//class war//'s topics - tribe.net

DISCLOSURE AND FREE ENERGY

Chad — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:15:49 GMT

Please people of the world, we need to unite together and demand this information be released. If everyone interested started a page like this one www.myspace.com/qcdfe, we would be able to spread the truth in our own cities, by adding people and sending them information. Please this is a great way to communicate the truth to the people. myspace is the 3rd most visited site, 2nd being facebook. Please consider it and make a page. " only few can journey where only the brave can go"

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Back UP, Obama-fans

Bob — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:30:40 GMT

The President is Executive of the United States and its laws.

The Presidents are RIOTERS, since the illegal, secret and overt treaties, with UK, to illegally favor by fascist conspiracy and against our royal favors exclusion clause:

FOR, illegally: WINDSOR (since Victoria), SAUD (appointed by Windsor), DAVID (illegal Israeli and non-kosher RICO Zionists, whereby actual Jews are from Ethiopia, Isaiah 20:5, no doubt of fraud, by any other origin, to incite the several world wars), TSARS (US purchased Alaska in bad faith, to thwart the coming revolutionary republic, by invading Russia, with the AEF), and VATICAN, a fascist organ of Rome

AGAINST, illegally: SPAIN, ASIAN ROYALS, AFRICAN ROYALS, ARAB ROYALS, and all other royalty and republics

The USA co-opted British crusades, and by illegal interest taints the President.

The Presidency has been unviable since the 1893 coups against Hawaii, to incite WWI and the following start, to WWII.

The President has been a seditious conspirator, since the passage of the Sedition Act, 18 U.S.C. 2384.

The President WOULD BE and COULD BE a traitor, but the riot and inciters have profiteered by distorting the very nature of WAR, which is not evident, and so, SHARIA.

No sharia terror would issue, but for the President of the USA being so sold out and at such disrespect for law, Barack Obama and John McCain both tried to lose the last election, by letting SAMUEL JOSEPH WURZELBACHER III take up an entire half hour, of Debate III.

Joe owed $1200 to the IRS, which he paid, AFTER the November 3, 2008 election.

Naturally, Mr.Obama's Grandma Maddie Dunham called him home and called him a Kenyan, and then she died, of her cancer, in despair, at his corruption.

The creepy, rioting Americans impose 50 senates on the cost-structure of the entire world. Only Nebraska has no state senate, and so is relatively safe, for a new capitol, when the tsunamis caused by the impending La Palma eruption wash over Maine to Miami and all over the Atlantic area. Note the design of the Washington Monument, which suggests how the NW part of La Palma will fall into the water, like the marble column, which is a mere fraction of the size of the large object, about to splash-down.

See the pool, at the Capitol? The whole place will get wet. Ask Ben Franklin.

Obama lost Prop.8 and Arizona's Governorship, by trying to out-dive better Bush-pilots, which know the leading cause of death in Alaska is bush-piloting, mixed, with alcohol.

Obama opposed the duly appointed Roland Burris, and so incited Catholic cops to riot and mayhem, and to murder several young black men, around New Year 2009.

John Burris had his secretary blow me off, and OPD and BART hung up on me, that first week, of 2009. None report riot to press or to court, which suppress facts and discovery, to obstruct justice, in grave error. California may collapse, over this.

The President will not admit JEWS ARE FROM ETHIOPIA, and so, he intends to incite the expected assassination of any several persons, by plane crashes, ten years after 9/11/2001, which equals 23, if added sideways, which math is dire, by 2011.

Note the trend to ten-year disasters, since the 1882 invasion of Palestine and the Intifada of 1926, see KRYSTALNACHT, 1936, with the CIA appointment of the Shah in 1953, with Saddam in 1958, as incitement for assassination of Zionist President Kennedy in 1963 and his brother Robert, in 1968.

The President of the United States is a nuisance, an inciter to riot, an aggravated violator of 18 U.S.C. 371, conspiracy to interagency fraud, which with profiteering by decree violates all by BILLS OF ATTAINDER, at riot, CPC 404, in California, and by incitement, CPC 404.6(a).

The USA distorts all persons and things, since fixing the War of 1812 to end, after peace was declared in 1814, and the British made up for burning D.C. by sending their troops, deliberately, into Andrew Jackson's guns, without attacking the US artillery.

The current President is of the NIXON regimes, which fixed all media, when Richard Milhous Nixon was Vice President, under Dwight D. Eisenhower. All riot, unrestrained.

The music is all ripped off by government and corporate gangsters into actually illegal warrantless surveillance, and so when DAVID BOWIE overproduced Nixon feeds, he was able to profile attorneys, by suing VANILLA ICE off a jam, which any several fakers eventually used, as dupe media, proving all attorneys were churned, into the riot.

Time-Warner duped warrantless survellance IP, for AC-ZZ and for all kinds of movies, commercials, concerts, and false processes.

By referring to Nixon in YOUNG AMERICANS (1978), Bowie foreshadowed US and UK conspiracy, to defraud Iran of its assets and me, of my music, and to then oppress me and a class, for notice and relief, and to wage war, illegally, against Iran and China, since the BRITS had their TITS twisted by Saladin, in 1187, and dropped their loads beside the roads, went away contented, and plotted, to two invasions, of CHINA and of SHIITES, to control all territory, or British Crusaders and other Vatican clowns would be routed from Jerusalem, repeatedly.

NO ATTORNEY WILL CHALLENGE BUSH, OBAMA, OR THE RIOT, since Jerry Brown slept with Linda Ronstadt, back when the California A/G was Governor and regularly running for President. But the Islamic Republic of Iran, People's Republic of China, or others may sue.

The President is such a nuisance, the debt-holder nations can sue him down, or force his resignation, or cause Congress to discover his several seditions, OR THE DEBT MAY BE CANCELLED, FOR CAUSE. Hear AC-DC? HEY! CDC! No coffee at county jails, DUDES!

Mr.Obama needs to do some time, out here in California, after he gets impeached, or we have a problem, with him flying in, from Houston.

Notice how the Ming Dynasty's WHITE FLEET sailed around the world, in the 1430s, but in the course of this lost at least one sailor with gear, to England, which took any gun-powder AND the triangular arrowheads, for use by Robin of Loxley's longbowmen.

Their reign was short, and so any Chinese moved to France, where the crossbow emerged, as a way for Europe to kill, liberally, in continental wars of the day.

Isabella of Spain wised up, and sent Columbus to Hispaniola and two other locales, where he discovered wrecked Chinese and their descendants. Think you can throw a fast one, past SF Giants' 3B Pablo Sandoval? Kung Fu Panda is a clever hitter, dude.

Think you can sue your way, into the Houston Rockets' lineup? Yao trumps Obama.

Clowning contemner CHARLEY WONG has a kiddie TV show, based in Taiwan, with contraband tunes, he took from the same source, which Van Halen sang about, as in, 'I heard the news, all about your disease (cancer, as in the big C, at CAL, Berkeley, where the song was first played, and then ripped, by Nixon-Windsor surveillance).

The FRUITY PIE show features young faces, which actors have, from actual connection, to other land-bridge Asians, brought to China, now Taipeiese. See the POUNDCAKE graphic, at the beginning of the show? If not, get a clue, why DAN HALEN is a cartoon, late at night.

All the rock is stolen. Obama's whores campaigned on a billion dollar bubble, for two and a half years!

This comic KNOWS, how warrantless electronic surveillance worked, to cause the Democrats and the Emmanuel Brothers to seek crackhead Barack H. Obama, from Greenwich Village, and get him into Harvard, thereby inspiring MTV's JACKASS.

Steve O looks like Ari had a kid with Rahm, but they are bastards, so Steve is all tatted up, but his premise is Ari and Rahm are not really related.

Wee Man's premise is Ari of the CIA had a kid with Hillary, who he is related to, so Wee is short. Johnny Knoxville's premise is Mike Emmanuel of CNN did himself in a test-tube, since that is what Johnny looked like, a Mike. Reconstitute cokehead Bam Margeram's nose, into crackhead Obama's nose, with a magic mirror, since Obama's mole on his identical nose is on the left. Viva La Bam has a mole, on the right.

They all chase Bushwick Billy and Beetlejuice, on the Stern Show, since Obama intends to take his AF1 black box down, to the Atlantic Trench, like the Air France jet, which crashed when he went to France over D-Day 2009 and let a Honduran coups go down.

Calling Sioux and other natives 'Indians' is a conspiracy against commerce and business, and against fundamental rights. A person may SUE, for cause, hereby.

The USA may not attack the last Emperor with Steve McQueen, and then leave the door open, for the CIA to over-fly by B-24 Liberators, from Tibet and Taiwan, to start the Korean War and to incite taking of Tibet.

The US established a Pusan, then a Yalu perimeter, and was blasted back, to Inchon and to Parallel 38, the third and absolutely unresolved invasion, of China, by the USA.

The PRC may not harbor cause of action against the USA, contaminate processes in the USA and in the several states, accumulate debt, and thereby enable riot and incitement by illegal administrations, and so host President Nixon and his followers.

By making a movie, called INCHON, Sun Myung-Moon slyly intimated, he knows the moon has risen, over the illegal US-UK Empire and the United Nations, illegally chartered, to support Israel and to violate the same US Constitution, which was not violated as royal favors exclusion clause or any other clause, when the US stayed out of the League of Nations, since the UK intended to start an Imperial Crusade, and did so, to contaminate all US process of law, so now all persons and US land are at riot.

At riot, the USA allows the PRC, South Korea, and actual enemies England and Japan to riot, fix winnable wars, and then to undermine commerce and peace, and pretend commerce is served, by illegal debt accumulation, which will never be repaid, by conspiracy to profiteer and to obstruct justice.

NO PRESIDENT MAY RIOT AND INCITE, AND CONSPIRE, WITH ANY NATION, WHICH PLAYS AT COWBOYS AND INDIANS, TO KILL US CITIZENS AND ITS OWN, WITH THE RIOT.

The President is a review evader, for high crimes and misdemeanors, and for manslaughter and incitement, to mayhem and riot, unrestrained.

Resign or be sued, MR.OBAMA and your fans, and your Republican 'friends,' actually co-conspirators, for issuance of any order to chill or desist, and to disband.

Tiger seems to have hit the wrong pedals, at an odd anniversary, you know?

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Legalize S-H-I-T, since we are paying for it, and then it is costing us a lot, unaccountably passing costs for turning your ladies, into WHORES!

Bob — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:53:15 GMT

When ALL the tribes consisting of Jews are from ETHIOPIA, simply and neatly by Isaiah, 20:5, you have no issues, when Palis bomb you, or when they finally get CRUISE MISSILES, and then you shut up and burn.

Enrika, Texas military base shooting leaves 7 dead: "You're off your meds again, Bob."

fuzzypeaches702, President Obama Speaks on Fort Hood back to bush-league: "U are by far 1 goofy son of a bitch! Eat shit asshole!!!"

When the BRATS had their TITS twisted by Saladin, and so they were sent back to BRITAIN, they left their offal, in Jerusalem, called a hot, new word, since from their Pope's SHIT FOR BRAINS, they could get God to tell them, they had a couple of things to do, before they could stay, in Jerusalem, next in the Victorian Crusade, 1882: invade Beijing, through Shiites in Iran. Fart hard for bon Jovi, on Texas-TV!

Mr.O'Bungle tried to block Burris; Catholic cops shot young blacks, including Oscar Grant in California. Pigs incited riot, Bam notified no courts, and in Cali after swearing in, Bam incited shooting of 5 OPD on 3/22/09, had downlow beer'S', winked at the Honduran coups, and with McCain's bush-pilots, Bam farts hard in Texas! Chase no bin Laden for Palin, bon Jovi, Jenna Bush, Giuliani, Daves, Cones, or with uranium-ammo sprayers. Pigs jacked Bonds, for his #756 remark, ISAIAH, to damn Israel.

What health care gets passed, when Senator Hailey Joel sees dead people of the near future, pretending AF1 and 2 will fly, high, free, bird?

Your cunt stinks, Enrika. When you wash it, your septicemia won't be able to vote for Barack, anymore. Don't fart too hard with Barack jammed in there!

Oo, ooh, that SMELL! The smell of YOUR PRESIDENT'S CLEAN COAL DEATH surrounds you!

So crash, WHORES! You wouldn't legalize pot for 25,000 CO2-neutral or negative uses!

Pay a Mexican for junk, and get burned to pay for his whores, which probably now includes YOU and YOUR females, whoever they are.

Did that car-guy get bombed into history, yet? The US flipped depleted uranium ranges from Iraq, through Afghanistan, into Pakistan, in order to chase UBL off of killing Saddam, for trying to invade Saudi Arabia.

That is THREE D.U. RANGES, too many, for leaving Saddam to GW Bushwank, who spanked off too many D.U. rounds, to make armless, legless babies. Got car-bomb yearnings? I bet you have!

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

sheer disgust with counterculture staidness in the form of an "essay"

mikal — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:53:31 GMT

IS THERE ANY REALITY WORTH EXPLORING OR
ARE WE ALL TUMBLING HEADLONG
THROUGH ALL OF THEM? SHE TOLD ME AN OLD JOKE. IT
WASN'T ON ME AND IT WON'T BE. AQUARIUS IS STILL RISING DESPITE CONGRESSIONAL GAG ORDER.

CONGRESS MADE ME GAG. IT MAKES ME GAG. MY FRIENDS, THE ONES I DEARLY LOVE, WHOM THERE ARE NO BETTER THAN, ARE NOT TO BLAME. THE PEOPLE I LOVE ARE NOT TO BLAME AND THUS I SHALL RESIST!

I SHALL RESIST BEING DIVIDED AND CONQUERED. IT HAS HAPPENED OVER AND OVER.

THE RICH EXANGUINATE THE POOR FOR THEIR GOLD
ANOTHER GENERATION HAS BEEN BOUGHT AND BEEN SOLD

THE HEALING POWER OF WATER

i decided
i was tired of taking shit
and from that moment forward i was determined to give a shit. this decision, made on the toilet, changed my life. i know that you probably
don't want to know more. after all,
it's still shit,
still stinks.

but i ain't takin' it no more.

DID the ancient warclans of northern india adventure all the way south to africa? did they attack and hate the dark skinned people there? and force them to build huts out of dung, cow dung, which they still do, baffling sociologists? I AM THE FUCKING SENSEI OF SHOCKING PUNK. I KNOW.

JUST SO SOME FUCKING CRACKER
WHO THINKS THEY REPRESENT THE RAINBOW FAMILY CAN MUTTER "NIGGER" AND "WHORE" AND ALL THE OTHER HATE SPEECH THEIR TINY DRUGRUINED BRAINS CAN SHIT OUT, TO GET SOME SORT OF REACTION. STUPID FUCKERS. I'M GLAD THEY ARE EVOLVING THE FUCK OUT. GET OUT OF THE WAY, DRAINBOW SHITSTAINS, SO WE CAN GET BACK TO HAVING FUN AND MAKING LOVE. YOU SHITTY ASS LOSERS ARE EVIL KILLING EVIL, AND I SEE YOU AND KNOW YOU SO MUCH BETTER THAN YOU LAME ASSES KNOW YOURSELF. TIRED OF YOUR SHIT?

TRY "TIRED OF YOU WEAK FUCKERS PRETENDING THAT YOU REPRESENT WHAT THE RAINBOW FAMILY EVER FUCKING MEANT. I MEAN TO SMASH THE STATE OF DENIAL, SO THAT IF IT EVER COMES OUT OF YOUR NON-SHARING, DRUG ADDICTED, INDIFFERENT TO NATIVE CAUSES ASSMOUTHS - -- EVERYONE WHO HEARS YOU WILL KNOW THAT YOU ARE TALKING SHIT. SO FUCKING TIRED OF YOUR UNPEACEFUL MISOGYNIST DOG-ADDICTED HYPOCRISY -- I WANNA MAKE IT SO THAT ANYTIME YOU OPEN YOUR UGLY FACEGAPS TO SPEAK, SOMEONE OFFERS YOU TOILET PAPER. BECAUSE WE HAVE A REAL FAMILY, AND ALL YOU DO IS TALK DIVISIVE SHIT. AND OF COURSE, RACIST CRAPSTENCH OOZES FROM YOUR FACEGAPS. FUCKING FAKES. WHY CAN'T PEOPLE MAKE YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE, SO THAT YOU WILL TAKE YOUR LIQUOR AND YOUR METHAMPHETAMINE AND YOUR BODY ODORS AND GO THE FUCK AWAY SO THAT PEOPLE WILL FINALLY SEE THAT YOU WERE NOT AND ARE NOT THE RAINBOW FAMILY OF LOVING, LIVING LIGHT? WHEN THE SHITHELL WILL YOU EVIL FUCKERS GO OBJECTIVELY SOMEWHERE ELSE? Not Death Valley. Death Valley is a lovely place...YOU WOULD SHIT IT UP LIKE YOU SHAT UP MOUNT SHASTA, YOU WASTEFULLY WRONGTIOUS FUCKERS."

posted in //class war// - 2 replies

I hate to pick sides.

Jack — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:03:37 GMT

In a more recent implementation of humility in my life, I find myself being drawn to almost a completely earthen state faster and faster.

It's been starting to dawn on me, that the closer I become to where I'm supposed to be, the farther away from the places I've known will become. For years I've been proud of small things like my ability to slip within almost every class of people and blend in, usually to help someone hurt. Or perhaps the ability to make even the corrupted ones, laugh their hearts out.

The closer I become to the earth and the universe and it's Creator, I realize that I won't be able to do such things with all classes of people anymore. I can't even utter the same jokes that would have brought the perverse to crack a smile long enough to let me shine truth in the dark places of their hearts. But I know that at the same time I am finally, fully and completely embracing a greatness that is not my own.

I'll take my place fully with the citizens of the earth, the lowest most humble that live today, but certainly have no interest in any class war, any more.

Maybe we can suggest to the remaining middle classes and above, that we can have only two sides.... citizens of the earth, and slaves to a lying system. We could split our countries up and let each sit on their own sides of the fence.

I'd hate to pick sides, but I'd be very interested in how many people would sit on each side of the fence in various nations across our world.

If the classes of humble actually out number the pomp-ass hypocrites that run the world, couldn't we just have a big pile on hug, and smother the evil out of the world?

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Look what's new in the army these days!

Mundo — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:25:52 GMT

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517481,00.html

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Dreaming the NEW American Dream

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 17:35:44 GMT

California poets Ava Bird & Rex Butters, and....

Santa Cruz artist Russell Brutsche - Karen Kwiatkowski of Virginia

Protests to stop immigration raids ... and more.
____________________

http://www.newamericandream.net

The New American Dream

What's New?

* Karen Kwiatkowski column
* Ava Bird poetry
* Rex Butters poetry
* Gary Mennie poetry

Columns:
Sherwood Ross — why not shut down a few prisons in the United States as well?
Mickey Z — Americans are cowards, too comfortable, will never-ever-not-in-one-million-years revolt-or-even-bother-to-stand-up — no matter what the rich folks do to them.
Lydia Sems — It's The American Dream that is the problem.

and more from Jack Saunders ...

Resistance:
* Planned civil disobedience in Minnesota to stop raids against immigrants
* Protests at Creech AFB against U.S. drone terroristic activity
*100 days of protest against Guantanamo to culminate

All this, Northern Exposure, The Big Lebowski, Paradise by the Dashboard Lights ... a certificate for free toast ... and more.

Join us.

The New American Dream
Dude.
... because ... Sister Mary Anne told us, "There are no wrong questions, if you don't know the answers."

... from the Dream Team

http://www.newamericandream.net

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

President B.H.Obama needs to check RED DWARF, Season 7 Episode 5, and SING ALONG:

Bob — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:07:57 GMT

FED DWARF needs to review Season 7, Episode 5, of RED DWARF, and get back to us.

Only a complete RIMMER would front for energy inflation during wars, for an illegal 1882 Zionist invasion of Palestine, which has incited WWI and WWII, and it is headed for WWIII.

So naturally, President Barack H. Obama is going for the golden "H" on his forehead, like young Rimmer earned, when he caused an O-boom-boom on the mining ship, known among BBC folk as the RED DWARF.

Naturally, Israel is neither pure nor natural, and never kosher. Jews are from Ethiopia, see Isaiah 20:5. The star is from Egypt. The language Hebrew is from 'Habiru,' the language of the slaves. Rahm's tainted name is from Ra-moses, or 'son of the sun.'

So what are my and Chelsea's and Chuy's F-15s and F-16s and jet-X and phosphorous doing bombing Gaza, for illegal Israel, of the same 1882 invasion, which incited WWI and WWII, so young Obama gals go to private school, protected expensively, to fail to learn how their fees since 2001 are illegally inflated, with the costs of wars, illegally waged?

Obama invited the $100,000 toolbag to float away, with hundreds of offices and measures, through his deliberate mismanagement of all Democratic media, related to energy reform, BEFORE BAILOUTS OR STIMULI ARE PROPOSED. Yet these are to be enacted, in fraud.

Mr. Blagojevich can bring down the Obama White House, as soon as he sues for even enforcement of the law, including under Title II ADA or 42 U.S.C. 1983.

High crimes may constitute inciting riot in Pakistan, including the Black Friday massacre, inciting riot in Gaza, when the Palestinians shot rockets, concurrent with the Obama-ordered Blago-chase by the US Senate and the Illinois Legislature, and then cops shot a 22 or 23-year-old black man, per day, after Roland Burris called Blagojevich 'reprehensible,' without a hearing. What a price to pay, already!

Misdemeanors include the Mann Act, aggravated in California by CPC 404 infractions, including incitement of riot and failure to disperse, by evading review, with both Burris players, Senator Roland and despicable John at misconduct, leading to death and immininent further injuries, to classes for discovery.

A Rimmer would get his own stupid mining ship blown up by a radiation leak, Mr. President Rim-shot. Don't go there, and then enjoy sunny California. We have an Arnold Hole, already.

Somebody's DADDY is a President Rimshot, who needs to review Red Dwarf basics, and then see Soundgarden tapes, of BLACK HOLE SUN. But this Rimmer side is a heckuva hit:

-------------------------------------------------------
If you're in trouble, he will save the day
He's brave and he's fearless, come what may
Without him, the mission would go astray
He's Arnold, Arnold, Arnold Rimmer

Without him, life would be much grimmer
He's handsome, trim, and no one's slimmer
He will never need a Zimmer
He's Arnold, Arnold, Arnold Rimmer

More reliable than a garden Strimmer
He's never been mistaken for Yul Brynner
He's not bald and his head doesn't glimmer

Master of the wit and the repartee
His command of space directives is uncanny
How come he's such a genius? Don't ask me
Ask Arnold, Arnold, Arnold Rimmer

He's also a fantastic swimmer
And if you play your cards right, then he just might come round for dinner

He's Arnold, Arnold, Arnold Rimmer
No rhymes left now apart from quimmer
He'd better fade us out before we get to schlimmer
Fade out you stupid plimmer

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Finally, the police state you've always wanted

R(EVOLUTION) — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:52:45 GMT

http://futurestorm.blogspot.com/2008/12/police-in-us-could-soon-have-pain-ray.html

posted in //class war// - 4 replies

Eyewitness report of metal factory occupation in Turkey

Steven — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:56:34 GMT

Eyewitness report of metal factory occupation in Turkey
7 January 2009

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/turk-j07.shtml

On December 22, some 450 metal workers at a mid-size metal processing company, Sinter Metal, located in Istanbul barricaded themselves inside the factory to protest the announcement of massive job cuts.

On December 19, three days prior to the factory occupation, management laid off 37 workers. Sinter workers reacted by joining the Union of United Metal Workers (Birlesik-Metal).

On Monday, December 22, management locked the gates barring workers from entering the factory. While they were waiting in front of the factory workers started to chant slogans expressing their anger. Shortly afterwards management announced the names of 400 workers who were to be dismissed.

Workers then climbed over the factory gate, entered the plant and occupied it. The occupation continued for two days and after legal threats the workers decided to continue their action in front of the factory. Since then Sinter workers have been picketing in front of the factory.

Below we are posting a news report sent to the World Socialist Web Site by a reader from Istanbul.

I am a professional journalist based in Istanbul.

As a part of my job I visited Sinter Metal factory, located in Umraniye, in a slum of Istanbul, which was occupied by its workers on December 22.

I paid a visit to Sinter Metal workers on the first day of the occupation.

Listening to the Sinter workers was like travelling back in time to the early years of the industrial revolution.

The Sinter Metal workers used to work seven days a week and 10 hours a day, although such inhuman working conditions are clearly against the current labour law.

In return, the Sinter Metal workers received the minimum wage, i.e., YTL503 (US$332) a month, in a country where the hunger threshold for a family of four is YTL740 (US$488). Together with overtime work (actually, they used to receive no money for most of their overtime hours) they were still receiving less than YTL700 (US$462) a month.

Although on paper weekend working wasn’t compulsory, on weekends they were all rushing to the factory aware of the fact that not doing so meant that their employers had a bad opinion of them.

Between shifts they had only a 15-minute rest period, just long enough to drink a small glass of tea.

When this very short rest period came to an end they were warned by an announcement, coming from the “top,” asking them to start working immediately.

The sintering process requires working with powdery metals and heating ores. It is important that workers can take showers after their work. However, they faced problems with the showers as their employer frequently punished them by cutting off water or letting only cold water flow during cold winter days.

It is not difficult to sense their sincere commitment to their jobs and a future at the factory. They are all anxious to prevent their children going hungry.

“We want to keep our jobs,” they all said. At the same time they added, “We want our rights to be respected as well.”

In the end, the Sinter Metal workers took a stand against conditions very much resembling the brutal conditions of 19th century capitalism, and like their predecessors decided to fight for their rights.

N.A.

Istanbul, Turkey

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Class divisions begin to emerge in Obama coalition

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:58:08 GMT

Class divisions begin to emerge in Obama coalition
6 November 2008

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n06.shtml

Barack Obama won the US presidential election Tuesday riding a wave of popular opposition to the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Tens of millions of voters delivered a massive repudiation of the politics of social reaction that have dominated America for decades.

The "Obama coalition," however, is fraught with contradictions. The majority of those who voted for Obama want an end to social inequality, the erosion of democratic rights and militarism. Yet, despite Obama's rhetoric about uniting "Main Street and Wall Street" and "the rich and the poor," he is committed to defending the interests of the most powerful sections of the American corporate elite.

The Democratic Party is already seeking to dampen popular expectations about the incoming administration. Obama suggested this himself in his victory speech in Chicago, when he said, "The road ahead will be long...We may not get there in one year or even one term...There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can't solve every problem."

Leading Democrats have lined up to insist that it would be wrong to interpret the election as a mandate for substantial changes in policy. Instead, they are saying the next administration will have to rule from the "center" and rely on a bipartisan alliance with the Republicans.

In an article Wednesday entitled, "Hard Choices and Challenges Follow Triumph," the Washington Post cited several unnamed Obama advisors who said "they were well aware of the dangers of interpreting the results as a mandate for unabashed liberal government."

In other words, the Democrats must reject the will of the American people—who just handed them control of the White House and a greater majority in Congress—and shape policy in conjunction with the most right-wing and pro-business sections of the political establishment, who were overwhelmingly rejected at the polls.

One only has to contrast this with Bush's insistence that he had a mandate for his right-wing agenda despite losing the popular vote in 2000 and failing to win a majority in 2004.

While collaborating with the Republicans, the Democrats are preparing to defy popular expectations that the next administration will provide relief from the growing economic catastrophe. As the Post noted, Obama advisors "are ready for potential conflict with some Democratic constituencies or with some liberal Democrats in Congress, whose pent-up demand for action may clash with Obama's priorities, and are prepared to say no."

The cost of the Wall Street bailout, expanded military operations and a ballooning budget deficit will preclude any expansion in social spending. On the contrary, the Democrats intend to make the working class pay for the breakdown of American capitalism and the government bailout of the financial aristocracy.

Leon Panetta, the former White House chief of staff who has been advising Obama's transition team, told the New York Times, referring to the new president, "You better damn well do the tough stuff up front, because if you think you can delay the tough decisions and tiptoe past the graveyard, you're in for a lot of trouble," Mr. Panetta said. "Make the decisions that involve pain and sacrifice up front."

Obama's selection for White House chief of staff—Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives—gives an indication of the reactionary social types he is assembling for his administration. As a senior advisor to former President Bill Clinton, he championed law-and-order, "welfare reform" and other reactionary measures aimed at disassociating the Democrats from the liberal reforms of the past.

After leaving the Clinton administration, Emanuel reportedly earned $18 million while employed by the global investment banking firm of Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein in Chicago, where he worked from 1999 to 2002.

During his run for Congress in 2002, Emanuel broke ranks with the Democratic congressional delegation from Illinois and supported the authorization of the war against Iraq, explicitly backing President Bush. Rising to the fourth-highest position in the House Democratic leadership, Emanuel played a key role in the passage of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

Emanuel has close ties to Israel and is a leading member of the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council, which includes figures such as the Clintons and Senator Joseph Lieberman. He is expected to play a key role in the selection of cabinet appointees, including the Treasury and defense secretaries. These posts are expected to be announced quickly, in order to reassure the markets and the foreign policy and military establishment.

Among those being considered for the Treasury are former Clinton Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers; Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. The latter will forever be identified with the "Volcker Shock" of the early 1980s, when he raised interest rates to 20 percent, deliberately precipitating the destruction of millions of manufacturing jobs and a sharp reduction in the living standards of the American working class. Volcker famously praised Reagan for breaking the 1981 strike of PATCO air traffic controllers, calling his action the most important factor in bringing inflation under control.

With the US military occupations continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan, Reuters reported that Obama was considering keeping Robert Gates on as secretary of defense or bringing in former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, a close Obama adviser. Others considered for the job include Democratic Senator John Kerry, former diplomat Richard Holbrooke, outgoing Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and former Georgia Democratic Senator Sam Nunn. All have been involved one way or another in the crimes of US imperialism, from the Balkans to Haiti to the Middle East and Central Asia.

In his speech Tuesday, Obama reiterated his commitment to Bush's "war on terror," which has been used as a pretext to assert the geo-political interests of America's ruling elite in energy-rich regions of the world. He issued a warning to "those who would tear this world down--we will defeat you."

Obama also repeated the threadbare claim that US troops had been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to "risk their lives for us," that is, to protect the American people rather than advance the interests of the American capitalist class. He called for a "new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice"--a reference to some form of military conscription.

Just as on economic policy, the next administration will inevitably clash with voters who thought the election of a Democratic president would lead to an end to the military aggression of the Bush years. Once again the Democrats are moving to dampen these expectations by reasserting their opposition to a "precipitous" withdrawal from Iraq and the need to escalate the "right war" in Afghanistan.

Jerry White, Socialist Equality Party 2008 Presidential Candidate

posted in //class war// - 2 replies

Brave New World

libertyasap — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:29:59 GMT

So although Obama hasn't been sworn in yet,
DO YOU FEEL ANY DIFFERENT?
100% of Americans say "YES!"

Relieved that the rest of the World no longer believes
that were complaisant sheeple,
WE'VE EARNED A TINY BIT OF RESPECT.

People all over the planet understand the profound efforts it took
by so many that came before, as much as those that campained or voted.

Most importantly, WE don't FEEL like the election was rigged.

OR WAS IT? , REALLY!? (HA HA HA! It actually may have been!)

Did we just elect a man to be the most respected slave in the country?
In our fantasy we might hope and wish Obama will End the WAR,
and offer Equality and Justice for ALL, hand us back our Liberties and
Rights, and with a stern look in his eye, make the Corporate Leaders
go Green, Humanity will be rescued at the last minute by our Democratic Hero.

Sadly, No. This is not the case, Folks. Obama isnt the one savior, nor is his Party.
I dearly hope he will not just ruffle feathers, but TAR AND FEATHER!
He CAN make a difference! but he WILL STILL BE A PAWN of the bankers.

AND, IT CAN STILL BE A TIME OF GREAT CHANGE!

but WE"RE the ones that have to make a LOT of the changes.

We must bit by bit, however we can,
TAKE BACK POWER OVER HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES.

We must learn how to live without relying COMPLETELY ON BANKERS AND CORPERATIONS.
Right now America is SO reliant upon money and products, we ARE enslaved.

We live like infants, needing ALL of the Products, Food, Clothing, Transportation,
Electricity, Housing, Healthcare, and even Entertainment to be provided for us
BECAUSE we are so busy working to pay for all these things.

On top of all we work so hard to afford,
we're also paying for car, life, house, and health INSURANCE,
we are REQUIRED to PAY to bet against our SELF
while we actively participate in high risk behaviors...
We Drive 60+ miles an hour to & from work and shopping.
We eat deficient foods, drink and breathe toxic water and air,
have to plan to 'work-out' around work hours if we want exercise,
and were all stressed out from sustaining our lifestyles.

One STATE even VOTED yesterday to sustain Income Tax!
Income tax is ILLEGAL! We pay just to work!?
How is it legal to charge a tax for work done? IT'S NOT!
It's not legal, but we're convinced that it is.
Just as were convinced that we need banks for economy,
and presents on X-mas.

Americans are living an illusion put in place and maintained.
And to a significant degree, Americans work HARD to maintain it EVERYDAY.

If we go into a "recession", maybe even a "depression",
we'd be FORCED to consume less, conserve, recycle
AND engage with alternatives to salvery,
we'd SEE (and remember) that we can live without this mundane oppression.
Who knows, it might take that extreme situation to wake folks up.

Wouldn't it be more mature of Americans to be proactive about this?
To use our privilage of education, communication and cooperation.
Thumbs & cleverness...PEOPLE created miraculous Technology!
Why not use it for empowerment and building autonomy.
Together we can think of ways to provide for ourselves.
We can focus on important skillbuilding,
like growing food for ourselves and others,
and conserving, recycling and reusing products.
We can use the wheel not for profit, but for energy.
We must BE very creative! Are we not clever?
We can make music, not for fame or riches, but for joyful entertainment.
and we can really help make these changes by supporting other folks.
Folks with less privilage and folks who are trying to make change by living
outside of this slave system.

What do you think?
I want to know.
-Liberty

posted in //class war// - 7 replies

The Boeing strike and the Wall Street bailout

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:56:25 GMT

The Boeing strike and the Wall Street bailout
Statement by Jerry White, Socialist Equality Party candidate for US president
4 October 2008

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/boei-o04.shtml

As the Socialist Equality Party’s candidate for US president, I want to express my solidarity with the 27,000 Boeing workers on strike for a month to defend their jobs and living standards against the giant aerospace company.

In the coming months, tens of millions of workers will face similar struggles as corporate America and the government—whether led by a President Obama or President McCain—try to force working people to pay for the bailout of the Wall Street banks and breakdown of American capitalism.

The Socialist Equality Party encourages every form of mass resistance to these attacks. The working class is not responsible for the economic crisis and must not pay for it. I call for uniting every section of the working class in a common struggle aimed at a fundamental reorganization of economic and political life to meet the needs of working people, not the corporate and financial elite.

