journal, the Apollo Alliance evaluates what led to the failure of U.S. policymakers to adopt clean energy and climate measures this year.

There were many factors that led to the disappointing outcome in the Senate-some out of anyone's control but some that could have been influenced. Among those factors that were beyond control, the most important one was undoubtedly the economic crisis. High unemployment rates throughout the country made policymakers and the public extremely hesitant about any legislation that might impact jobs.

Although multiple analyses demonstrated that climate and energy policies in fact create jobs-green-collar jobs-opponents of clean energy also made repeated arguments that strong climate and energy policies were really a 'job-killing energy tax.' And amid unprecedented levels of economic uncertainty, these arguments resonated with a country and public facing enormous economic challenges.

Certainly the influence of moneyed interests on the political process also played a huge role in the Senate's failure on clean energy and climate issues. Congressman Joe Barton's apology to BP provided a textbook example of how heavy support from dirty energy companies can influence the positions of policymakers-not only on whether to hold oil companies like BP accountable for wrongdoing, but also on whether to support America's transition from the fossil-fuel status quo to clean energy.

To read more about our take on the multiple factors that contributed to the collapse of the Senate clean energy and climate bill-as well as our ideas about where do we go from here, check out the article in the Green Labor Journal.

Clean Energy Manufacturing Meltdown

Two disturbing articles published this week brought into stark relief the crisis that is facing the American clean energy manufacturing sector. A cover story in Thursday's New York Times (On Clean Energy, China Skirts the Rules) vividly described how Chinese clean energy manufacturing is booming while clean energy companies in the U.S. and Europe are just keeping their heads above water. In fact, many clean energy manufacturers are closing up U.S. plants and moving them overseas.

Another story in the Washington Post (Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas), described the closure of the last major GE factory making incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. The compact fluorescents (CFLs) that are replacing these traditional light bulbs are all being manufactured abroad-mostly in China.

Although the New York Times story focuses primarily on the Chinese policies that are attracting clean energy manufacturers (some of which are alleged to violate international trade laws), there is another side to the story: the lack of a coherent U.S. policy to grow the American clean energy manufacturing sector. The Apollo Alliance has long advocated such a policy, including measures like the Investments in Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) Act. Click here to read a longer piece about what the U.S. could be doing to boost domestic clean energy manufacturing. As long as we lack strong policies to support manufacturing, American workers will continue to suffer the consequences.

If That 'Mosque' ISN'T Built, This Is No Longer America

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:54:00 +0000

Original source: OpenMike Michael Moore's daily blog

I am opposed to the building of the "mosque" two blocks from Ground Zero.

I want it built on Ground Zero.

Why? Because I believe in an America that protects those who are the victims of hate and prejudice. I believe in an America that says you have the right to worship whatever God you have, wherever you want to worship. And I believe in an America that says to the world that we are a loving and generous people and if a bunch of murderers steal your religion from you and use it as their excuse to kill 3,000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back. And I want to put it at the spot where it was stolen from you.

There's been so much that's been said about this manufactured controversy, I really don't want to waste any time on this day of remembrance talking about it. But I hate bigotry and I hate liars, and so in case you missed any of the truth that's been lost in this, let me point out a few facts:

1. I love the Burlington Coat Factory. I've gotten some great winter coats there at a very reasonable price. Muslims have been holding their daily prayers there since 2009. No one ever complained about that. This is not going to be a "mosque," it's going to be a community center. It will have the same prayer room in it that's already there. But to even have to assure people that "it's not going to be mosque" is so offensive, I now wish they would just build a 111-story mosque there. That would be better than the lame and disgusting way the developer has left Ground Zero an empty hole until recently. The remains of over 1,100 people still haven't been found. That site is a sacred graveyard, and to be building another monument to commerce on it is a sacrilege. Why wasn't the entire site turned into a memorial peace park? People died there, and many of their remains are still strewn about, all these years later.

2. Guess who has helped the Muslims organize their plans for this community center? The JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER of Manhattan! Their rabbi has been advising them since the beginning. It's been a picture-perfect example of the kind of world we all want to live in. Peter Stuyvessant, New York's "founder," tried to expel the first Jews who arrived in Manhattan. Then the Dutch said, no, that's a bit much. So then Stuyvessant said ok, you can stay, but you cannot build a synagogue anywhere in Manhattan. Do your stupid Friday night thing at home. The first Jewish temple was not allowed to be built until 1730. Then there was a revolution, and the founding fathers said this country has to be secular -- no religious nuts or state religions. George Washington (inaugurated around the corner from Ground Zero) wanted to make a statement about this his very first year in office, and wrote this to American Jews:

"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy -- a policy worthy of imitation. ...

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens ...

"May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants -- while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

3. The Imam in charge of this project is the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet. Read about his past here.

4. Around five dozen Muslims died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Hundreds of members of their families still grieve and suffer. The 19 killers did not care what religion anyone belonged to when they took those lives.

5. I've never read a sadder headline in the New York Times than the one on the front page this past Monday: "American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?" That should make all of us so ashamed that even a single one of our fellow citizens should ever have to worry about if they "belong" here.

6. There is a McDonald's two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald's has killed far more people than the terrorists.

7. During an economic depression or a time of war, fascists are extremely skilled at whipping up fear and hate and getting the working class to blame "the other" for their troubles. Lincoln's enemies told poor Southern whites that he was "a Catholic." FDR's opponents said he was Jewish and called him "Jewsevelt." One in five Americans now believe Obama is a Muslim and 41% of Republicans don't believe he was born here.

8. Blaming a whole group for the actions of just one of that group is anti-American. Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. Should Oklahoma City prohibit the building of a Catholic Church near the site of the former federal building that McVeigh blew up?

9. Let's face it, all religions have their whackos. Catholics have O'Reilly, Gingrich, Hannity and Clarence Thomas (in fact all five conservatives who dominate the Supreme Court are Catholic). Protestants have Pat Robertson and too many to list here. The Mormons have Glenn Beck. Jews have Crazy Eddie. But we don't judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos. Unless they're Methodists.

10. If I should ever, God forbid, perish in a terrorist incident, and you or some nutty group uses my death as your justification to attack or discriminate against anyone in my name, I will come back and haunt you worse than Linda Blair marrying Freddy Krueger and moving into your bedroom to spawn Chucky. John Lennon was right when he asked us to imagine a world with "nothing to kill or die for and no religion, too." I heard Deepak Chopra this week say that "God gave humans the truth, and the devil came and he said, 'Let's give it a name and call it religion.' " But John Adams said it best when he wrote a sort of letter to the future (which he called "Posterity"): "Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it." I'm guessing ol' John Adams is up there repenting nonstop right now.

Friends, we all have a responsibility NOW to make sure that Muslim community center gets built. Once again, 70% of the country (the same number that initially supported the Iraq War) is on the wrong side and want the "mosque" moved. Enormous pressure has been put on the Imam to stop his project. We have to turn this thing around. Are we going to let the bullies and thugs win another one? Aren't you fed up by now? When would be a good time to take our country back from the haters?