The $700 billion bailout, signed by President Bush yesterday, amounts to the greatest theft of public assets in history. There will not be a penny for millions facing home foreclosures, the loss of their jobs and a crushing level of family debts. Not one of the speculators and banking executives responsible for the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression will be held accountable. On the contrary, they will walk away with billions as taxpayers are forced to buy—at premium prices—their virtually worthless assets.

The passage of this reactionary legislation—which will place unparalleled power in the hands of the treasury secretary, an unelected official and former CEO of Goldman Sachs—was a mockery of democracy.

The Democratic congressional leadership conspired with the Bush administration to ram it through before the election, effectively disenfranchising voters and making sure the massive popular opposition to the bailout could find no expression. Obama joined McCain in promoting the bailout by claiming the massive transfer of wealth into the hands of the rich would turn the economy around and improve conditions for ordinary working people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The bailout will bankrupt the government and lead to a massive attack on social programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Moreover, it will lead to a further monopolization of economic power in the hands of the most powerful banks and set the stage for the next speculative frenzy by the financial elite.

The crisis has exploded all the myths about the “free market” and the argument that hedge fund managers and corporate executives deserve multimillion-dollar packages because they are the “risk-takers” and “innovators.” In fact, this catastrophe is the culmination of a decades-long process, in which the ruling elite has systematically destroyed the industrial base of the country and shipped millions of jobs to low-wage regions in order to free up capital for the most parasitical forms of speculation.

While 5 million manufacturing jobs were destroyed and workers saw their wages and living standards stagnate, the wealthiest 1 percent of the population gorged itself in fabulous riches, in most cases, not by producing anything of value but by pocketing the already available wealth of others.

Boeing’s attack on its workers is part and parcel of this same process. CEO Jim McNerney recently told the Chief Executives’ Club of Boston that the company’s outsourcing strategy was a “management rights” issue. Indeed, under capitalism, the corporate owners have dictatorial control over economic decision-making, including the power to replace workers with cheaper labor in order to boost returns for big investors and top executives.

By taking a stand to defend their jobs and living standards, Boeing workers have been thrust into a conflict not only with corporate management but the entire economic and political system in the US and internationally, which subordinates the needs of the working class to the profits of the super-rich.

The only way workers can secure their rights—to decent-paying and secure jobs, healthcare, housing and education for their families—is to build a mass political movement that aims to take economic and political power in their own hands and reorganize economic life to meet the needs of society.

This struggle traverses all national boundaries. The economic crisis is rapidly spreading throughout the world economy, as are the demands for job-cutting and wage concessions. In France, Airbus workers are facing a struggle against the destruction of 10,000 jobs. This underscores the need for American and European workers to unite in a common struggle against the multinational aerospace companies.

For months, however, the International Association of Machinists (IAM) campaigned, along with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and other politicians closely aligned with Boeing, to overturn a US Air Force decision to award a refueling tanker contract to Boeing’s competitor, Northrop Grumman, and its European partner EADS, the parent company of Airbus. The nationalist campaign was used to promote illusions that Boeing workers had the same interests as the corporate owners and to drive a wedge between US and European aerospace workers.

The past three decades of betrayed working class struggles have demonstrated the bankruptcy of the unions’ nationalist and pro-capitalist program, and their alliance with the Democratic Party. It is not possible to fight for the interests of the working class if workers are tied to a political party that, no less than the Republicans, defends the interests of corporate America and Wall Street.

I am running in the presidential elections to provide a socialist alternative to the twin parties of big business and war. I oppose the Wall Street bailout and call for hundreds of billions of dollars to be poured into the rebuilding of basic industries, the cities and the country’s infrastructure.

The ill-gotten gains of the corporate executives and speculators should be confiscated and used to protect distressed homeowners and end all foreclosures and evictions. The books of the financial institutions should be opened for public examination and those responsible for the systematic looting of the people held criminally responsible.

The breakdown of the “free market” demonstrates the burning necessity for public intervention and planning. But this must be done by the working class, for the working class, not by big business politicians on behalf of the wealthy.

The financial institutions and basic industries, including Boeing, should be placed under public ownership and the democratic control of working people, without compensation to the owners, while protecting the assets of small business people and small investors.

To fight for this program, the working class needs to break with the Democrats and Republicans and build its own political party—based on a socialist and internationalist strategy—to fight to establish a workers’ government and genuine democracy.

This is why my vice-presidential candidate Bill Van Auken and I are running in the elections. We urge Boeing workers to support our election campaign, read our program and make the decision to join and build the Socialist Equality Party as the new revolutionary leadership of the working class.

Contact us today for more information about the SEP and to participate in the campaign—visit our web site at www.socialequality.com.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Political dissent as terrorism: “Minnesota Patriot Act” charges filed against RNC Eight

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:19:45 GMT

Political dissent as terrorism: “Minnesota Patriot Act” charges filed against RNC Eight
By Tom Eley
11 September 2008

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/minn-s11.shtml

The charges of terrorism leveled against the eight youth who had sought to organize protests and civil disobedience against the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Minnesota last week sound an alarm that political opposition in the US is on its way toward being criminalized.

In what may be the first case of its kind, American citizens have been arrested and charged as terrorists for no other act than planning to protest and obstruct a political event. In this case the occasion was the nominating convention of a party chiefly responsible for policies detested by the majority of Americans, including the war in Iraq and the enrichment of a tiny layer of the enormously wealthy.

Even a casual review of the case reveals that the charges are a baseless frame-up, carried out in the name of constitutionally dubious “anti-terrorist” legislation enacted since 2002.

More alarming than the case itself, however, is the fact that it has gone virtually unnoted by the national news media. This reporter could also find no mention of the case on the web sites of left-liberal publications such as the Nation, the Progressive, or In These Times. No major politician from either party has commented on the case, including Minnesota’s Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar. Attempts to contact the campaign and Senate office of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama revealed that he had not released a statement on the arrests.

This silence on the case is no indication of its lack of importance. In essence, the terrorism charges against the RNC 8 show what the World Socialist Web Site has long warned: that anti-terrorism laws like the Patriot Act—enthusiastically supported by both major parties—have never been about protecting the American people from terrorism. They were put into place to create the legal framework for the suppression of basic constitutional and democratic rights of the population.

The eight members of the anarchist group Republican National Convention Welcoming Committee (RNCWC) were arrested the weekend before the RNC began and charged with the felony “conspiracy to commit riot in the second degree in furtherance of terrorism.” They have since been released on $10,000 bail. If convicted at trial, the RNC Eight could each face five years in prison plus a $10,000 fine. A ninth individual has been named in the police complaint, but has yet to be charged.

Bruce Nestor, president of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and attorney for Monica Bicking, one of the eight defendants, told the World Socialist Web Site that the authorities have shown no indication that the charges will be dropped.

The charges are predicated on an a priori assumption of guilt; not on what actually happened, but what might have happened had no arrest been made.

Furthermore, the charges are almost entirely based upon the evidence of two confidential paid informants.

Nestor pointed out in an earlier interview with the Minnesota Independent that “the most outrageous allegations made by the authorities are not supported by any evidence other than the statement of the confidential informants. They’re not supported by the evidence seized.”

The physical evidence gathered by law enforcement was even more threadbare than the purchased testimony of informants. “We have the sheriff displaying a single plastic item that he claims was a shield,” Nestor said, “as if one shield was going to protect demonstrators from 3,500 armed riot police who have projectile-tear-gas weapons.” In addition, police seized a rusty hatchet, nails, lighters and other common household items as evidence, and rather ludicrously reported discovering “weaponized urine.”

This is the same method the Federal Bureau of Investigation has used in its attacks on Muslim organizations and other “terrorism” suspects. In such scenarios, anonymous police infiltrators enter an organization, create a provocation or even a crime itself, and then turn over uncorroborated testimony, thereby implicating an entire group of people

Lawyers for the RNCWC members have also pointed to the climate of fear created surrounding their clients by the very charge of terrorism. “All they do is they label people as terrorists and anarchists, and at that point what people are actually saying and the content of their views has no meaning anymore,” said attorney Jordan Kushner.

Nestor told the WSWS that the arrests are “part of an overall law enforcement strategy to intimidate people from exercising political rights in the streets and to intimidate people from political organizations, to put citizens outside of the realm of acceptable behavior, to limit acceptable protest to voting and writing letters, and anything else is dangerous and potentially criminal.”

The arrests are based on a 2002 law enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support in response to 9/11 and the adoption of the national USA Patriot Act. According to Nestor the Minnesota law is a version of the latter. According to the law, “a crime is committed to ‘further terrorism’ if the crime is a felony and is a premeditated act involving violence to persons or property that is intended to: (1) terrorize, intimidate, or coerce a considerable number of members of the public in addition to the direct victims of the act; and (2) significantly disrupt or interfere with the lawful exercise, operation, or conduct of government, lawful commerce, or the right of lawful assembly” (emphasis added).

In other words, the statute lays out a legal framework for the categorization of protest as “furthering terrorism.” Police could quite easily determine that a protest aims to “coerce” “members of the public” or “interfere with” the operations of government, industry and meetings. In a broad sense, that is precisely what public demonstrations have always aimed to do.

The passing of the 2002 legislation was not the only, or most recent, preparation made by the government for the repression that has unfolded in St. Paul.

It has been revealed that the city government of St. Paul and the Host Committee of the Republican National Convention—which organized the event and solicited corporate donors—worked out a bargain whereby the Host Committee would assume the first $10 million in liability resulting from lawsuits civilians might launch against the city’s police. This agreement gave a signal to police that financial liability need not serve as a deterrent to police repression of protests.

Police preparation in the Twin Cities was elaborate. Because the RNC, like the Democratic National Convention, was declared a “National Security Event,” the local police were placed under the supervision of the federal government through the Secret Service and combined with numerous other state and federal police and military agencies.

It has also become clear that the media, especially independent media, were targeted for harassment and arrest during the convention. This included the unlawful search and seizure of filming equipment, computers, and cell phones.

As the scope of the arrests and police brutality has begun to take shape—multiple reports have emerged of police beatings, gassings, denial of medical treatment, and use of mace and taser guns on protesters and those already detained or arrested—it appears increasingly unlikely that this was simply an overreaction, as some liberal commentators have claimed.

The goal of this repression—which most assuredly would be a central preoccupation of the mainstream media had it taken place in, for instance, Russia—was only secondarily aimed at intimidating or squelching the RNC protests. Instead these measures were cut from the same cloth as the sort of massive repression carried out in third world police states. The massive police operation’s primary aim was to benumb, intimidate and silence the population as a whole.

It also provided the opportunity for a trial run of large-scale repression against the mass opposition to war and social immiseration that will inevitably emerge in the coming months and years.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

minutemen counter demo

Tedster — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:46:40 GMT

Sorry for the posting this in the last minute, but I just got word of this.

===================================

We have confirmed that the Minutemen have reserved the front steps of SF City Hall tomorrow, Wednesday, July 30, at 11 am, to hold a press conference / rally to attack our city's Sanctuary Law. We must not allow their messages of hate to further arouse people's fears and insecurities around Sanctuary!

PLEASE JOIN US FOR A COUNTER PROTEST!

We will meet at 10:30 am, on the lawn in front of City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl. Please bring drums, bells, whistles, etc. to make some noise!

Please help spread the word!

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

New tribe against the occupation of Afghanistan

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 06:08:48 GMT

New tribe against the occupation of Afghanistan
http://tribes.tribe.net/outnow#

Massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan began in 1978 and continues to this day. The ongoing war in Afghanistan continues to kill thousands of Afghan civilians and cause extreme suffering due to horrendous injuries, the displacement of people from their homes and livelihoods, home invasions, sexual abuse, arbitrary arrests and torture, and the general humiliation of the Afghani people.

As this author stated for Liberation News on September 12, 2001:

“Americans watched in horror as the World Trade Center collapsed. Yet it was a horror no different from what the U.S. government has done with it's bombing of civilian populations in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Korea. The U.S. bombings of just these countries, not to mention many other U.S. acts of war, murdered millions of civilians. Terror against civilians is never justified…

“Today the clerical fascists of the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The CIA put them in power with billions of dollars in U.S. military aid. This massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was in opposition to the revolutionary PDPA government that came to power in 1978 on issues of promoting women’s rights and land reform. Literacy campaigns began teaching the poor and women how to read and write.

“Foreign religious fanatics and wealthy defenders of the old feudal system came together in a terrorist organization called the Mujahideen. With billions of dollars in assistance from the U.S. [starting under the Jimmy Carter presidency] these fanatical cutthroats waged a holy war that included killing women for teaching little girls how to read and write and throwing acid into the faces of women who had become liberated from the veil. The Taliban came to power as a result of this U.S. intervention.

“Will a U.S. war now against the Taliban and former CIA aid recipient Osama Bin Laden set things straight? No. It will be the people of Afghanistan who suffer death and destruction from war as the U.S. attempts to install a puppet government friendly to U.S. corporate (oil) interests.” Steven Argue, Liberation News, September 12, 2001

The Taliban was put in power by U.S. intervention. U.S. occupation today is a cause for war and continues to keep an extremely reactionary religious government in power. Afghanistan had secular governments with much wider women's rights before the U.S. began its massive intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970's. All U.S. imposed governments have been religious and anti-women. In Afghanistan, the Afghanis are better qualified to solve the problems caused by U.S. imperialism than U.S. imperialism is.

Yet rather than get out of Afghanistan Obama and McCain are proposing more troops, more helicopters, and more war.

NO TO THE BIPARTISAN OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN!!!!

NO TO OBAMA and MCCAIN'S PROPOSED SURGE IN AFGHANISTAN!

U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!

*~U.S. and Allies Out of Afghanistan!!~*
http://tribes.tribe.net/outnow#

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

YouTube of RNC/DNC conventions

Tedster — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:48:06 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=magUBVXrgiQ

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Imperialist War, State and Revolution

Lenin — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 02:49:18 GMT

The question of the state is now acquiring particular importance both in theory and in practical politics. The imperialist war has immensely accelerated and intensified the process of transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism. The monstrous oppression of the working people by the state, which is merging more and more with the all-powerful capitalist associations, is becoming increasingly monstrous. The advanced countries - we mean their hinterland - are becoming military convict prisons for the workers.

The unprecedented horrors and miseries of the protracted war are making the people's position unbearable and increasing their anger. The world proletarian revolution is clearly maturing.

V. I. Lenin
Preface to State and Revolution
First Edition
August 1917

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:47:59 GMT

Obama Lays Out Plans for Continued War

By Steven Argue

In a July 14, 2008 New York Times Op Ed, Barack Obama says:

"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."

In other words, he does not plan to get all of the troops out of Iraq and he will only get most of the troops out in two years. And what does he explain he will do with these troops? Redeploy them. Redeployed where? His rhetoric has been clear: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

Obama goes on to call for a surge in Afghanistan as well as war in Pakistan:

"Ending the war [in Iraq] is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan [...] As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters [...]"

U.S. intervention has also been very bad for the people of Pakistan. It is US intervention that has kept a long series of dictators in power there. The US has no right to intervene against those fighting that dictatorship that it labels "terrorists". Likewise, it is US intervention in support of a long series of Pakistani dictators that is the cause of Bhutto's death, brutal repression against the majority, exploitation, and poverty, all of which has resulted in rebellion against the Pakistani government. The US has already harmed the Pakistani people enough with massive aid to dictators and would do more harm by sending in troops.

NO TO OBAMA’S PROPOSED MILITARY INTERVENTION IN PAKISTAN!

Massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan began in 1978 and continues to this day. The ongoing war in Afghanistan continues to kill thousands of Afghan civilians and cause extreme suffering due to horrendous injuries, the displacement of people from their homes and livelihoods, home invasions, sexual abuse, arbitrary arrests and torture, and the general humiliation of the Afghani people.

As this author stated for Liberation News on September 12, 2001:

“Americans watched in horror as the World Trade Center collapsed. Yet it was a horror no different from what the U.S. government has done with it's bombing of civilian populations in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Korea. The U.S. bombings of just these countries, not to mention many other U.S. acts of war, murdered millions of civilians. Terror against civilians is never justified…

“Today the clerical fascists of the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The CIA put them in power with billions of dollars in U.S. military aid. This massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was in opposition to the revolutionary PDPA government that came to power in 1978 on issues of promoting women’s rights and land reform. Literacy campaigns began teaching the poor and women how to read and write.

“Foreign religious fanatics and wealthy defenders of the old feudal system came together in a terrorist organization called the Mujahideen. With billions of dollars in assistance from the U.S. [starting under the Jimmy Carter presidency] these fanatical cutthroats waged a holy war that included killing women for teaching little girls how to read and write and throwing acid into the faces of women who had become liberated from the veil. The Taliban came to power as a result of this U.S. intervention.

“Will a U.S. war now against the Taliban and former CIA aid recipient Osama Bin Laden set things straight? No. It will be the people of Afghanistan who suffer death and destruction from war as the U.S. attempts to install a puppet government friendly to U.S. corporate (oil) interests.” Steven Argue, Liberation News, September 12, 2001

The Taliban was put in power by U.S. intervention. U.S. occupation today is a cause for war and continues to keep an extremely reactionary religious government in power. Afghanistan had secular governments with much wider women's rights before the U.S. began its massive intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970's. All U.S. imposed governments have been religious and anti-women. In Afghanistan, the Afghanis are better qualified to solve the problems caused by U.S. imperialism than U.S. imperialism is.

Yet rather than get out of Afghanistan Obama is proposing more troops, more helicopters, and more war.

NO TO OBAMA”S PROPOSED SURGE IN AFGHANISTAN!

U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!

In addition, at AIPAC, Obama’s speech laid the groundwork for war with Iran:

“The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. [...] The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

A war on a major oil producing nation under the imperialist excuse of weapons of mass destruction. Sound familiar? Bush would have a good case for a charge of plagiarism against Obama.

And what will the Iranians think of more imperialist intervention?

In 1953 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and put the brutal dictatorship of the Shah in power. Mossadegh had plans to nationalize the Iranian oil fields, a plan that would have taken a good chunk of the oil profits out of the private control of major international oil companies. Such nationalizations have greatly helped people in other countries, such as Venezuela, where oil wealth is used to better the conditions of the poor and provide needed programs like healthcare.

The CIA sponsored overthrow of the Mossadegh government paved the way for 26 years of dictatorship under the U.S. backed Shah. Freedom of speech did not exist under the Shah, and the CIA participated in the torture of political opponents to the Shah. Meanwhile, U.S. oil corporations made massive profits from Iranian oil while the vast majority of the Iranian people lived in extreme poverty and did not benefit from the oil wealth.

The Iranian people rightly saw the Shah as a puppet of U.S. imperialism, and finally overthrew his dictatorship in 1979. Unfortunately, repression was so bad under the Shah that the only place that people could organize opposition was in the Mosques. This gave the Mullahs a tremendous advantage in taking control of the revolution. The Islamic nature of the revolution led to a deterioration of women's rights and socialists, many of whom had naively supported the Islamic Revolution, were executed by the clerical fascist state.

Despite the brutal nature of the new Iranian government, in that respect the same as the old regime the U.S. had supported, the U.S. was not satisfied. The new regime nationalized the Iranian oil fields under government control. In addition, the new government was full of anti-imperialist rhetoric and took American hostages; a natural result of 26 years of U.S. imposed dictatorship and exploitation. The U.S. government hated the Iranian revolution most for nationalizing the oil, and they feared that the Iranian Revolution may become an influence for similar anti-imperialist revolutions in the region.

As a result, the U.S. encouraged then ally, Saddam Hussein to send Iraqi troops to invade Iran. During the war, the U.S. armed both sides, but most armed Iraq and provided Iraq with military intelligence. The Iraqi invasion of Iran began on September 22, 1980 and the war continued until 1988. As a result of the war, between half million and a million and a half people died. This U.S. support to Iraq also helped enable Iraq to murder between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds in the Anfal campaign of 1988. At the time, the U.S. corporate media was silent about this crime, and only exposed it later when U.S. alliances changed.

So U.S. intervention against Iran imposed decades of dictatorship, repression, war, exploitation, poverty, and, just in the Iran-Iraq war alone, the deaths of around a million Iranian people. Like Iraq, U.S. troops on the ground in Iran will not be treated as liberators.

The Iranian working class has many scores to settle with their Iranian rulers, but as bad as the current regime in Iran is, Iranians need only look across the border into Iraq to see that U.S. occupation will be much worse. War, a puppet capitalist regime, a million dead, torture, millions of refugees, and an occupier mainly interested in privatization to loot resources. As Iraq shows, there is no liberation at the hands of U.S. occupation. And as the CIA’s Shah showed, there is no liberation under a U.S. imposed puppet. Only anti-imperialist socialist revolution can begin to solve the problems faced by women, ethnic minorities, and the working class of Iran.

NO TO OBAMA’S THREATS AGAINST IRAN!

U.S. HANDS OFF IRAN!

On Iraq, Obama has never promised to fully withdraw. In a debate in September 2007, when asked if he would have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 Barack Obama said "I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." ("The Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC", New York Times 9/26/07).

The U.S. must leave by air, sea, and land as quickly as possible. U.S. imperialism has created a horrible situation, but that is no excuse to stay, and U.S. troops, Halliburton, etc. are only making matters worse. Over a million Iraqis are dead. These deaths are not just caused by the civil war that the U.S. has ignited, nor are they just caused by the death-squad government that the U.S. has put in power. U.S. guns and bombers are also the direct cause of a large number of deaths. Iraq needs to be turned over to the Iraqi people through immediate withdrawal.

In addition, Obama has directly supported the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq by voting in the Senate to fund it. If it were not for the Democrat votes in congress, the recent $162 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have never passed.

This most recent New York Times Op Ed from Obama continues on with a pro-war position. Obama is clear. He wants a gradual redeployment of the majority of troops to fight other wars while calling for continuing keep some troops fighting in Iraq.

On Blackwater mercenaries fighting in Iraq Obama also refuses to support a ban, and promised to continue to use Blackwater when he becomes president (Democracy Now!, June 2, 2008).

The US government has no right to be in Iraq murdering, torturing, and humiliating their people while making massive profits for the military industry and other contractors. The U.S. is attempting to privatize Iraqi oil to eliminate Iraqi control over this most important resource and give U.S. and British oil companies control over the oil. The puppet government the US has set up is a death squad government that should not be protected by U.S. troops. Continued occupation of Iraq is a continued attempt to subvert the national will of the Iraqi people and it must end immediately, yet Obama's plan is to only leave, partially, after a couple years, and this, assuredly, only after the oil law has been passed and oil ownership handed over to the multi-nationals. This, as Obama's own use of the term "redeployment" indicates, will free U.S. troops up for other oil wars.

NO TO OBAMA’S “PHASED REDEPLOYMENT”!

U.S. OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW!

U.S. HANDS OFF THE WORLD!

Another major cause for war in the Middle East is U.S. military support to the racist regime in Israel. Obama promises to continue this practice. At AIPAC Obama promised:

“Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO.”

This despite Israel’s recent war of aggression against Lebanon, a war that, if it were not for the heroic resistance of Hezbollah fighters, would have ended in another Israeli occupation like Israel’s brutal occupation of Lebanon that took place in the 1980’s. That occupation included crimes against humanity committed by Israeli and allied Christian Phalangists when they massacred thousands of Palestinians in cold-blood at the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps.

In addition, Obama’s speech made no reference to the suffering faced by the Palestinian people as a result of the creation and continuation of the Jewish state. Israel is a state that created a homeland for one people, through force and violence, by denying the homeland of Palestine’s original inhabitants. Also missing from Obama’s speech was the brutal blockade currently being carried out against Palestinians in Gaza. Obama expressed zero sympathy for the Palestinians and other Arabs, only promises to supply Israel with the weapons to kill more Arabs.

Massive U.S. military aid helps keep the repressive governments of Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in power. Instead of promising more U.S. military aid, that aid should be cut off to better allow the people of the Middle East to decide their own future.

NO TO OBAMA’S PROMISE OF BILLIONS TO ISRAEL!

Another indicator of where Obama stands on imperialist war is how he sees the past wars of the United States. Of H. W. Bush and his war on Iraq Obama recently stated, "I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm." (Barack Obama, from David Brooks article, "Obama Admires Bush, NY Times, May 16, 2008)

Leading up to that war, Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi Ramaila oil fields. Iraq saw this as theft. In addition, the Kuwaiti monarchy went against OPEC quotas and increased oil production by 40%, bringing down the price of oil on the world market, something Saddam Hussein called economic warfare.

Before Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was, at that time an ally of the United States in the wars against Iran and the Kurds. He had received massive U.S. military backing in those wars. When he assembled troops on the Kuwaiti border, US ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein and told him, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Saddam Hussein saw this as a green light from his powerful U.S. ally to invade Kuwait. Soon after, he did.

But Saddam Hussein was set up by the United States because the U.S. wanted a war. The reason for this was to prop up the profits of the military industrial complex. The Soviet Union had just fallen, and the military industries needed an excuse to keep spending billions of dollars of our tax dollars on the military.

Saddam Hussein was the perfect boogie-man to meet their needs. The U.S. corporate media pointed out that he had murdered tens of thousands of Kurds, never mentioning why they were silent when the operations were taking place with weapons supplied by the United States.

The U.S. corporate media also claimed that premature babies in Kuwait had been taken out of incubators and left to die so that the incubators could be shipped back to Baghdad. The whole story was a complete fabrication, and the corporate media even admitted it after the war, but the lie served its purpose in swaying many people who otherwise questioned going to war for the repressive Kuwaiti monarchy.

In addition, President H.W. Bush claimed as reason for war, "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression." This was based on supposed Pentagon satellite photos. Yet, from commercial satellite photos acquired by the St. Petersburg Times, this was proven to be a lie, the desert Bush senior and the Pentagon referred to was nothing but empty desert.

While playing up false stories of baby killers and the new Hitler that was going to march across the Middle East, the U.S. corporate media ignored Kuwait’s theft of Iraqi oil as well the historic claim of Iraq to Kuwait, with Kuwait being a construct of British imperialism to divide the territory and limit Iraqi access to the sea.

In addition, the U.S. corporate media completely ignored the repressive nature of the Kuwaiti monarchy that U.S. troops were sent to fight and die for. The vast majority of those living in Kuwait were denied the right to vote and other more basic rights. This included women and people labeled foreigners, many of whom had been in Kuwait for generations. Some who had ancestors in Kuwait prior to 1920 were even denied Kuwaiti citizenship. Palestinian workers built modern Kuwait, but they were kept in second class status. This situation was so bad that many Palestinians aided the Iraqi troops and saw them as a liberation army. After the U.S. re-installed the monarchy, most Kuwaiti Palestinians were driven out of Kuwait.

For women in Kuwait the Iraqi invasion also brought hope. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Under Saddam Hussein, over 50% of Iraqi doctors were women. Iraqi women were allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They were allowed to drive. Iraqi women could even freely criticize men. In addition, Iraqi women had the right to work and control their own funds. This was in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive monarchy of Kuwait where women had / have no rights what-so-ever.

In carrying out the war to defend the Kuwaiti monarchy the U.S. used depleted uranium (DU) weapons that have contaminated Iraqi water, soil, and food with radiation. This radiation has caused large numbers of birth defects and other diseases for the Iraqi people. In addition, U.S. soldiers were not given protection and, as a result, became ill in massive numbers with the symptoms of radiation poisoning. Like Agent Orange poisoning in Vietnam, the military brass pretended they had no clue to the cause of this illness that became dubbed “Persian Gulf War Syndrome”. Yet this was later exposed as a lie when reports were made public warning the military brass of the health risks of DU weapons before the war.

Government demographer Beth Osborn Duponte lost her job when she estimated the civilian loss of life in Iraq to be around 83,000, 13,000 directly from U.S. bombing and another 70,000 civilians dead as a result of U.S. targeting of civilian necessities such as water treatment facilities, medical facilities and supplies, and the electric power grid.

In addition, Duponte estimated deaths of Iraqi troops to be around 40,000. Many of the Iraqi troops killed were buried alive. In defense of U.S. actions Col. Lon Maggart said, "People somehow have the notion that burying guys alive is nastier than blowing them up with hand grenades or sticking them in gut with bayonets, well it's not."

So Obama has no problems with Bush targeting civilians, irradiating U.S. troops and the Iraqi people, burying people alive, and re-installing a repressive monarchy in Kuwait. In addition, Obama wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan, send troops into Pakistan, is already threatening Iran with war, will never fully pull out of Iraq and only promises to pull out most troops in two years after an extended gradual re-deployment of troops to other wars, will continue to use murderous Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq, and promises billions in military aid to Israel. Enough said.

Obama will be nominated the presidential candidate of the Democrat Party on August 24-28 at the Democrat Party National Convention (DNC). In opposition to the DNC convention, protests are being organized, with organizers stating:

"On August 24-28, the ruling elite and their defenders will converge in Denver Colorado, in an attempt to recuperate the gains of global social movements and produce another myth of progress. Lip service to global warming, the economic crisis and the war will endow them with the magic to spread amnesia across the hearts and minds of North America... Outside those doors, however, so many will exclaim, smash and sing a harmonious ‘no.’...”

In addition, there will be protests at the equally pro-war Republican National convention being held September 1-4 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Although virtually ignored by the corporate press, there are other presidential candidates who are running in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans who are for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. These include Cynthia McKinney running on the Green Party ticket, Brian Moore of the Socialist Party, and Gloria La Riva on the Party for Socialism and Liberation ticket, and Róger Calero on the Socialist Workers Party ticket. Corporate controlled elections and media assure that these authentic anti-war candidates will not get elected, but these candidacies do help expose people to positions of politicians not controlled by corporate interests and the pro-war Democrat Party machine. In addition, through some of these campaigns, more people become exposed to socialist ideas and the ideas of class struggle methods to bring about change.

A vote for Obama or McCain is a vote for war! So that's what, in active terms, you're really voting for when you vote Democrat or Republican. Those of us voting for third parties, or refusing to vote, will not change the country directly through the elections either, but at least we won’t be dumb enough to vote for own oppressors and exploiters that are waging imperialist war. Instead, we will have the sense to be working for something different.

And those of us in unions should be angry that our hard earned union dues are being squandered on the Democrat Party when that money should instead be put into stronger strike funds to strengthen our ability to fights for better contracts, for socialized medicine, and for bigger strikes against the wars.

Build the Anti-War Movement! For More Strikes for Immediate Withdrawal Like the May 1st ILWU Anti-War Strike That Shut Down 29 Ports! Support Soldiers Refusing to Fight Including the 10,000 U.S. Soldiers Who Have Gone AWOL! Build the Socialist Anti-Imperialist Movement! U.S. Hands off Iran! U.S. Out of Iraq and Afghanistan Now!

This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Join the Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

US longshore union leader : "don't vote for Obama"

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:07:39 GMT

US longshore union leader : "don't vote for Obama"

SHORT VIDEO OF JACK HEYMAN'S COMMENTS ON OBAMA AT PERMANENT REVOLUTION WEEKEND SCHOOL IN LONDON

Try either of the links below for the video

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=2202

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2202

Also from Jack Heyman, see:

Longshoremen to close ports on West Coast to protest war

http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/0de5539d-06be-406e-a4a8-e45eaef28b9f

******************************************

Distributed by Liberation News:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Fear of Insurrence Capitalists!

MacMorrighan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:12:33 GMT

Hey guys, can anyone explain something to me, please: Why is it NOT illegal for an insurence co. to drop a cliuent that gets sick, such as with cancer, for example? For example, back in 1993 when my dearly beloved maternal Grandmother (Grandma' Julie) died from breast cancer. However, when her insurrence co. got wind that she had cancer, they dropped her! Now, that seems absolutely criminal; after all, she paid them good money for years in case she got sick. The co. could have at LEAST given her BACK her money from all those payments so that she could have afforded her end-of-life care, rather than forcing my 8 aunts and uncles to absorb the astronomic cost.

But, what's just as bad (and heart breaking) is that--because the cos. have so much money--it simply doesn't make it worth while to go after them via the court system and sue them.

Moreover, one wonders if there's any proposed legislation TO make this practice of dropping clients hat become sick illegal; or, if so, if there is anyone trying to block it, or that would vote against such cruel behavior?

I just happened to see a fascinating comercial today on CNN for HealthCareforAmericaNOW.Org that asked (in a VERY Socialist manner): "When will insurrence companies put people's health before their profits?"

A couple months ago (if I remember correctly) there was a fascinating episode of Frontline on our local PBS station. It simply blew my mind! The US is only one of a very few countries that mandate that its citizens must pay our respective medical bills; rather, most countries on this planet differ greatly: 1.) most citizens, from most countries [eg. England and Canda, for example] simply are NOT billed for whatever medical needs they require (many have even picketed such antithetical propositions with signs that read, "No American Style Health Care!"); 2.) the government regulates how much the equipment and the prices for meds., and how much a Dr. can charge (this occurs particularly in Asiatic countries); and 3.) in many European countries, there's something in place--it escapes me right now--that allows for insurence companies to vie for clients, yet...they are NOT allowed to legally profit! Indeed, what I found most telling is how one Asiatic country wanted the BEST health-care system for their country, so they looked at the best health-care systems around the world and collected into their respective system the best that they could find to greatly benefit their own citizens. So, I have to ask: Why can't the US look to see the good systems that other countries have, and borrow ideas from them, huh? Our country seems to behave as if we are somehow "above" this. WTF?!

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Unionists Protest Uribe Venezuela Visit

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:24:15 GMT

Uribe visit to Venezuela

STATEMENT OF CCURA UNION TENDENCY ON URIBE VISIT

July 6--The Corriente Clasista Unitaria Revolucionaria y Autonoma of the National Union of Workers (U.N.T.) rejects categorically the visit that has announced of Alvaro Uribe to Caracas, top representative of the bloody Colombian oligarchy. Venezuelan workers have shown that we are anti-imperialist fighters in fact and not just in words. We do not share the judgment issued by President Chavez when he referred to the Colombian president as a "brother" and "friend" in the opening event of the Non-Aligned Ministers Conference, We know he represents the drug traffickers and paramilitarists that kill Colombian workers and peasants. He can never be a friend or brother of our people.

The Venezuelan government has announced a meeting between Chavez and Uribe on July 11th. It will be one month since the infamous act of President Chavez, together with representatives of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, announced "the productive reimpulse" through a strategic alliance with the exploiters. Just as the class enemies of Venezuelan workers form alliances with the government, now the maximum representative of imperialism in South America, Alvaro Uribe, will visit Caracas to give a "reimpulse" to relations with the Venezuelan government.

But the workers know who Uribe is and no government can fool us and present him as a friend or ally. Our class brothers are persecuted and murdered by the paramilitaries headed by Uribe, as Colombia has been the country where the largest number of trade unionists in the world have been murdered. This year several activists and worker fighters were murdered because they participated in a national march against the paramilitaries and state terrorism. Our brothers and friends are those who are carrying the democratic struggles against the fascist government of Uribe.

We salute the action of community radio ECOS 93.9 of Merida and other revolutionary collectives to organize a massive mobilization in repudiation of the visit of Uribe, and our organization will join this action which will class struggle, revolutionary and anti-imperialist.

(translated by Earl Gilman)

Distributed by Liberation News
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Bill Moyer's Journal: Wage Inequality!

MacMorrighan — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:30:37 GMT

Hey guys, I dearly hope that everyone caught last night's ep. of Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS--it was brilliant! According to the research, when adjusted for inflation, the lowest wage simply MUST be making more than $9 per hour, just to make a LIVING wage! Moreover, we are actually making LESS (when adjusted for inflatrion) that what people were paid during the 1920s! Doesn't all this make ya' sick? Personally, it makes me cringe... especially when I heard that most CEOs have in their contract that if they DIE while in office, their heirs automatically get a check worth several hundred MILLIONS of dollars!

But, it was Ronald Regan, when he crushed a Union, who destroyed job security in their place of employment; and, so, this behavior has continued ever since, because workers are deemed as "disposible". Nice, huh! (Ugh...I was being sarcastic, there.)

Hell, man genius and well-educated commentators have said that this is essentially a result of heinous GREED by one's employers! In fact, in Europe, the margine between what workers and employers make is VERY small because poverty level wages that we make in the US are simply NOT tollerated! (VIVA LA SOCIALISM! *G*) According to a late May issue of "TIME" magazine, about 68% of the poll respondants believe that wealth should be more evenly distributed amid the actual workers! Personally, these folks sound like Socialists, more or less, without even realizing it. ;o) At any rate, it seems like more and more people are turning away from capitalism, because they are not being treated fairly when compared to how much a company head makes for as little work as what he does; and this is compounded by the fact that an average worker is working 3 times harder for only 2% more money!

Ah...I wish I had known what he was going to talk about, or I would have taped it! He intereviewed the author of "Raise the Floor", Holly Sklar--go out and buy a copy!

Take Care,
Wade

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

A Socialist's Heart...

MacMorrighan — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:56:52 GMT

Ah...why this seeming class war-fare* hasn't led to a massive Socialist up-rising in the US, or a Revolution (hey, it worked for the French!), I will NEVER know! It wasn't until a few years ago that I knew that my political affiliation even HAD a name: Socialism (albeit the media does its best to demonize it! It's too bad that I can't officially register as a Socialist.

* I don't give two tears for the so-called "middle class", because every actual middle class individual I've ever met--such as a close relative's employers--have literally lost touch with reality; they literally cannot comprehend how anyone cannot afford to travel during their vacation time, despite being told that they CAN'T afford to!

Take Care,
Wade

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Iraqi Oil Workers Tell Chevron "Hands Off Iraq"

Mon, 26 May 2008 22:12:36 GMT

Iraqi Oil Workers Tell Chevron "Hands Off Iraq"

In a letter to Chevron executives and shareholders (and to ExxonMobil, who meet the same day), Iraqi Oil Workers Unions call on Chevron to end the occupation and stop pushing for the Iraq Oil [Theft] Law. This message will be delivered by antiwar, environmenta, and labor organizers as a protest converges on Chevrons annual shareholder meeting. Their message is below. This event will be on Wednesday May 28, at 7am at Chevrons Corporate headquarters in San Ramon. For more information, see: http://bayareadirectaction.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/may-28-demand-justice-from-chevron/

******************
To: The Shareholders of ExxonMobil and Chevron Corporations and All Peace Loving People of the World

From: Hassan Juma’a Awad, President, Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU)

We call upon the governments, corporations and other institutions behind the ongoing occupation of Iraq to respond to our demands for real democracy, true sovereignty and self-determination, free of all foreign interference.

Five years of invasion, war and occupation have brought nothing but death, destruction, misery and suffering to our people. In the name of our “liberation,” more than a million of our citizens have been killed or wounded, our nation’s schools, hospitals and other infrastructure have been destroyed, our neighbourhoods have been bombed, our homes have been broken into, our children have been traumatized, many of our family members and neighbours have been assaulted and arrested, our national treasures have been looted, and nearly twenty percent of our people have been turned into refugees.

The continued occupation fuels the violence in Iraq rather than alleviating it. The occupation has helped to foment and then exploit sectarian divisions and terror attacks where there had been none.

The Ba’athist legislation of 1987, which banned trade unions in the public sector and public enterprises (80% of all workers), is still in effect and continues to be enforced against us. Our union offices have been raided. Union property has been seized and destroyed. Our bank accounts have been frozen. Our leaders have been beaten, arrested, abducted and assassinated. Our rights as workers are routinely violated. This is an attack on our rights and the basic precepts of a democratic society. It is a grim reminder of the shadow of dictatorship still stalking our country.

We call upon you and all the world’s peace-loving peoples to help us to end the nightmare of occupation and restore our sovereignty and national independence so that we can chart our own course to the future.

1) We demand an immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from our country, and utterly reject the agreement being negotiated with the USA for long-term bases and a military presence. Iraq must be returned to full sovereignty.

2) We demand the passage of a labour law promised by our Constitution, that adheres to ILO principles to protect the rights of workers to organize, bargain and strike, independent of state control and interference and on which Iraqi trade unionists have been fully consulted.

3) We demand an end to meddling in our sovereign economic affairs by the International Monetary Fund, the USA and UK, and multinational energy corporations, and recognition that no major economic decisions concerning our services and resources can be made while foreign troops occupy our country.

4) We demand that the US government, oil companies and others immediately cease lobbying for the oil law which would fracture the country and hand control over our oil to multinational companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron. We demand that all oil companies be prevented from entering into any long-term agreement concerning oil while Iraq remains occupied. The Iraqi government must tear up the current draft of the oil law, and begin to develop a legitimate oil policy based on full and genuine consultation with the Iraqi people. Only after all occupation forces are gone should a long term plan for the development of our oil resources be adopted.

We seek your support and solidarity to help us end the military and economic occupation of our country.

We look forward to the day when we have a world based on co-operation and solidarity.

We look forward to a world free from war, sectarianism, competition and exploitation.

******************
Also See:

Take the Profit Out of Global Warming and War, Nationalize the Oil Industry
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/24/18501994.php

Clinton and Obama: Failures on War and Global Warming
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/10/18478172.php

Join the Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

Distributed by Liberation News, Subscribe Free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

1950: 100,000 Executed by Imperialism's Korean Dictatorship

Mon, 19 May 2008 17:49:54 GMT

[The US war of aggression in Korea murdered 5 million Koreans. Part of that murder was the cold blooded executions of over 100,000 leftists and suspected leftists by the South Korean government in 1950. Over 54,000 U.S. soldiers died in the U.S. war to defend that murderous U.S. imposed regime. The following AP article exposes what many on the left have known about for decades, but has been hidden from the general public in the United States by the government and corporate media. -Steven Argue]

AP Probes 'Cold-Blooded Slaughter' in South Korea
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003805038

By CHARLES J. HANLEY and JAE-SOON CHANG, The Associated Press

Published: May 18, 2008 4:15 PM ET

DAEJEON Grave by mass grave, South Korea is unearthing the skeletons and buried truths of a cold-blooded slaughter from early in the Korean War, when this nation's U.S.-backed regime killed untold thousands of leftists and hapless peasants in a summer of terror in 1950.

With U.S. military officers sometimes present, and as North Korean invaders pushed down the peninsula, the southern army and police emptied South Korean prisons, lined up detainees and shot them in the head, dumping the bodies into hastily dug trenches. Others were thrown into abandoned mines or into the sea. Women and children were among those killed. Many victims never faced charges or trial.

The mass executions - intended to keep possible southern leftists from reinforcing the northerners - were carried out over mere weeks and were largely hidden from history for a half-century. They were ``the most tragic and brutal chapter of the Korean War,'' said historian Kim Dong-choon, a member of a 2-year-old government commission investigating the killings.

Hundreds of sets of remains have been uncovered so far, but researchers say they are only a tiny fraction of the deaths. The commission estimates at least 100,000 people were executed, in a South Korean population of 20 million.

That estimate is based on projections from local surveys and is ``very conservative,'' said Kim. The true toll may be twice that or more, he told The Associated Press.

In addition, thousands of South Koreans who allegedly collaborated with the communist occupation were slain by southern forces later in 1950, and the invaders staged their own executions of rightists.

Through the postwar decades of South Korean right-wing dictatorships, victims' fearful families kept silent about that blood-soaked summer. American military reports of the South Korean slaughter were stamped ``secret'' and filed away in Washington. Communist accounts were dismissed as lies.

Only since the 1990s, and South Korea's democratization, has the truth begun to seep out.

In 2002, a typhoon's fury uncovered one mass grave. Another was found by a television news team that broke into a sealed mine. Further corroboration comes from a trickle of declassified U.S. military documents, including U.S. Army photographs of a mass killing outside this central South Korean city.

Now Kim's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has added government authority to the work of scattered researchers, family members and journalists trying to peel away the long-running cover-up. The commissioners have the help of a handful of remorseful old men.

``Even now, I feel guilty that I pulled the trigger,'' said Lee Joon-young, 83, one of the executioners in a secluded valley near Daejeon in early July 1950.

The retired prison guard told the AP he knew that many of those shot and buried en masse were ordinary convicts or illiterate peasants wrongly ensnared in roundups of supposed communist sympathizers. They didn't deserve to die, he said. They ``knew nothing about communism.''

The 17 investigators of the commission's subcommittee on ``mass civilian sacrifice,'' led by Kim, have been dealing with petitions from more than 7,000 South Koreans, involving some 1,200 alleged incidents - not just mass planned executions, but also 215 cases in which the U.S. military is accused of the indiscriminate killing of South Korean civilians in 1950-51, usually in air attacks.

The commission last year excavated sites at four of an estimated 150 mass graves around the country, recovering remains of more than 400 people. Working deliberately, matching documents to eyewitness and survivor testimony, it has officially confirmed two large-scale executions - at a warehouse in the central South Korean county of Cheongwon, and at Ulsan on the southeast coast.

In January, then-President Roh Moo-hyun, under whose liberal leadership the commission was established, formally apologized for the more than 870 deaths confirmed at Ulsan, calling them ``illegal acts the then-state authority committed.''

The commission, with no power to compel testimony or prosecute, faces daunting tasks both in verifying events and identifying victims, and in tracing a chain of responsibility. Under Roh's conservative successor, Lee Myung-bak, whose party is seen as democratic heir to the old autocratic right wing, the commission may find less budgetary and political support.

The roots of the summer 1950 bloodbath lie in the U.S.-Soviet division of Japan's former Korea colony in 1945, which precipitated north-south turmoil and eventual war.

In the late 1940s, President Syngman Rhee's U.S.-installed rightist regime crushed leftist political activity in South Korea, including a guerrilla uprising inspired by the communists ruling the north. By 1950, southern jails were packed with up to 30,000 political prisoners.

The southern government, meanwhile, also created the National Guidance League, a ``re-education'' organization for recanting leftists and others suspected of communist leanings. Historians say officials met membership quotas by pressuring peasants into signing up with promises of rice rations or other benefits. By 1950, more than 300,000 people were on the league's rolls, organizers said.

North Korean invaders seized Seoul, the southern capital, in late June 1950 and freed thousands of prisoners, who rallied to the northern cause. Southern authorities, in full retreat with their U.S. military advisers, ordered National Guidance League members in areas they controlled to report to the police, who detained them. Soon after, commission researchers say, the organized mass executions of people regarded as potential collaborators began - ``bad security risks,'' as a police official described the detainees at the time.

The declassified record of U.S. documents shows an ambivalent American attitude toward the killings. American diplomats that summer urged restraint on southern officials - to no obvious effect - but a State Department cable that fall said overall commander Gen. Douglas MacArthur viewed the executions as a Korean ``internal matter,'' even though he controlled South Korea's military.

Ninety miles south of Seoul, here in the narrow, peaceful valley of Sannae, truckloads of prisoners were brought in from Daejeon Prison and elsewhere day after day in July 1950, as the North Koreans bore down on the city.

The American photos, taken by an Army major and kept classified for a half-century, show the macabre sequence of events.

White-clad detainees - bent, submissive, with hands bound - were thrown down prone, jammed side by side, on the edge of a long trench. South Korean military and national policemen then stepped up behind, pointed their rifles at the backs of their heads and fired. The bodies were tipped into the trench.

Trembling policemen - ``they hadn't shot anyone before'' - were sometimes off-target, leaving men wounded but alive, Lee said. He and others were ordered to check for wounded and finish them off.

Evidence indicates South Korean executioners killed between 3,000 and 7,000 here, said commissioner Kim. A half-dozen trenches, each up to 150 yards long and full of bodies, extended over an area almost a mile long, said Kim Chong-hyun, 70, chairman of a group of bereaved families campaigning for disclosure and compensation for the Daejeon killings. His father, accused but never convicted of militant leftist activity, was one victim.

Another was Yeo Tae-ku's father, whose wife and mother searched for him afterward.

``Bodies were just piled upon each other,'' said Yeo, 59, remembering his mother's description. ``Arms would come off when they turned them over.'' The desperate women never found him, and the mass graves were quickly covered over, as were others in isolated spots up and down this mountainous peninsula, to be officially ``forgotten.''

When British communist journalist Alan Winnington entered Daejeon that summer with North Korean troops and visited the site, writing of ``waxy dead hands and feet (that) stick through the soil,'' his reports in the Daily Worker were denounced as ``fabrication'' by the U.S. Embassy in London. American military accounts focused instead on North Korean reprisal killings that followed in Daejeon.

But CIA and U.S. military intelligence documents circulating even before the Winnington report, classified ``secret'' and since declassified, told of the executions by the South Koreans. Lt. Col. Bob Edwards, U.S. Embassy military attache in South Korea, wrote in conveying the Daejeon photos to Army intelligence in Washington that he believed nationwide ``thousands of political prisoners were executed within (a) few weeks'' by the South Koreans.

Another glimpse of the carnage appeared in an unofficial U.S. source, an obscure memoir self-published in 1981 by the late Donald Nichols, a U.S. Air Force intelligence officer, who told of witnessing ``the unforgettable massacre of approximately 1,800 at Suwon,'' 20 miles south of Seoul.

Such reports lend credibility to a captured North Korean document from Aug. 2, 1950, eventually declassified by Washington, which spoke of mass executions in 12 South Korean cities, including 1,000 killed in Suwon and 4,000 in Daejeon.

That early, incomplete North Korean report couldn't include those executed in territory still held by the southerners. Up to 10,000 were killed in the city of Busan alone, a South Korean lawmaker, Park Chan-hyun, estimated in 1960.

His investigation came during a 12-month democratic interlude between the overthrow of Rhee and a government takeover by Maj. Gen. Park Chung-hee's authoritarian military, which quickly arrested many then probing for the hidden story of 1950.

Kim said his projection of at least 100,000 dead is based in part on extrapolating from a survey by non-governmental organizations in one province, Busan's South Gyeongsang, which estimated 25,000 killed there. And initial evidence suggests most of the National Guidance League's 300,000 members were killed, he said.

Commission investigators agree with the late Lt. Col. Edwards' note to Washington in 1950, that ``orders for execution undoubtedly came from the top,'' that is, President Rhee, who died in 1965.

But any documentary proof of that may have been destroyed, just as the facts of the mass killings themselves were buried. In 1953, after the war ended in stalemate, after the deaths of at least 2 million people, half or more of them civilians, a U.S. Army war crimes report attributed all summary executions here in Daejeon to the ``murderous barbarism'' of North Koreans.

Such myths survived a half-century, in part because those who knew the truth were cowed into silence.

``My mother destroyed all pictures of my father, for fear the family would get an image as leftists,'' said Koh Chung-ryol, 57, who is convinced her 29-year-old father was innocent of wrongdoing when picked up in a broad police sweep here, to die in Sannae valley.

``My mother tried hard to get rid of anything about her husband,'' she said. ``She suffered unspeakable pain.''

Even educated South Koreans remained ignorant of their country's past. As a young researcher in the late 1980s, Yonsei University's Park Myung-lim, today a leading Korean War historian, was deeply shaken as he sought out confidential accounts of those days from ordinary Koreans.

``I cried,'' he said. ``I felt, 'Oh, my goodness. Oh, Jesus. This was my country? It was true?'''

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission can recommend but not award compensation for lost and ruined lives, nor can it bring surviving perpetrators to justice. ``Our investigative power is so meager,'' commission President Ahn Byung-ook told the AP.

His immediate concern is resources. ``The current government isn't friendly toward us, and so we're concerned that the budget may be cut next year,'' he said.

South Korean conservatives complain the ``truth'' campaign will only reopen old wounds from a time when, even at the village level, leftists and rightists carried out bloody reprisals against each other.

The life of the commission - with a staff of 240 and annual budget of $19 million - is guaranteed by law until at least 2010, when it will issue a final, comprehensive report.

Later this spring and summer its teams will resume digging at mass grave sites. Thus far, it has verified 16 incidents of 1950-51 - not just large-scale detainee killings, but also such events as a South Korean battalion's cold-blooded killing of 187 men, women and children at Kochang village, supposed sympathizers with leftist guerrillas.

By exposing the truth of such episodes, ``we hope to heal the trauma and pain of the bereaved families,'' the commission says. It also wants to educate people, ``not just in Korea, but throughout the international community,'' to the reality of that long-ago conflict, to ``prevent such a tragic war from reoccurring in the future.''

CHARLES J. HANLEY and JAE-SOON CHANG, The Associated Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distributed by Liberation News, Subscribe free:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Join the Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Police Break 60 Year Old Homeless Woman's Arm

Sat, 10 May 2008 18:54:22 GMT

[Donna Deiss is a politically active homeless woman in Santa Cruz, who was also an advocate for tenants rights before she was unfairly evicted. The homeless in Santa Cruz, as well as activists who criticize the local government, are often victims of police harrassment, false arrests, and police violence. -Steven Argue]

60 Year Old Homeless Woman Says Police Broke Her Arm
by Robert Norse
Saturday May 10th, 2008
Donna Deiss called in last night to report that yesterday around 5 PM, Officer La Moss (Badge #114) assaulted her, broke her arm, and then put her in handcuffs when he attempted to question her at Three Tree Lot near Lighthouse Field. Deiss was taken to the Watsonville hospital, had to wait hours for x-rays, whichconfirmed her arm was broken.
Deiss reported the following to me in a phone message last night and an e-mail this morning:

She was talking with friends yesterday on Westcliffe Drive near her RV. An undercover police officer, whom she later identified as Officer LaMoss, arrived in a black unmarked car and said he wanted to talk to her and others in the group. She read La Moss a statement from the ACLU about the rights of community members vis a vis the police and walked to her RV.

The cop followed her. She got in and tried to close the door. Le Moss, not saying she was under arrest or detained, reached in and grabbed her right arm, pinching the skin as he twisted it behind her back, breaking it. She screamed her arm was broken, but his response was to call for backup. 4 more police cars arrived. She continued screaming for 911 and finally paramedics showed up.

The police said they were impounding her RV, which she lives in.

She was taken to Watsonville hospital, waited hours for x-rays and painpills. She is charged with battery and an additional charge. X-rays confirm her arm was broken. She needs an attorney and community support.

This is an account from Donna Deiss (with someadditions from her friend Shane). Donna has previously been harassed by rangers as part of the 'clear out the hippies' campaign at Three Tree Lot and the other lots around Lighthouse Fields. Recently the City's Parks and Recreation Department had its 'No RVs' signs painted over by state Rangers, for apparently violating state law and policy regarding parking (i.e. RVS are allowed to park).

See related stories: 'Harassment of Homeless in RVs, a Letter from Donna Deiss' at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/08/18452903.php ,

'Superintendant Hammack Stonewalls on RV Ban in Coastal Parking Lots' at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/12/18447267.php , and

'Coastal Access Denied to Motorhomes and Trailers in Santa Cruz' at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/30/18444952.php for related stories.

HOMELESSNESS AND POLITICAL REPRESSION, THE GREEN PARTY FAILS THE TEST IN SANTA CRUZ by Steven Argue
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2001/12/5085.shtml

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

On This Anniversary of the Kent State Massacre

Tue, 06 May 2008 00:47:11 GMT

On This Anniversary of the Kent State Massacre

By STEVEN ARGUE

Thirty eight years ago, on May 4, 2008, at Ohio’s Kent State University, the National Guard opened fire on students protesting the US war in Vietnam. The students were shot from distances of 275 to 400 feet, giving lie to claims that the students posed a threat to the Guardsmen. Four students were murdered and nine were injured. Nobody ever did time for those murders.

Before May 4, 1970, an anti-war movement had been building in the United States. The American people were increasingly impatient with the war, and an active anti-war movement helped build that kind of consciousness. People wanted an end to the war and Nixon kept promising a “light at the end of the tunnel.” On April 30, 1970, Nixon announced the invasion of Cambodia. This was the opposite of what people wanted to hear. Protests erupted on campuses that had not had them in the past, like Kent State. For many, the cold blooded murder of students at Kent State and murders of students soon after at Jackson State, were the final straw.

Immediately after the Kent State shootings 8 million students went out on strike, and some Universities, such as Berkley, were taken over by students and faculty as anti-war universities. After May 1970, the majority of those drafted were already opposed to the war before they got to Vietnam. This brought an end to the war. The US government could not win the war because they were facing fierce battles from the Vietnamese and many US soldiers were actively resisting the war. Commanding officers were winding up dead as they tried to force soldiers to kill people in a foreign land for a war they did not believe in. Nixon could not win a war with drafted soldiers who refused to fight, and this was a factor that forced the U.S. government to withdraw from Vietnam.

Three million Vietnamese were murdered as a result of the US occupation of southern Vietnam and massive U.S. bombing of the north. Over 50,000 US soldiers died. It was resistance, both by the Vietnamese people, and the resistance of the anti-war movement in the United States that brought an end to the US occupation of Vietnam. Had the working class of the United States been ready to join that strike of 8 million students in May 1970, we would have potentially had a revolution in the United States, but at that time the working class was not ready.

Today, after the lessons of Vietnam, and after decades of bi-partisan union busting, outsourcing, privatization, and declining living standards for the US working class, the U.S. working class is now stepping out and taking the lead in the struggle against the criminal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. On May 1st, 2008 10,000 U.S. port workers of the ILWU went out on strike against the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, shutting down all 29 ports on the West Coast for eight hours. Within the union, Vietnam Vets were some of the strongest advocates of the strike.

Joining the strike in solidarity with the demand of immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq were the Iraqi port workers at Umm Qasr and Khor Alzubair. They joined U.S. workers in a deeply symbolic one hour strike to end the occupation.

In going out on strike, the union ranks of the ILWU defied the rulings of an arbitrator, who twice ordered them not to strike. They also defied the employers of the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) who declared the strike “illegal”. This is the kind of defiance the working class will need to emulate in other industries, both to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to start winning better contracts.

Today, over a million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion. In addition, the U.S. has installed a religious death squad government where women's rights have eroded, the economy has deteriorated, the environment has been seriously devastated by the radiation of US DU weapons, millions of refugees have fled the country, people are often arrested without cause and tortured, the US bombs civilians from the sky, and basic infrastructure like water and electricity have been destroyed by the US and not rebuilt by the US occupiers.

It is also a war that has cost the U.S. thousands of lives, tens of thousands of casualties, and trillions of dollars in debt. Yet, for a few extremely wealthy Americans it has meant massive profits for military contractors and other businesses with contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, multinational companies like Exxon, BP and Shell are drooling as the U.S. government tries to force an oil law down the throats of the Iraqi people that would turn ownership of Iraqi oil over to these corporations.

Meanwhile, the pro-war Democrat Party voted for the war and keeps voting to fund it. Today, the Democrats are once again pushing for $178 billion in funding for the war. Neither Clinton nor Obama would promise to withdraw all troops from Iraq by 2013 ("The Democratic Presidential Debate on MSNBC", New York Times 9/26/07). In addition, the two of them have offered differing versions of expanding these wars into Iran and Pakistan.

Whoever wins the upcoming election, it will take increased action by the working class to end these wars. ILWU member Jack Heyman is correct in saying of the May 1st strike against the war, “There's precedent for this action. In the '50s, French dockworkers refused to load war materiel on ships headed for Indochina, and helped to bring that colonial war to an end.” The longshore workers’ May 1st strike does indeed show the way forward. More strikes, and bigger strikes, along with building a workers’ party independent of the Democrats and Republicans, can indeed end these wars.

This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Join the Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Iraqi Port Workers to Join US Strike

Thu, 01 May 2008 07:34:01 GMT

BREAKING NEWS: Members of the Port Workers Union of Iraq plan to shutdown the ports of Umm Qasr and Khor Alzubair for one hour on May Day in solidarity with the shutdown of all West Coast ports by members of ILWU in opposition to the occupation of Iraq.

The second message is a May Day greeting from a broad cross-section of union leaders from many different unions and labor federations in Iraq as an expression of their appreciation for the solidarity demonstrated by organized labor, working people and all peace-loving people of the world in support of their efforts to end the foreign occupation of Iraq and the sectarian violence that occupation has spawned.

[This statement continues to be circulated in Iraq and as additional signers become known, their names will be added to the copy posted on the USLAW website.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May Day Message

From: The General Union of Port Workers in Iraq

To: The International Longshore and Warehouse Union in the United States

Dear Brothers and Sisters of ILWU in California:

The courageous decision you made to carry out a strike on May Day to protest against the war and occupation of Iraq advances our struggle against occupation to bring a better future for us and for the rest of the world as well.

We are certain that a better world will only be created by the workers and what you are doing is an example and proof of what we say. The labor movement is the only element in the society that is able to change the political equations for the benefit of mankind. We in Iraq are looking up to you and support you until the victory over the US administration's barbarism is achieved.

Over the past five years the sectarian gangs who are the product of the occupation, have been trying to transfer their conflicts into our ranks. Targeting workers, including their residential and shopping areas, indiscriminately using all sorts of explosive devices, mortar shells, and random shooting, were part of a bigger scheme that was aiming to tear up the society but they miserably failed to achieve their hellish goal. We are struggling today to defeat both the occupation and sectarian militias' agenda.

The pro-occupation government has been attempting to intervene into the workers affairs by imposing a single government-certified labor union. Furthermore it has been promoting privatization and an oil and gas law to use the occupation against the interests of the workers.

We the port workers view that our interests are inseparable from the interests of workers in Iraq and the world; therefore we are determined to continue our struggle to improve the living conditions of the workers and overpower all plots of the occupation, its economic and political projects.

Let us hold hands for the victory of our struggle.

Long live the port workers in California!

Long live May Day!

Long live International solidarity!

The General Union of Port Workers in Iraq An Affiliate Union with General Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (GFWCUI)

******************************************
May Day 2008 Statement

From: The Iraqi Labour Movement

To: The Workers and All Peace Loving People of the World

On this day of international labour solidarity we call on our fellow trade unionists and all those worldwide who have stood against war and occupation to increase support for our struggle for freedom from occupation - both the military and economic.

We call upon the governments, corporations and institutions behind the ongoing occupation of Iraq to respond to our demands for real democracy, true sovereignty and self-determination free of all foreign interference.

Five years of invasion, war and occupation have brought nothing but death, destruction, misery and suffering to our people. In the name of our "liberation," the invaders have destroyed our nation's infrastructure, bombed our neighbourhoods, broken into our homes, traumatized our children, assaulted and arrested many of our family members and neighbours, permitted the looting of our national treasures, and turned nearly twenty percent of our people into refugees.

The invaders helped to foment and then exploit sectarian divisions and terror attacks where there had been none. Our union offices have been raided. Union property has been seized and destroyed. Our bank accounts have been frozen. Our leaders have been beaten, arrested, abducted and assassinated. Our rights as workers have been routinely violated.

The Ba'athist legislation of 1987, which banned trade unions in the public sector and public enterprises (80% of all workers), is still in effect, enforced by Paul Bremer's post-invasion Occupation Authority and then by all subsequent Iraqi administrations. This is an attack on our rights and basic precepts of a democratic society, and is a grim reminder of the shadow of dictatorship still stalking our country.

Despite the horrific conditions in our country, we continue to organise and protest against the occupation, against workplaces abuses, and for better treatment and safer conditions.

Despite the sectarian plots around us, we believe in unity and solidarity and a common aim of public service, equality, and freedom to organise without external intrusions and coercion.

Our legitimacy comes from our members. Our principles of organisation are based on transparent and internationally recognised International Labour Organisation standards.

We call upon our allies and all the world's peace-loving peoples to help us to end the nightmare of occupation and restore our sovereignty and national independence so that we can chart our own course to the future.

1) We demand an immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from our country, and utterly reject the agreement being negotiated with the USA for long-term bases and a military presence. The continued occupation fuels the violence in Iraq rather than alleviating it. Iraq must be returned to full sovereignty.

2) We demand the passage of a labour law promised by our Constitution, which adheres to ILO principles and on which Iraqi trade unionists have been fully consulted, to protect the rights of workers to organize, bargain and strike, independent of state control and interference.

3) We demand an end to meddling in our sovereign economic affairs by the International Monetary Fund, USA and UK. We demand withdrawal of all economic conditionalities attached to the IMF's agreements with Iraq, removal of US and UK economic "advisers" from the corridors of Iraqi government, and a recognition by those bodies that no major economic decisions concerning our services and resources can be made while foreign troops occupy the country.

4) We demand that the US government and others immediately cease lobbying for the oil law, which would fracture the country and hand control over our oil to multinational companies like Exxon, BP and Shell. We demand that all oil companies be prevented from entering into any long-term agreement concerning oil while Iraq remains occupied. We demand that the Iraqi government tear up the current draft of the oil law, and begin to develop a legitimate oil policy based on full and genuine consultation with the Iraqi people. Only after all occupation forces are gone should a long term plan for the development of our oil resources be adopted.

We seek your support and solidarity to help us end the military and economic occupation of our country. We ask for your solidarity for our right to organise and strike in defence of our interests as workers and of our public services and resources. Our public services are the legacy of generations before us and the inheritance of all future generations and must not be privatised.

We thank you for standing by us. We too stand with you in your own struggles for real democracy which we know you also struggle for, and against privatisation, exploitation and daily disempowerment in your workplaces and lives.

We commend those of you who have organised strikes and demonstrations to end the occupation in solidarity with us and we hope these actions will continue.

We look forward to the day when we have a world based on co-operation and solidarity. We look forward to a world free from war, sectarianism, competition and exploitation.

Endorsed by:

Hassan Juma'a Awad, President, Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU)
Faleh Abood Umara, Deputy, Central Council, Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU)
Falah Alwan, President, Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI)
Subhi Albadri, President, General Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (GFWCUI)
Nathim Rathi, President, Iraqi Port Workers Trade Union
Samir Almuawi, President, Engineering Professionals Trade Union
Ghzi Mushatat, President, Mechanic and Print Shop Trade Union
Waleed Alamiri, President, Electricity Trade Union
Ilham Talabani, President, Banking Services Trade Union
Abdullah Ubaid, President, Railway Trade Union Ammar Ali, President, Transportation Trade Union
Abdalzahra Abdilhassan, President, Service Employees Trade Union
Sundus Sabeeh, President, Barber Shop Workers Trade Union
Kareem Lefta Sindan, President, Lumber and Construction Trade Union, General Federation of Iraqi Workers (GFIW)
Sabah Almusawi, President, Wasit Independent Trade Union
Shakir Hameed, President, Lumber And Construction Trade Union (GFWCUI)
Awad Ahmed, President, Teachers Federation of Salahideen Alaa
Ghazi Mushatat, President, Agricultural And Food Substance Industries Adnan
Rathi Shakir, President, Water Resources Trade Union
Nahrawan Yas, President, Woman Affairs Bureau
Sabah Alyasiri, President (GFWCUI) Babil
Ali Tahi, President (GFWCUI)
Najaf Ali Abbas, President (GFWCUI) Basra
Muhi Abdalhussien, President (GFWCUI), Wasit
Ali Hashim Abdilhussien, President (GFWCUI) Kerbala
Ali Hussien, President (GFWCUI) Anbar
Mustafa Ameen, President, Arab Workers Bureau (GFWCUI)
Thameer Mzeail, Health Services, Union Committee
Khadija Saeed Abdullah, Teachers Federation, Member
Asmahan, Khudair, Woman Affairs, Textile Trade Unions Adil
Aljabiri, Oil Workers Trade Union Executive Bureau Member
Muhi Abdalhussien, Nadia Flaih, Service Employees Trade Unions
Rawneq Mohammed, Member, Media and Print Shop Trade Union
Abdlakareem Abdalsada, Vice President (GFWCUI)
Saeed Nima, Vice President (GFWCUI)
Sabri Abdalkareem, Member, (GFWCUI) Babil
Amjad Aljawhary, Representative of GFWCUI in North America

Also see:

ILWU to Shut Down Ports May 1 Demanding End to War in Iraq, Afghanistan
http://tribes.tribe.net/nobloodforoil/thread/f02f3fd2-9632-403e-8829-e3817def77c0

This has been distributed by Liberation News, subscribe free:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Join the Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

Come to the May Day protest in San Francisco
WHEN: 10:30 a.m., May 1, followed by a rally at noon.
WHERE: Longshore Union Hall, corner of Mason and Beach (near Fisherman's Wharf).
WHAT: March to a rally at Justin Herman Plaza along the Embarcadero.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.ilwu.org/ and http://www.transportworkers.org/ or call (415) 776-8100.

posted in //class war// - 2 replies

Vermont AFL-CIO endorses May 1 anti-war strike

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:44:54 GMT

Labor's First Strike Against the War Gains Momentum

Vermont Union offers strong endorsement of West Coast longshoremen's action.

The Executive Board of the Vermont AFL-CIO, representing thousands of workers in countless sectors across Vermont, have unanimously passed an historic resolution expressing their "unequivocal" support for the first US labor strike against the war in Iraq.

Montpelier, VT -The Executive Board of the Vermont AFL-CIO, representing thousands of workers in countless sectors across Vermont, have unanimously passed an historic resolution expressing their "unequivocal" support for the first US labor strike against the war in Iraq. The strike, being organized by the Longshore Caucus of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU), will seek to shutdown all west coast ports for a period of 8 hours on the day of May 1st 2008. The Vermont AFL-CIO is the first state labor federation to publicly back the Longshoremen; other state federations are expected to follow.

The resolution, among other things, calls the war in Iraq "immoral, unwanted, and unnecessary", states that the vast majority of working Vermonters oppose the war, and contends that the war will only be brought to an end by "the direct actions of working people." Many other Vermont labor unions and organizations, including the Vermont Workers' Center, have also made official statements condemning the war.

The resolution also calls on working Vermonters to "discuss the actions of the Longshoremen, to wear anti-war buttons, and to take various actions of their own design and choosing in their workplace on May 1st, 2008."

"Workers in Vermont and all across this nation are against this war. We have already demanded that the government end it, but they have consistently failed to heed our words. Therefore working people are beginning to take concrete steps to make our resistance known. If the war does not immediately end we, the unions and working people of Vermont, will also be compelled to take appropriate action," said David Van Deusen, a District Vice President of the Vermont AFL-CIO.

Traven Leyshon, President of the Washington, Lamoille & Orange County Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, said, "Vermont labor has long called for an end to this war. The untold billions being spent on the war could instead be used to address our domestic needs. It is working people who pay the cost of the war - in some cases with our lives, but always with our sacrifices."