I say right now. Let's each of us make a statement by donating to the building of this community center! It's a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization and you can donate a dollar or ten dollars (or more) right now through a secure pay pal account by clicking here. I will personally match the first $10,000 raised (forward your PayPal receipt to webguy@michaelmoore.com). If each one of you reading this blog/email donated just a couple of dollars, that would give the center over $6 million, more than what Donald Trump has offered to buy the Imam out. C'mon everyone, let's pitch in and help those who are being debased for simply wanting to do something good. We could all make a huge statement of love on this solemn day.

I lost a co-worker on 9/11. I write this today in his memory.

"The man who speaks of the enemy / Is the enemy himself." -- Bertolt Brecht

Obama Rejects Tax Cuts for the Rich, Calls for Big Oil to Pay Fair Share

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:40:00 +0000

The President came out swinging in a major economic policy speech in Cleveland, Sept. 8, against Republican Party obstructionism on economic recovery. He flatly rejected GOP plan's to give mammoth new tax cuts to the richest Americans and accused its leaders of pushing the "same philosophy that was tried for the last decade which led to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression: tax cuts for millionaires, cut rules for corporations, and leave the middle class to fend for itself."

Instead, President Obama called for a new package of tax cuts for working families, tax credits for businesses to purchase new equipment and for research and development, and infrastructure projects to spur job growth.

To pay for these proposals, administration officials told reporters the President wants to close tax loopholes for big oil companies and other companies that move jobs out of the country.

President Obama said he favors extending tax cuts for Americans earning $250,000 or less, while letting the Bush tax cuts for the very richest Americans sunset.

"We are ready, this week, to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less," the President said. "For any income over this amount, the tax rates would go back to what they were under President Clinton."

He rejected Republican claims that this move would be bad for the economy, citing the high deficit. "We can’t afford the $700 billion price tag [for tax cuts for the rich]." He also recalled that with a similar tax code in place in the 1990s, the U.S. economy created 22 million jobs.

When the economic crisis began, President Obama said, "My hope was that the crisis would cause everyone, Democrats and Republicans, to pull together and tackle our problems in a practical way. "

"But as we all know, things didn’t work out that way," he said. Ideological and partisan considerations caused "[s]ome Republican leaders [to figure] it was smart politics to sit on the sidelines and let Democrats solve the mess."

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner, R, Ohio, offered his party's views on the economy late last month, but, the President said, they were awfully familiar.

"There were no new policies from Mr. Boehner," he explained. "There were no new ideas. There was just the same philosophy we already tried for the last decade – the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place."

Instead Republicans want to scale back the major accomplishments of the past year and a half. They want to allow health insurance companies to once again deny care for people who are sick and allow the credit card companies to raise interest rates unfettered, Obama pointed out. Republicans want to privatize Social Security and voted against family tax credits for higher education.

Indeed, the President continued, Republicans have kept tax loopholes for corporations that move jobs out of the country. "For years, Republicans have fought to keep these corporate loopholes open," he said.

"In fact, when Mr. Boehner was here in Cleveland he attacked us for closing a few of these loopholes – and using the money to help states like Ohio keep hundreds of thousands of teachers and cops and firefighters on the job," the President noted.

Referring to the jobs bill passed by Congress last month, President Obama explained that the closed tax loopholes will help pay to keep teachers in schools, cops on the beat, and firefighters protecting our families.

But Boehner "dismissed these jobs … as quote 'government jobs' – jobs that I guess he thought just weren’t worth saving," President Obama added.

"Mr. Boehner and the Republicans in Congress said no to these projects. Fought them tooth and nail," Obama emphasized.

"Though I should say that didn’t stop a lot of them from showing up at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies and trying to take credit," he said, referring to to the fact that numerous Republicans who voted against the recovery act have claimed credit for money brought to their home districts. "That’s always a sight to see."

Republican obstructionism and hypocrisy earned additional fire from White House Director of Communications Dan Pfeiffer who told reporters by a teleconference with the press, Sept. 8, Boehner and the Republicans want to return to the same policies that caused the crisis and hurt America's working families in the first place.

"We know the policies that Leader Boehner and the Republicans are advocating," Pfeiffer said, citing the huge deficits, the financial meltdown, and jobs crisis. "We know what they'll do. We're still reaping the consequences of that."

Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Jason Furman touted the Obama administration's accomplishments in the economy. In addition to the recovery act, President Obama's legislative accomplishments include the "cash for clunkers" program, extension of the homebuyer tax credit, tax credits for businesses to hire unemployed workers and those involved in infrastructure projects, and the passage of the new jobs bill last month.

Furman also noted that new tax credits the President has proposed would be designed to benefit companies who do research and development here in the U.S. He added that the President wants to pay for new tax credits and infrastructure projects by ending massive government tax subsidies for the biggest oil companies.

"The big oil companies actually pay lower tax rates on their profits than most other corporations in the economy," he said. "Get rid of those tax breaks so the big oil companies are being treated just the same as every other corporation when it comes to taxes."

Furman added that new revenue could be created by closing some 350 remaining loopholes that still provide incentives for companies who move their profits, investments and jobs out of the country.

Photo: President Obama speaks in Cleveland on the economy. (White House Photo)

For Workers, Unions Are the Answer

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:37:00 +0000

Remarks by AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker, Labor Lives United Conference, Miami, Florida
September 04, 2010

I want to acknowledge all of you, and thank you for coming this morning.

Your presence here on this labor day weekend is a testament that you are united in your belief that the labor movement and the community, when united together, can do great things to improve the lives of our fellow citizens in need.

Too many of the families in South Florida are in trouble because of this uncertain and frightening economy, that we all find ourselves so frustrated by.

Too many Floridians are jobless. The current statistics tell us it's 10%. That is 10% too many, and things must change. These are not just statistical percentages that we are talking about, but these are real people. People you and I know.

You have all heard the African proverb "it takes a village." Sisters and brothers, our village is in trouble. And the truth is, we couldn't divorce ourselves from each other if we wanted to.

Oh sure, we could make a decision to ignore each other's plight. We could turn a deaf ear to the voices and cries of those suffering. We could look suffering in the face and close our eyes to it, but that is not who we are. We are not a people who believes that the YOYO philosophy is a sound one. You know what YOYO stands for – "You are on Your Own." We are not YOYO people, but we are the people who believe that we are our brother's and our sister's keepers.

In the end, our neighbor's prosperity remains tied to our own. Whether we like it or not, we're going to rise or fall together.

That's true about individual workers and families, but it's also true of labor and business.

How did we get stuck with this false notion that our interests are in opposition to each other?

Economists – even some of the most prominent conservative economists at the University of Chicago – agree that working people are the tide that lifts all boats. Living here in Florida, you know something about tides – so you know that a rising tide does lift all boats.

That line was John F. Kennedy's. Did you know that? It was later incorporated by Ronald Reagan to justify tax cuts and the trickle-down economy – and even later to describe the tech and housing bubbles, but that's not how the phrase was originally used.

President Kennedy was in Colorado in 1963. He was there for the ground-breaking of construction to build a dam, a project that his political opponents had derided as pork-barrel politics, as irresponsible deficit spending.

Well, Kennedy argued that the waters from the dam would provide a public good, and he employed the metaphor of a rising tide to describe the influx of the workers' wages into local economy. The idea was the tide of wages would lift all business boats. That was Kennedy acknowledging that the workers would pour their money into the local economy. And he was right.

If you look at the problems we have in America today, they all trace back to our struggling middle class, and the fact that our local economies are starved for cash.

And the only way we're going to bring America back is with Kennedy-style economic patriotism – with the idea that promoting good jobs in America isn't bad economics, it's patriotic and good for business, and good for public education and other government services because of the enhanced tax revenues.

It's also good for charities like United Way. When people have good jobs and don't have to worry about their family's economic soundness and security, they are more likely to give back and volunteer. I think about this, as a member of United Way's National Board.

It's how a village gets back on track.

I want to tell you a story that's important to me, about the problems we face in America, and efforts we've made toward solutions.

About a month ago, I was in a church in Atlanta at a hearing about the Big Banks' role in the home foreclosure crisis. The hearing was sponsored by the AFL-CIO and the Atlanta Fighting Foreclosure Coalition. And the witnesses were people who had worked hard to build better lives for themselves only to have their American dreams shattered by losing their homes to foreclosure.

It was so important for us to be there, shining a light on a problem that remains too hidden. No one is proud of losing their home – no one broadcasts that humiliating news. And so for too long, our nation's most profitable banks have posted those foreclosure signs and tossed people out, often when other, more equitable options remained.

We were able to shine that light for one reason – because we heard the cry of a community and worked hand-in-hand with the community to respond.

As witness after witness told their stories, it became clear that the problem was not greedy people wanting too much house, the problem was not just workers who had lost jobs, become disabled, missed mortgage payments and lost homes, although there was some of that.

The problem was even bigger. It became evident that – working people across the board are suffering from the worst economic crisis in 75 years and all kinds of families are entangled in the subprime mortgage crisis – 3 million families all told. And in some cases, the lending was all but guaranteed to result in disaster.

One witness was Gloria McAlpin. Her late husband had been a police officer for 23 years before suffering a head injury that kept him from his job. She herself was disabled. Struggling to pay medical bills and to hang on to a home with only disability payments coming in, the McAlpins were misled into accepting an abusive mortgage refinance loan that ended up taking 88 percent of their income. Eighty-eight percent!

Can you imagine Gloria's suffering?

And then there was the father of two children who were both on the honor role at their elementary school. At the hearing, he broke down and cried as he told us of the pain he feels forced to move his children out of the school where they are showing so much promise. But, if the bank doesn't renegotiate his subprime mortgage by adjusting his principal and interest, he will have no choice. Although he participated on our panel he didn't want to do television or radio interviews for fear his children would find out that they were soon going to be evicted. That's pain, sisters and brothers. That's pain.

After the hearing, leaders from faith, labor and local communities rallied together and we met with Wells Fargo officials to ask for fair treatment for homeowners struggling to stave off foreclosure. We asked in the name of Gloria McAlpin and others like her. We asked because fair treatment is not too much to want.

We also asked that those representatives of one of our nation's largest and most profitable bank make other changes in the name of fairness. We asked them to lower interest rates on payday loans; some people get stuck with 300 percent interest.

At times, one person's vulnerability becomes another's opportunity. Between equals, that's not necessarily a justice issue. But when opportunity becomes predatory, locking victims into cycles of deeper and deeper poverty, it becomes injustice.

And here's the good news. At a follow up meeting about two weeks ago with Wells Fargo in Washington, D.C., national officials for that bank committed to modifying their devastating loan products and to engaging more fairly with homeowners.

The reason I want to tell this story is its lesson in partnership, in bringing people together – the catalyst that comes from people coming together with a common cause.

The United Way in Miami-Dade has been up to its eyeballs in this community's layoffs and the desperate needs of working families on the brink.

Workers are losing jobs at places where we've never seen layoffs before, from utilities, and from places that we thought were safe – from health care facilities.

We're seeing foreclosures, empty homes, rising crime. Times are desperate, and people are desperate.

That's why jobs are important. That's why partnerships are important. We need to live united.

That brings me to my final point. One hundred years ago, America struggled with the idea of unions. There was this popular consensus that unions were for tradesmen – skilled carpenters and machinists – but not for miners or factory workers, seamstresses or textile workers or for people holding other jobs considered too low and unskilled.

It didn't matter that those so-called low-skill jobs earned the manufacturing and mining companies generous profits. The general public simply held an antipathy toward unions, and toward the new Polish, German, Italian and Slavic immigrants who wanted to come together to bargain for better wages and working conditions.

The debates today are remarkably similar to those a century ago. Immigrants today want the same things as immigrants a hundred years ago wanted – dignity, respect, and the right to a fair wage.

Union leaders find ourselves being demonized by those puppets of corporate greed and those voices that fill our airwaves with hate speech and a message of division. In some ways, the more things change the more they remain the same.

There will always be those who want to keep workers in their place, but I know that the only place for a worker is in his or her union. The union is the only place that workers coming together will find the panacea for dignity and respect on the job, for better wages and benefits, for safer working conditions, and yes, for a voice on the job.

I believe workers should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether to form unions, and to bargain for a better life, and I know that when workers began to organize freely, that it turned bad jobs into good jobs, it ushered in America's greatest period of prosperity, and the greatest middle class that the world has ever known.

It wasn't perfect, but it was good, and those same unions – inspired by the rights of working people – joined in the fight for civil rights and equality for all Americans.

I don't believe that America can or should long to return to days gone by, but we should take our lessons from the past, and we should understand that tools that worked once can work again. Remember Kennedy's economic patriotism and Roosevelt's New Deal. They worked!

And I also know that we've built a lot of jobs in America over the past 30 years, but not enough of them have been good jobs.

By organizing into unions, people can still transform bad jobs into good ones.

That's one key to rebuilding the middle class in Florida and America.

And when that tide rises, everything will rise with it: real estate, small businesses, working families.

That's a vision of the future we can celebrate—together.

Let's make our vision of the future come true. United and working together we have a chance. Happy Labor Day.

Photo: AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker. (Courtesy AFL-CIO)

For Labor Day – The Face of Labor in the Streets

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:35:00 +0000

Original source: TruthOut Report

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (9/5/10) This Labor Day the faces in the streets in cities across the U.S. are those of hotel workers, picketing some of the world's most luxurious establishments. In San Francisco, cooks, room cleaners, housemen and laundry workers laid siege to the Downtown Hilton recentlly, demanding that the corporation negotiate a new contract with their union, UNITE HERE Local 2.

(All photos by David Bacon)

This fall, the conflict between the union and the hotel corporations is spreading to over 40,000 workers in at least nine cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto, Minneapolis, Monterey, Vancouver, Honolulu, and Washington DC.

The San Francisco agreement expired on August 14. Since then, the union has been trying to bargain in the middle of an economic depression. According to Local 2 President Mike Casey, "The hotels are trying to exploit the bad economy to lower benefits. That's just not acceptable for corporations that are making significant profits, even now." The owners of the Hilton chain, the Blackstone investment group, told Wall Street analysts that it had $12.6 billion in available capital. CEO Stephen Schwarzman was given a compensation package of $1.39 billion in 2008.