Full text of the resolution after the jump ...

Vermont AFL-CIO Resolution

In Solidarity With Longshoremen's West Coast Strike Against War

April, 2008

Whereas the war in Iraq is immoral, unwanted, and unnecessary,

Whereas this unjust war is opposed by the great majority of Americans & Vermonters, the bulk of organized labor, and by thousands of enlisted military personal,

Whereas this unjust war has already resulted in over 4000 American dead (including a disproportionate number of brave Vermonters), and tens of thousands of service men & woman being wounded,

Whereas this unjust war has further resulted in untold number of Iraqi deaths,

Whereas the Federal Government has not made any constructive moves towards the ending of this war and the full removal of US troops, and instead has taken the course of escalation and indefinite occupation,

Whereas the government of Vermont, and especially Governor Jim Douglas, have failed to find ways to bring Vermont National Guard troops home from Iraq,

Whereas this war will only be brought to an end by the direct actions of working people,

Therefore, Let It Be Resolved that the Vermont AFL-CIO continues to stand in firm opposition to this war, and unequivocally supports the decision of the Longshore Caucus of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) to shutdown the west coast ports for a period of 8 hours on May 1st, 2008, as a means of resistance.

Let It Be Resolved that the Vermont AFL-CIO stands in full solidarity with the New York Metro National Association of Letter Carriers who have resolved to conduct two minute periods of silence on May 1st, 2008, at 1PM, 5PM & 9PM in protest of the war and in support of the Longshoremen.

Let It Be Resolved that the Vermont AFL-CIO encourages all Vermont workers to stand in solidarity with the historic actions being taken by the Longshoremen & other labor unions to end this war.

Let It Be Further Resolved that the Vermont AFL-CIO calls for all Vermont workers to discuss the actions of the Longshoremen, to wear anti-war buttons, and to take various actions of their own design and choosing in their workplace on May 1st, 2008 as a means of resistance against this unjust war.

Also see:
ILWU to Shut Down Ports May 1 Demanding End to War in Iraq, Afghanistan
http://tribes.tribe.net/nobloodforoil/thread/f02f3fd2-9632-403e-8829-e3817def77c0

This has been distributed by Liberation News, subscribe free:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Join the Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

Come to the May Day protest in San Francisco
WHEN: 10:30 a.m., May 1, followed by a rally at noon.
WHERE: Longshore Union Hall, corner of Mason and Beach (near Fisherman's Wharf).
WHAT: March to a rally at Justin Herman Plaza along the Embarcadero.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.ilwu.org/ and http://www.transportworkers.org/ or call (415) 776-8100.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Join the new “Cool Earth Party” tribe

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:21:40 GMT

Join the new “Cool Earth Party” tribe

The Democrats and Republicans are the paid agents of the oil, armament, and insurance industries. Their continued rule of America will assure a future of more imperialist war, a healthcare system that doesn't work, and no meaningful action on global warming (the single biggest threat to the future of humanity and a healthy planet).

The Cool Earth Party is being established on the principles of revolutionary democratic socialism. We call for an end to the dictatorial power of the wealthy through the nationalization of major industries and for the establishment of a planned economy run to meet human and environmental needs. This socialist society must be established within the framework of full democratic freedoms and multi-party proportional democracy. To be truly Democratic all parties running in elections will be legally guaranteed equal time in the media, big campaign spending will be outlawed, and electronic voting machines (which are presently used to rig American elections) will be eliminated.

Upon taking power the Cool Earth Party will establish a system of socialized medicine for the United States, end all U.S. military occupations of other countries, end U.S. military aid to repressive governments, and nationalize the auto and energy industries to carry out immediate emergency measures to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Cool Earth Party
http://tribes.tribe.net/coolearth

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

EGYPT--General Strike this Sunday, April 6!

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:29:19 GMT

Egyptian opposition groups are calling for a one-day, nationwide strike on April 6. The strike is directed against the brutally repressive Egyptian government; the strike movement responds to the rising costs of food, which is a worldwide phenomenon now, and poor wages for Egyptian workers. The opposition has called for ceasing all economic activity on Sunday, which is reportedly a workday in the Muslim world. In response, the Egyptian government has removed taxes on *some* foods, which suggests that in general, food is taxed in Egypt. The government also banned political rallies in mosques.

* * *

[From www.arabisto.com]

April 6th General Strike in Egypt Draws Together Diverse Groups Using
Newest Technologies

April 02, 2008 05:15 PM
By Courtney C. Radsch

Cairo, Egypt (for arabisto.com) - Using FaceBook, blogs, SMS,
independent media and good old fashion word-of-mouth, activists and
workers in Egypt are preparing to stage a countrywide general strike
on April 6. Calling it the "Egyptian Intifida" supporters are calling
for civil disobedience, asking everyone to stay home from work and not
buy anything; demonstrations of solidarity planned for embassies
around the world. The strike is aimed primarily at protesting the
rising cost of bread and other basic necessities and to demand
increased wages. Networks and event invitation have appeared on
FaceBook. The "General Strike in Egypt" FaceBook group has more than
54,000 members, an event another 2000 confirmed). The cyberspace
activism coupled with on-the-ground grassroots organizing promises to
test the political efficacy and continued relevance of the Egyptian
activists blogosphere and cyber-activists following a government
crackdown on Kifaya and Muslim Brotherhood over the past year that
seemed to take some of the wind out of the sails of cyber-activism.

The text of the document from [which] all this activity apparently
springs is as follows:

"All national forces in Egypt have agreed upon the 6th of April to be
a public strike. On the 6th of April, stay home, do not go out; Don't
go to work, don't go to the university, don't go to school, don't open
your shop, don't open your pharmacy, don't go to the police station,
don't go to the camp; We need salaries allowing us to live, we need to
work, we want our children to get education, we need human
transportation means, we want hospitals to get treatment, we want
medicines for our children, we need just judiciary, we want security,
we want freedom and dignity, we want apartments for youth; We don't
want prices to increase, we don't want favoritism, we don't want
police in plain clothes, we don't want torture in police stations, we
don't want corruption, we don't want bribes, we don't want detentions.
Tell your friends not to go to work and ask them to join the strike."
It was signed by and supported by the Al-Karama Party, the Al-Wasat
Party, the Labor Party, Kifaya, the Bar Association, Educational
Workers Movement, University Professors, Grain Mill Workers and of
course the Ghazl Al-Mahala workers. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo,
however, does NOT support it and has threatened to fire anyone who
misses work on Sunday.

The primary event is the workers strike in Ghazl el-Mahalla, with
several strikes planned in solidarity with the workers and organized
through the blogosphere. Hossam's 3arabawy is, as usual, a central
information node about the strike, as is Manalaa's Bit Bucket. (There
may or may not be a demonstration in Tahrir). The national press,
however, has been silent, while the independent and English language
press seems to portray it primarily as another worker's strike rather
than as something larger (though it was interesting to see the Daily
News Egypt quote a blog on the front page - clearly showing that they
have become legitimate information sources here as they have in the
U.S.) Kifaya is on board with the strike - though the movement has
been pronounced dead by many it seems to be struggling to resurrect
itself - as is, of course, the leftist/socialist bloggers, although
their activities have been focused on giving workers logistical and
media relations support rather than leading demonstrations or strikes.
This is a tactical move designed to protect the workers and their
indigenous efforts from accusations by the government that they are
being co-opted by the blogger activists and thus tainted by
association. It seems that rather the cyber-activists have found
renewed inspiration in the activism of workers and sympathetic
university students to reenergize and unify their political activism.
One group that is conspicuously absent from the milieu, however, is
the Muslim Brotherhood. ...

Read the whole story:
<http://www.arabisto.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogID=7&blogEntryID=1010>

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

General strike against "pension reform" brings Greece to a halt

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:52:41 GMT

[Translated from www.jungewelt.de]

junge Welt [Berlin]
3/20/2008 International news / Page 6

General strike against "pension reform" brings Greece to a standstil

ATHENS: Millions of Greeks paralyzed public life on Wednesday with a general strike. Hospital doctors, air traffic controllers, dock workers, teachers, journalists, hotel personnel and filling station attendants, among others, took part in the protest against the planned pension reform by the conservative goovernment. It was the third general strike since December of last year. On Wednesday, the streets of the Greek capital were lined with closed stores and tall mounds of garbage. More than ten thousand people marched to the Greek parliament to express their opposition to the "pension reform" that was introduced in parliament.

The law, that was to be passed by parliament on Thursday, provides for drastic reductions in pensions, along with an increase in the age at which Greek workers can begin to collect their pensions. [That is, more work for less money.] Several unions have already fought against these provisions for weeks with lengthy strikes in opposition to the fall in the quality of life [the proposed "reform" would represent]. The striking workers of the semi-state owned electric company [DEI] who walked out at the beginning of March, have not allowed themselves to be intimidated by a court decision that prohibited going on strike in the absence of sufficient security personnel to guarantee the supply of electricity. Owing to a long strike by bank employees, the ATM's are empty. Trains have not moved since Monday, Greek lawyers are on strike as well, and the subway workers interrupted their strike only for the purpose of bringing masses of strikers to rallies. On Wednesday and Thursday TV screens showed a picture that reported the participation of TV journalists and technicians in the strike, and on Thursday, Greece had to do without some 20 daily newspapers. On Wednesday, Olympic Airlines, the biggest airline in Greece, cancelled more than 60 domestic and international flights because of the strike.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

GERMANY--"General strike is now on the agenda"

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:50:19 GMT

GERMANY--Strikes spread: "the general strike is now on the agenda"
By Gérard Torquet and Pierre Vandewoorde From Rouge 2243, 3/13/2008 [Edited]

Against a background of financial scandals, after the failure of wage
negotiations for civil servants and warning strikes, the general
strike is now on the agenda.

"8% raises to fill our coffers in Liechtenstein! " is the ironic slogan
that rang out on the streets of the big cities on March 5, the day of
mobilization. This day was organized by the Verdi union, in the
context of wage negotiations for the 1.3 million employees in the
national government, the states ("Länder"), and town governments.
While profits are exploding and the money scandal continues to occupy
the police and courts, only a 5% raise is proposed, spread over two
years with, as an extra provocation, a one-hour lengthening of the
work week, taking it to 40 hours. Even the most liberal [as in
"neo-liberal" ] institutes and observers of economic life recognize
that, since 2005, public servants have lost 4% of their purchasing
power. The demand for an 8% raise, with base pay of 200 Euros [$311.50 US] minimum and a raise of 120 Euros [$186.88 US] for apprentices (who currently get 600 Euros [$934.38 US]) is thus extremely popular and felt to be something owed [to the workers].

After years of concessions and compromises, Verdi really needs a
success to stop the loss of its members and the temptation to create
corporatist unions [apparently, state-controlled company unions], as
was done to the airline pilots and doctors. Employers remain
inflexible, and the union is threatening to call a strike of
indefinite duration at the end of March or the beginning of April. But
fully making use of its power like this, also risks losing control of
the situation, and the union bureaucracy is wary of a terrain that it
has ignored for such a long time. For the moment, union leaders
prefer to leave a harsh conflict, like that at the Berlin state
transportation company, isolated. Bus, streetcar and subway workers in
Berlin are on strike until March 14, while the [Berlin] Senate, with a
SPD [social democratic]- Green Party majority, refuses to let go of
anything [won't spend a penny on raises]. The example of the Deutsche
Bahn train crews (see Rouge 2236) has gained ground. Moreover, the DB
train crews went on strike again, on Monday, March 10, to impose the
agreement signed in January.

There are abundant reasons to extend [strike] action. Verdi won a
minimum wage of 9.80 Euros [$15.26 US] an hour for postal workers, but a court refused to extend this raise to all postal delivery firms, a sector completely open to [private] competition from now on. Now that the legitimacy of capitalism is weakened by the extent of the money scandals around Liechtenstein, now that the revelations are piling up
about people who preach sacrifice to those at the bottom (from the
union bigwig who was sitting on the corporate board of Volkswagen to
the former Chairman and President of the postal service), and the vote
for the Left Party expresses the search for an alternative, favorable
conditions for a broad social offensive definitely exist.

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

Mar 19--4th gen. strike against pension cuts

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:35:10 GMT

[Translated from www.jungewelt.de]

junge Welt [Berlin], Saturday, 3/15/2008, International news, Page 6

GREECE—Growing union opposition to pension reductions

ATHENS: While the Greek government is trying to pass a law very quickly that generally raises the age for collecting a pension for workers with lower incomes, opposition by the trade unions is increasing. In Athens the subway did not run all day Thursday; lawyers and engineers were also on strike. Thursday evening, thousands of members of the Communist Party-oriented trade union front PAME demonstrated in over 60 Greek cities. Meanwhile, the staff of the partially state-owned DEI electric company, bank employees and local government workers are continuing their strike that was already underway at the beginning of March. In addition, the Greek lawyers' associations have decided to extend their strike that began on Thursday, for weeks to come. The trade union federations have called another general strike for next Wednesday, which will be the fourth one against the pension reform.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Conspiracy History compilation DVDs torrents

History — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:11:22 GMT

**************************************************

Greetings to all my relations.

This is the last step of our project History Watch. If History is
defined and known by the texts, we can now add to this definition the
recorded events of the filmed archives. Animated images are harder to
deny than printed words. Our objective is to spread out freely some of
the little broadcast, even hidden informations about our collective
History.

We put online a collection of 391 documentaries and other selected and
recut videos, to offer to a wide public the best of the infos
available on the net in english and in french. If you are interested,
you have the time, the right equipment and connection, all you have to
do is open the joint document and decompress it if needed (but normaly
your system should do it automaticaly). You'll find therein nine links
that will open the torrents for the nine DVDs we compiled (around 4.6
Gig each, for a total of a little over 41 G, being over 100 hours of
videos).

Otherwise, you can go directly to btjunkie.com and search for these titles.

11 Septembre 2001 - 9-11
Bush family & friends
Capitalist & Communist regimes
Capitalist conspiracy
Mind Kontrol - Secret Programs
New World Order - Secret Societies
Secret services - cover up - covert ops
Secret weapons - UFO
Terrorism Theories propaganda

Torrents are a system of peer to peer data transfer. The more people
download a torrent, the faster it spreads and the longer it stays on
the net. If you don't have a bittorrent software, we suggest that you
download uTorrent on utorrent.com. If you want to participate in
facilitating the diffusion of these infos about our collective
History, download these torrents on as many computers as possible,
whether it is in cybercafes. It takes one or two minutes to open up
the links and the downloading will keep proceeding on its own.

Please spread this out, take part in this action for social education
on a planetary scale. Thanks.

For more info: watch.history@gmail.com History Watch

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

ILWU to Shut Down Ports May 1 Demanding End to War in Iraq, Afghanistan

Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:16:47 GMT

[Liberation News is in agreement with the following article of the Internationalist Group and both have also actively advocated these kinds of industrial actions.]

For Workers Strikes Against the War!

ILWU to Shut Down West Coast Ports May 1 Demanding End to War in Iraq, Afghanistan

In a major step for the U.S. labor movement, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced that it will shut down West Coast ports on May 1, to demand an immediate end to the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East. In a February 22 letter to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, ILWU International president Robert McEllrath reported that at a recent coast-wide union meeting, "One of the resolutions adopted by caucus delegates called on longshore workers to stop work during the day shift on May 1, 2008 to express their opposition to the war in Iraq."

This is the first time in decades that an American union has decided to undertake industrial action against a U.S. war. It is doubly important that this mobilization of labor's power is to take place on May Day, the international workers day, which is not honored in the U.S. Moreover, the resolution voted by the ILWU delegates opposes not only the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, but also the war and occupation of Afghanistan (which Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain all want to expand). The motion to shut down the ports also demands the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the entire region, including the oil sheikdoms of the strategically important Persian/Arab Gulf.

The Internationalist Group has fought from the moment U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan in September 2002 for American unions to strike against the war. Despite the fact that millions have marched in the streets of Europe and the United States against the war in Iraq, the war goes on. Neither of the twin war parties of U.S. imperialism - Democrats and Republicans - and none of the capitalist candidates will stop this horrendous slaughter that has already killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The only way to stop the Pentagon killing machine is by mobilizing the power of a greater force - that of the international working class.

The action announced by the powerful West Coast dock workers union, to stop work to stop the war, should be taken up by unions and labor organizations throughout the United States and internationally. The ILWU should be commended for courageously taking the first step, and it is up to working people everywhere to back them up. Wherever support is strong enough, on May 1 there should be mass walkouts, sick-outs, labor marches, plant-gate meetings, lunch-time rallies, teach-ins. And the purpose of such actions should be not to beg the bourgeois politicians whose hands are covered with blood, having voted for every war budget for six and a half years, but a show of strength of the working people who make this country run, and who can shut it down!

Now is the time for bold class action. Opposition to the war is even greater in the U.S. working class than in the population as a whole, more than two-thirds of which wants to stop the war but is stymied by the capitalist political system. In his letter to Sweeney, the ILWU president asked "if other AFL-CIO affiliates are planning to participate in similar events." Labor militants should make sure the answer to that question is a resounding "yes!"

There should be no illusions that this will be easy. No doubt the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) bosses will try to get the courts to rule the stop-work action illegal. The ILWU leadership could get cold feet, since this motion was passed because of overwhelming support from the delegates despite attempts to stop it or, failing that, to water it down or limit the action. And the U.S. government could try to ban it on the grounds of "national security," just as Bush & Co. slapped a Taft-Hartley injunction on the docks during contract negotiations in the fall of 2002, saying that any work stoppage was a threat to the "war effort," and threatened to occupy the ports with troops!

The answer to every attempt to sabotage or undercut this first labor action against this war, and against Washington's broader "war on terror" which is intended to terrorize the world into submission must be to redouble efforts to bring out workers' power independent of the capitalist parties and politicians. If the ILWU work stoppage is successful, it will only be a small, but very important, beginning that must be generalized and deepened. It will take industrial-strength labor action to defeat the imperialist war abroad and the bosses' war on immigrants, oppressed minorities, poor and working people "at home."

ILWU in the Forefront of Labor Action Against the War

Workers strike action against imperialist war isn't new - it just hasn't happened here for a long, long time. During World War I there were huge mass strikes in Germany against the battlefield carnage, culminating in the downfall of the kaiser in November 1918. A year earlier in Russia, working-class opposition to the war led to the overthrow of the tsar and the October Revolution led by Lenin and Trotsky's Bolsheviks. The Internationalist Group and League for the Fourth International call today for transport workers to "hot cargo" (refuse to handle) war shipments. In the early 1920s, Communist-led French dock workers did exactly that, boycotting ships carrying war materiel to suppress a colonial rebellion in the Rif region of Morocco, as they
also did during France's war in Indochina in the 1950s.

In the U.S., the ILWU struck in 1948 amid Cold War hysteria and in defiance of the "slave labor" Taft-Hartley Act to defend its union hiring hall against the bosses and government screaming about "reds" in the union leadership. In 1953, at the height of McCarthyite witch-hunting, the ILWU called a four-day general strike in Hawaii of sugar, pineapple and dock workers over the jailing of seven union members for being communists. During the Vietnam War, socialist historian Isaac Deutscher said that he would trade all the peace marches for a single dock strike. The ILWU was the first U.S. union to oppose the Vietnam war, but during war and especially during the 1971 strike union leader Harry Bridges refused to stop the movement of military cargo. (Ship owners made use of this by falsely labeling cargo as "military" to evade picket lines and undermine the strike.) This betrayal went hand in hand with a "mechanization and modernization" contract that slashed union jobs.

As the U.S.-led imperialist invasion of Iraq was looming, in January 2003 train drivers in Scotland refused to move a freight train carrying munitions to a NATO military base. The next month, Italian railroad unionists and antiwar activists blocked NATO war trains by occupying the rails. In the United States, ILWU dock workers were a target of "anti-terrorist" government repression, as police fired supposedly "less than lethal" munitions point blank at an antiwar protest on the Oakland, California docks, injuring six longshore workers and arresting 25 people (who eventually won their legal case against the police). And every year since the war started, the San Francisco/Oakland ILWU Local 10 has voted for motions for labor action against the war. Usually they were voted down at caucuses and conventions of the ILWU, but not this time.

Last May, Local 10 longshoremen and Local 34 ships clerks refused to cross picket lines set up by the Oakland Teachers Association and antiwar activists, defying arbitrators' orders by refusing to work ships of the notorious antiunion outfit, Stevedoring Services of America (see "Oakland Dock Workers Honor Picket, Shut Down War Cargo Shipper," The Internationalist No. 26, July 2007). In the aftermath of that action, the union issued a call for a Labor Conference to Stop the War that would "plan workplace rallies, labor
mobilizations in the streets and strike action against the war." The Call to Action stated:

"ILWU Local 10 has repeatedly warned that the so-called 'war on terror' is really a war on working people and democratic rights. Around the country, hundreds of unions and labor councils have passed motions condemning the war, but that has not stopped the war. We need to use labor's muscle to stop the war by mobilizing union power in the streets, at the plant gates and on the docks to force the immediate and total withdrawal of all U. S. troops from Afghanistan and Iraq."

As the conference date approached, the union was the target of several police attacks, including a vicious cop assault on two black dock workers from San Francisco working in the port of Sacramento. Some 250 demonstrators from every ILWU local in Northern California rallied in their defense outside the courthouse. Their trial to be set march 18 at a hearing will encounter even larger demonstrations.

The Internationalist Group and its union supporters helped build and attended the October 20 conference, along with some 150 labor and socialist activists from the Bay Area, elsewhere in California and across the country. At the meeting, a particular focus was resistance to the Transportation Workers Identification Card (TWIC), which threatens minority workers and the union hiring hall, and which the Democratic Party in particular has been pushing in order to carry out a purge of dock workers in the name of the "war on terror."
Not long after that conference, a federal judge ordered Local 10 elections canceled and replaced by a Labor Department-run vote, on the eve of 2008 contract bargaining. Federal agents even invaded the union hall to enforce their order. This action is a threat to the independence of all unions.

This set the stage for the recent longshore-warehouse caucus, which voted a motion for a 24-hour "No Peace, No Work Holiday" against the war. The resolution was introduced in Local 10 by Jack Heyman, who also presented the motion for the 24 April 1999 coast-wide port shutdown demanding freedom for Mumia Abu-Jamal, the former Black Panther and renowned radical journalist who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for the last quarter century. Although the union tops maneuvered to prevent Heyman from being elected as a delegate to the Coast Caucus, the motion passed in Local 10. At the Caucus, the delegate from Local 34 referred to the October Labor Conference to Stop the War as the origin of the motion.

At the close of the Caucus on February 8, there was a vigorous debate on the resolution. The union tops tried to stop it, to no avail. They kept asking, "are you sure you want to do this action." The delegates overwhelmingly said "yes." Even conservative trade unionists, including veterans of the Vietnam War, were getting up saying the government is lying to us, we've had it with this war, we've got to put a stop to it now. So instead the bureaucrats tried to gut the motion, which was cut down from 24 hours to 8, and changed into a "stop-work" meeting (covered by a contract clause) instead of a straight-out shutdown, thinking that this would lessen opposition from the employers. In the end there was a voice vote and only three delegates out of 100 voted against.

The efforts to undercut the motion continue, as is to be expected from a leadership which, like the rest of the pro-capitalist labor bureaucracy, seeks "labor peace" with the bosses. In his letter to Sweeney, ILWU International president tried to present the action as an effort to "express support for the troops by bringing them home safely," although the motion voted by the delegates says nothing of the sort. Playing the "support our troops" game is an effort to swear loyalty to the broader aims of U.S. imperialism. It aids the warmongers, when what's needed is independent working-class action against the system that produces endless imperialist war. Yet despite the efforts to water it down and distort it, the May 1 action voted for by the ILWU delegates is a call to use labor's muscle to put an end to the war.

Mobilize Labor's Power to Defeat the Bosses' War!

For the West Coast dock workers union to shut down the ports against the war means a big step forward in the class struggle. The Internationalist Group has uniquely fought for workers strikes against the war, when all the popular-front "peace" coalitions dismissed this and even some shamefaced ex-Trotskyists refused to call for it, saying it had "no resonance" among the workers (see our October 20007 Special Supplement to The Internationalist, "Why We Fight For Workers Strikes Against the War [and the opportunists Don't]"). With signs, banners and propaganda we have sought to drive home the central lesson that it is necessary to defeat the imperialist war abroad and the bosses' war "at home" by mobilizing the power of the workers movement independent of and against the capitalist parties.

That means fighting the war mobilization down the line. First and foremost, this means actively joining the struggle for immigrant rights as the government turns undocumented working people into "the enemy within." Class-conscious workers should demand full citizenship rights for all immigrants. Last year, San Francisco Local 10 voted to stop work and join marches for immigrant rights on May 1, but this was opposed by the employers PMA and sabotaged at the last minute by the union tops. Shamefully, Local 13 in Los Angeles, a majority Mexican American port, made no protest when police attacked immigrant rights protesters that same day. Today, as the ICE immigration police stage Gestapo-style raids across the country, organized labor should take the lead in organizing rapid response networks to come into the streets to block the raids. Despite the campaign by the capitalist media and politicians to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria, there is widespread disgust among American working people toward the jackbooted storm troopers who are terrorizing immigrant communities.

At the same time, the unions should use the power to put a halt to the attacks on civil liberties which are part of the home front of the imperialist war. Driver's licenses with biometric data, TWIC identification cards with "background checks," warrantless spying and phone tapping, setting up special military tribunals for "trials" in which defendants are denied the right of habeas corpus, to know the "evidence" or even the charges against them - all these are part of a drive that is in high gear pushing the United States toward a full-fledged police state. There have been scores, perhaps hundreds of resolutions by unions and city, county and state labor bodies against the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, showing that labor activists are well aware of the danger. But just as is the case with the countless union antiwar resolutions, there has been no labor action. It is commonplace in the labor movement to bemoan the lack of real action when Reagan broke the 1981 PATCO air traffic controllers' strike, paving the way for massive union-busting, takeaways and racist attacks all down the line. Let's not let the labor bureaucrats bury the vital struggles of today.

Now is the time to turn words into deeds, to speak to the capitalist rulers in the only language they understand. The imperialist war parties must be defeated by a class mobilization of the working people at the head of all the oppressed. The ILWU motion to stop work on May Day to put a stop to the war can provide working people everywhere with the opening to turn from impotent protest to a struggle for power. For that the key is to build a class-struggle workers party fighting for a workers government, for socialist revolution here and around the world, that will put an end once and for all to the system of endless war, poverty and racism.

This is an Article of the Internationalist Group:
www.internationalist.org

and distributed by Liberation News, Subscribe Free!
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Fight to stop the war.

Tedster — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:12:58 GMT

Saturday, March 15
NONVIOLENT DIRECT ACTION, MARCH & COMMUNITY RALLY
11amÂ Rally at Judge G. Carroll Park
W. Cutting Blvd & S. Garrard Blvd, Point Richmong
1pmÂ March & Nonviolent Direct Action at Chevron
Refinery
841 Chevron Way, Richmond
(Shuttle buses from RICHMOND BART)CHEVRON RICHMOND
REFINERY

Cosponsored by Communities for a Better Environment,
Richmond Progressive Alliance, Green Action, Richmond
greens, Community Health Initiative, Amazon Watch and
West County Toxics Coalition.

----

Wednesday, March 19
MASS NONVIOLENT DIRECT ACTIONS
FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE IRAQ WAR:
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO
beginning at 7:30 am : Action throughout the SF
Financial District.
Gathering point: Market and Sansome

----

Direct Action to Stop the War (is back!)
takedirectaction@riseup.net (510)984-2566
www.actagainstwar.net

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

How We Can Really End the War

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:08:25 GMT

"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it." Socialist Anti-war Candidate Eugene Debs (who garnered nearly a million votes while he sat in prison for opposition to U.S. involvement in World War One).

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action" wrote Ron Paul, who voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in Congress, the act that gave Blacks the right to vote, quote from his “Ron Paul Newsletter”.

No to NYC Indymedia Censorship, How We Can Really End the War

By STEVEN ARGUE

Claiming that only an alliance with Ron Paul conservatives can end the war, New York City Indymedia volunteers have allowed blatant slander against Liberation News and have censored attempts to respond to those lies. Among the slanders posted were accusations that Liberation News is opposed to Ron Paul because we support Hillary Clinton and her healthcare program. I tried posting the following response, but it was censored on the site:

Ron Paul supporter: “it's pointed out that yes Ron Paul is a racist but Stevies candidate Hillary is even worse.”

Steven Argue: “I don’t support Hillary Clinton. Never have, but you don’t listen. This is pure slander.”

They then repeat their slander that I support Hillary Clinton for her healthcare plan saying, “It's pointed out that Stevie is willing to sacrifice liberty for a bogus health care plan”

Steven Argue: “Hillary Clinton opposes both socialized medicine and single payer healthcare. She supports insurance company healthcare, the kind that is killing untold millions in the United States. This is one of many reasons I oppose her.”

“And no, I don't see Clinton as a first step towards socialized medicine. Her promise to force people to buy insurance has nothing in common with socialized medicine, nor partially socialized medicine (i.e. single payer). I’m clear about this in my article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States, and the Struggle to Achieve It, By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

“As for Ron Paul, he wants to privatize everything, including public education, Social Security, and Medicare, eliminate the Voting Rights Act and Roe V Wade in the name of "states rights", signed on to the "Marriage Protection Act", would eliminate every environmental and labor protection, etc. etc. etc. This is a prescription for the slavery of the majority to protect the “liberty” of a tiny handful of capitalists to exploit.

“I oppose both Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. But I’ve already made that clear as being my position. These accusations are slanderous.”

Ron Paul supporter: “Then Stevie moves the goal posts again. Waaa. He's being censored.”

Steven Argue: “I repeatedly posted a response to the slander that I support Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan, and the response is censored every time. I have no motive to make that up. I mentioned it because I wanted people to see my response. Frankly, I’m quite surprised it is happening. Let’s see if this one goes up.”

That response, as I feared, was also censored. Revealing the reasons behind the Ron Paul censorship at the site, the Ron Paul backers posted the following:

“Get off your sectarianism.

“What you don’t get is that there are only two ways we're going to end the occupation of Iraq:

“1.) A recession, and a bad one.

“2.) Convincing the vast majority of conservative Americans it's wrong. Ron Paul reaches these people. The guy with the Free Mumia shirt selling the "Socialist Worker" doesn't.

“To get anything done in a democracy you're going to have to work with people you don't agree with and people you might not even like. People in grown up countries do this all the time. They're called "coalitions".

“The Labor Party in Israel, for example, makes alliances with the ultra orthodox. The Liberal Democrats have made common cause with the Tories in the UK. The left made common cause with Vicente Fox to get the PRI out of power in Mexico.

“It's only in the puritan USA where everybody thinks you have to like all your political allies and agree with them on everything.”

Besides the fact that the majority of Americans already oppose the war; and besides the fact that these points show a total lack of understanding of the bourgeois nature of the coalitions in the countries mentioned; and besides showing a total lack of understanding of what it will take to end the war (I discuss this at the end of the article); New York City Indymedia’s lack of confidence in the ability of people to change has caused them to build a coalition with a capitalist politician who is a racist, homophobic, anti-worker, anti-environmental, bible thumping, sexist, anti-labor, anti-poor, free-market privatization fanatic. On top of that, they censor the left in order to achieve that coalition.

While a Ron Paul presidency would likely end the war, at what price would this come?

Ron Paul uses the term liberty a lot, so let’s take a look at what he means by liberty.

The liberty Ron Paul demands is:

The liberty of the capitalists to exploit without labor laws and environmental protections;

The "state’s right” to prevent Blacks from voting without the interference of the Voting Rights Act (voted against its renewal in Congress);

The "states right" to ban abortions without the interference of Roe v Wade;

The freedom of the government to deny same-sex rights (was an original sponsor of the "Marriage Protection Act");

The freedom of children not to attend schools (would abolish public education);

The freedom of the elderly and disabled to starve (would abolish Social Security);

The freedom of the sick to die (would abolish Medicare);

The freedom of the U.S. to destroy the planet without even the most basic limits on carbon emissions (opposes signing on to Kyoto and all other carbon limitations);

This is, in short, the liberty of a wealthy minority to make their money from the exploitation of labor and the environment with zero interference from labor laws, environmental laws, and the IRS. While his program is liberty for a minority of rich white heterosexual males, it is slavery for the majority.

Simply put, Ron Paul’s promises to end the war are not enough when one looks at the fact that he would eliminate two centuries of hard fought social progress in the United States.

Some of the anti-war backers of Ron Paul argue that we don’t have to worry about these things because Ron Paul will never be elected. They think that backing his campaign is a way to win over his supporters. What is clear is that such arguments could only come from people who are utterly lost and rudderless, which leaves unclear the question of what they are winning Ron Paul supporters over to. They are supporting a candidate whose program is George Wallace on crack cocaine! Yet, the ultimate absurdity is the fact that they are backing a candidate whose most reassuring feature is that he won’t get elected! Is this point lost on these people? And is the chance that their support may help him get elected a chance they really want to take? Nobody thought that third party candidate Jesse (the body) Ventura would get elected in Minnesota either, but he was, and as soon as he was elected he discarded his libertarian values on drug legalization and prostitution and instead proceeded to carrying out attacks on labor and carrying out disastrous cuts in education and other social spending.

Others argue that if Ron Paul is elected, he will easily be able to pull the troops out of Iraq, but congress will block him on the other issues. There is no doubt that they would block parts of Ron Paul’s program in order to prevent the social unrest such measures would cause, but with the ruling class’s desire to step up the exploitation of labor and the environment through eliminating regulation and through privatization, there can be little doubt that if he is able to maintain his presidency without being shot, aspects of Ron Paul’s domestic program would be implemented.

Today, in the United States we have two rightwing capitalist parties that rule. The activists who run New York Indymedia are floating around utterly lost and rudderless. On the one hand, their anarchist philosophy prohibits them from putting forward their own leadership or supporting socialist candidates; and on the other hand, they are stuck in the “real politic” of supporting “lesser evil” capitalist politicians. It is these characteristics that made them susceptible to being swept up on the Ron Paul band wagon. Despite their “libertarian” values of “freedom”, they have now taken this to the point where they are even willing to censor critics of Ron Paul on their website.

While Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate opposed to the war, is not worth supporting, the front running Democrats are also very bad. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, are all pro-war. Both Edwards and Clinton voted for the war. Obama supporters claim that Obama never supported the war. While Obama was not yet in the Senate at the time of the Iraq war vote, Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have all voted for war appropriations. This puts them all in the position of having supported the war. Over a million Iraqis are dead due to the U.S. invasion and occupation, and billions of dollars have been squandered. Obama, by helping pay for the war, has his hands in this mass murder just as Clinton and Edwards do.