San Francisco's largest hotels are demanding cuts in health and retirement benefits, and increased workloads. The luxury chains want workers to begin paying for their healthcare premiums -- $35/month this year, $115/month next year, and $200/month the year after. A typical San Francisco hotel worker earns $30,000 per year, and many can't work a full 40-hour week.

One Hilton housekeeper, Lupe Chavez, explains: "Some of us don't go on breaks or take shorter lunch breaks in order to finish. At the end of the day I'm exhausted. When I get home I just want to sleep. Now they're talking about increasing the hours needed to qualify for health benefits. That is what we're trying to avoid. I'm lost my health at the hotel, and all they think about is money."

Hilton workers mounted a dawn to dusk picket line late last month, chanting to guests, "Don't check in, check out!" These are their faces - all races and ages, together on the picket line, out in the street.

--David Bacon is the author of Illegal People – How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants.

Advocates Claim Atlanta Violating Safe Drinking Water Act

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:31:00 +0000

Original source: The Atlanta Progressive News

(APN) ATLANTA -- A group of Atlanta neighborhood activists have been engaged in a years-long battle to get the City of Atlanta to seek a permit for the shafts--through which waste water is sent into deep underground tunnels--something they believe is a requirement of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

The tunnels go long distances to treatment plants, where the water is treated at the surface and then is discharged to a river or stream.

The first problem is that non-drinkable water, including sewage, is not supposed to be injected underground into tunnels, according to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Section 144.12, "Prohibition of movement of fluid into underground sources of drinking water."

"No owner or operator shall construct, operate, maintain, convert, plug, abandon, or conduct any other injection activity in a manner that allows the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into underground sources of drinking water, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation under 40 CFR part 142 [National Primary Drinking Water Quality Regulations] or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons," the regulation states.

Advocates are particularly concerned about the part of Atlanta's sewer system which is combined, meaning that sewage and stormwater travel in the same tunnel to the treatment plant.

"There's concern that contamination of the aquifers could occur. When the wastewater's in the tunnel there's the potential for it to contaminate the aquifer. Whether it [the water in the aquifer] gets used in the future or presently is not the concern. The concern is federal law says the aquifer must be protected whether it's being used for drinking water wells or not," Robert Schreiber, former President of the Atlanta Planning Advisory Board and former Chairman for Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU) N, told Atlanta Progressive News.

Advocates--including Schreiber and Kate Bryant, former Chair of the Atlanta Zoning Review Board--have argued for years the City could have chosen an even better solution than the one it's pursuing, by requiring complete separation of the sewer pipes for sewage and ground water. This would have eliminated the need for the tunnels or the combined sewer system.

Advocates had also argued the City could have created more stormwater ponds to deal with the stormwater, but chose not to.

Schreiber says the City of Atlanta has tried to take the cheap and easy way out of its wastewater woes, by keeping a combined system for part of the City, rather than separating the systems citywide.

Schreiber argues that the City should have planned for growth and charged developers fees along the way which would have paid for the improvements.

The City of Atlanta has committed to spending over four billion dollars addressing its sewer problems.

"I am a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of good stewardship... [but] we pay the highest rate of any city in the United States for water service," Bryant said. "People do not understand this is for the sewer."

In addition, the shafts through which sewage and stormwater is injected to the tunnels, were never permitted.

"Atlanta has several sewer tunnels. None of the shafts have the permits," Schreiber said.

"The key of all of this is to protect public health. The permitting thing is a regulatory issue but the concern is to protect public health," Schreiber said.

Advocates have been focusing on the permitting requirement for the shafts, however, because they believe that if the City were to apply for such a permit, they would have to address the injection of sewage through the shafts into the tunnels. Moreover, the City may not be able to even qualify for such a permit.

Even if the permit for the shafts were approved, as part of the permitting process, the City would have to establish a formal groundwater monitoring system for the water to ensure it is drinkable.

The City of Atlanta refuses to acknowledge the Safe Drinking Water Act requires the City to obtain a permit for the shafts.

Rob Hunter, Commissioner of the City of Atlanta Watershed Department, did not respond to a request for comment.

In this stance, the City has been aided and abetted by the very federal and state agencies that are supposed to ensure compliance with federal laws.

"You have the regulators failing to require the permits be obtained. The City of Atlanta says it doesn't need to apply for the permit. Together, they are violating the Safe Drinking Water Act," Schreiber said.

11TH CIRCUIT DECISION AND THE DEFINITION OF A WELL

The requirement for the permits is in regulations which implement the SDWA. In addition, the 11th Circuit Court issued a ruling in 1997 from a separate lawsuit in Alabama--Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation v. US EPA--that advocates say prove that Atlanta must obtain a permit for its shafts.

"To achieve the statutory purpose of 'preventing underground injection which endangers drinking water sources'... Congress chose the regulatory strategy of requiring that state programs approved under the UIC [Underground Injection Control] regulations 'shall prohibit any underground injection in such State which is not authorized by a permit issued by the State," the ruling states, according to a copy obtained by APN.

"Thus, it is clear that Congress dictated that all underground injections be regulated under the UIC programs," the ruling states.

APN reviewed the Code of Federal Regulations--Title 40, Section 144.3 "Definitions"--to determine what is an underground injection.

The CFR states that an underground injection is a well injection. A "well" is defined as "A bored, drilled, or driven shaft whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or, a dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension..."

Schreiber states that Atlanta's shafts meet the definition of a well under the Underground Injection Control regulations, and therefore, injections through the shafts are, by legal definition, underground injections covered by the SDWA, the UIC, and the 11th Circuit ruling.

Meanwhile, EPA has acknowledged that any underground pipe or tunnel could leak, according to an internal memo obtained by Schreiber through FOIA request, a copy of which has been provided to APN.

"It is concluded that all pipes (and tunnels) have the potential to leak. However, the leakage process depends on the pressure (as results from the volume) of the sewage and water in the tunnel," Soloman Pollard, Senior Toxicologist, Office of Police Management for the EPA Region IV, wrote in the July 03, 2001, memo.

Schreiber said this is of concern even though the tunnels themselves technically do not have to be permitted, because the tunnels themselves would likely be addressed in the permitting process.

EPA DETERMINATION

Schreiber sent an inquiry on June 28, 2007, to EPA Region IV requesting a determination as to the legality of Atlanta's non-permitted shafts.

On September 28, 2007, Cynthia Dougherty, Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water for the EPA, sent a memo to Jim Giattina, Division Director of the Water Management Division of EPA Region IV.

"Based on the information that you have provided, a tunnel conveying sewage to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) for treatment is not underground injection [sic] that is required to have a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act," Dougherty wrote, according to a copy of the memo obtained by APN.

"The response I got from EPA headquarters determined that a tunnel is not a well requiring a UIC permit. Here's where they confuse you. But they didn't address where sending wastewater through shafts... into the tunnel... requires a permit. They gave me half an answer. They didn't give the whole truth. I would agree the tunnel doesn't have to have a permit, but they didn't address the shaft," Schreiber said.

"They both neglected the 11th Circuit decision which says you need to have a permit for the shaft," Schreiber said.