Obama’s Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 supposedly would have begun troop withdrawal in May 2007. Yet, it didn't call for full nor immediate withdrawal. In addition, under the bill, the withdrawal could be halted if the Iraqi government met a number of criteria laid out by the Bush administration. These included a broad number of things such as changes in the use of oil revenue, government reforms, an end to sectarian violence, and other economic and reconstruction criteria. In Obama’s bill we have a crystal ball into the future. The excuses laid out in the bill will be heard once again as Obama, Clinton, or Edwards explain why they are keeping the troops in Iraq for their entire presidency; that is unless other actions are taken by the people to stop the war.

This brings us to the fundamental question of how to stop the war. If we are to listen to the Ron Paul censors / supporters at NYC Indymedia the only thing we can do to stop the war is support Ron Paul or hope for (pray for?) economic collapse. Yet, this ignores other less damaging possibilities. These include the troops refusing to fight, a general strike, strikes against the movement of war materials, or socialist revolution.

1. The troops refusing to fight. This worked in the struggle to end the U.S. aggression against Vietnam. It was the socialist movement who were the primary organizers of the anti-Vietnam War movement. That movement, immediately after the government’s murders at Kent State in May 1970 had 8 million students out on strike, and some Universities, such a Berkley, were taken over by students and faculty as anti-war universities. After May 1970, the majority of those drafted were already opposed to the war before they got to Vietnam. Refusal to fight was widespread, and the fragging of pro-war officers was common. Nixon could not continue to wage a war with soldiers who refused to fight. This, along with the heroic resistance of the Vietnamese, brought an end to the war in Vietnam.

Troops refusing to fight also helped bring an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, and helped bring down two pro-war governments in 1917.

2. A general strike or strikes against the movement of war materials. Strikes with such political demands have a long history of success. France has many good social programs because the workers there were willing to shut down their country to achieve them; and they are still willing to do the same to protect those hard fought gains.

3. Socialist revolution. The October Russian Revolution achieved an end to Russian involvement in the First World War. This was a good thing, despite the undemocratic nature of the revolution. Learning from those lessons, Liberation News opposes the dictatorial system of one party rule and raises the banner of revolutionary democratic socialism, while at the same time learning from many of the revolutionary strategies of Lenin and Trotsky.

Protests, pickets, information distribution, building a socialist movement, and answering pro-Ron Paul and pro-Obama-Clinton-Edwards propaganda all help towards building the momentum needed in achieving the kinds of actions that can end the war. Putting support behind Ron Paul only helps an extreme rightwing movement achieve the mantel of leadership for an anti-war sentiment that already represents majority public opinion. In addition, backing a guy like Ron Paul who just crossed a picket line to appear on Jay Lenno’s “Tonight Show” destroys the anti-war strategy of reaching out to the working class, as does backing a racist candidate like Ron Paul hurt the ability to reach out to the multi-racial working class.

No to the Democrats and Republicans!

U.S. Out of Iraq Now!

No to Insurance Company Healthcare, For Socialized Medicine!

Save the Planet, Curb Carbon Emissions Now!

Vote Socialist, Build the Labor Movement, Build the Anti-War Movement, Build the Socialist Movement.

[Note, small changes were made to the response that was censored at NYC Indymedia to make it more readable within the format of this article. Those wishing to see the original version will be given it upon request. Likewise, anyone wishing further sources will be provided them upon request]

This is an article of Liberation News, a low volume newsletter, Subscribe free!
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 3 replies

TRUTH IS FREE; so is my RETREAT --Vermont

Bald Mountain Retreat, — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:50:20 GMT

noncapitalist approach.
I'm looking to network with folks, to extend an invitation to visit Bald Mountain Retreat (www.baldmountainretreat.com) as my guest. Like-minded people who appreciate rustic accommodations are welcome to come up at no charge. (Those who require a private room can inquire about those accommodations as well.)
Basically, I'm offering people the opportunity to come stay with a retired naturopathic doctor in a truly amazing natural setting, secluded, idyllic, peaceful...
Also, if you might like to lead a retreat, please contact me.
Thank you and you are welcome,
Dr David

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:29:56 GMT

The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

By STEVEN ARGUE

For the most part the Iowa caucuses were business as usual for the Democrat and Republican Parties. Among the Democrats, “Anti-war” and “pro-single payer health care” Democrat Dennis Kucinich put his support behind pro-war anti--single payer health care, Barrack Obama. Yet on the far right, anti-war Libertarian and Republican Ron Paul gained a stunning 10% of the vote.

Seeing the failure of the Democrats to deliver a candidate worth supporting; some left leaning individuals have been suggesting support to Ron Paul. One is anti-war Vietnam veteran Stan Goff, who suggested in his January 4, 2008 article ”Monkey Wrenching the System, Ron Paul’s Revolution” that people vote in the primaries for Ron Paul, switching party registration right away if they live in a state where such a move is necessary to vote in the Republican primaries.

At the root of the Ron Paul "revolution" is the dismantling of Social Security and the Department of Education as well as other basic social programs, and the elimination of worker and environmental protections. Advances like single payer health care? No way. Ron Paul's message is that you need to take care of yourself, and that there shouldn't be such government programs, nor such interference with private profit. While he puts forward reasons for not supporting going to war abroad, his domestic policies would ignite civil war at home.

In addition to pretending he's against all government, he's for outlawing abortion and supports the continued ban on same-sex marriage. He was one of the original co-sponsors of the "Marriage Protection Act".

He's also a religious extremist who thinks that creationism should be taught in the schools.

On race, Ron Paul was one of 33 Congress members to vote against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, an act that was first passed to give Blacks in the south the right to vote. On a similar note, he says the Civil Rights Act violates the Constitution and impedes on individual liberties. Speaking of Blacks in Washington DC he states in campaign literature, "95 percent of African Americans in are semi-criminal or entirely criminal".

No wonder the American Nazi Party has close relations with him (see letter from Nazi Commander Bill White below). In addition, Ron Paul has the support of other white supremacists such as David Duke, and has knowingly taken donations from former KKK Grand Wizard Don Black.

Hell would freeze over before I'd support Ron Paul. And being an atheist; that will be a long time.

There are plenty of candidates to the left of the Democrats worth considering supporting who oppose the war, would preserve public education and Social Security, who would provide single payer or socialized medicine, and who aren’t raving racist, homophobic, and sexist “Libertarian” fanatics. Why not look at them rather than someone from the loony right?

I discuss some of the campaigns that may be worth supporting in the following article:

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
And the Struggle to Achieve It
By STEVEN ARGUE
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

Or here is a different version of the same article:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2008/01/93820.html

*****************
American Nazi Party Chief says Ron Paul is one of us

Bill White, commander of the American National Socialist Worker’s Party, aka The American Nazi Party, wrote the following on the Nazi Vanguard News Network:

Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous — and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

*********
Poor Bill White. He’s having trouble with his brand of racism, anti-Semitism, mass extermination, and genocide not being "in fashion". But hey, you've got to thank the knuckleheaded Nazi for confirming our suspicions on Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan! -Steven Argue

Liberation News
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States

Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:36:41 GMT

The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
and the Struggle to Achieve It

By Steven Argue

As someone without healthcare, I support the idea of socialized medicine for the United States. Socialized medicine will bring healthcare to everyone. Besides legitimate self-interest, my personal position comes from being an advocate for social justice with a vision of an egalitarian society. As such, I not only see universal access to healthcare as a basic human right, I also see that socialized healthcare will mitigate some of the racial and class inequalities in our society. In addition, socialized medicine is cheaper than the costs of current system of for-profit capitalist healthcare. It also looses the profit motive of insurance companies to deny needed procedures. From this knowledge, and these personal convictions, I am strongly in favor of socialized healthcare in the United States like that established in Europe as well as established in Cuba with the 1959 revolution. Short of a fully socialized healthcare system I see that the single payer system (i.e. socialized health insurance run by the government), like in Canada, would be a significant step forward for the United States.

In the United States there’s a lot of confusion on terminology. With a system of socialized medicine hospitals are directly owned by the government and doctors are government employees. It’s a universal system where everyone is covered and all health care is paid for by the government. Under a single payer health care plan, health care is universal and paid for by the government, but it is a system still largely based on private hospitals and private physicians.

Two main arguments are encountered when discussing socialized medicine. One argument is that it will cost too much. The second argument is that socialized medicine doesn’t work to provide adequate healthcare. Neither argument stands up to scrutiny. Socialized medicine and single payer medicine actually cost less than the United State’s current for profit capitalist health care system. Both statistics and common sense back this up.

According to statistics from 2003, the United States spends $5,711 per capita per year for health care while Canada spends about half of that, $2,998 per capita per year (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2007). In fact, the costs per capita are much cheaper in every other developed country with some form of socialized healthcare. In other examples Sweden spends $2,745, Germany $2,983, and the United Kingdom $2,317 (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2007). In addition, Cuba, with their well known socialized healthcare system, spent only $251 per capita on healthcare in 2006 (United Nations World Health Organization, 2006).

The reason socialized insurance is much cheaper and more efficient than private health insurance is because single payer eliminates the health insurance racket with all of its waste in capitalist profits, paperwork, and overpaid CEOs. In addition, such insurance practices as routinely denying needed medical procedures to keep profits up are eliminated, thus reducing capitalism as being the cause of death.

Socialized healthcare does work. It is working very well in Cuba. Cuban life expectancy in 2006 was 77.6 years, while the life expectancy of the United States for that same year was slightly less, 77.5 years (United Nations Development Program, 2006). It is interesting that poor Cuba with a history of poverty before their 1959 socialist revolution, and a devastating U.S. imposed economic blockade since, is able to provide good healthcare for everyone through socialized medicine. Cuba, unlike the United States, does not let people die in the emergency rooms without treatment, turn sick people away from receiving healthcare because they lack insurance, or allow insurance companies to decide, based on profit motive, whether the insured actually receive the care they paid for and need. The Cubans have done this by taking the profit out of illness and injury and providing healthcare as a basic human right.

Canada, like Cuba, has a higher life expectancy than the United States. In 2004 the life expectancy of Canada hit 80.2 years (Statistics Canada, 2004). With Canada’s socialized health insurance system, like Cuba’s socialized medical system, every single person is covered. In the United States 45.8 million Americans do not have health insurance (U.S. Department of Health and human Services, 2005).

On another key indicator of health, infant mortality, the United States is also nearly the worst in the developed world, only worse than the recently turned capitalist country of Latvia (Green, 2006). The infant mortality rate in the United States in 2002 was 7.0 deaths before the age of one per every 1,000 live births (Center for Disease Control, 2005). In comparison, other advanced countries with forms of socialized medicine and socialized health insurance have lower infant mortality. This includes rates per thousand births in Japan of 3.2, Germany with 4.4, Italy with 4.5, France with 4.6, and the United Kingdom with 5.6 (Treasury Board of Canada, 2003).

Cuba, with their system of socialized medicine has an infant mortality rate of 6.2 per thousand live births, a rate much lower the United States rate of 7.0 per every thousand live births (BBC News, 2002). This is also lower than every other Latin American country (BBC News, 2002).

The only other country in the Americas with an infant mortality lower than Cuba is Canada with their system of socialized health insurance. The Canadian infant mortality rate in the year 2000 was 5.3 (Treasury Board of Canada, 2003).

In addition, a United Nations report on the status of Native Americans in Canada has credited Canada’s relatively recently established socialized health insurance system with drastically reducing an extremely high infant mortality among Native Americans (United Nations, 1993). In 1979, that death rate for Canadian Native Americans was 27.6 per thousand live births, but by 1999 it had dropped to 8.0 deaths per thousand live births (Treasury Board of Canada, 2003). These improvements coincide with Canada’s passage of the Canada Health Act in 1984 that brought their socialized insurance system to the entire country at that time (Health Canada, 2002).

For Blacks in the United States between 1995 and 2002, the infant mortality rate was 13.9, more than double the rate of 5.9 for whites in the same time period (Center for Disease Control, 2005). Canadian statistics are a strong indication that a socialized insurance system in the United States could both decrease the infant mortality rate of the general population and dramatically decrease the infant mortality of oppressed and impoverished minorities such as Blacks, as it did for Canadian Native Americans.

The statistics show that socialized medicine is cheaper, saves lives, and helps alleviate class and racial inequalities in healthcare.

Behind the statistics of a shorter life expectancy in the United States are horrific human tragedies. One example is the death of 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan in December 2007. The following is a California Nurses Association/NNOC statement about her death:

“The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee today blasted insurance giant CIGNA for failing to approve a liver transplant one week earlier for 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, who tragically died last night just hours after CIGNA relented and agreed to the procedure following a massive national outcry.

“On Dec. 11, four leading physicians, including the surgical director of the Pediatric Liver Transplant Program at UCLA, wrote to CIGNA urging the company to reverse its denial. The physicians said that Nataline ‘currently meets criteria to be listed as Status 1A’ for a transplant. They also challenged CIGNA’s denial which the company said occurred because their benefit plan “does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services,” to which the doctors replied, ‘Nataline’s case is in fact none of the above.’

“’So what happened between December 11, when CIGNA denied the transplant, and December 20 when they approved? A huge outpouring of protest and CIGNA’s public humiliation. Why didn’t they just listen to the medical professionals at the bedside in the first place?’ asked Geri Jenkins, RN, a member of the CNA/NNOC Council of Presidents who works in a transplant unit at the University of California San Diego Medical Center.

"On Thursday, CIGNA was bombarded with phone calls to its offices across the country while a rally sponsored by CNA/NNOC, with the substantial help of the local Armenian community, drew 150 people to the Glendale offices of CIGNA – all of which produced the turnaround by CIGNA to finally reverse its prior denial of care."

“CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro called the final outcome ‘a horrific tragedy that demonstrates what is so fundamentally wrong with our health care system today. Insurance companies have a stranglehold on our health. Their first priority is to make profits for their shareholders – and the way they do that is by denying care.’

"’It is simply not possible to organize major protests every time a multi-billion corporation like CIGNA denies care that has been recommended by a physician," DeMoro said. “Having insurance is not the same as receiving needed care. We need a fundamental change in our healthcare system that takes control away from the insurance giants and places it where it belongs – in the hands of the medical professionals, the patients, and their families.’"

Prospects for Socialized and Single Payer Medicine

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has declared, "It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every American, and I intend to be the president who accomplishes that goal finally for our country" (CNN.com). This is the same promise that Bill Clinton made when he ran for office in 1992.

After being elected, in Bill Clinton’s first State of the Union address, he said, “And on any given day, over 37 million Americans -- most of them working people and their little children -- have no health insurance at all.” Yet, despite Bill Clinton’s campaign promise of universal health care, his defeated proposal to congress would not have provided health care to every American, nor did it address the other fundamental problems of private health insurance. After his health care proposal was defeated, Clinton dropped the issue. In fact, the Bill Clinton administration was opposed to a bill for single payer health care introduced by Wellstone, Conyers, and Mcdermott that actually would have provided universal health care. By the time Bill Clinton left office, an additional three million more Americans were uninsured.

Today Republican candidate Mitt Romney has declared of Hillary Clinton’s promised health care plan, “It’s a European-style socialized medicine plan, that’s where it leads–and that’s the wrong direction for America” (Shulte).

Yet, unfortunately, Clinton’s plan has nothing in common with socialized medicine, neither of the European variety, nor the Canadian single payer. Her plan is to keep the broken and expensive capitalist system of health care, a system that keeps the insurance industry in charge of life and death questions of whether or not we receive health care when we need it.

In addition, the Clinton plan would make the purchase of health insurance by America’s uninsured mandatory for those who do not get insurance from their employer and who do not qualify for government assistance. Yet, the problem for America’s nearly 50 million uninsured is not that we don’t want to have insurance, the problem is that we can’t afford it. Clinton’s plan of making us criminals for not purchasing health insurance will not resolve this fundamental problem.

By making the purchase of health insurance mandatory Clinton makes the false claim that hers is a plan for universal health insurance as compared to the plan of Obama. Neither would provide universal health care. John Edwards has taken the absurdity of forced insurance purchases one step further, detailing a plan that would include the necessity of showing proof of health insurance at the time of paying taxes, with penalties for those who do not provide that proof.

In a similar fashion as Mitt Romney, Republican contender Rudolph Giuliani has extended false accusations of socialized medicine to other Democratic hopefuls stating, “Whether it’s HillaryCare or ObamaCare or EdwardsCare, the idea that it’s not socialized medicine is a trick. It’s a massive growth of government control of medicine” (Rovner).

The truth, however, is that the only presidential candidates of the Democrat and Republican Party that are for single payer health care are Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and none are for full socialized medicine. The other major candidates, who oppose single payer, enjoy massive contributions from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

In addition to being excluded from money, the Kucinich and Gravel campaigns have also been excluded from debates. Most recently, for the 2008 election, CNN and the Des Moines Register made the decision to exclude both Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel from a key debate in Iowa. Yet Biden and Dodd, who are behind Kucinich in the national polls, but who reject single payer health care, were allowed into the debate. This kind of undemocratic shenanigan is to be expected of CNN, a corporate media source that was forced to publicly apologize for a number of lies they told about Michael Moore’s pro-socialized medicine film “Sicko”.

While Kucinich has alienated the corporate power structure with his stand for single payer health care, he has also alienated much of his natural base by voting for Bush’s “War on Terror”, voting for the U.S. travel ban against Cuba, and by voting against Mumia Abu-Jamal.

In 2001 Kucinich voted in favor of the US travel ban against Cuba. The travel ban does not allow U.S. citizens to spend any money in Cuba, basically making travel to Cuba illegal. It is under the travel ban that Michael Moore has been harassed by the U.S. government for bringing sick 9/11 rescue workers, who were unable to receive medical treatment in the United States, for medical treatment in Cuba. The United States has had hostile relations with Cuba ever since the 1959 Cuban revolution overthrew the U.S. backed Batista dictatorship, nationalized the United Fruit Company owned by the Rockefeller family, ended Jim Crow style racist segregation, and began providing free socialized health care and education.

In contrast to Kucinich’s support for U.S. measures against Cuba, Mumia Abu-Jamal recognizes the gains Cuba has made in areas such as health care. Of the U.S. and Cuban health care systems, Mumia Abu-Jamal stated May 2nd, 2003:

“What about the human right to health care? In the US, you can obtain excellent health care if you can afford it. Cuba, meanwhile, boasts the largest number of doctors per capita on earth. They provide medical care to people all around the world. Indeed, there are more Cuban doctors working in other countries than the UN’s World Heath Organization. Millions of men, women and children in this country have no medical insurance and no real prospect for decent medical care.” (Abu-Jamal 5/2/03)

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner in the United States whose trial, according to Amnesty International, was not fair and “did not comply with international justice standards” (Amnesty International). Yet, in 2006 Kucinich voted to condemn the French City of St. Denis for naming a street after Mumia. The resolution boldly proclaimed Mumia’s guilt, despite international recognition of the injustice dished out to Mumia, and despite the fact that the courts are still reviewing the case. Despite the injustice represented by this resolution and despite 31 members of Congress voting against it, Kucinich voted for it.

Showing a similar lack of support for the needs of the people, Kucinich voted for Bush’s so-called “War on Terror”. This was a vote that effectively gave Bush the power to invade any country at any time. That vote could have been used for anything, and was used by Bush to invade Afghanistan. Likewise, despite pretending to be a peace candidate, Kucinich’s calls for a strong and efficient military do not address the fact that the United States is the most aggressive and dangerous nation in the world.

The tremendous lack of judgment on these three votes alone, along with Kucinich’s promotion of the pro-war, anti-single payer health care, and corporate controlled Democrat Party, have alienated the left from Kucinich’s campaign.

Presidential candidate Mike Gravel doesn’t have a recent voting record, but was actively opposed to the Vietnam War in Congress, voting to cut off funding for the war, and helping to release the Pentagon Papers that exposed many wrong doings by the U.S. government in Vietnam. On the issue of health care, Gravel states on his website that he proposes “a universal healthcare system that provides equal medical services to all citizens, paid for by a retail sales tax (a portion of the Progressive Fair tax)” (Gravel website). Yet, sales taxes are not fair taxes. They are regressive taxes that charge the poor a much higher percentage of their income than they charge the rich. While it is true that the rich are not paying their fair share under the current tax system, Gravel’s proposal is even worse.

Sadly for those who think solutions could come from the Democrat Party, Kucinich and Gravel are the best the Democrat Party could produce.

While the mainstream of the American political establishment rejects any form of socialized medicine, all political parties to the left of the Democrats and Republicans support some form of socialized medicine. This is true from the Green Party and Reconstruction Party to the various socialist parties who run candidates, including the Peace and Freedom Party, Socialist Action, Socialist Party, Workers World Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, and Socialist Equality Party.

Breaking from the pro-war anti-health care Democrat Party is former Georgia Democratic Congressperson Cynthia McKinney. In a video news release declaring her candidacy for president she says, “The Democrat is no different from their Republican counterparts, eat out of the hands of corrupt lobbyists and feed at the same corporate tough” (McKinney). McKinney is running for president on the Reconstruction Party ticket as well as in the Green Party primaries.

On health care McKinney states, "I've supported every universal single payer health care plan. She goes on to state, “People who rail against `socialized medicine' in Canada and the UK have to explain why life expectancy is longer in Canada and the UK, why infant mortality is lower in Canada and the UK" (Deeth). McKinney further denounces the war in Iraq stating that the money being squandered could be better used on social programs such as rebuilding New Orleans, child nutrition, and health care, stating in part, “one billion dollars a day can provide medical care for the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance” (McKinney).

Another Green Party candidate, Kent Mesplay, declares on his website:

“Medical attention is a human right not yet recognized by the United States government. Nearly every other industrialized country on the planet has National Health Care. We are tied with South Africa for last place. In the same manner that we have a socialized military that at best provides for some aspects of our physical security, single payer health insurance is necessary to ensure that all people within our borders receive at least a basic level of medical and dental care.” (Mesplay).

While this may be a good position on single payer health care, it ignores the fact that the U.S. military does not provide physical security to the people of the United States, but is instead used to kill and terrorize the people of the world for the security of the profits of American corporations.

Also supporting single payer health care, Green Party candidate Kat Swift states:

“Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other prominent Democrats are the greatest obstacle to universal health coverage. Except for a few mavericks like Rep. John Conyers [D-Mich.], who has regularly introduced single-payer bills, Democrats have joined Republicans in favoring HMO and insurance corporations over guaranteed publicly-financed quality health care for every American. It's a safe bet that the 2008 Democratic nominee will -- like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry before them -- follow the same pattern.”

Likewise, Green Party candidate Jared Ball, a Black free-lance journalist and college professor who calls for freeing Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, and all political prisoners states, “Medicine for profit cannot be sustained as a model of managing health care for any progressive society” (Ball).

To the left of the Green Party is Elaine Brown, a former Black Panther Party member and activist for social programs for the poor and for prison reform. On health care she declares herself for, “Full and free health care for everyone, as exists in most civilized countries.”

Elaine Brown was a candidate for nomination as Green Party candidate for president until, on December 28, 2007, she broke with the Green Party, pointing out it was a capitalist Party and accusing the Green Party of racism. In her public statement Brown declared, "In effect, the present Green Party leadership promotes a kinder, gentler capitalism, a moderated racism, an environmentally-sustainable globalism, which I cannot support." On racism in the party she declared she intended to use her campaign “to bring large numbers of blacks and browns into the Party, particularly from the hood and the barrio” but that the Green Party “hierarchy seemed utterly fearful of the prospect of a massive influx of blacks and browns into the Green Party". Brown has given no indication that she now intends to continue her run as a candidate to the left of the Greens.

To the left of the Green Party are socialist candidates that call for full socialized medicine, like in Europe and Cuba, but who also see that single payer health care would be a step forward. These include likely Socialist Equality Party candidate Bill Van Auken, who calls for full socialized medicine, and says of the Canadian Single Payer system as an imperfect form of “socialized medicine”.

Likewise Peace and Freedom Party candidate and Socialist Party USA nominee for vice president, Stewart Alexander states,

“I favor a fully socialized medical care system, with as a first step a single-payer system similar to Medicare, but covering people of all ages. I favor eliminating the "co-pays" that are such a burden, and keep people from seeking needed care. We should take the profit out of the health-care system, and fully fund it. (The money now spent on health care in the USA is about twice as much per person as is spent in Western Europe, with less effective delivery of care. No additional money would actually be needed, but taxes on the wealthy few should be used initially to help fund improvements.) Eventually, I favor a fully-socialized system, funded from the surplus of the socialized economy, with an emphasis on prevention and public health.” (Alexander)

Also advocating full socialized medicine is Socialist Party USA nominee and Peace and Freedom Party candidate Brian Moore. In the California Voters Guide he states that he would, “establish guaranteed minimum income, housing and socialized healthcare for all”.

Not mentioning socialized medicine, but supporting single payer, Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee and Peace and Freedom Party candidate Gloria La Riva states, “The three main focuses of my campaign will be to oppose the racist attacks on immigrants; to propose a massive jobs program and increased social spending as an alternative to anti-crime hysteria and new prisons; and to give strong support for Single Payer Healthcare” (La Riva).

While generally being a good activist party, a strong concern among many on the left towards the Party for Socialism and Liberation is their uncritical support for undemocratic communist models, a problem that will cause many to instead vote for non-Stalinist candidates such as Stewart Alexander or Brian Moore in the Peace and Freedom Party primaries, or for other anti-Stalinist socialist parties that may run candidates such as the Socialist Equality Party, Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Action, or the Freedom Socialist Party.

In contrast to some of the anti-democratic positions of Gloria La Riva’s party, presidential candidate Stewart Alexander states,

“Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production, but I like to be more specific. There are, have been, and can be many forms of socialism, but I believe that the best, strongest and most beneficial form of socialism, the kind of socialism I personally work for, is common ownership of the economy coupled with its democratic control by working people.” (Alexander)

Obviously, there are clear alternatives to the capitalist Democrat and Republican Parties that are working hard to promote a workers agenda that includes either fully socialized medicine or single payer healthcare. Yet, almost all of the unions of the United States remain committed to endorsing and financing Democrats and only Democrats in elections. A good number of unions, such as the SEIU, even endorse Democrats that are opposed to single payer health care and help fund the same campaigns that are being funded by the big insurance companies. These endorsements of the anti-worker politicians of the Democrat Party are a blatant violation of the interests of the membership. Such endorsements hurt attempts at building alternative parties that represent workers interests, and hurt the ability of workers to protest and strike against such politicians that are not representing our interests. Some other unions, such as the California Nurses Association, take the stand of only endorsing candidates who support single payer health care. This is a step forward, but many on the left see that a full break by labor from the corporate controlled Democrat Party will be necessary.

Ultimately, what is needed is the building of a spirit of resistance among workers, the unemployed, and students, where we no longer passively agree to politicians and union leaders who pretend to be lesser evils, but are rarely even that. We must challenge and change the organizations we are part of, and when that fails, break away and build new ones. Most importantly, we must fully resurrect the use of political strikes and demonstrations to force the bosses and government to give us what we need, as is often done in countries with socialized medicine such as France. It is this kind of resistance that won socialized healthcare in Europe after the Second World War, and it will be this that will bring socialized medicine to the United States.

This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

References:

Abu-Jamal, Mumia. "Mumia 5/2/03 Taped Commentary on Cuba." Radio4all and Prisonradio.org. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://www.iacenter.org/polprisoners/maj_cuba03.htm. Internet.

Alexander, Stewart. “Presidential Candidate Questionnaire” Socialist National Committee, Socialist Party. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://vote-socialist.org/p08/questionnaires/alexander.html. Internet.

Ball, Jared. “Healthcare.” Jared Ball for President Website. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://www.jaredball.com/?cat=12. Internet.

“Clinton Unveils Mandatory Health Insurance Program” CNN.com. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html. Internet.

“Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Canada”. 6 March, 1993. United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Accessed 26 September, 2007. Available from: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Jt9OTyVZWTYJ:www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/280a3783f5a26d09c12563e80058b47e%3FOpendocument+infant+mortality+ canada +%22united+nations%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us. Internet.

“Cuba Records Lowest Infant Mortality Rate”. BBC News. 3 January, 2002. Accessed 26 September, 2007. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1739773.stm. Internet.

Deeth, John. "Cynthia McKinney Brings Green Campaign to Iowa City." Iowa Independent. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=3D80FCACF0E1EC162CC087F14BCF9BC5?diaryId=1610. Internet.

Green, Jeff. “U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says”. 10 May, 2006. CNN.Com. Accessed 26 September, 2007. Available from: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html. Internet.

Health Canada, Government of Canada. 25 November, 2002. Accessed 26 September, 2007. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2002/2002_care-soinsbk4_e.html. Internet.

“How Mike Stands on the Issues.” Mike Gravel ’08 Website. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://www.gravel2008.us/issues. Internet.

“Human Development Report”. 2006. United Nations World Health Organization. Accessed 23 September, 2007. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/52.html. Internet.

La Riva, Gloria. “Gloria La Riva for Governor”. California Online Voting Guide. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://calvoter.org/archive/94general/cand/governor/lari/larispeech3.html. Internet.

Mesplay, Kent. “Healthcare”. Kent Mesplay for President. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://www.mesplay.org/healthcare.html. Internet.

McKinney, Cynthia. “Cynthia McKinney Announces Campaign for Presidency” McKinney for President 2008 Website. Accessed 2 January, 2008. Available from: http://www.runcynthiarun.org/node/25. Internet.

“Overview of the Uninsured in The United States, An Analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey”. 22 September 2005. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed 23 September, 2007. Available from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm. Internet.

“Presidents Report, Canada’s Performance 2003”. 2003. Treasury Board of Canada. Accessed 26 September, 2007. Available from: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/03/cp-rc-PR_e.asp?printable=True. Internet.

“Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Infant Mortality --- United States, 1995-2002”. 10 June 2005. MMWR Weekly. Center for Disease Control. Accessed 26 September, 2007. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5422a1.htm. Internet.

Rovner, Julie. “Socialized Medicine Belittled on Campaign Trail.” 6 December, 2007. NPR Morning Edition. Available from Physicians for a National Health Program: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/socialized_medicine_.php. Internet.

Shulte, Elizabeth. "Hillary Clinton’s First Health Care Non-Reform." 27 September, 2007. Dissident Voice. Available from: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/hillary-clintons-first-health-care-non-reform/. Internet.

“Snapshots: Healthcare Costs”. Kaiser Family Foundation. January 2007. Accessed 23 September, 2007. Available from: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm. Internet.

“Statistics Canada”. 20 December, 2006. The Daily. Accessed 23 September, 2007. Available from: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/061220/d061220b.htm. Internet.

“USA: Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Overturning of death sentence falls short of full justice” 19 December, 2001. Amnesty International. Available from: http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/9e6893af-a3f9-11dc-9d08-f145a8145d2b/amr511832001en.html. Internet.

***************
This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Socialist Kurdish PKK Reject the Soviet Model

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:20:02 GMT

The Socialist Kurdish PKK Reject the Soviet Model

By STEVEN ARGUE

Turkey is now bombing and shelling Kurds in Iraq once again under the excuse of trying to destroy the PKK. This is a continuation of the horrible oppression and repression faced by Kurds that I wrote about in:

Kurdish Culture, Repression, Women’s Rights, and Resistance
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/12/18426957.php

One of the criticisms I faced from those backing the repression against the Kurds was the fact that the PKK is a revolutionary socialist organization. An attempt was made to equate the leadership of the PKK with Stalin.

Yet, here is part of what the PKK says about the Soviet Union and socialism in their program:

"The Soviet Union has disappeared, the Soviet Bloc has dissolved itself, and there have been major developments in the socialist movement. The phase of Soviet-dominated socialism is finished. That was a phase of primitive and brutal socialism. Now, a new phase of socialism has begun, namely its rich phase. Our party is the embodiment of one of the most significant socialist movements during this new phase, and we plan to live up to our duties in our revolutionary work."

I have not seen a detailed analysis by the PKK of the Soviet model, but I see their rejection of that model as encouraging. The PKK are a popular group among Turkish Kurds that have gained that support through their struggle for socialism against the horrible oppression and repression faced by both Kurds and women in inside of Turkey. No matter what the position of the PKK on the Soviet Union or anything else, I support the Kurdish right, as an oppressed people, to self-determination.

The Bolsheviks, under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, were swept to power in a popular revolution that called for an end to the war with Germany, land reform, and socialism. Besides the betterment this revolution meant for the workers and peasants in general, including access to healthcare and education, giant strides forward were made for oppressed nationalities, Jews, women's rights, and gay rights. Before the revolution, under Czarist rule, Jews were routinely slaughtered in the thousands in government-sponsored pogroms. Peasants were the property of feudal landlords, and huge numbers of drafted young peasants were dying in the inter-imperialist war with Germany. This all ended with the Russian Revolution. In addition, gay rights and the right to abortion were legalized for the first time in any country with the birth of the Soviet Union and backward anti-woman practices such as bride-price and forced marriage were made illegal. Priorities were made of literacy and meeting the basic needs of the people. These were huge advances made by a revolution that had inherited a poor economically backward nation, soon to be further devastated by civil war and the invasion of many imperialist armies.

Yet, Rosa Luxemburg, a key leader of the German and international communist movement, while praising the advances made by the Russian Revolution, did not excuse the lack of democracy in the Soviet Union. She saw the Marxist concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in a completely different way than Lenin and Trotsky. She saw this simply as the toiling majority becoming the dictators over the capitalist minority that once held power. For that majority to actually be in charge, however, they would need democratic organs, universal suffrage, and democratic rights. For Lenin and Trotsky, the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" fit more into bourgeois models of individual dictatorship by those in power. As Rosa Luxemburg states in her 1918 work, the “Russian Revolution”:

Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only a bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders with inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule [...] a dictatorship, to be sure, but not dictatorship of the proletariat [...].

A different position by Lenin and Trotsky more in league with that of Rosa Luxemburg would have produced a much better and more open society that would have made Stalin's type of rise to power through skullduggery, corruption, and terror within the ranks of the party much more difficult.

Rosa Luxemburg did not see the question as being counterpoised between bourgeois democracy (democracy for the rich as we have in the United States) on the one hand (defended by "socialists" who had betrayed socialism and become administrators of capitalist exploitation and war), and dictatorial communism on the other. Instead, she rejected both and fought for a socialist society with nationalized industries where the working class has democratic control.

It is this essential banner of democratic revolutionary socialism that is being revived in the struggle for human rights against brutal U.S. backed capitalist dictatorships and other capitalist governments in the struggle for human rights such as language rights, women's rights, medicine, food, clean drinking water, for environmental survival, an end to U.S. imposed wars, and an end to capitalist and imperialist exploitation. Forward in the struggle for democratic revolutionary socialism!