"Tunnels do not need to be permitted; shafts do by law. But the City has been trying to circumvent the law's requirements by saying tunnels don't need permits, but they never address the shaft issue," Schreiber said.

"Cracks and fissures of the acquifer and not permitting the shafts as required by law... is going to contaminate and threaten the public water supply and either [it should be] allowed or disallowed to move forward. No one wants to address it because it is after the fact," Bryant said.

"If there are cracks in these tunnels down the road, and just the shifting of the ground... pollution will leak into the public water supply; this is not rocket science," Bryant said.

BACKGROUND: HISTORY OF CITY VIOLATIONS

The City of Atlanta previously violated the Clean Water Act many times and Atlanta was repeatedly fined in the late 1990s and is still being fined, although for lesser amounts, today.

On March 23, 1990, EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported that Georgia and EPA Region 4 (EPA-R4) failed to require Atlanta to obtain Clean Water Act permits for the oldest part of its sewer system; did not require monitoring or sampling; and issued unauthorized waivers of the Clean Water Act in Atlanta, according to a copy of a memo obtained by APN.

However, EPD and EPA-R4 allowed the violations to continue without enforcement.

At that point, the City's old combined sewer system could not handle the increased level of stormwater that resulted from the growth of Atlanta, and had inadequate capacity. "When it rained, when the stormwater entered the combined pipes, there was inadequate capacity and the sewage spilled into creeks," Schreiber recalled.

In 1995, the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (UCR) filed a lawsuit and in 1997 won a summary judgment against Atlanta from federal Judge Thomas W. Thrash because of the recurring CWA violations.

In 1998, Mayor Bill Campbell representing Atlanta, agreed to bring the oldest part of its sewer system into compliance with the CWA and similar Georgia laws by entering into a legally binding agreement with UCR, EPA, and EPD, known as the Combined Sewer Overflow Consent Decree (CSO-CD), which was to be completed by 2007.

By 1999, Atlanta agreed to bring the other parts of its sewer system into compliance with the CWA and similar Georgia law, entering into another consent decree, known as the First Amended Consent Decree (FACD), which is supposed to be completed by 2014.

New tunnels were to be made along with new sewage plants so that pipes were not over run by sewage when it rained. The City promised that local rivers and streams would no longer be polluted with sewage.

Atlanta's plans included increasing the capacity of the sewer system in Atlanta's Buckhead neighborhood. In 2002, the City decided to create the Nancy Creek tunnel to address the issue.

Judge Thrash retains jurisdiction over both consent decrees, which task the City of Atlanta with complying not only with the CWA but "achieving and maintaining compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and permits," according to a copy obtained by APN. This would include the SDWA.

On April 30, 2010, Rob Hunter, on behalf of the City of Atlanta, asked the EPA and Georgia EPD to extend the terms of the First Amended Consent Decree. The City of Atlanta originally agreed to bring its sewer system into compliance with the Clean Water Act by 2014. Hunter asked for an extension to 2029. The City has argued there was no way to complete the requirements of the decree under the current budget by the original date, unless they were to raise the already-high water rates on homeowners.

UPCOMING MEETING BEFORE JUDGE THRASH

There will be a meeting to review the City's extension request in Judge Thrash's court within the next few weeks, according to Schreiber.

If there is a decision to extend the 2014 deadline, there will likely be a posting in the Federal Register allowing for a 30 day period of public comment.

About six months after this upcoming meeting, after consideration of all comment by federal agencies, a final amendment will be presented to the Judge for signing.

Advocates, including Schreiber, have already sent letters, including a legal opinion, to Judge Thrash and are hopeful that he will consider the issue.

Common Cause Georgia (CCG) has been supporting the advocates in their efforts, including in getting agencies to be more forthcoming with information.

Bill Bozarth, Executive Director of CCG, has accompanied Schreiber on some of his meetings with public officials concerning regulation of the sewer system.

"Any suggestion that anything might be amiss seems to be looked on [by government officials] with skepticism... We [the City] are not being as careful as we should be on these issues... some valid issues have been raised," Bozarth said.

Behind the Israeli Wall: A Lesson in Reality

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:29:00 +0000

Writers often romanticize their subjects. At times they even manipulate their readers. A book - or any piece of writing for that matter – is meant to provide a sense of completion. Sociological explanations are offered to offset the confusion caused by apparent inconsistency in human behavior. At times a reader is asked to take a stance, or choose sides.

This is especially true in writings which deal with compelling human experiences. In Behind the Wall: Life, Love and Struggle in Palestine (Potomac Books, 2010), Rich Wiles undoubtedly directs his readers, although implicitly, towards taking a stance. But he is unabashed about his moral priorities and makes no attempt to disguise his objectives.

As I began reading Wiles’ book, various aspects struck me as utterly refreshing in contrast to the way Palestine is generally written about. We tend to complicate what was meant to be straightforward and become too selective as we construct our narrative. And we tend to consider the possible political implications of our writings, and thus compose the conclusions with only this political awareness in mind.

Much of this is understandable. The situation in Palestine is appalling, and also worsening. If our writing is not meant to influence positive change, then why bother? But a hyped awareness of the consequences and over-politicization of narratives and texts can prove limiting and intellectually confining. Worse, at times it provides a particular contextualization of the conflict – with all of its internal offshoots and external outcomes – that does much injustice to other important contexts. It neglects facts and paints an unrealistic picture of a subject already confused in the minds of many readers.

Thus when the conflict is deciphered by a writer, all players take positions. Israel is pitted against ‘the Arabs’. Palestinians are often sliced off into two competing parties, while Israel is largely shown as maintaining a sense of political and institutional integrity. Palestinians are radicals or moderates, Islamists or secularists. The ‘conflict’ is right in the center, and within it are the sub-topics: the peace process, the occupation, the settlements and numerous others. Without such lucid configuration there is no structure. Publishers get frustrated. The writer is urged to revisit and restructure his work.

But real life is not a well-organized academic argument. It can be, and often is chaotic, strange and puzzling, but it is real. Only by understanding reality the way it is - not the way we feel that it ought to be for any reason - can we meaningfully position ourselves to appreciate the subject at hand.

Can we understand the conflict in Palestine and Israel without subscribing to the same language, confronting the same political and historical milestones? Can Palestinians be understood outside the confines of political and ideological affiliations?

That is what Rich Wiles attempted to do in Behind the Wall, and in my opinion, very much succeeded.

Wiles relocated the conflict historically, geographically and sociologically to the side most affected by it: the Palestinians. The book is located in the West Bank, mostly Aida refugee camp, where Wiles spent years dedicating his time and efforts as an artist and a writer to help children share their stories and talents with the rest of the world. The writing is a non-elitist, part and parcel, which is a prerequisite to a factual understanding of the struggle in Palestine. Equally important, Wiles provides a depiction of the Palestinian not as the victim, despite the protracted process of victimization that Palestinians have endured for generations. Wiles’ subjects might have been imprisoned or deeply scarred by war, but they are confident and complex human beings.