Liberation News
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

Free Gary Tyler

Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:40:20 GMT

Free Gary Tyler
http://www.freegarytyler.com/writings/gary-tylers-lost-decades.html

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

U.S. Backed Turkish Government Bombing Iraqi Kurds

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:43:21 GMT

With the genocidal U.S. backed Turkish government now bombing Iraqi Kurds, I thought it would be a good idea to repost my following article. -Steven Argue

Kurdish Culture, Repression, Women’s Rights, and Resistance

By Steven Argue

The Kurdish people number at an estimated at 25-30 million people. They live in eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, northeastern Syria, northwest of the Zagros Mountains in Iran, and in Armenia. They also have a large émigré population in Western Europe. With 4-5 million people and 15-20% of the population the Kurds are the largest non-Arab minority in Iraq (CIA Iraq, 2007). They are also the largest non-Turkish minority in Turkey comprising 20% of the population (CIA Turkey, 2007). The Kurdish speaking people are 9% of the Iranian population (CIA Iran, 2007). In Syria, the Kurds are the largest minority with about 1.75 million people comprising about 10% of the population (Lowe 2006). The rise of nationalist xenophobia and war in Armenia after the fall of the Soviet Union has pushed most Kurds out of Armenia, but around 30,000 Yezidi Kurds remain comprising about 1% of the population (CIA Armenia, 2007).

The language of the Kurds, called Kurdish, is distinct from the Persian of Iran, the Arabic of Iraq and Syria, and the Turkish of Turkey. Thus the common language of the Kurds both separates them from the dominant cultures in the nation-states where they live and unites the Kurdish people as a nationality without a nation-state.

While being distinct the Kurdish language is most closely related to Persian, yet the origins of the varied Kurdish culture is partially influenced by the absorption of characteristics of the differing nationalities and cultures that have historically surrounded them.

In terms of religion the Kurdish people are mostly Muslim with both Shia (primarily of the Alevi sect), Sunni (primarily Shafi’i). There is also a large Sufi influence among many Kurdish Muslims, often cited as a moderating influence on Islamic fundamentalism. A small number of Kurds are also Yezidi Muslims and Christians. The Kurds also have a history that has included secular and atheist political leaderships.

The differing Kurdish religious identities have, at times, been a political factor both in divisions among the Kurdish people and in divisions, which distinguish them from the dominant nationalities. The strong Kurdish national identity is based on mutual language and a history of oppression. These factors hold the Kurds together as a people.

For the Kurdish people outrageous acts of oppression in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia, and Syria have included mass murder, suppression of language rights, exploitation of Kurdish resources with nothing but poverty given in return, deprivations of national citizenships, and the brutal suppression of political representation.

Despite the oppression the Kurdish people have faced, they continue to speak their language and organize politically and, at times, militarily to fight back everywhere they continue to live as a native population.

The Kurdish people are, in fact, the largest national minority in the world that has no homeland. Yet, it is largely their mutual language as well as their mutual oppression and a large amount of mutual poverty (despite some class differences) that continues to unite the Kurdish people. They desire borders that would change the map of the Near East. A better understanding of the Kurdish people is a key to understanding the entire region.

Kurdish Language and Literature

While being most closely related to Persian; the language of the Kurds, called Kurdish, is distinct from the Persian of Iran, the Arabic of Iraq and Syria, and the Turkish of Turkey. Historically many Kurdish intellectuals have written both in Kurdish in as well as in the languages of the dominating cultures (Blau 2007).

Despite a long history of oppression that includes the banning of the written and spoken Kurdish word, the Kurdish people have a rich literary history. Ell Herirl (1425-1495) is the first well-known Kurdish poet (Blau 2007). He, like the many patriotic Kurdish poets that followed, wrote of his love of Kurdish lands and its women (Blau 2007).

Up until very recently the Kurdish language was brutally suppressed everywhere in its native range except the Soviet Republic of Armenia. Armenian Kurds enjoyed special status as an ethnic minority in the Soviet Union including special programs for economic development. The Kurdish language, far from being banned, enjoyed sponsorship through state-sponsored Kurdish radio, a Kurdish newspaper, and Kurdish cultural events. After the fall of the Soviet Union Armenian Kurds lost language rights and other protections and most Kurds have been forcefully deported or have fled to Germany and other west European countries as well as to Russia (Mehrdad [date?]).

In Turkey, the Kurdish language was illegal up until 1991 when political and armed struggle forced the Turkish government to recognize some Kurdish language rights. Kurds and international human rights organizations, however, still complain of an oppressive situation imposed by the Turkish government (Human Rights Watch 2006).

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein, as a U.S. backed ally at the time, is famous for committing mass murder against the Kurdish speaking population. Today Kurdish literature is still repressed with a number of Kurdish journalists jailed by what the Kurdish leftist opposition considers to be a puppet government of the United States and central government.

Iranian policy forbids the Kurdish language and has attempted to assimilate the Kurds into the dominant Persian culture. Besides the state of war between Iraq and the Kurds in the Iran-Iraq war, there was also a state of war between the Iranian government and Iranian Kurds at that same time. More recently in 2005 the Iranian government opened fire on Kurdish protesters with attack helicopters killing 20 and wounding 200 (Amnesty International 2005). Despite the attempts by the Iranian government to stomp out Kurdish culture, Kurdish literature and histories are available in Iran in both Kurdish and Persian (Blau 2007).

In Syria, the written Kurdish language has been banned since 1958. In 1987 that ban was extended to Kurdish music and Kurdish videos (Amnesty International 2005). Hundreds of thousands of native Syrian Kurds have no citizenship rights, the Kurdish flag is illegal (but still flown), and numerous acts of repression have been documented.

Due to the fact that Kurdish culture is horribly repressed in all of their native lands, today it is the Kurdish Diaspora living in Europe, the United States, and Australia that create most of the new Kurdish literature. This includes poetry, children’s books, newspapers, and magazines. Sweden, with a very enlightened policy towards immigrant populations, encourages Kurds and other groups to continue their languages and cultures and allocates a large amount of money to the relatively small Kurdish population for Kurdish language publications (Blau 2007). In addition works in the Kurdish language are being produced in other countries where funding is harder to come by.

The tenacity of Kurdish culture owes much to its extensive historic roots, pride of its people in their literature and language, and refusal to die in the face of attempts at forced assimilation and brutal repression.

Kurdish Modes of Production and Their Development

Kurdish lands are rich and productive, and they sustain the Kurdish people both through pastoral activity as well as through agriculture (Izady 1992). The gathering of wild nuts, berries, and truffles are also important sources of food and income for the Kurdish people, especially in forested regions (Izady 1992). In addition some of the Kurdish lands are rich in oil resources, but the Kurds have been denied access to this oil wealth.

It is established that a number of domestic animals as well as cereal crops used around the world were first domesticated in Kurdish lands (Izady 1992).

Kurdish pastoralism takes place primarily in areas not suitable for agriculture because they are too high in elevation, to steep, or too low in precipitation (Izady 1992). Pastoral activities were once nomadic, but now encompass only lands within a few days of permanent dwellings. As a result some lands that were traditionally grazed are no longer used (Izady 1992).

Kurdish lands grow large amounts of wheat, barley, rice, cotton, tobacco, sugar beets, olives, corn, sunflowers, soybeans, fruits, and nuts. Many of these are cash crops sold to other areas of the Near East where there is far less arable land (Izady 1992).

In many areas of Kurdistan agriculture is still practiced with ox, mule, or donkey drawn wooden ploughs (Jaff 2007).

A merchant class of Kurds has arisen since the 1950s making a living off of capitalist exchanges (Marriage and Family Encyclopedia 2007).

While participating in the broader economy, household families are the most basic economic unit for rural Kurds. Such households are patrilocal containing the first son and his wife and their children. Households participate in reciprocal non-capitalist labor exchanges and share what the household earns. Urban Kurds often continue this family communal structure, but it sometimes falls apart in the face of wage earners no longer wishing to share their income (Marriage and Family Encyclopedia 2007).

Many rural Kurds also seasonally participate in construction labor in the cities, bringing additional income back to their families (Marriage and Family Encyclopedia 2007).

Reciprocal exchanges are not just confined to households. They also take place between neighbors and kin in a village, and are expected. These communal exchanges also take place among urban Kurds (Marriage and Family Encyclopedia 2007).

In addition tribal Kurds are expected to work for landlords and tribal leaders, with durations of labor not clearly defined (Marriage and Family Encyclopedia 2007).

The labor structure in Kurdish villages reflects the labor-intensive, technologically primitive, agriculture forced on them by the neglect of the oil rich nations many Kurds are part of. Meanwhile, due to discrimination, the petroleum and mining operations in Kurdish areas rarely hire Kurds (Jaff 2007). This contributes to Kurdish poverty in regions that are rich in natural resources; fueling resentment and separatist desires.

Kurdish Sexuality, Birth, Domestic Life, Descent, and Kinship

The Kurdish people are organized in patrilineal clans (Refugee Health 2007). As such there is patriarchal control of marriage and property, with women treated in many ways like property. In addition, political status is often the product of patrilineal descent (Refugee Health 2007). It is a male dominated culture where female sexuality is repressed and women are oppressed.

Rural Kurdish women are allowed to mingle with males, but they are not allowed to make their own decisions regarding sexuality or husbands (Hassanpour 2001). Marriage for Kurdish women is a form of bondage traditionally decided upon by the male members of her family (Hassanpour 2001). These decisions have often been made in the girl’s childhood, and sometimes even before she is born (Hassanpour 2001). In Kurdish Iraq such practices of arranged marriage have been on the wane for a number of years, but family permission and payments for brides are still the rule (Refugee Health 2007).

Rural Kurdish marriages are patrilocal (Hassanpour 2001). The family receiving the bride pays the family she came from (Hassanpour 2001). This price is seen as payment for the labor that will be lost when she moves to live with the groom’s family (Hassanpour 2001). To hold onto the wealth of the village marriages within the village are preferred and marriages between first cousins are often arranged (Refugee Health 2007). Families also sometimes exchange sons and daughters with the same family to save on expenses (Refugee Health 2007).

The male families of urban Kurds do not pay a bride price at the time of marriage. Yet if the male decides to divorce the woman, his family is contractually obliged to pay her family. Urban Kurdish women are also not permitted to ask for a man’s hand in marriage, nor decide to divorce. Divorced women do not have a right to custody of the children (Hassanpour 2001).

Polygamy also sometimes occurs amongst Kurds. In such cases the wives are ranked in status by their age (Hassanpour 2001). While polygamy is not the norm, up to four wives are allowed (Refugee Health 2007).

Like marriage, men hold women’s sexuality under a strict ideal of shame and constraint, including virginity before marriage (Hassanpour 2001). This “ideal” is upheld under the threat, and use of, male violence against women. Such violence includes beatings, pouring acid on faces, shaving heads, and even “honor” killings where women are murdered to by family members to bring back the family’s good name (Kurdish Women’s Rights Watch 2007).

While Kurdish women may be murdered for adultery, no similar treatment is dished out to Kurdish men for the same act (Hassanpour 2001).

Kurds tend to see having large families as the ideal. This grows out of the material need for more laboring hands in the rural areas where most Kurds live, as well as from religious beliefs that consider birth control immoral by Islamic law. Yet there are growing numbers of young couples that ask aid workers for birth control. The birth of a child is celebrated with a feast. (Refugee Health 2007)

While the Kurdish people are oppressed and denied many fundamental rights, Kurdish women are doubly oppressed. While some Kurds have claimed better treatment of women than most of the Islamic world, treatment of Kurdish women does appear to have many similarities to those of the dominating cultures. One difference with Iranian treatment is that Kurdish women are not forced to wear the veil and are generally allowed freer movement than in many traditionally Muslim societies including Iran (Refugee Health 2007).

In Iraq, however, Kurdish women are not historically better off. Currently the Kurdish nationalist parties in power, working with the U.S. occupation, have done much to undermine the gains made for women’s rights during the rule of Saddam Hussein. Under Saddam Hussein’s secular government, Iraqi women had many rights found nowhere else in the historically Islamic world except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Over 50% of Iraqi doctors were women. Iraqi women were allowed to walk unescorted in the streets, to drive, to freely criticize men, and the right to work and control their own funds. Today the Kurdish parties that the U.S. has put in control of Iraqi Kurdistan are working towards adding brutally anti-woman Sharia (Islamic Law) to the constitution that would strip women of more rights. Similar moves are being made by the U.S. imposed central government in Iraq.

In Turkey, it is well documented that the Turkish government has routinely used rape as a weapon in the their counter-insurgency measures against Kurdish separatists (Hilton 2002).

There are many historical examples of Kurdish nationalists and communists speaking out for women’s rights (Hassanpour 2001). Additionally Kurdish parties in Iraq that advocate women’s rights, such as the Worker’s Communist Party of Iraq, have been excluded by the U.S. occupation from participation in elections. Besides in Iraq, the use by the United States of rightwing misogynist Islamic forces against socialists and nationalists with progressive stands on women is well established, with the U.S. bankrolling of the Mujahideen holy war against women’s rights in Afghanistan in the 1980’s being another well known example.

Kurdish women, with the exception of those that lived in Soviet Armenia, have not had the benefit of the feminist movements of the west nor the social revolutions of the Soviet Union and China that greatly advanced women’s rights in those societies. While not achieving perfection, the Chinese and Soviet revolutions outlawed forced marriages and made other giant strides towards women’s equality including in the areas of women’s education, employment, and reproductive rights.

While outsiders may find it easy to judge Kurdish treatment of women, it is worth noting that up until now the Kurdish nation has been denied the right to make any fundamental decisions regarding any policies in their land without outside control. Given the record of the dominating countries, including the United States, it appears that it is only within the context of Kurdish self-determination that the problems of women’s oppression can be solved by the Kurdish people themselves.

Kurdish Political Organization

The Kurdish people have organized themselves into many political organizations that advocate language rights, freedom from the social chauvinism and violence of the dominant cultures, Kurdish independence, and in many cases socialism. These Kurdish political organizations often exist in direct contradiction to widespread feudal village structures and the oppression of women.

The Kurdish Worker’s Party (KKP), one of the main Kurdish resistance groups in Turkey, sees the continuation of feudal political structures on the village level as being the result of oppression and exploitation from the Turkish State. The following emic from the program of the KKP spells out this point of view:
"National oppression exercised by Turkish state through massacres, compulsory resettlement and forced immigration goes on brutally. This oppression manifests itself economically in the fact that Kurdistan is a domestic market for Turkey, plundered and destroyed; politically in the fact that the Kurds are under the oppression of a foreign state, and denied of national sovereignty; and socially and culturally in the national humiliation and cultural backwardness created by continuing tribalism, widespread ignorance and forced assimilation." (The Kurdish Worker’s Party Programme)

The KKP is one of nineteen different Kurdish parties in Turkey (Turkey 2004). Of these thirteen have been declared illegal by the central government, including the KKP (Turkey 2004). On the other hand the Democratic People’s Party, one of the few legal Kurdish parties, does participate in Turkish elections (Turkey 2004). They are a member of the reformist and generally pro-capitalist Socialist International. Parties with stronger political programs for Kurdish independence and for socialism are banned and communities identified with them have faced brutal counter-insurgency methods that have included massacres, the raping of women, and execution of leaders.

In Iraq, two Kurdish parties, working with the U.S. occupation, rule Iraqi Kurdistan. These are the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), and three minor Kurdish parties that have participated in an electoral alliance with the PUK and KDP called National Democratic Kurdish List. In the Kurdish area the National Democratic Kurdish List received 89.55% of the vote in the 2005 elections (Iraq 2005).

While the 2005 vote may appear to show widespread support among Iraqi Kurds for the KDP – PUK –USA government, other reports contradict this. Mass protests have erupted in Kurdish areas against the occupation-imposed lack of electricity and water (Worker-Communist Party of Iraq 2007). In response the KDP – PUK –USA government has used violence against protesters and arrested a number of journalists (Worker-Communist Party of Iraq 2007). Involved in these protests is the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, a political party with members across Iraq of all ethnicities that supports Kurdish rights. In Kurdistan the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq has protested U.S. policy on Kurdistan where they point out that although the Kurdish people in Iraq had gained a high level of economic independence in the last two decades, U.S. policy has in effect annexed Iraqi Kurdistan back into the central government (Worker-Communist Party of Iraq 2007).

Unlike the KDP and PUK, the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. They did this while also opposing the government of Saddam Hussein. In addition the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq, at great risk to their lives, is carrying out a campaign in Kurdistan against the imposition of Sharia (Islamic Law) through the constitution of the puppet KDP and PUK government. They see this as horribly anti-woman and also argue that it will also further increase sectarian violence (Worker-Communist Party of Iraq 2007).

Syria has fourteen different Kurdish political parties (Syria 2004). These organizations are banned in a country where it is illegal to even raise the flag of Kurdistan, yet Syrian Kurds continue to struggle for a homeland.

Iran has five different Kurdish political parties (Iran 2004). These have been involved in a number of uprisings against the central government in the last few years that have faced brutal repression (Kamala 2004). One of these organizations leading the uprisings is the Kamala (Revolutionary Organisation of Toilers of Iranian Kurdistan), a socialist grouping that has been organizing armed struggle against the central Islamic regime. As strong advocates of women’s rights the Kamala were the first Kurdish organization to integrate women into their armed forces (Kamala 2004).

Prior to the 1979 Islamic revolution the Kamala was also one of many leftist and pro-woman organizations struggling against the brutal U.S. imposed monarchy of the Shah of Iran, but in a great tragedy for women and for Kurds, it was chauvinistic Islamists that got the upper hand (Kamala 2004). In their assessment of the Islamic regime the Kamala states, “The Iranian regime has imposed the a series of discriminative policies in Kurdistan, which has ultimately resulted in the military occupation of Kurdistan, widespread poverty amongst this massive population, the suppression of Kurdish culture, drug addiction (especially amongst youth), religious suppression, forced migration, imprisonment, terror, torture, and the Killing of whoever opposing these tyrannical policies."

Armenian Kurds have suffered as well. While Kurds were given special language rights in Soviet Armenia, after the capitalist counter-revolution Kurds in Armenia faced mass violence and forced deportations. I have found no evidence Kurdish political organization in Armenia today.

The fate of Armenia’s largely ethnically cleansed Kurds is what has been attempted by all other countries that dominate the Kurds, elimination of the Kurdish question through violence and forced assimilation. Yet there is stubborn resistance in the will of the Kurdish people that refuses to give up. Instead many Kurds become resistance fighters that are bold enough to see a redrawn map where Kurdistan gains its independence from Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. In addition many are also bold enough to see that future as one that ends feudal backwardness, promotes education, builds socialism, and brings equality for women.

The Socialization of Kurdish Children in Language and Culture

The defining trait of Kurdish culture is their language. The education of Kurdish youth in their native tongue is an essential component, not only in the preservation of Kurdish culture, but also simply in giving the best education to young Kurds. The reason for this is that young people often have many difficulties learning when they are taught in a foreign tongue.

In the early part of the 20th century British colonial authorities in charge of education in Iraq referred to the Kurdish language as “vernacular”. Their educational model was one of teaching in the Kurdish language only at the primary school level, with all higher education in Arabic (The Education of Kurdish Language, 1995-2003).

In 1926 the famous Kurdish nationalist Huzni Mukriyani suggested in a fictional conversation between a Kurdish father and son that ignorance was better than being taught in a foreign tongue. The father states, “My dear son, I like education and I am not an enemy of knowledge and enlightenment, but it is better for you to remain ignorant than to be unaware of your identity, not to study in your language and to serve the strangers...” (The Education of Kurdish Language, 1995-2003).

This emic view of Huzni Mukriyani’s of the over riding importance of children learning in Kurdish wasn’t just based on a nationalistic or romantic desire for cultural preservation, but also grew out of the practical desire of having Kurdish children be able to understand the language they were being taught in. This point was driven home in another line of the fictional conversation where the father states to his son, “You had better become a shepherd, [Or] do ploughing for me. These are better than taking lessons and not understanding them” (The Education of Kurdish Language, 1995-2003).

In the 1950’s, in Iraqi Kurdistan, demands by the Kurdish community for more education in Kurdish began to bear some fruit, but many instructors had difficulty teaching in Kurdish because they had been instructed in Arabic (The Education of Kurdish Language, 1995-2003).

In Turkey, Iran, and Syria education in the Kurdish language has been even more wanting. The Kurdish language was illegal in Turkey up until 1991 and education in the Kurdish language is still lacking (Human Rights Watch 2006).

Yet, as an oppressed people without many educational opportunities, Kurdish children continue to learn their language from their families and communities even when formal education is lacking. Thus, the Kurdish language continues to be passed on to the children, partly out of necessity, partly out of a nationalistic pride and refuses to die or be forcefully assimilated.

Religion In Kurdistan, Belief and Disbelief

Kurds practice a variety of monotheist religions including a number of varieties of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. In addition some Kurdish nationalist movements led by socialists have a strong history of atheism and secularism.

The wide variety of Kurdish religions is due, in part, to the absorption of differing religions from surrounding nationalities. These religions have moved through the region over differing historical times. The predominance of Islam began in the seventh century when most Kurds were converted (Encyclopedia Britannica 2007).

Most religious Kurds are Muslim of the Sunni denomination (Encyclopedia Britannica 2007). Kurdish Sunnis predominantly belong to the Shafi’I sect. Another Islamic denomination found among the beliefs of the Kurdish people is the Shia, primarily of the Alevi sect. A small number of Kurds are also Yezidi Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

There is also a large Sufi influence among many Kurdish Muslims, often cited as a moderating influence on Islamic fundamentalism in many areas, including the oppression of women. Others see that religious moderation; to the point it does exist among the Kurds, is the result of heavy influences from atheistic socialist forces leading many of the struggles against Kurdish national oppression.

While information on the rarest and most obscure religions is often very easy to come by, demographic assessments of atheism are difficult to nearly impossible to obtain for much of the world. This lack of important anthropological data is due, in part, to the fact that atheists are oppressed in much of the world and afraid to identify themselves when attempts are made at collecting such data. But, in addition, there is a glaring shortage of writings that attempt to look at the role of atheism on individual cultures. Perhaps this is due, in part, to the universality of atheism and its lack of quaint provincial deities, sects, or rituals as are found in the thousands of religions of the world.

A look at the political programs the socialists that are playing a leading role in the nationalist liberation movements of Kurdistan does, however, reveal a strong influence of atheism and secularism in their advocacy of women’s rights and opposition to Islamic Law.

It is a tendency found in many mainstream anthropological writings to play up the role of various religions in different societies while ignoring the influences of atheism. Yet it has been atheistic leadership that has led major advances in women’s rights for much of the world’s population. Well known examples are the Chinese and Russian revolutions that outlawed forced marriages, bride prices, and other manifestations of female slavery still suffered by most Kurdistani women.

Likewise it is popular groups with atheistic programs, such as the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) in Turkey, that advocate full emancipation for women. As the PKK states in their program:

“All laws reflecting male domination should be annulled. Violence against women, all forms of control on women’s bodies and lives resulting from outdated custom and traditional habits, and bride’s price should be forbidden.” (KKP Program, 2003)

This program of the PKK is in stark contrast to the harsh anti-woman positions of the Islamic capitalist governments of Iran, Turkey, and Iraq.

While there is good reason to study the role of religions in various societies, anthropological studies are often incomplete if they ignore the role atheism. Kurdish society is no exception where religious belief is mixed with a strong peppering of disbelief.

U.S. Imperialism and the Kurdish Question

While the regime of Saddam Hussein was no friend to the Iraqi Kurdish people, this of course has nothing to do with why the United States government hated Saddam Hussein. This hatred by the U.S. capitalist government is not based on humanitarian concerns. They hated Saddam Hussein for the good things he did, such as the nationalization of Iraqi oil that benefited the people of Iraq by keeping oil wealth in the country for social programs and benefited of the Iraqi economy.

America’s so-called concern for human rights can be seen in the past US interventions in Iraq. Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party first came to power in 1963. Immediately after taking power, based on lists provided by the CIA, they rounded up 5,000 leftists and trade-union leaders and murdered them. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait we were shown pictures of Iraqi Kurds killed by poison gas in the U.S. media. What we were not told is why the US was silent when this was happening and the fact that the US supplied the gas to kill the Kurds and to kill Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. While we are now told of the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people we are not told of how the Turkish government is carrying out the same policies of genocide against the Turkish Kurds, and doing it with U.S. weaponry.

In addition to these proxy genocides by the U.S. government on the Kurdish people the U.S. government has participated directly in the war on Kurds. This occurred on February 15, 1999 when U.S. forces kidnapped Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan and turned him over to the genocidal Turkish government. Subsequently Abdullah Ocalan was sentenced to death for his role in defending Kurdish territory in Turkey from the murderous Turkish military. This U.S. kidnapping was admitted on CNN TV by former Turkish President and ethnic cleanser Suleyman Demiral.

Today, in Iraq, the basic question of Kurds getting a piece of the oil wealth is not on the imperialist agenda. Instead they are pushing through their puppet governments and outside pressure for the oil wealth to be privatized and turned over to U.S. corporations.

Many of the Kurds know that their national interests will never be served by the “liberating” forces of Turkey and Iran or British and American imperialism. This will only be established by the Kurds themselves and by the alliances they build with other anti-imperialist forces. British imperialism divided Kurdistan, a country with its own unique language and culture, into a minority inside the nations of Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Today the Kurds are the largest nation without a homeland in the world. Imperialism, with its motto of divide and conquer, never has and never will solve the Kurdish question. A free and united Kurdistan will only be born through a sweeping socialist revolution that overthrows the capitalist regimes of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria while challenging the military dictates of the United States.

The mutual language and oppression shared by the Kurdish people has solidified the Kurdish identity, even though they have differing religions, and even though they are spread out into five different countries of origin where they are an ethnic minority in each.

Facing violence and attempts at forced assimilation there is stubborn resistance in the will of the Kurdish people that refuses to give up. Instead many Kurds become resistance fighters that are bold enough to see a redrawn map where Kurdistan gains its independence from Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. In addition, many Kurds are also bold enough to see that future as one that ends feudal backwardness, promotes education, builds socialism, and brings equality for women.

This is an article of Liberation News, Subscribe Free:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

References:

Banaz could have been saved. 20 March 2007. Kurdish Women’s Rights Watch. Accessed 5 April 2007. Available from:
http://www.kwrw.org/index.asp?id=83

Blau, Joyce. 2007. The Kurdish Language and Literature. Institut Kurde de Paris. http://www.institutkurde.org/en/language/ Internet.

Chivers, C. J.. Hundreds Disappear Into the Black Hole of the Kurdish Prison System in Iraq. New York Times, 12/26/2006, Vol. 156 Issue 53805, pA12-A12

CIA, The World Fact Book, Armenia. CIA. Feb. 8, 2007.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/am.html

CIA, The World Fact Book, Iran. CIA. Feb. 8, 2007. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2001/ir.html

CIA, The World Fact Book, Iraq. CIA. Feb. 8, 2007. https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

CIA, The World Fact Book, Syria. CIA. Feb. 8, 2007.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/sy.html

CIA, The World Fact Book, Turkey. CIA. Feb. 8, 2007.
https://cia.gov/cia//publications/factbook/geos/tu.html

Donovan, Shane. Kurdistan. Harvard International Review, Fall2006, Vol. 28 Issue 3. p8-8.

Gunter, Michael. The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development. Middle East Journal, Winter2007, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p167-168.

Gunter, Michael. The Kurdish Nationalist Movement: Opportunity, Mobilization and Identity. By: Middle East Journal, Winter2007, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p168-170.

Hassanpour, Amir. The (Re)production of Kurdish Patriarchy in the Kurdish Language. 2001. Accessed 5 April 2007. Available from:
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~mojabweb/publications/0001E478-80000012/0695C74C-001257DC.-1/hassanpour_11.pdf

Hilton, Isabel. 28 May 2002. Turkey’s Record in Kurdistan is a Grim Warning for Afghan Women. The Guardian. Accessed 5 April 2007. Available from:
http://www.rawa.org/turkey2.htm

Human Rights Watch. Questions and Answers: Freedom of Expression and Language Rights in Turkey. 2006. Accessed 2 March 2007. Available from: http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/turkeyqa041902.htm. Internet.

Iran. Leftist Parties of the World. 15 July 2004. Accessed 24 April 2007. Available from: http://www.broadleft.org/ir.htm

Iran: Amnesty International calls for an urgent investigation into the killing of demonstrators. 5 August 2005. Amnesty International. Accessed 3 March 2007. Available from: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE130432005. Internet.

Iraq. Leftist Parties of the World. 02 October 2005. Accessed 24 April 2007. Available from: http://www.broadleft.org/iq.htm

Izady, Mehrdad. Kurdish Literature. Accessed 2 March 2007. Available from:
http://www.kurdishacademy.org/english/literature/literature.html. Internet.

Izady, Prof. M.R. 1992. Kurds, A Concise Handbook. Accessed 6 April 2007. Available from: http://www.kurdistanica.com/english/economy/agriculture/the_agriculture.html

Jaff, Dr, Akram. The Fractured Economy of Kurdistan. Accessed 6 April 2007. Available from: http://www.kurd.org/about/economy.htm

Kamala. 2004. Accessed 24 April 2007. Available from: http://www.komala.org/

Khan, Adnan. Kurds Matter. Maclean's, 12/25/2006, Vol. 119 Issue 51, p31-32.

Klein, Janet. Kurdish nationalists and non-nationalist Kurdists: rethinking minority nationalism and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1909. Nations & Nationalism, Jan2007, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p135-153.

Kurdish Families - Kurdish Family And Households. 2007. Accessed 6 April 2007. Available from: http://family.jrank.org/pages/1025/Kurdish-Families-Kurdish-Family-Households.html

Kurdish Refugees From Iraq. Refugee Health. Accessed 5 April 2007. Available from:
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/kurdish_refugees.htm

Kurds. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed 16 May 2007, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9275335

Kutschera, Chris. A sanctuary in Kurdistan. Middle East, Jan2007 Issue 374, p62-63.

Lowe, Robert. The Syrian Kurds: A People Discovered. Middle East Program. Chatham House. Jan2006,

Olson, Robert. Turkey's Policies Toward Kurdistan-Iraq and Iraq: Nationalism, Capitalism, and State Formation. Mediterranean Quarterly, Winter2006, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p48-72

Questions and Answers: Freedom of Expression and Language Rights in Turkey. 2006. Accessed 2 March 2007. Available from: http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/turkeyqa041902.htm. Internet.

Repression of Kurds in Syria is widespread. Amnesty International. March2005. http://web.amnesty.org/wire/March2005/Syria.

Syria: Kurds in the Syrian Arab Republic One Year After the March 2004 Events. 10 March 2005. Amnesty International. Accessed 2 March 2007. Available from: http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/MDE240022005ENGLISH/$File/MDE2400205.pdf. Internet.

Syria. Leftist Parties of the World. 22 June 2004. Accessed 24 April 2007. Available from: http://www.broadleft.org/sy.htm

Talabany, Nouri. The Kurdish Case. Middle East Quarterly, Winter2007, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p75-78.

The Communist Party of Kurdistan (KKP) Program. 2003. Denge Kurdistan. Accessed 16 May 2007. Available from: Available from: http://www.dengekurdistan.com/index.asp?ziman=eng

The Education of Kurdish Language. 1995-2003. Kurdistan Web. Accessed 16 May 2007. Available from: http://www.kurdishacademy.org/english/education/education.html

The plight of the Kurds. Economist, 1/27/2007, Vol. 382 Issue 8513, p52-52.

Turkey. Leftist Parties of the World. 31 August 2004. Accessed 24 April 2007. Available from: http://www.broadleft.org/tr.htm

Worker-Communist Party of Iraq. 03 April 2007. Accessed 24 April 2007. Available from: http://www.wpiraq.net/english/index.htm

Yeğen, Mesut. Turkish nationalism and the Kurdish question. Ethnic & Racial Studies, Jan2007, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p119-151.

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society

Tedster — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:52:02 GMT

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/25/18449686.php

Americas | International | San Francisco | Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism | Government & Elections
Central America Free Trade Agreement Dividing Costa Rican Society
by brendan behan ( brendanb [at] globalizethissf.org )
Tuesday Sep 25th, 2007 12:35 PM

For the first time in the history of world, a voting population will have the opportunity to vote on a free trade agreement in a referendum. Costa Rican voters will be asked to decide whether or not to accept CAFTA. The referendum is is set to take place on October 7, 2007, and if more than 30% of the voting population turns out for the vote, the results could be considered legally binding.

CAFTA-DR would fundamentally change thousands of laws that are presently in place in Costa Rica, as it has already done in other countries that are party to the agreement--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic--who have already ratified CAFTA-DR and begun implemention. One of the most critical legal changes required by DR-CAFTA are the elimination or substantial transformation of laws protecting natural resources from foreign purchase or control.

Key features of CAFTA-DR include allowing highly subsidized U.S. agriculture to gain immediate duty-free access to CAFTA-DR markets, excluding competitors from CAFTA-DR markets so as to protect U.S. textiles & apparel under the 'Yarn Forward' Rule, non-reciprocal & anti-free trade sanction measures allowing the United States to impose tariffs on certain goods in the event of 'import surges,' protecting international investors, entitling corporate entities to full compensation for the market value of any properties, natural resources, or goods that are nationalized or expropriated by Central American countries, privatizating all social services and allowing U.S. companies to bid on these privatized public industries, including education and environmental services.

marcha_contra_el_tlc_001_-_de_bloque_verde_225w.jpg
marcha_contra_el_tlc_001_...

Central America Free Trade Agreement Dividing Costa Rican Society

by brendan behan of Globalize THIS!
http://www.globalizethissf.org

Sept. 25, 2007 - Even after more than 13 years of environmental degradation and dramatically increasing gaps between the rich and poor which have left workers in the U.S., Canada, and México out in the cold, the Bush Administration continues to push the NAFTA model on other countries throughout Latin America.

The mistakes of NAFTA have been duplicated and codified in the text of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), which was negotiated starting in 2003 between the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua--the Dominican Republic later joined the negotiations in 2004--and signed in 2005.

The agreement requires, among many other stipulations, that 80% of all tariffs on U.S. goods entering CAFTA-DR nations be eliminated immediately and that the remaining tariffs be phased out over the next ten years.

CAFTA-DR represents the next step toward the swallowing of the American continents by shady, back-room trade deals like those that gave rise NAFTA.

However, opposition groups in Costa Rica quickly organized to demonstrate against the agreement, citing the threat that CAFTA-DR poses to the environment, workers' rights, economic sustainability, and Costa Rican autonomy and have successfully forced the government to acknowledge the voice of the people in the public arena.

For the first time in the history of world, a voting population will have the opportunity to vote on a free trade agreement in a referendum. Costa Rican voters will be asked to decide whether or not to accept CAFTA. The referendum is is set to take place on October 7, 2007, and if more than 30% of the voting population turns out for the vote, the results could be considered legally binding.

Submitting the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement to a referendum in Costa Rica is perhaps the most democratic approach to a free trade agreement that the world has yet seen in that it is the first instance in world history of a voting population's having direct veto power over a free trade agreement. This is in stark contrast to the manner in which DR-CAFTA was negotiated, which was without public input and behind closed doors under President Bush's now-expired Fast Track Authority.

CAFTA-DR would fundamentally change thousands of laws that are presently in place in Costa Rica, as it has already done in other countries that are party to the agreement--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic--who have already ratified CAFTA-DR and begun implemention. One of the most critical legal changes required by DR-CAFTA are the elimination or substantial transformation of laws protecting natural resources from foreign purchase or control. Any one of Costa Rica's local laws protecting natural resources, such as sub-soil energy resources, could legally be challenged under DR-CAFTA as a barrier to trade in binding international arbitration panels overseen by unaccountable, unelected trade lawyers--not elected representatives of the people--who are empowered by the agreement to render the final decision.

These provisions would seriously inhibit the power of local communities to legally prevent multinational corporations from environment pillage as DR-CAFTA would provide legal recourse to these polluters to sue government institutions seeking such protections. This represents a very profound change in the democratic structures of these localities, placing the destinies of these communities--literally, their ability to live in an environment free of toxic pollutants--out of their hands permanently.

Among other provisions in CAFTA-DR, parties to the agreement would be compelled to consider nuclear waste as a tradable good in the eyes of the law. This could potentially mean that if a private corporation in the United States, which, quite importantly, is the only party to the agreement with a substantial nuclear industry, were contracted by the U.S. government to dispose of its nuclear waste in another country, the company could sue for the right to dump these radioactive 'tradable goods' in Costa Rica even if existing laws prohibit it, under provisions in DR-CAFTA which preclude governments from implementing laws that discriminate against certain industries or corporations. DR-CAFTA bestows the right upon these companies to sue local, regional, and national governments for not allowing such dumping of toxins and other public hazards and to also collect financial compensation from such legal bodies should the arbitration panels side in favor of the corporations.

These foreign corporations who are not beholden to these local communities do not have to bear the impact of their actions while the surrounding communities do. It has long been recognized by major economic thinkers like Joseph Stiglitz and others that the only means of preventing these corporations from perpetually hoisting these noxious externalized costs onto surrounding communities is by democratic political change, which means regulation.

In the context of Costa Rica, this presents the possibility of a new kind of internationalized environmental racism since Costa Rica's indigenous communities and their lands were the only indigenous groups to be excluded from DR-CAFTA's indigenous communities' exemption clauses.

Other key features of CAFTA-DR are as follows:

-Highly subsidized U.S. agriculture gains immediate duty-free access despite the fact that these subsidies keep prices of U.S. goods at artificially low levels, which is inconsistent with free trade doctrine

-Excluding competitors from CAFTA-DR markets so as to protect U.S. textiles & apparel under the 'Yarn Forward' Rule; summarizing the U.S. Trade Representative, the 'yarn forward' rule requries that apparel using yarns and fabric from the United States and CAFTA-DR countries qualify for duty-free benefits. This includes fabrics, yarn, garment pockets, thread, narrow elastic fabrics, and visible linings. The legal implications are that any garments produced with fabrics originating from countries other than the U.S. (particularly China, which is a main competitor of the U.S. in this area) will be subject to tariffs, creating a protected market for U.S. textiles, yarns, threads, fabrics, and more

-Non-reciprocal & anti-free trade sanction measures allowing the United States to impose tariffs on certain goods in the event of 'import surges'

-Protection for International Investors including equal treatment for U.S. investors and CAFTA-DR domestic investors

-Corporate entities would be entitled to full compensation for the market value of any properties, natural resources, or goods that are nationalized or expropriated by Central American countries

-The right for investors to sue governments and be compensated for violations of CAFTA-DR

-Privatization of all social services and access for U.S. companies to bid on these privatized public services, including education and environmental services

-Increased protections for socially contentious patents and intellectual property rights, including trademarks, and pharmaceutical test data that is currently used to produce cheap, generic drugs that are far more affordable to the poor

-Protecting plant DNA patents and allowing for the patenting of nature; enforcement mechanisms would include requiring any farmer caught growing patented crops, whether intentionally or in the event of the unintentional 'contamination' of their crops by genetically modified varieties, to destroy their fields or face imprisonment and/or fines

-Limiting public access to cheap, generic pharmaceuticals, which will most greatly impact poor

-Environmental protection mechanisms will be limited to market-based 'No Punishment, Voluntary Atonement' solutions disallowing local governments from sanctioning gross violators of environmental laws

-The explicit elimination of the possibility that labor and environment violations can be punished by means of sanctioning or withholding trade access

-Labor & environment disputes are relegated to a toothless public hearings procedure with no binding enforcement mechanisms

The notion that these kinds of polluting industries have a right to force their externalized costs onto local communities is completely at odds with any basic understanding of democracy—which, one must remember, does not equate with the 'freedom to do business,' but rather the freedom to control one's own life within the social landscapes that one operates.

Of what value is freedom in any sense, if one cannot have the ability to maintain the safety of the most basic necessities of life: our water, our food, and our air? Communities do have a democratic right to limit corporation's externalized costs, especially when those externalized costs do not just inhibit our freedom to live in a toxin-free environment, but also may inhibit our right to prevent those toxins from entering our systems.
http://www.globalizethissf.org
© 2000–2007 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

An open discussion about Anarchy

RPMcMurphy — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:11:54 GMT

http://99thpercentile.tribe.net/thread/bc7e3b60-736d-4f9e-a3a4-87af1a13e095

Hi ... I moderate the 99th percentile tribe...
In an effort to increase the diversity in discussions I am inviting other tribes to collaborate with us...
please join us in an open discussion about the contradictions and future of Anarchy

Thanks,
Mike

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

General Strike On 9/11

Robert — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:29:47 GMT

spread the word, folks!

http://www.strike911.org/

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Hello! I am Efrit Mbotu.

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:17:40 GMT

I am interest in class warfare in my contry we have Shell Oil who have hurt my people.

posted in //class war// - 6 replies

Mumia Abu-Jamal: When Wars Backfire

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:35:47 GMT

When Wars Backfire [col. writ. 7/12/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal

For most Americans, the Iraq War is a wrap.

Polls taken today overwhelmingly reveal the deeply held belief that the Iraq War was an error of epic proportions, and barely a third of those polled now claim to support the policies of the incumbent president, George W. Bush.

With the exception of a few true believers, most folks want to push that era blithely into the past, to be forgotten, if not forgiven.

That deeply held belief is now echoed by all segments of society, even among elites who were previously silent, or even supported the war.

The 'stay the course' crowd has been whittled down nearly to the bone. Witness the presidential ambitions of Sen. John McCain. His joined-at-the- hip support of the Bush administration has cost him dearly, as his poll numbers surge--downwards.

Recently, British newspaper and TV journalist, Jonathan Freedland, gave some sense of the breadth of opposition to the administration in a June 2007 essay in the New York Review of Books. Freedman wrote:

"One of the few foreign policy achievements of the Bush Administration has been the creation of a near consensus among those who study International affairs, a shared view that stretches, however improbably, from Noam Chomsky to Brent Scowcroft, from the antiwar protestors on the streets of San Francisco to the well-upholstered office of former secretary of state James Baker. This new consensus holds that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a calamity, that the presidency of has reduced America's standing in the world and made the less, not more, secure, leaving its enemies emboldened and its friends alienated. Paid-up members of the nation's foreign policy establishment, those who have held some of the most senior offices in the land, speak in a language once confined to the T-shirts of placard-wielding demonstrators. They rail against deception and dishonesty, imperialism and corruption. The only dispute between them is over the size and depth of the hole into which Bush has led the country he pledged to serve." (From: Freedland, J., "Bush's Amazing Achievement" , NYROB, June 14, 2007, p. 16)

His words had an almost eerie quality to them when the news recently reported that Al-Qaeda is stronger now, especially with the influx of recruits, than at any time since 9/11.

If, after 4 1/2 years of war, your enemy is stronger, then to claim to be "winning in Iraq" (as some Bushites do), is a kind of madness, if not profound self-delusion.

Wars either weaken combatants, or strengthens them.

As journalist Larry Everest has reported in his 2004 book, Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda (Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press, 2004), the highest levels of government sought to use any lie to tie the Hussein regime with Al-Qaeda, including sending then CIA head, James Woolsey, to London with fake 'evidence' to get the Brits on board. As Everest wrote:

Woolsey then began raising various charges against Iraq: that Iraqi agents met with Mohammed Atta, the alleged "ringleader" of the September 11 attacks: that Iraq provided fake passports for all 19 hijackers; that Al Qaeda members traveled to Baghdad in 1998 to celebrate Saddam Hussein's birthday; that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members; and that Iraq was linked to anthrax mailed to U.S. Senators in October 2001. There was no real proof for any of these charges...in fact it later turned out that the most likely source for the anthrax letters was someone associated with the U.S. military. Yet these charges were widely reported in the mainstream U.S. media nonetheless. (p.12)

And now, with the U.S. Army recruiting down, Al Qaeda is flourishing, mostly in the country that the U.S. claims as 'ally', Pakistan.

Amazing.

If this is winning, what does failure look like?

--(c) '07maj

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner in the United States, with what could be the final decision on his legal appeals possibly coming down this summer. That decision could give Mumia his freedom, life in prison, or execution. It is time to turn up the heat against this injustice. Free Mumia Abu-Jamal!

For more on the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal read:

Top Ten “Fry Mumia” Myths Debunked
(Myth #1) “Five eyewitnesses saw Mumia shoot officer Faulkner.”
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/2007/07/41176.shtml

posted in //class war// - 2 replies

Top Ten “Fry Mumia” Myths Debunked (Myth #1) “Five eyewitnesses saw Mumia shoot officer Faulkner.”

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:07:29 GMT

Top Ten “Fry Mumia” Myths Debunked
(Myth #1) “Five eyewitnesses saw Mumia shoot officer Faulkner.”

By Steven Argue

The following is the first in a series of ten articles I have written answering the top ten myths being circulated by those who advocate execution or continued prison for Mumia Abu-Jamal.

(Myth #1) “Five eyewitnesses saw Mumia shoot officer Faulkner.”

In the preliminary hearings, Mumia made requests for a line-up. This is not the kind of move one does if they are guilty. Part of Mumia’s reasoning was that eyewitnesses that were lying would have a harder time with their conscience if they actually saw him in the flesh.

Interestingly enough, the prosecution didn’t want a line-up and argued their point saying that none of the witnesses had actually seen Mumia shoot Faulkner. Judge Sabo denied the line-ups on these grounds. Yet two “eyewitnesses”, Cynthia White and Robert Chobert, did claim they saw Mumia shoot Faulkner, so Mumia was unfairly denied a line-up.

Supposed Witness To Mumia Shooting Faulkner Number One…
Prosecution Star Witness Cynthia White

Despite the false claims by the prosecution used to deny a line-up, Cynthia White did testify that she saw Mumia with a gun in his hand, that she saw him shoot Faulkner twice in the back, and that she saw Mumia standing over Faulkner as shots were being fired. Overwhelming physical and eyewitness evidence proves that this was perjured testimony.

The prosecution’s version of events, largely dependent on White’s testimony, claims that Mumia stood over Faulkner repeatedly shooting and missing until he hit Faulkner’s head. Yet the physical evidence says this is not true. No divots or marks were left on the sidewalk from these missed shots. Later articles will explore this and other physical evidence further.

As a prosecution witness, Cynthia White gave two extremely different versions of events at two different trials. One version was given at William Cook’s trial, and a differing version at Mumia’s trial. At Cook’s trial she said there was a passenger in Cook’s VW. At Mumia’s trial she claimed there was no passenger.

In the case of Mumia, eyewitnesses have said that the passenger in Cook’s VW was one of the actual killers. Yet Mumia was not riding in the VW and the prosecution claims that Mumia was the lone killer. So in Mumia’s trial, it was useful for the prosecution to disappear the passenger from the testimony, despite White’s other testimony that there was a passenger. These two differing versions, obviously including perjured testimony, were cynically used by prosecutors to fit differing prosecutions.

There is also physical evidence of a passenger in the VW, evidence that was illegally suppressed by the prosecution for 13 years. That evidence was an ID found on the body of Officer Faulkner. It was in the name of Arnold Howard. As a result of this evidence, Arnold Howard was arrested by the police and tested to see if he had fired a gun the night of the shooting. Arnold Howard told the police that he had loaned his ID to Kenneth Freeman. (Transcript for August 11, 1995, pp. 130-131.)

In addition, Arnold Howard testified at that post conviction hearing that Kenneth Freeman was also arrested that night, and that Howard personally witnessed a woman picking Freeman out of a line-up. Like Arnold Howard’s ID, police reports of this arrest and line-up of Kenneth Freeman have also apparently been suppressed, but in this case have never been released.

The VW driver, William Cook, also placed Kenneth Freeman as the passenger in the VW. In Cook’s signed declaration of what happened he also says Freeman was carrying a .38 that night. Cook went on to say, in that declaration, that after the shooting,

“Poppi [Kenneth Freeman] talked about a plan to kill Faulkner. He told me that he was armed on that night and participated in the shooting. He was connected and knew all kinds of people. I used to ask him about it but he talked but never said much. He wasn't a talker. I didn't see Poppi [Kenneth Freeman] for a while after that. Poppi [Kenneth Freeman] had been in Germany in the army. That night he was wearing his green army jacket.”

Eyewitness William Singletary says that a man in a green army jacket got out of the VW, shot Faulkner, and ran. Mumia Abu-Jamal was not wearing an army jacket that night and not riding in the VW. Nor did Mumia run away, he was shot and ran nowhere. The jacket Mumia was wearing is in evidence and it is a red quilted ski jacket with a couple blue stripes. Nor was William Cook, the driver of the VW, wearing a green army jacket.

The prosecution’s version of events denies anyone on the scene wearing a green army jacket. Besides Singletary and Cook, five other eyewitnesses also put a man in a green army jacket on the scene. These were stake out Officer Forbes (the putative first officer to arrive), Officer Stephen Trembetta, Robert Magiltan, Michael Scanlan, and Arnold Beverly, who has confessed to being one of two people that killed Faulkner. Beverly states in his confession that he was also wearing a green army jacket that night as well.

In addition, the prosecution’s version of events denies anyone running from the scene.
Six eyewitnesses contradict this by saying they saw men running from the scene. These would have been the real shooter or shooters. Those eyewitnesses are Dessie Hightower, William Singletary, Veronica Jones, Robert Chobert, Arnold Beverly, and William Cook.

So the prosecution’s star witness testified for the prosecution that there was a passenger at Cook’s trial, and said there was no passenger at Mumia’s trial. Eyewitness testimony and physical evidence suppressed by the prosecution shows there was a passenger wearing a green army jacket that shot Faulkner and ran. That passenger, Kenneth Freeman, murdered Officer Faulkner either by himself or with the help of Arnold Beverly. On May 14, 1985, according to the testimony of Arnold Howard, Kenneth Freeman’s naked corpse was found outside in the cold handcuffed. No investigation was carried out on Freeman’s death and the coroner reported the cause of death to be a heart attack.

So it is established, with her contradictory stories, that Cynthia White was not telling the truth. This would be bad enough. But, in fact, none of the nine eyewitnesses that testified at the trial and subsequent hearings can remember seeing Cynthia White at the immediate scene at all. None, this includes the other prosecution witnesses.

William Singletary states that he saw her earlier down the street. When he saw her she said, “Hey, how you doing? It's cold out here.” Then noticing his car she said “a brand-new Cadillac Eldorado, 1982 model, wow, that's a great car! You ain't that bad-looking either. But I don't date black guys.” To which Singletary says he responded, “And I don't date prostitutes.” Singletary says that she then walked down the street and didn’t actually see the shooting. ("Witness: Abu-Jamal didn't do it" Philadelphia Daily News Dec. 8, 2006)

In fact, Cynthia White confessed to both Pamela Jenkins and Yvette Williams that she did not see the shooting and that the police put the screws to her to lie. In addition, a mountain of testimony shows a clear pattern by the police to try to get similar perjured testimony from other people.

In a hearing after the trial Pamela Jenkins testified, “I know that Cynthia White worked as a prostitute in the Center City area, specifically at Locust and 13th Street, during 1980 and 1981, and that she was a prostitute, police informant, and turned tricks for the police officers in the district.”

If in fact Cynthia White was a police informant, and this information was withheld from the defense by the prosecution, that alone would be legal grounds for a new trial, but it gets much worse.

Jenkins testified at hearings in 1997 that Police Officer Thomas Ryan tried to make her testify that she saw Mumia shoot Officer Faulkner at the original trial, even though she was not at the scene of the shooting. Jenkins, 15 and a prostitute, was the girlfriend of Officer Ryan at that time. She also testified that she worked both as a prostitute for police and as a police informant for the corrupt Center City Police.

Jenkins also testified that Cynthia White told her in late 1981 that she was also being pressured to testify against Mumia, and that White was afraid for her life.

In a signed affidavit Jenkins states,

“Tom Ryan, Richard Ryan and other police officers pressured me and asked me if I had seen the shooting of the police officer and whether I had been in the area of the shooting that night. When I said 'no' they pressured (me) some more and asked me was I really sure that I hadn't been on the street that night and seen the shooting. It was clear to me that Tom Ryan and Richard Ryan wanted me to perjure myself and say that I had seen Jamal shoot the police officer."

Despite showing a clear intention by the police to frame Mumia, no jury has been allowed to hear Jenkins’ testimony in Mumia’s case. Not only is Pamela Jenkin's testimony essential evidence of a deliberate police conspiracy to frame Mumia by manufacturing perjured evidence, it also helps to destroy the testimony of the prosecution’s star witness, Cynthia White.

Jenkins' credibility has, however, been bolstered by the fact that she was a key witness used to unravel the massive police corruption in Center City District. Her testimony was instrumental in reversing the decisions of hundreds of cases and helped lead to the removal of the entire team of cops that led the “investigation” of Mumia’s case due to their corruption and mob connections.

Other eyewitnesses have said the same thing as Jenkins. In a signed affidavit Yvette Williams has stated,

“I was in jail with Cynthia White in December of 1981 after Police Officer Daniel Faulkner was shot and killed. Cynthia White told me the police were making her lie and say she saw Mr. Jamal shoot Officer Faulkner when she really did not see who did it.”

Later in the Affidavit Yvette Williams states,

“When Lucky [Cynthia White] told me she didn’t even see who shot Officer Faulkner, I asked her why she was “lying on that man” [Mumia Abu-Jamal]. She told me it was because for the police and vice threatened her life. Additionally, the police were giving her money for tricks. “The way she talked, we were talking “G’s” [$1,000.00]. She also said she was terrified of what the police would do to her if she didn’t say that Mumia shot Officer Faulkner. According to Lucky, the police told her they would consolidate all her cases and send her “up” (Muncy), a women’s prison, for a long time if she didn’t testify to what they told her to say. Lucky told me she had a lot of open cases and out-of-state warrants and was scared of going to Muncy. She was scared that her pimp “would get pissed off” at all the money he was losing when she was locked up, and off the street. She was afraid that when she got out he would beat her up or kill her.”

According to legal papers filed by the defense,

“in the days after the shooting, [White] was arrested at least twice for prostitution. Her picture was posted in the 6th District with instructions for arresting officers to 'Contact Homicide'. Each time police picked White up and took her statement, she revised her story [on Faulkner's shooting]. Without explanation, bench warrants against her were not prosecuted.”

Pamela Jenkins has publicly asked Cynthia White to tell the truth stating:

“We know we can bring this down to a nutshell if you just come forward. We've all lost a lot by coming forward, I've lost somebody I love dearly... Just do it this one time, one favor, that's not asking a lot. Then maybe you can clean up your past, like the rest of us are doing.”

The prosecution does seem to be afraid of Cynthia White coming forward to tell the truth, and have presented false testimony of evidence that she is dead. In a hearing in Judge Sabo’s court, a Philadelphia police detective testified that the FBI had "authenticated" that a corpse had the same fingerprints as White. Yet the fingerprints the DA withheld at that time, and later finally produced for the now cremated corpse, don’t match the fingerprints of Cynthia White.

Cynthia White’s own mother stated that the same corpse was not Cynthia White. Other eyewitnesses, that the defense attempted to have testify, testimony denied by Sabo, had seen Cynthia White alive and walking around during the time she was supposed to be dead. Yet instead of hearing defense witnesses that stated that Cynthia White was alive, the only testimony Sabo would allow was the false testimony of the Philadelphia detective claiming “authenticated” fingerprints. Sabo snapped, “As far as I’m concerned she’s dead. I’m making a ruling. We’re finished.” Evidence has never meant much in Judge Sabo’s court, if the prosecution says she’s dead, she’s dead.

So the evidence on Cynthia White shows that she could not have seen the shooting; that Mumia was wrongly denied his right to a line-up; that the police intimidated White and others to testify against Mumia; that the police that “investigated” Mumia have been kicked off the force for corruption; that Cynthia White had a motive to lie; that the police possibly withheld information that Cynthia White was a police informant; that the DA illegally withheld physical evidence for 13 years that showed that White’s testimony was perjured and that showed that Mumia did not commit the crime; that the DA knowingly used testimony from White that was perjured; and that claims of the prosecution and police were accepted without evidence or witness rebuttal in Judge Sabo’s court.

Essential Eyewitnesses Ignored By “Fry Mumia” Fanatics Number One, Pamela Jenkins

I include Pamela Jenkins in this list, not because the “fry Mumia” camp includes her among the eyewitnesses that supposedly saw Mumia kill Faulkner, but because they don’t, and why they don’t. As was shown in the section on Cynthia White, the police tried to pressure here into testifying that she saw Mumia kill Faulkner, even though Jenkins was not at the scene of the shooting, but Jenkins refused to do it. The honesty of Jenkins is the only reason why the prosecution did not use her, and this also why she is not mentioned in the “fry Mumia” literature as seeing Mumia shoot Faulkner.

Essential Eyewitnesses Ignored By “Fry Mumia” Fanatics Number Two, Veronica Jones

Veronica Jones also is not mentioned in the fry Mumia literature, but she is also a very important eyewitness. Jones, while being called by the defense in 1982, testified for the police and prosecution.

Before the trial, Veronica Jones gave a completely different version of events than was contained in an earlier police report. In her original version of events, contained in a report she gave to police, Veronica Jones said she saw two men running from the scene. Yet at the trial the two men running were missing from her testimony. This came as a complete surprise to the defense because Mumia’s supposed attorney, Anthony Jackson, did not even bother to interview witnesses before the trial. Earlier in the trial Mumia was denied his legal rights when his attempt to fire Anthony Jackson was denied by Judge Sabo.

Jones retracted her 1982 court testimony in 1996, saying that her original police report was the truth, and that she was coerced by the police into saying she didn’t see anybody running from the scene. She gave this testimony despite being forcefully reminded by Judge Sabo that her testimony could be seen as an admission of perjury and could land her seven years in prison. She was in fact arrested from the witness stand, but for a bounced check from a different state, being served with an insufficient warrant by out of state New Jersey State Troopers.

Despite the police harassment, and a review of her entire criminal history on the witness stand, including her life as a prostitute, Jones brought her children to court to learn from her mistakes. She explained that she was relieved to be setting things straight because what she did to Mumia with her false testimony had been eating her up inside over all those years.

On the stand, admitting to perjury, Jones explained that she was awaiting trial for an unrelated robbery charge in 1982 when police detectives approached her in her cell offering to give her a deal by changing her story as a witness in Mumia’s case. She had originally stated that she heard two shots, looked around the corner, and saw two men running from the scene. The two men running fit the version of William Singletary where he saw someone else shoot Mumia and run, but it didn’t fit the police/prosecution story being woven against Mumia. Mumia was unable to run because he was shot.

She explained that the deal offered by the police was that she could go to prison for five to ten years and loose custody of her two young children or she could get out of the predicament by lying for the police saying that nobody was running from the scene.

Despite the importance of the testimony of Veronica Jones in Mumia’s case, both in corroborating eyewitnesses that say the actual killer or killers ran from the scene, and as another witness testifying to a clear pattern of police intimidation to acquire falsified testimony, Sabo ruled in 1996 against her testimony being heard by a new jury trial.

Likewise, in the original trial, Sabo ruled in favor of prosecution objections when Veronica Jones was already admitting to being the target of the police in their attempts at gaining false testimony:

"I had got locked up [together with other prostitutes] I think it was in January [1982]. […] I think sometime after that incident. They were getting on me telling me I was in the area and I seen Mumia, you know, do it, intentionally. They were trying to get me to say something that the other girl [Cynthia White] said. I couldn’t do that."

As Jackson continued this questioning Veronica Jones said, “we had brought up Cynthia [White]’s name and they told us we can work the area [as prostitutes] if we tell them [what the police wanted to hear].” At this point Judge Sabo ruled in favor of prosecutor McGill’s objections and would only allow further questions of Veronica Jones on what she saw the night of the shooting. As from the beginning of the trial, ruling after ruling has declared, police misconduct is not open to scrutiny and a court of law is no place for evidence of Mumia’s innocence.

Supposed Witness To Mumia Shooting Faulkner Number Two, Michael Scanlon

The use of Michael Scanlon’s name in “fry Mumia” literature as a witness to Mumia committing the murder is nothing but the purest cynicism. Michael Scanlon did not identify Mumia as the person who shot Faulkner, and could not say that the person he saw shoot Faulkner was Mumia. At the trial, when asked by prosecutor Mcgill, “Are you able to identify anybody, either the driver, or the man who ran over and shot the police officer?” Scanlon replied, “No, sir.” (trial transcript, 6/25/82).

Michael Scanlon’s testimony actually puts further holes in the prosecution’s story by placing someone in a green army jacket in the immediate scene of the shooting around the VW. According to the prosecution only Mumia, Cook, and Faulkner were present at this location, but the evidence shows that one or two people were present wearing green army jackets that killed Faulkner before Mumia arrived. The jackets Mumia and Cook were wearing are in evidence and they do not resemble green army jackets.

Supposed Witness To Mumia Shooting Faulkner Number Three, Albert Magiltan

Like Scanlon, Magiltan is used in the “fry Mumia” literature as a witness to Mumia committing the murder, and like Scanlan, Magilton did not identify Mumia as the person who shot Faulkner. When Magiltan was asked at the trial, "you don't know who fired the shot at him, do you?" Albert Magiltan responded, "I never said I did, no." (trial transcript, 6/25/82). Magiltan didn’t even see the shooting.

Magilton did, however, report to defense investigators that he saw a person run from the parking lot wearing a green army jacket. This fits the confession of Arnold Beverly, who says he ran out from the parking lot, wearing a green army jacket, to shoot Faulkner.

Essential Eyewitness Ignored By “Fry Mumia” Fanatics Number Three, Police Officer Stephen Trombetta

Police Officer Stephen Trombetta reported that the suspect was wearing a green army jacket as opposed to Mumia’s red and blue ski jacket.

In addition, Trombetta rode with Mumia in the van to the hospital. Inspector Alfonso Giordano, the senior officer on the scene in charge of the Mumia “investigation”, reported that on that van ride Mumia had confessed to shooting Faulkner. Giordano was removed from the Philadelphia Police and prosecuted for corruption immediately after Mumia’s trial. P.O. Trembetta was with Mumia during that entire van ride and, in direct contradiction to Giordano’s claim of a confession, reported that Mumia made no comment.

Essential Eyewitness Despised By “Fry Mumia” Fanatics Number Four, William Singletary

While William Singletary did sign a statement saying that Mumia did it, he later stated that he signed that statement under the duress of police threats. Of that statement he says, “That's what they made me say, I stayed in there [in a police interrogation room] from 4:30 to 9:30 a.m. and when I left, I felt like I had been raped.”

William Singletary has since stated, "Mumia Abu-Jamal didn't shoot Daniel Faulkner. The passenger in the right-hand side of the Volkswagen got out of the car and shot him [Faulkner]. When Mumia came on the scene, we [Singletary and another man] were on the police radio trying to radio for help." ("Witness: Abu-Jamal didn't do it" Philadelphia Daily News Dec. 8, 2006)

Despite signing the statement, Singletary refused to lie for the police during the trial. Yet the “fry Mumia” camp often cite Singletary as an eyewitness against Mumia stating that his statement (that he says the police typed up and told him to sign) was so similar to those of the other “eyewitnesses” that his first signed statement had to be the truth and that what Singletary has been insisting for the past 25 years is a lie.

Singletary says that he is willing to take a lie detector test, but he is afraid of coming to Philadelphia. He says the Philadelphia police harassed his business to the point that it went under while also threatening him and warning him to get out of town. He did eventually move to North Carolina and says, “I'm not coming to Philadelphia unless y'all got Wells Fargo and Lords of London" for protection.

Supposed Witness To Mumia Shooting Faulkner Number Four, Robert Chobert

In his initial report taken by Inspector Alfonzo Giordono, five minutes after the shooting, Robert Chobert stated that the man that shot Mumia ran away. Mumia, who was shot at the scene, never did any running.

Later, Robert Chobert changed his story to that of the prosecution. The shooter no longer was running away and the jury was never allowed to hear Chobert’s original report.

Robert Chobert, a convicted arsonist that was driving on a suspended license and was on felony probation at the time of the shooting, has also recanted his testimony according to a sworn statement by Mark Newman.

At the time of Mumia’s trial, Chobert was on felony probation for the firebombing of a school. Revocation of that probation could have meant over 20 years in prison. Chobert was in fact violating that probation by unlawfully driving his taxi on a suspended license that night. Thus, Chobert would have been easily manipulated by the police and/or by the prosecution.

Under penalty of perjury, Mark Newman stated in a signed affidavit that, “Chobert told me that he did not see anyone standing over a prone Officer Faulkner, firing shots at the officer. Chobert said that what actually happened was that he was sitting in his taxi when he heard gunfire.” And that he did not actually see the shooting.

According to that signed affidavit of Mark Newman, Chobert didn't see Mumia shoot Faulkner, wasn't parked behind Faulkner as he said he was at the trial, and that Chobert gave the police that false testimony they wanted to avoid having his parole revoked.

Physical evidence, as well as eyewitness testimony, proves that Chobert's cab was not parked behind Faulkner's as Chobert claimed in court. This evidence includes 31 recently released photos taken by photojournalist Pedro Polakoff just minutes after the shooting. These photos clearly show that Chobert's cab was not parked behind Faulkner’s police car as Chobert had claimed in court.

This corroborates the testimony of Mark Newman when he states, "Chobert told me that on December 9, 1981, he had actually been parked, in his taxi, on 13th Street, north of Locust (contradicting his trial testimony that he was parked behind Officer Faulkner's police car on Locust St., east of 13th Street.)" This is also relevant to Chobert not having the vantage for seeing the shooting.

Newman’s testimony is also corroborated by Chobert’s legal troubles and a clear pattern by the police to offer similar deals to other witnesses including three eyewitnesses, Pamela Jenkins, William Singletary, and Veronica Jones, stating publicly, and Cynthia White also stating privately, that they were coerced, threatened, or otherwise offered deals by the cops to give false testimony.

The police officer that got the “identification” of Mumia from Robert Chobert was Alfonzo Giordano. In the original police report that has the shooter running from the scene, Robert Chobert is said by Giordano to say it was the guy from MOVE that did it. Giordano was removed from the force and prosecuted for corruption related to the mob, a corruption probe that turned over many other police/prosecution convictions. In addition, Giordano had been involved in political operations against Philadelphia MOVE and the Black Panther Party. As such, Giordano would have instantly recognized Mumia, a former Black Panther and an independent journalist that had exposed police wrong doing against MOVE.

In a revealing set of moves Giordano was never called as a witness at Mumia’s trial. This despite Giordano providing testimony at Mumia’s preliminary hearing of a “confession” in the van, despite his being the senior officer at the scene, despite his supposed firsthand identification of a witness, and despite his testimony of finding the “murder weapon”. During the trial Giordano was removed from active duty and assigned to a desk. The first working day after the trial was over Giordano resigned from the Philadelphia police force. In 1986 Giordano copped a plea on federal charges based on receiving tens of thousands of dollars in illegal payoffs during the 1979-80 period but didn’t spend any time in jail.

In addition to Giordono’s corruption, under racist Police Chief Frank Rizzo, Giordono was in charge of the Stake Out Unit of the Philadelphia Police that carried out repression against the Black Panther Party from 1968 –1970. Giordono also played a supervisory role in the 1977-78 police barricade and attack on the MOVE organization under Mayor Frank Rizzo. That police attack had followed earlier murders by the Philadelphia police of MOVE members and followed a long starvation blockade by the Philadelphia Police against the MOVE headquarters. In the police attack two MOVE members were shot, nine MOVE members were framed by the Philadelphia Police, MOVE children were stolen, and, as film footage shows, Delbert Africa was kicked and stomped by the police as he lay on the ground. In addition, Officer Ramp was shot and killed.

While nine MOVE members were railroaded to prison for the death of Officer Ramp, the evidence does not fit. The one bullet that killed Ramp came from behind and had a downward trajectory. Yet Ramp was facing the MOVE headquarters where MOVE members were in the basement and any bullets would have had an upward trajectory and hit him from in front.

Presiding over the kangaroo court that convicted the MOVE 9 was Judge Malmed. Shortly after the trial and conviction of the MOVE 9, Mumia, as an independent journalist, called in to a talk radio show where he asked Judge Malmed, “Who shot James Ramp?” Judge Malmed honestly answered, “I haven’t the faintest idea.”

In the attack on MOVE the police and Mayor Rizzo claimed that the first shots came from the MOVE headquarters, but the independent eyewitnesses including a number of journalists present, confirm what MOVE members and the physical evidence says, that the first shot came from across the street and not from the MOVE headquarters.

At Mayor Frank Rizzo’s victory press conference on the 1978 police attack, Frank Rizzo directly threatened Mumia Abu-Jamal when Mumia asked him a question. Mumia was present as a freelance journalist and asked the gloating Rizzo, “What about the brutality?” Instead of answering Mumia’s question Rizzo responded angrily with a threat: “They believe what you write, and what you say, and it's got to stop. And one day, and I hope it's in my career, that you're going to have to be held responsible and accountable for what you do.”

In addition to commanding this attack against MOVE, Giordono, earlier, then under Police Chief Rizzo, carried out surveillance of leftists including the Black Panther Party.

With Mumia having been a former member of the Black Panther Party and a high profile critic of police actions against MOVE, there is no question that officer Giordono would have instantly recognized Mumia at the crime scene. This would be one of the motives for Giordono to want to falsify testimony and other evidence to pin the murder on Mumia.

A number of other well-known political frame-ups have occurred in the United States. The prosecution of Mumia fits the pattern of the FBI’s COINTELPRO program against the Black Panther Party, where local law enforcement worked with the FBI in murdering some BPP leaders in cold blood, such as Fred Hampton in Chicago, and knowingly framed and prosecuted other innocent BPP members, such as Geronimo ji Jagga in LA who spent 30 years in prison before he was exonerated of the false charges against him and freed.

A possible additional motive for framing Mumia can be found in the confession of Arnold Beverly. Beverly stated, “I was hired, along with another guy, and paid to shoot and kill Faulkner. I had heard that Faulkner was a problem for the mob and corrupt policemen because he interfered with the graft and payoffs made to allow illegal activity including prostitution, gambling, drugs without prosecution in the center city area.”

Things that Beverly said are corroborated by, among other things, police corruption, three separate FBI investigations of police corruption in the Center City area at the time, evidence of fear that Faulkner was an FBI informant, evidence that Faulkner was an FBI informant, and the murder of other witnesses involved in cases against the Center City Police at that time. One of those murders was of Bertram Schlein, an eyewitness that testified against Central Division Chief John DeBenedetto. A suspect in that murder was Kenneth Schwartz, a former police officer and reported associate of Inspector Alfonzo Giordono.