A chapter entitled “A Child and a Balcony” starts with this line: “‘On Friday, December 8, 2006, I was shot.’ Miras is unemotional as he tells his story.” Miras should be emotional, but he is not, and Wiles doesn’t attempt to rectify the seemingly inconsistent behavior. It turns out that Miras, a child (now a promising young photographer, thanks to Wiles’ help) almost died when a bullet carved its way through his body and penetrated his abdominal from one end and emerged from the other. He was playing with his siblings and cousins at a balcony in the refugee camp, when an Israeli sniper hit him from the watchtower. The story is short, but rich in emotionally powerful detail: the father’s panic and near hallucination, the mother confusion, the sense of solidarity that unifies the refugees and strengthens their resolve even when their situation seems so helpless.

Wiles is not an anthropologist or a detached ethnographer, and he doesn’t pose as one. He is part of the story, at times an important character. In “Memories”, he accompanies a young Palestinian boy on the journey of his life, from the confines of the small refugee camp to Jerusalem. The boy is visiting his very ill grandfather at a hospital in the Arab side of the city. (No other member of the family was granted an Israeli permission to make the short journey, thus the need for Wiles’ intervention). Wiles provides an extremely honest and vivid account, bringing to life the bravery of the boy and the sense of freedom he experiences as he crosses the checkpoints into Jerusalem.

At the same time, Wiles does not attempt to assemble the perfect, heroic and infallible character of the Palestinian. He includes the story of a son of drug user who was mysteriously killed (perhaps by a Palestinian group that suspected him as a collaborator with Israel). The son became involved in the resistance to redeem the family’s honor. His impulsive resistance (an attempt to burn a hole in the Israeli wall that surrounded his refugee camp) earned him time in an Israeli prison. Yasser Jedar (known as Yasser ‘Wall’ owing to his obsession with trying to bring down the Israeli wall) was certainly not a poster child revolutionary. But he is refreshingly real, which is what should matter the most to an inquisitive reader.

Wiles’ work is an important contribution to what I insist on referring to as a ‘People’s History of Palestine’. In order for this genre to endure and flourish, it must remain honest, and duty-bound to the truth – to reality as it is, not how we wish it to be.

Japan: 13,000 Women Discuss Peace and Environment

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:27:00 +0000

Original source: Akahata (Japan)

About 13,000 women at the 56th Japan Mothers’ Congress held in Fukushima City in Fukushima Prefecture on August 29-30 discussed ways to ensure peace and a sound environment for all children.

A symposium entitled, “For a sustainable Earth ? Think about food, agriculture, and the environment the key factors of human life”, was held on the first day.

Representatives of Japan Agriculture Cooperative (JA) and an environment NGO as well as an expert in agriculture took part in the symposium as panelists.

Sugaya Takashi, executive director of JA Shin-Fukushima, one of JA’s chapters in Fukushima Prefecture, reported about their efforts to increase the number of farmers’ markets and to call on schools to join in a program in which children can experience rice farming and fruit cultivation.

Hirata Kimiko from the environment NGO, Kiko Network, spoke about climate change and Koizumi Takeo, professor emeritus of Tokyo University of Agriculture, stressed the need to increase Japan’s food self-sufficiency rate and the importance of the traditional Japanese diet.

On the second day, 41 workshops and a symposium were held at several locations in Fukushima City on various themes, including “50 years after revising the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty” and “Children’s right to education and to live without poverty”.

At a symposium on the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, Takada Kimiko, president of the New Japan Women’s Association (NJWA), said that the bilateral military treaty deeply affects Japanese people’s quality of life because under the treaty, the Japanese government always accepts any request made by the United States, such as the expansion of food imports, the liberalization of imports of agricultural products, and drastic increases in Japan’s military budget.

Kawata Tadaaki of the Japan Peace Committee said that Japan-U.S. relations should not be one based on the military but one based on peaceful and friendly exchanges. Regarding Japan-U.S. economic relations, Japan should change its attitude of subservience to the U.S. and aim for mutual development based on equality. Kawata called on participants to launch a movement to increase public support for abolishing the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

All heads of 59 cities, towns, and villages in Fukushima Prefecture supported the Congress. Sato Tsutomu, Kunimi Town mayor and Japanese Communist Party member, in the opening plenary of the Congress made a guest speech.

A Would-Be Paul Revere in Germany: The Muslims Are Coming

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:25:00 +0000

Berlin – The “mosque menace” is not confined to Lower Manhattan or the USA. In many European countries similar alarms are sounded, usually in tones recalling Paul Revere: “The Muslims are coming!” Although according to Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy and the militarized neo-fascist Jobbik party in Hungary the danger is more from the Roma people (also called Gypsies), more often than not it’s those scary Muslims who are seen as the most menacing threat. Yes, we better watch out! Switzerland had its referendum against minarets, bleached-blond rabble-rouser Wilders won third place for his “Hate Islam” party in the Netherlands and now bar-room battlers in Germany are being called to struggle against the Turks and any or all of their Islamic fellow-religionists.

The best-known crusader for Germanic purity at the moment is Thilo Sarrazin, no typical rabble-rouser but a finely dressed, proper looking Prussian-type banker, with bristly mustache and a slightly drooping right eye. To the embarrassment of some of its leaders he has long been a member of the Social Democratic Party, and for years was minister of finance in the city-state of Berlin.

In those days his righteous anger was not focused against immigrant groups but against “lower castes” in general, and he wielded sharp scissors against social programs. Since Berlin has been heavily in debt for years, this was long accepted as unpleasant necessity. His notoriety began with comments that the jobless should be satisfied with the dole money they got, or even less; a sausage and some sauerkraut made a good, inexpensive dinner, he pointed out, and as for heating, he found that “…people should consider whether they can’t get along at home quite sensibly with 15-16 degrees (c. 60 degrees Fahrenheit) by putting on a heavy sweater.”

He insisted that pensions should really be cut not raised, and people should take care of pension problems privately, with as little government aid as possible. As for families he inquired: “How can I arrange things so that only those people get children who can manage with them. Some women get two, three or more children even though they lack the “where-with-all” or the “personal characteristics” to see to their education. That means that the social system must be altered “so people are not able to improve their standard of living simply by having children, as is the case today.”

All too gradually, Sarrazin became impossible as a Social Democratic minister in a city-state government, especially when the Left Party joined to form a coalition. Therefore he was kicked upstairs into an extremely remunerative job on the top floor of the Federal Bank, a cousin of the American Federal Reserve bank. Before leaving he fired off a final salvo indicating his new field of endeavor. In an interview targeting especially the three to four million people in Germany with a Turkish background, he asserted: “I don’t have to recognize anyone who lives off this state, but rejects this state, and who doesn’t properly care for the education of his children while constantly producing more little girls to wear headscarves.”

Quite understandably, the Turkish population, citizens and non-citizens, of first, second or third generation, pointed out indignantly that it was they who had done much of the heavy, dirty work in rebuilding West Germany, often at low pay, and who now, in countless cases, were moving into a wide variety of trades and professions. The fact that all too many were still caught in semi-slums, received only second or third class education and were rejected when job-hunting, with all the consequences, was not completely their fault. And most were making real contributions to society.

But Sarrazin stepped up his attacks: “The Turks are conquering Germany, just like the Kosovars conquered Kosovo, with a higher birthrate.” He extended his attacks to the many more recent Arab immigrants: “Since Arab boys can’t make out with their Arab girls they use easier-to- get lower-class German girls whom they then despise for being so easy to make out with.” At the same time he attacked Turkish men for not marrying in Germany but instead importing illiterate Turkish women.” He insisted that Muslims were less intelligent, and their increase a threat to the general intelligence level in Germany. All of this clearly aimed at building on and increasing existing prejudices and getting groups to look down upon or hate each other.

The unions opposed him, his Social Democratic Party also picked up the criticisms, though an attempt to expel him from his Berlin party group was unsuccessful. His new institution, the Federal Bank, cautiously criticized him for engaging in political statements which had nothing to do with banking, but kept him on in his high managerial position.

Now Theo Sarrazin has published a book, “Deutschland schafft sich ab” ("Germany Does Away with Itself”) which warns in dire terms that unless German women hurry up and have more children, the country will be overrun and ruled by Muslims in a number of decades. He claims that there are such things as Jewish genes, which he praises, and Turkish genes, which are responsible for the lower intelligence rates. Most leaders of the Jewish Congregation objected to any such references to “Jewish genes” and were highly critical, but some members joined in attacks against the Muslims.

The book was publicized in the entire media with talk shows, reprints, debates. Some, as in the Springer press (similar to Murdoch’s media empire), were highly appreciative and reprinted long excerpts, others were highly critical. But the result was that the first edition sold out immediately.

The Social Democratic Party is still thinking over what to do about him (while one of its most prominent “wise men”, former chancellor Helmut Schmidt, expressed barely-disguised affirmation: “If he had expressed himself a little less crudely I could have agreed with much of what he said.” Therein lay the true danger connected with Thilo Sarrazin: Not in any imagined Muslim rule some day, a totally ridiculous idea when confronted by the facts, but rather that so very many Germans have been infected by the bacteria of nationalism and xenophobia, fearing or hating anything new or strange to them. Such feelings, all too common everywhere in Europe and North America, have an especially sinister tradition in Germany, especially in times of depression, which can occur or re-occur almost anytime. Seventy years ago the menace was supposedly the “Jewish danger”. Now it’s Muslims.

Two very different reactions should not be overlooked. Gesine Lötzsch, co-president of the Left party, insisted that a man with such views was “intolerable in such a public position.” The same party’s delegate in the Bundestag, Sevim Dagdelen, herself from an immigrant background, denounced Sarrazin’s “racist tirades.” “It is unacceptable that a managing member of the Federal Bank spreads such poison which splits society,” she said and called on the Social Democrats to “do something at last and expel Sarrazin from their party” while comparing his views with those of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD).

Sure enough, the neo-Nazi internet bloggers were quick to voice support for Sarrazin. With an anti-Muslim group called PRO Berlin making plans to enter next year’s elections in the capital city, and with growing ties between racist, anti-Muslim groups in many countries, the call for opposition to Thilo Sarrazin and his propaganda gained dramatic urgency.

Worldwide Plant Extinction Crisis

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:21:00 +0000

EarthTalk®
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: When we talk about “endangered species” we usually think of animal species, but someone recently told me that there was a worldwide crisis pertaining to the extinction of plants. Can you enlighten? -- Max Blanchard, East Islip, NY

We may not realize it, but the health of the plant kingdom is crucial to the health of the planet and the animal life (which includes humans) it supports. “Through photosynthesis, plants provide the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat and are thus the foundation of most life on Earth,” reports the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based nonprofit dedicated to securing the future for endangered plants and animals throughout the world.

“Unlike animals, plants can’t readily move as their habitat is destroyed, making them particularly vulnerable to extinction,” says the Center. Habitat destruction—just one of the threats plants face—can lead to an “extinction debt” whereby even some plants that are plentiful now could disappear over time by being unable to disperse to new habitat patches. And global warming is already starting to exacerbate such problems. “With plants making up the backbone of ecosystems and the base of the food chain,” says the group, “that’s very bad news for all species, which depend on plants for food, shelter and survival.”

A 2009 report by the UK-based nonprofit, Plantlife, found that 15,000 of the 50,000 or so species of wild plants known for their medicinal qualities in traditional remedies are being overexploited and are potentially headed for extinction. The group says the fact that most people around the world—including some 80 percent of all Africans—rely on herbal medicines obtained primarily from wild plants underscores just how serious a problem a mass extinction of wild plants could be for humanity, let alone for the environment. Commercial over-harvesting does the most harm, though pollution, competition from invasive species and habitat destruction all contribute. “Commercial collectors generally harvest medicinal plants with little care for sustainability,” Plantlife reports, adding that shortages already exist in China, India, Kenya, Nepal, Tanzania and Uganda.

Another group, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which compiles and maintains the famous “Red List” of endangered species around the world, found that a whopping 70 percent of the 12,000-plus plant species it has evaluated to date are threatened with extinction—despite the fact that each year about 2,000 new plants make themselves known to science. Of course, the organization only evaluates plants that are rare or have suffered major declines.

Meanwhile, researchers in the UK estimate that up to 33 percent of all flowering plants worldwide are threatened with extinction. “That percentage reflects the global impact of factors such as habitat loss,” says Lucas Joppa, the study’s lead author, who adds that climate change could increase the toll.

This worldwide threat to plants is just part of a larger biodiversity crisis, and the United Nations has declared 2010 “The International Year of Biodiversity” to raise awareness and encourage action to help stem the tide. The project’s website features listings of celebrations taking place around the world as well as resources for those who want to help spread the word and be part of the solution.

CONTACTS: Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org; Plantlife, www.plantlife.org.uk; IUCN, www.iucn.org; International Year of Biodiversity, www.cbd.int/2010.

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: James Steakley, Wikipedia.

Health Reform Law Creates Savings in the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Gap

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:03:00 +0000

(NewsUSA) - Did you reach the coverage gap, or "donut hole," in your Medicare prescription drug coverage this year? If so, you may qualify to get a one-time, tax-free $250 rebate check to help with your prescription drug costs. This important new benefit, included in the Affordable Care Act, is the first step toward closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap.

Most Medicare drug plans have a coverage gap. This means that after you and your plan have spent a certain amount of money for covered drugs, you have to pay all costs out-of-pocket (up to a limit).

If you qualify, and you reach the coverage gap in 2010, Medicare will automatically send you a $250 rebate check made out to you.

* You don't need to fill out any forms.

* You don't need to provide any personal information, like your Medicare, Social Security or bank account numbers, to get the rebate check.

Don't give your personal information to anyone who calls you about the $250 rebate check.

Call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) to report anyone who does this. TTY users should call 1-877-486-2048.

Checks will be mailed monthly throughout the year. You can expect to get your rebate check about 45 days after the month you reach the coverage gap in 2010. If you don't get your rebate check, wait another month and then contact the toll-free Medicare customer service center at 1-800-MEDICARE. Your rebate may be delayed if Medicare doesn't have information from your drug plan in time to include you in the mailing. If you get "Extra Help" to pay your Medicare drug costs, you don't qualify for the rebate check, since you are already receiving savings. If you are enrolled in a qualified retiree prescription drug plan, you are also not eligible to receive a rebate check.

Remember, the $250 rebate is a one-time benefit to help you with your prescription drug costs if you reach the coverage gap in your Medicare prescription drug coverage in 2010. If you reach the coverage gap in 2011, you will get a 50 percent discount on covered brand-name drugs and a 7 percent discount on covered generic drugs when you buy them.

To learn more about the $250 coverage gap rebate, visit www.medicare.gov, or call 1-800-MEDICARE. More information is available at www.healthcare.gov, a new Web portal made available by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Iraq: Troop Withdrawal and Political Impasse

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:00:00 +0000

Editor's note: The following interview with Salam Ali, a spokesperson for the Iraqi Communist Party, took place at the end of August 2010. It appears in Nameh Mardom, the publication of the Tudeh Party of Iran. In it Ali discusses the continuing political impasse almost six months after the elections, and the withdrawal of US combat forces.

Nameh Mardom: Almost six months have passed since the parliamentary elections in Iraq but a new government with a popular mandate has not taken office yet. It seems that the election has exposed the complexities of the political situation in Iraq. How do you evaluate the situation?

Salam Ali: The failure to form a new government has created a deep crisis with grave consequences for the Iraqi people, compounding crises that had already existed, on political, economic and security levels. The political impasse caused by the results of the elections on 7th March 2010, with none of the main four electoral blocs winning outright majority, has led to mounting popular anger and resentment. The political vacuum has contributed to a worsening security situation, while basic services continue to deteriorate. The shortages of electricity supply (with people getting only few hours of intermittent supply in summer temperatures soaring to 53 C) have sparked protests in several provinces. Violent clashes between demonstrators and police in Basra led to the resignation of the Minister of Electricity.

The popular anger has been directed against the dominant political forces that have been waging a fierce battle over power and wealth, driven by their narrow political and partisan interests and trying to preserve their enormous privileges and positions in government. In addition, they are all committed to maintaining the infamous sectarian-ethnic power sharing system, despite promises given during their election campaigns that they will get rid of it. The political maneuvers of each of the three blocs (State of Law, led by Maliki, Al-Iraqiya led by Iyad Allawi and the National Coalition led by Al-Hakim) have been centered on grabbing the prime ministerial post and marginalizing rivals.

The fierce struggle over political power has also exposed and deepened the divisions between major political groups, even within the supposedly united coalitions themselves.

As the political deadlock continues, the possibility of forming a national unity government that would be able to address the urgent needs of the people is becoming more unlikely. Our party has recently put forward, as an alternative to this impasse, the idea of dissolving the parliament and calling for new elections on the basis of Article 64 of the Constitution. This option would spare the people and country the grave consequences of a continued political vacuum.

NM: Do you think that it is feasible, if the current impasse continues, that the United Nations becomes involved in the process of forming the next government? In that case, what will be the implications for Iraqi sovereignty?

SA: The role of the UN has been of an advisory nature, so far. Some Iraqi political leaders, as part of their maneuvers, have called for direct intervention by the UN in the process of government formation, invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. But such a role for the UN is not feasible. Chapter 7 (which still applies to Iraq since Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait) can only be invoked by the UN Security Council if there is “a threat to world peace”.

NM: In a recent article, Comrade Raed Fahmi, a member of the Political Bureau of the Iraqi Communist Party, referred to growing foreign interference in the process of the formation of the next Iraqi government. Where does such interference come from?

The political crisis has opened the door for increased external interference, by the US and regional powers, to influence the formation of the government. This interference had already been a big factor in the elections, influencing its outcome. Some political groups received enormous financial support from outside. Hundreds of millions of dollars were given by regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is an open secret that there is close coordination between the intelligence bodies of neighboring countries with regard to the situation in Iraq. External forces have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in Iraq, keeping it weak and fragmented, to serve their own political agenda and strategic interests.

NM: The severity of a number of terrorist bombings in recent months serves to demonstrate that the security situation is far from desirable. Who are behind these bombings? What would be the consequences of the continuation of such terrorist activities?

SA: The political crisis and delay in forming the government has provided a favorable climate for increased activity by anti-people terrorist groups and also organized crime thriving in rampant corruption. These include extremist Islamist groups such as al-Qaida and remnants of Saddam’s Baath party. Their aim is to destabilize the situation, create chaos, ignite sectarian conflict and restore militias. These terrorist activities also serve the agenda of some political groups that use the deterioration in security as a pretext to call for maintaining American military presence.

NM: On Thursday the last active combat units of the US military left Iraq two weeks ahead of the 31st August deadline scheduled by US President Barack Obama. In the face of the continuing stalemate in the formation of a viable government, increased terrorist activities and interference from neighboring states, what are the implications of this withdrawal for security and political stability in Iraq?

SA: As mentioned above, some Iraqi political forces had pinned hopes on continued American military presence to maintain their positions and gains. They claim that the Iraqi forces have not yet reached the desired level of readiness to be able to confront security challenges. They also use the recent deterioration in the security situation as a pretext to argue that an early withdrawal of American forces will play into the hands of terrorist groups as well as regional powers such as Iran.

Our party has condemned and rejected such calls, stressing that there should be no compromise over the big national issue: of ending the occupation and eliminating its legacy, regaining our country’s full sovereignty and independence, for our people to control their resources and wealth, and decide their own destiny with their own free will. All efforts must be made to provide the necessary political and material prerequisites to end the occupation and ensure the total withdrawal of all American forces by the end of 2011 in accordance with the Iraq-US security agreement.

The task of building Iraqi security forces on the basis of patriotism, professionalism, competence, integrity and allegiance to the constitution and homeland, continues to be an urgent task, especially after the start this month of actual withdrawal of American combat troops. Political divisions and conflicts among Iraqi ruling elites must not be transferred to the ranks of the military institution.

As for dealing with the security situation, our party has re-emphasized its position that there should an integrated approach using a host of political, economic, military and security measures to defeat terrorism and acts of sabotage.

NM: Finally could you please briefly touch upon the key issues that the Iraqi working class and the fraternal Iraqi Communist Party are campaigning for right now?

SA: There are two major tasks facing the party and the democratic forces. The first is to intensify efforts to provide effective organization and leadership to a mass movement defending the fundamental democratic rights and freedoms of the people and striving to achieve Iraq’s full national sovereignty and independence.

The second task is to strengthen the role and influence of the democratic current in Iraqi society and political life. Our party has stressed the societal dimension of this current, and the need to mobilize social movements alongside political democratic forces. A number of meetings have taken place recently to discuss these issues and develop effective co-ordination among various groups. The recent anniversary of the 14th July 1958 Revolution was an occasion for joint activities by democratic forces throughout Iraq. The mass demonstration and rally that took place on this anniversary in central Baghdad, attracting thousands of people, had a big political impact with calls for a speedy end to the political impasse and for urgent action to tackle the severe electricity shortages and deteriorating services. These efforts will be culminated by holding a national conference for the democratic current in the near future.

Photo: President Obama announces the end of combat missions in Iraq. (White House Photo)

Iraq: Troop Withdrawal and Political Impasse

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:29:00 +0000

Photo: President Obama announces withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, Aug. 31, 2010. (White House)