A former Philadelphia Police Officer turned mob hit man, Ronald Previte, has testified as government informant on mob killings. Previte stated that during his ten years as a Philadelphia cop he “learned more about being a crook” than any other time in his life.

If the police were in fact involved in the murder of Police Officer Faulkner, this would mean that they would not be interested in finding the actual killer. They would want to pin the murder on someone else, and who better in the eyes of Giordano than his journalistic critic, Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Whatever the exact motive or motives, the mountain of police, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct in this case proves that the criminal “justice” system both had (and has) no interest in finding the real killer or killers while at the same time desiring to execute an innocent man.

It is funny that when presented with this evidence, “fry Mumia” fanatics counter that if it was indeed a frame-up, why was it so sloppy. Why would Giordano have included that the shooter was running away in his original report? The irony is that if the frame-up wasn’t so sloppy we’d be asked why the case is so airtight. Yet I think that answers to the question of why there are so many loose ends lies in the fact that the police were accustomed to being sloppy and getting away with it. Even though the truth of the shooter running away was included in the original report, this was no problem for the police or prosecution, since the judge did not allow the original report into court anyway. All that was allowed was the lie that Chobert saw the shooting and that it was Mumia that did it.

The deeper irony is that when the “fry Mumia” fanatics admit that there are so many loose ends, they are admitting that Mumia is innocent by the essential legal standard of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Essential Eyewitness Despised By “Fry Mumia” Fanatics Number Five, Dessie Hightower

College student Dessie Hightower saw someone running from the scene. This is what Hightower told police 80 minutes after the shooting, and Dessie Hightower has never changed his story. Hightower’s report of one or more people running is the same as eyewitnesses William Singletary, Veronica Jones, Robert Chobert, Arnold Beverly, and William Cook. This corroborates William Cook when he said, “Freeman ran from the scene after Officer Faulkner was shot”. It also corroborates William Singletary when he says, “The passenger [Freeman] in the right-hand side of the Volkswagen got out of the car and shot him [Faulkner]” and ran. Hightower also said that he saw no gun in Mumia’s hand.

Supposed Witness To Mumia Shooting Faulkner Number Five, Robert Harkins

Harkins was not seen as a credible witness by the prosecution at the trial. Harkins was never called to testify at the trial against Mumia by the prosecution. Yet in “fry Mumia” literature the name of Robert Harkins has begun to occasionally pop up as an additional supposed eyewitness to Mumia shooting Faulkner. Like other supposed eyewitnesses of the “fry Mumia” crowd that “saw Mumia shoot Faulkner”, Harkins did not identify Mumia as the shooter.

The Harkins testimony is at odds with the physical evidence and that of all of the other eyewitnesses, including prosecution witnesses. Harkins, a known child molester, could have easily been manipulated by the police and prosecution, as was done with other eyewitnesses. If so, the police and prosecution succeeded in destroying a potential defense witness, but did not produce a useful witness for their frame-up.

Essential Eyewitness Despised By “Fry Mumia” Fanatics Number Six, Terri Maurer-Carter

Terri Maurer-Carter, an official court stenographer in the courts where Mumia was framed, has come forward stating in a signed affidavit,

“Judge Sabo and another person were engaged in conversation. Judge Sabo was discussing the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. During the course of that conversation, I heard Judge Sabo say, ‘Yeah, and I'm going to help them fry the nigger.’ There were three people present when Judge Sabo made that remark, including myself.”

These words Maurer-Carter heard from Sabo sum up the blatant nature of the racist and political crime carried out by Sabo, the prosecution, and the police against Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Conclusion

There are a large number of other important eyewitnesses that will be looked at in future articles, but let us review a few key points of what has already been established.

“Fry Mumia” fanatics claim that Mumia shot Faulkner. Yet, not a single eyewitness saw Mumia shoot Faulkner. Cynthia White and Robert Chobert claimed they saw Mumia shoot Faulkner, but neither saw the shooting. Michael Scanlon, Robert Harkins, and Robert Magiltan, despite “fry Mumia” lies, never claimed they saw Mumia shoot Faulkner.

Four eyewitnesses say in no uncertain terms that Mumia did not shoot Faulkner. These are William Singletary, William Cook, Arnold Beverly, and Mumia Abu Jamal.

Five eyewitnesses contradict the prosecution’s version of events by saying they saw men running from the scene. These would have been the real shooters or shooter. Those eyewitnesses are Dessie Hightower, William Singletary, Veronica Jones, Robert Chobert, and William Cook. The prosecution version of events denies anyone running from the scene.

Five eyewitnesses have stated that they were threatened, coerced, or otherwise offered favors for testimony against Mumia. These are Veronica Jones, William Singletary, Pamela Jenkins, Cynthia White, and Robert Chobert.

The prosecution’s version of events denies anyone on the scene wearing a green army jacket. Yet all evidence points to one or two men on the scene wearing green army jackets shooting Faulkner. Seven eyewitnesses saw a green army jacket. Those that saw green army-jackets were William Singletary, William Cook, stake out Officer Forbes (the putative first officer to arrive), Officer Stephen Trembetta, Michael Scanlan, Robert Magiltan, and Arnold Beverly.

Kenneth Freeman, the real killer, or one of the real killers, was linked to the crime scene by physical evidence that was illegally suppressed by the prosecution for 13 years.

Not only did nobody see Mumia shoot Faulkner, the body of evidence shows overwhelming prosecutorial, police, and judicial misconduct pointing to a clear frame-up of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and backing Mumia’s claim that he is innocent.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner in the United States, with what could be the final decision on his legal appeals possibly coming down this summer. That decision could give Mumia his freedom, life in prison, or execution. It is time to turn up the heat against this injustice. Free Mumia Abu-Jamal!

This is the first in a series of ten articles on the top ten “fry Mumia” myths that will be published at Liberation News.

Subscribe to Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Copyright Liberation News, noncommercial verbatim distribution of this article in its entirety, including this notice, is allowed without special permission. Publication in any commercial form may require payment and requires special permission.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

It is Now a crime to feed the Homeless

Poster_Boy — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:18:16 GMT

This is a repost from the Politics tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Orlando, a law against feeding homeless — and debate over Samaritans' rights
The Associated Press
Published: February 3, 2007
This story mentions other cities that are doing the same.
www.iht.com/articles/ap/...-Homeless.php

The above story is now linked in at

The Criminalization of Homelessness
A Problem Becoming A Solution
www.angelfire.com/hi/sobers...parkh.html

How about "Homicide Charges For Corporations"
Ten convictions
www.angelfire.com/nm/redcollarcrime

Blessings,

The Toxic Reverend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/f1747953-83a0-4825-909a-5febf28f494b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric's response:

A second Food Not Bombs group started in 1988 in San Francisco. It was the perfect city for Food Not Bombs with good weather and history of radical activism. Keith McHenry, along with two San Francisco activists, realizing there was no free lunch service for the homeless on Mondays, set up a food table at the entrance to the Golden Gate Park at the foot of Haight Street. There was always a nice little crowd of people sitting on the lawn and they welcomed the free lunch and message of peace. On August 15, 1988, this small group of dedicated Food Not Bombs activists was surprised when 45 riot police marched out of the woods and arrested 9 volunteers who were sharing food. Undaunted, they returned the next Monday and so did the riot police. By Labor Day, over 100 volunteers were arrested. News of these arrests made CNN, the London Times and many other media outlets. Facing a crisis, Mayor Art Agnos held two afternoons of meetings with members of Food Not Bombs, the ACLU, city officials and neighborhood activists. Under pressure, he issued a permit and Food Not Bombs returned to the park to share their ideas and food without police interference.

http://www.foodnotbombs.net/z_25th_anniversary_2.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sanfransicko.tribe.net/thread/5213d2e4-56f0-41f9-8186-bd6b4143b5e6

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

The Fourth is Independence From Imperialism Day

Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:18:40 GMT

The Fourth is Independence From Imperialism Day

By Steven Argue

Today is a celebration of a revolution against imperialism, that being the American Revolution against British imperialism. Today this holiday is all too often seen as a day of nationalist celebration of the United States, the biggest imperialist power in the world. Yet the true roots of this celebration are in anti-imperialism.

We send out our sympathies and solidarity to the people of Iraq and Haiti suffering under US occupation and US imposed death squad governments. Likewise, we send out our sympathies and solidarity to the Afghani people suffering under decades of bloodshed and religious anti-woman governments imposed by US intervention. We send out our sympathies and solidarity to the people of the Phillipines and Colombia where US troops and money are propping up murderous governments. We send out our sympathies and solidarity to the people of the “third” world, many starving, under US imposed governments, unfair imperialist economic policies, and the constant threat of US military intervention.

We send out congratulations to the people of those few countries that have stood up to US imperialism and set up the governments and economies that they see fit for their countries.

U.S. Marine Brig. Gen. Smedley Butler summed up US imperialism well:

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

"For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it.... I must face it and speak out.

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service."

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Butler's 1935 exposé "War is a Racket" begins with these powerful lines:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Bulter's words were not empty. This was a man who was on the inside of the world's most powerful fighting force. He goes on to reveal:

"There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its 'finger men' to point out enemies, its 'muscle men' to destroy enemies, its 'brain men' to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" - Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to."

You can read the whole Butler article online
"War is a Racket," Common Sense magazine, November 1935.
http://www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/racket.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Subscribe to Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Pacific Northwest anti-war activists up the ante by blocking military shipments to Iraq

Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:17:42 GMT

Pacific Northwest anti-war activists up the ante by blocking military shipments to Iraq

by Linda Averill

Freedom Socialist Newspaper, Vol. 28, No. 3, June-July 2007
www.socialism. com

A new breed of struggle is flowering in the Northwest anti-war movement. Its aim: to stop public ports from being used for export of war materials. Activists in Washington state are evolving from demonstrators and lobbyists into direct actors against the war masters, blocking streets and facing arrest as needed.

This development isn’t happening in a vacuum. A product of anger over congressional inaction on the war and repulsion at the militarization of U.S. society, it is also inspired by a rising resistance movement among GIs.

A statement from the Port Militarization Resistance (PMR) puts it this way: "The weapons shipments, and the use of our public property to prolong and supply the war in Iraq, have made us complicit in crimes against humanity. We refuse to be complicit any longer."

The first action took place last year in Olympia, near Fort Lewis. Participants blocked entrance to their port to stop the Army from shipping war materials.

In 2007, activists declared victory when the Army announced it was going elsewhere. The new location turned out to be Tacoma, 30 miles north of Olympia. Students from the nearby University of Puget Sound, military veterans, teachers, a city councilman, and many others quickly sprang into action, aided by organizers of the blockades in Olympia. As Tacoma protester Leah Coakley said, "We will not serve as a pit stop for the war machine."

A cause catches fire.

Campaign stalwart Molly Gibbs offers insight into the shift in thinking of those involved. Gibbs, who works in high schools to counter military recruitment efforts, is no newcomer to politics. On the war, she has e-mailed, lobbied and written letters to congressional representatives like Adam Smith, she tells the FS, "until I’m blue in the face."

But this year, Fort Lewis was the scene of the high-profile case involving Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to openly refuse to serve in Iraq. His defiance, amplified by an effective defense effort, inspired many anti-war activists, including Gibbs.

In January, she helped organize a tribunal to publicize his case. She then left for Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress again. When her group tried to meet with U.S. Senator Patty Murray and got the runaround, it was the last straw. "I was so disgusted, so angry," Gibbs says.

>From that experience, she concluded that a different strategy was needed. "I’m done dealing with my congressional representatives, " she says. "It is in our hands. We have to do something."

Opportunity came in March, when the military moved its port operations to Tacoma. Members of several groups mobilized, including Students for a Democratic Society, United for Peace of Pierce County, and the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace. They held rallies, publicized their actions to the media, and lined the streets to take a stand.

On March 10, police used violence to break their lines, firing rubber bullets and tear gas into the crowd. Protesters refused to back down, and Gibbs was among several people arrested for stepping over police lines to deliver a "Citizens’ Injunction to Halt the Shipment of Military Material to Iraq." When soldiers with the Stryker Brigade rode by one evening, many of them waved and gave the thumbs-up to the anti-war contingent.

On to Aberdeen.

The Army ship sailed, but when the dust had cleared, Tacoma had spent $500,000 on police protection. Who would pay — the port or the Pentagon?

While that question lingered, the military moved its shipping operations to Aberdeen, 50 miles from Olympia near the Pacific Coast. PMR quickly spread word and headed west.

Military officials cordoned off neighborhood streets and called in police reinforcements from across the region. The military racked up another huge bill and angered local residents, who resented seeing their town become an armed camp.

Sparked by these examples, similar efforts and solidarity actions are spreading. In March, 100 students occupied a military recruitment office in New York City to express support and, in April, resisters blocked a port in Oakland, California.

Many campaigners have been charged with crimes. In the Northwest, a mistrial was declared on March 29 in the case of the "Oly 22," who were arrested in 2006. Public support is being mobilized now for those arrested in Tacoma.

Grow the resistance!

How strongly this movement will take root is uncertain. Those who are part of it harbor no illusions about the challenges ahead. The Army is operating in greater secrecy, keeping protesters on their toes. There are court battles ahead, and police violence to face. Gibbs mentions the need for more community training, strategy development, and reinforcements.

However, she is motivated by knowing one thing for certain: as long as the war continues, "the death and destruction is only going to get worse."

Information about how to help the campaign is available on several web-sites, including www.omjp.org and www.ufppc.org.

Distributed by Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

I have a dream....

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:18:03 GMT

Lets see if anyone could be a witness,
or better yet inform me where this dream is already been realized.

I see camps(in mexico or s.america, maybe even in the states) for lost youth of the americas where they learn the basics of cloth, healthy food and shelter. They learn self defense, discpline, languages, maybe mathmatics and other subjects, they learn their natural born rights of self determination of freedom and how to secure and defend these rights, they learn how to bang on the system and ride for peace and liberty. they leave these camps, healthy, shining with intellegence, strong, fit and ready to spread the good news to other kids that are lost. The other kids would see right away that this kid has been thru it and the respect would be there, also since we are preparing for DayX there would be givin' two numbers to call once you leave the camp. One number is for new recruits and the other number is like a hotline with info, dates, locations and times
I know I cant be the only one that sees this?
So what iz up?

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Fight For Single Payer and National Healthcare

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:50:22 GMT

The Fight For Single Payer and National Healthcare

By Steven Argue

As an advocate for social justice and someone with no healthcare, I am strongly in favor of national healthcare like in Cuba, and short of that a single payer system would be a significant step forward.

National healthcare does work. It is working very well in Cuba. It is interesting that tiny poor Cuba under a U.S. economic blockade is able to provide good healthcare for everyone. Cuba, unlike the United States, does not let people die in the emergency rooms without treatment or turn sick people away from receiving healthcare because they lack insurance. Cuba has taken the profit out of illness and injury and provide healthcare as a human right.

Likewise, while the United States is sending military troops to set up death squad governments in Iraq and Haiti and to intervene in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and prop up the death squad government of Colombia, Cuba instead sends doctors. Cuban doctors save lives. They are on the ground in a number of countries providing regular care, and they are also sent to countries in emergencies. A few years back Cuba sent doctors to Central America after a bad hurricane and saved many lives. Likewise they offered to send doctors to New Orleans immediately after Katrina, they were well trained in dealing with that type of situation and would have saved lives, but Bush refused to let them in. A similar thing happened with the Nicaraguan government refusing entry, but that government let the Cuban doctors in due to protests.

And Canada, also unlike the United States, has better healthcare where everyone is covered. Lately the NAFTA agreement has unfortunately been intervening against the Canadian single payer system, but it is still a much better system of healthcare than in the United States. Single payer is much cheaper and more efficient than the health insurance racket. Unfortunately the Democrats and Republicans are subservient to the insurance, pharmaceutical, and for-profit hospital industries. Single payer eliminates the health insurance racket with all of its waste in profits, paperwork, and overpaid CEOs. And despite the cries of the extreme right neo-cons and libertarians, none of the major candidates have any plans to make any significant change to the healthcare racket in America.

It will take a major struggle against the corporate power structure to gain single payer healthcare. The main force that has the potential strength to do so is organized labor, a force that could shut down production to make our demands.

Unfortunately many of the unions that are supposed to represent labor are in the back pockets of the corporations and the Democrat Party. Instead of fighting for single payer healthcare the SEIU recently held rallies for Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota). None of these corporate politicians support single payer healthcare.

This is bad enough, but Dawn Lee, spokesperson for the SEIU, says the SEIU takes no position on HR 676, a single payer bill introduced by Conyers.

There are unions, such as the California Nurses Association (CNA), that support single payer. But until the labor movement breaks its love affair with the corporate Democrat Party, and begins to once again rely on the militant action of the rank and file, as it did in the 1930’s, we will not only not gain single payer healthcare, our standard of living will continue to decline by every other indicator as well, while massive corporate profits soar.

Pass HR 676, single payer for the United States!

Pass SB 840, single payer in California!

Put union dues into strike funds instead of the Democrat Party!

For mass action and a general strike for single payer healthcare!

End the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba!

Preserve Canadian Single Payer, Repeal NAFTA!

Steven Argue for Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Pro-War Democrats Battle for the Presidency

Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:52:35 GMT

Pro-War Democrats Battle for the Presidency

By Steven Argue

Every four years the American people are subjected to the farce of bourgeois democracy, a “democracy” where only the candidates chosen by the very wealthy have any chance of being elected. That season of nicely dressed pathological liars and false hopes is now upon us.

Since the corporate media of the United States has long ago abandoned any semblance of reporting on anything of substance about candidates such as voting records and actual political views, it is up to the journalists of the left press and Indy-media to do so.

A front-runner in the race is pro-war Democrat Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has voted for every war the United States has carried out since she came into office in 2000. Those pro-war votes include the Iraq war. She also voted to take away our civil liberties by supporting the “Patriot Act” and its renewal. Hillary Clinton, like many Democrats, pounds the war drum for the racist Zionist state of Israel even louder than the Republicans. In addition she voted for the anti-immigrant wall.

In her recent successful run for Senate Hillary Clinton amassed more than 22 million dollars, making her the biggest campaign finance recipient running for Senate in the country. Her money came from such corporate interests as drug and hospital conglomerates, Wall Street finance interests, real estate developers, and rightwing corporate media mogul, Rupert Murdoch.

Barack Obama

Another front-runner and “rising star” of the Democrat Party is Barack Obama. Like Hillary Clinton, Obama has voted for the Patriot Act by voting to renew it in 2006. He also voted for the racist anti-immigrant wall as well as the “guest worker” program that denies immigrants rights, but allows them to come to this country to be exploited and under-paid. Obama also voted for the so-called “Class Action Fairness Act” that makes it harder for the people to sue corporations.

One might think that Obama, as a black man in racist America, might have something to offer on issues dealing with the suffering caused by the racist police state, mass incarceration of the poor, lack of healthcare, and dramatic drop in the standard of living of the multi-racial working class and poor. Instead Barack Obama plays into racist stereotypes, blaming the victims of racist America rather than the corporate criminals, stating:

"Such wisdom might help us move beyond ideological bickering and serve as the basis of a renewed effort to tackle the problem of inner-city poverty. We could begin by acknowledging that perhaps the single biggest thing we could do to reduce such poverty is to encourage teenage girls to finish high school and avoid having children out of wedlock. . ." Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, pps. 255-256

The inner cities of America have, by and large, been abandoned by the same capitalists that got rich off of the jobs they have now exported, just as the victims of hurricane Katrina were left to die by this same racist system. Yet the best thing to do according to Barack Obama is for black girls to stop having children out of wedlock.

In his book Uncle Obama not only lets this racist system off the hook, but he praises one of the worst anti-working class reforms of the Clinton administration stating, "we should also acknowledge that conservatives-and Bill Clinton-were right about welfare as it was previously structured." Bill Clinton’s welfare reform has caused homelessness, hunger, and less access to other basic necessities for the poor in America, but Barack Obama says Bill Clinton and the conservatives were right.

Both Obama and Clinton have voted for war appropriations. The fact that they both decided at the last minute to vote against war appropriations in the most recent vote on supplemental war appropriations is a symptom of the fact that the war has not gone as planned. The war has not gained the desired oil loot for U.S. corporations and has caused a number of growing problems for U.S. imperialism including internal dissent in the United States. And while Clinton and Obama have finally voted against war appropriations this time, their pro-war Democrat Party garnered plenty of other votes to keep the imperialist war going.

In his book, Barack Obama makes clear his support for the billions being squandered on lining the pockets of the military contractors stating, “given the depletion of our [military] forces after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will probably need a somewhat higher [Pentagon] budget in the immediate future just to restore readiness and replace equipment.” (Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p 307).

Joe Biden

Another Democrat candidate is Joe Biden. Unlike many Democrat presidential candidates that have tried to distance themselves from the war that they voted for to begin with, in the most recent vote on war appropriations Joe Biden voted with the majority of the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate putting billions of dollars towards the continued U.S. imperialist slaughter of the Iraqi people.

John Edwards

Another presidential candidate with a pro-war record is John Edwards. Edwards voted for the war against Iraq and campaigned as a vice presidential candidate on the pro-war John Kerry ticket. At that time both candidates defended their votes for the war. John Edwards has since apologized for his vote for unprovoked military aggression and mass murder (without using that wording and without recognizing that his vote for war was a criminal act).

Yet when Edwards was running for the position of vice president in 2004 this what he had to say on his pro-war vote:

“We need to stick to this [defending their Iraq war votes]. We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war. That's what the Republicans want us to do.” (John Edwards's changing tune on the Iraq vote, Scot Lehigh, The Globe, April 17, 2007)

Bill Richardson

Another candidate trying to paint himself as an antiwar candidate of the people is presidential candidate and New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Richardson doesn’t call for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but instead calls for a slow withdrawal. In the early 1990s he did vote against the U.S. war to reinstate the anti-woman pro-U.S. corporate oil monarchy in Kuwait, but later said he regretted that vote. In addition Richardson is a strong supporter the pro-corporate anti-worker NAFTA, GATT, and WTO.

As U.N. Ambassador under Clinton, Richardson enthusiastically endorsed and continued the brutal sanctions against Iraq. When asked in a recent interview on KUNM (a Santa Fe public radio station) as to whether or not the deaths of half a million Iraqi children due to the sanctions was worth it he answered "yes".

On the death penalty Richardson, like many Democrats, says it is a good thing. Hundreds of inmates in the United States have had their convictions overturned as a result of new DNA evidence being brought to light, with some of these being death penalty cases. Still prosecutors have fought against the use of DNA evidence to overturn old convictions, even when the lives of innocent people are on the line. In racist America, death penalty juries are always more likely to convict because all who oppose the death penalty are excluded from these juries, making them juries that are more biased towards supporting the prosecution. Blacks often face all or mostly white death penalty juries. These are juries likely to contain a number of people who think that all Black people are criminals, making these jurors incapable of weighing the evidence and understanding the concept of reasonable doubt even in those rare circumstances when the evidence is fairly presented.

Why would anybody support the death penalty being carried out by a system that has been proven to make so many mistakes? The answer lies in the fact that the death penalty is an instrument of terror used by the American ruling class against the working class, poor, and people of color. On the one hand when such innocent people are executed it has no importance to the likes of Joe Biden because to them the lives of the poor and people of color are cheap. But for the ruling class, the added bonus of the death penalty is when it is used in political cases to silence dissent such as with the executions of Nicola Sacco, Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Julius Rosenberg, Ethel Rosenberg, the Haymarket martyrs, and the threatened execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal. As governor, the fact that Bill Richardson has no problem with the death penalty means that he already has blood on his hands.

Dennis Kucinich

Likewise Dennis Kucinich is portraying himself as the standard bearer of peace, love, and liberalism, but has voted in favor of the frame-up of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The resolution Kucinich voted for falsely claims, “Mumia Abu-Jamal stood over Officer Faulkner and shot him in the face, mortally wounding him…” Yet this is not what the eyewitnesses said. For instance eyewitness William Singletary says, "Mumia Abu-Jamal didn't shoot Daniel Faulkner. The passenger in the right-hand side of the Volkswagen [that Faulkner had stopped] got out of the car and shot him. When Mumia came on the scene, we [Singletary and another man] were on the police radio trying to radio for help." ("Witness: Abu-Jamal didn't do it" Philadelphia Daily News Dec. 8, 2006)

In the last presidential election Dennis Kucinich portrayed himself up as an anti-war candidate of the Democrat Party. Yet on his web site the Kucinich campaign stated that Kucinich, “Supports a strong and efficient military. He believes that the current practice of procuring ever more costly weapons has the effect of weakening military readiness. As the cost of new weapons systems rise, the cost of merely replacing aging weapons with new ones becomes prohibitively expensive. As a result, U.S. military forces shrink, while they become at the same time more expensive to maintain and more prone to failure.”

So Kucinich advocates more frugal and efficient spending on imperialist terror and murder.

This is the same position taken by two U.S. generals waging the war in Iraq. During the U.S. invasion of Iraq General Stanley McCrystal complained, "It was enough for the enemy to show a little resistance and some creative thinking as our technological superiority begun to quickly lose all its meaning. Our expenses are not justified by the obtained results. The enemy is using an order of magnitude cheaper weapons to reach the same goals for which we spend billions on technological whims of the defense industry!"

Similarly General Richard Mayers commented on precision-guided munitions, "The rate of their use is incompatible with the obtained results. We are literally dropping gold into the mud!"

The contradiction here was purely limited to the difference between the pure profiteering of the military industrial complex and the desire for actual cost effective results for imperialist victory on the battlefield.

Dennis Kucinich spoke to a gathering of the Southern California Americans for Democratic Action claiming, "We [he and the congress] did not authorize an eye for an eye. Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan. We did not authorize the Administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases. We did not authorize war without end. We did not authorize a permanent war economy. Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy."

Yet that is exactly what Kucinich and the rest of the congress, with the exception of California Democrat Barbara Lee, agreed to with their votes authorizing Bush’s endless war on the world. The entire Democrat Party in both the Senate and Congress, with only one exception, voted for Bush's war.

Since a different vote was later taken authorizing the US war in Iraq, the most practical application of this vote by Kucinich was to authorize the US war in Afghanistan.

In stark contrast to Kucinich’s vote for war Mumia Abu-Jamal wrote on March 2002:

“When U.S. President George W. Bush spoke about an "endless war," some took it as mere political speech, or rhetoric designed to gain the top spot on the evening network news. I did not. "W" is an agent of his class, the wealthy oil merchants of the land, and his intentions are to press for an ever-wider war in all corners of the earth, to make the world safe for capital exploitation and unbridled commerce. This will eventually become a war that reaches into a slew of countries in the Middle East, on behalf of the rich and powerful elites who rule. Make no mistake: this is a war that has nothing to do with democracy. The U.S. enters the region, armed to the gills, not to defend democracies, but to defend theocracies; to defend kings, princes and sultanates; to defend U.S. access to vast oil resources in the region.” Mumia Abu-Jamal

The U.S. war in Afghanistan has in fact killed tens of thousands of civilians and brought the Afghan nation back to the chaos of fragmented warlord rule last seen after the various U.S. trained and financed Mujahideen forces defeated the Soviet backed PDPA government.

The day after the September 11 attack this author wrote:

“Today the clerical fascists of the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The CIA put them in power with billions of dollars in U.S. military aid. This massive U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was in opposition to the revolutionary PDPA government that came to power in 1978 on issues of promoting women’s rights and land reform. Literacy campaigns began teaching the poor and women how to read and write.

“Foreign religious fanatics and wealthy defenders of the old feudal system came together in a terrorist organization called the Mujahideen (from which the Taliban were later formed). With billions of dollars in assistance from the U.S. [starting under the Jimmy Carter presidency] these fanatical cutthroats waged a holy war that included killing woman for teaching little girls how to read and write and throwing acid into the faces of women who had become liberated from the veil. The Taliban came to power as a result of this U.S. intervention.

“Will a U.S. war now against the Taliban and former CIA aid recipient Osama Bin Laden set things straight? No. It will be the people of Afghanistan who suffer death and destruction from war as the U.S. attempts to install a puppet government friendly to U.S. corporate (oil) interests” Steven Argue, Liberation News, September 12, 2002

Kucinich, the “peace candidate”, as much as he may now want to deny it, voted for the war in Afghanistan and played his part in making it happen.

On the war in Iraq Kucinich now states, "There is only one way in which the United States will withdraw from Iraq, prior to the end of President Bush's term: Congress must vote to cut off funds." (Rep. Kucinich, The Huffington Report) This position not only ignores the role of the people of the United States, Britain, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere rising up and resisting the war and imperialist occupations, but it is also is being put forward by a politician that voted for the war in Afghanistan, wants a leaner meaner imperialist military, voted for the racist legal lynching of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and who has worked hard to bring the anti-war movement back into the pro-war Democrat Party.

Some may argue that Kucinich is not perfect, but he’d make a better president than Bush. Yet it is unlikely that Kucinich has any intention of winning the presidency. His role is one of bringing the anti-war movement and others who are breaking from the establishment and the twin parties of war and racism back into the fold of the pro-war Democrat Party. Kucinich makes this point clear when he states, "The Democratic Party created third parties by running to the middle. What I'm trying to do is to go back to the big tent so that everyone who felt alienated could come back through my candidacy" (Counter Punch, April 2003).

Yet that tent Kucinich speaks of is one that, despite its name, is not democratic. It is a tent dominated by big capital and the politicians subservient to it. It is under this tent that the ruling class would like to swallow up the legitimate opposition of the people towards war and turn us into the water boys for the “responsible” politicians of the Democrat Party.

It is such "responsible" politicians, including Kucinich, that voted in their vast majority to back the racist legal lynching of Mumia Abu-Jamal. It is outrageous that that the Democrat party would vote in its House majority to condemn a French city for daring to make an issue of this racist legal lynching, while at the same time doing nothing about the liar and killer, Bush. But then again that should be no surprise either since the Democrat Party voted in its majority for the war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton

In a press conference on August 21, 2006 George Bush Jr. finally admitted what Liberation News has been pointing out since before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Yet Bush had used a supposed connection as a pretext for the U.S.’s unprovoked aggression against Iraq. In addition, Bush Jr. also admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Most of the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Hillary Clinton included, supported going to war with Iraq. Today Hillary Clinton has no remorse for that murderous decision stating, "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq Vote, CNN.Com

In trying to let themselves off the hook many Democrats claim that Bush “did not fairly represent intelligence”. Feeble cries by these politicians today that their votes for war weren’t their fault because they were lied to by Bush not only make them look stupid, they are an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Clinton, however, is worse in not even distancing herself from this “justified invasion” and “weapons of mass destruction” lies.

While the Democrats helped promote the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had no right to defend itself, Liberation News pointed out that it is the United States that has the weapons of mass destruction. Instead we supported the right of Iraq to acquire the weapons necessary to defend themselves from U.S. aggression. There can be little doubt that if Iraq had acquired those weapons they might not be in the mess they are now.

Yet for Bush Jr. and Hillary Clinton Iraqi weapons were never the real motive for mass murder in Iraq. The capitalist ruling class, and their Democrat and Republican representatives, thought that they could use their superior military power to quickly move into Iraq and establish by force a stable neo-colonial puppet regime, and then make massive profits from the privatization of the Iraqi economy, especially oil. It is the failures of this imperialist plan, in the face of Iraqi resistance and growing unpopularity at home, that has forced some Democrats to try to rethink, or at least distance themselves from, the Bush policies they have supported.

Just as Liberation News opposes the U.S. occupation and corporate looting of Iraq, we also denounced the starvation blockade that was carried out through the UN by the Bill Clinton administration. That blockade, partially due to the capitalist nature of the Iraqi economy under Saddam Hussein, cost the lives of about a million people, many of them children. While a socialist economy like that of Cuba could have made sure that everyone in Iraq had food, blame for this mass murder should also be put on the Bill Clinton administration. Likewise, it was this Clinton starvation blockade that also weakened Iraq for the Bush invasion.

Today, while the U.S. occupation of Iraq has murdered well over 655,000 people and the U.S. starvation blockade of Iraq murdered a million or more, the U.S. government and its puppets in Iraq had the nerve to put Saddam Hussein on trial, and execute him, for propaganda purposes. Yet the worst crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were also carried out when he was directly backed by the United States. In the 1980’s the U.S. was giving massive military assistance to Iraq to help Saddam Hussein commit genocide against Kurds and carry out a bloody war with Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein was being used as an asset of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. Likewise the CIA helped Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party come to power, supplying them with the names of 5,000 socialists and labor leaders that the Ba’athists subsequently rounded up and executed.

Yet to those who claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be a chance for the U.S. to finally set things straight and set up a democracy in Iraq, Liberation News responded before the U.S. invasion saying:

“In the 1970s Iraq nationalized its oil fields. This helped the Iraqi people by taking a chunk of the profits made off of oil out of the hands of the international oil monopolies and instead keeping them in Iraq. This money helped pay for free healthcare and education. As such this was a socialist measure carried out by Saddam Hussein’s capitalist government. It was also a measure that stood up to the interests of the rich and powerful nations. For both reasons socialists supported the nationalization of Iraqi oil while those measures infuriated the imperialists...

“While defending Iraq against imperialist attack and supporting their right to defend themselves socialists also recognize that Saddam Hussein is a capitalist leader and that the Iraqi people have their own scores to settle with him. Yet any government set up by a US occupation army will not be democratic and will only lead to the privatization of the resources that American oil monopolies intend to steal...”

“U.S. imperialism will never solve the question of women’s liberation in the Middle East. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Over 50% of Iraqi doctors are women. Iraqi women are allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They are allowed to drive. Iraqi women can even freely criticize men. In addition Iraqi women have the right to work and control their own funds. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive U.S. backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where women have no rights what-so-ever.

“The U.S. ruling class hates governments like Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela who use the profits of their oil resources partly to benefit the people with social programs. Likewise they love governments like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that strip the people of all their rights and keep the oil profits in the hands of the international oil monopolies and their corrupt local servants. Today in the United States we face unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of health care. The billions of dollars the U.S. will squander on killing Iraqis to steal their resources should be spent to benefit the working class and poor of the United States instead.” -From Liberation News: What Is Socialism, and Why We Oppose The Invasion of Iraq

What was predicted is reality. Those predictions were not from a crystal ball. They were accurate because they were based on the past behavior of U.S. imperialism. Today in Iraq the U.S. has set up a puppet Islamic government with functioning death squads and torture chambers. Socialists have been excluded from participating in elections and unarmed demonstrators have been shot down and murdered in the streets by U.S. troops and troops of the puppet Iraqi government. The puppet Islamic government also opposes women’s rights and women’s rights have deteriorated dramatically since the U.S. invasion. The rebuilding of basic infrastructure, such as electricity, has lagged way behind what was rebuilt by Saddam Hussein after the massive U.S. bombardment of Iraq in 1992.

With the exception of the privatization of Iraqi oil, all of the predictions have shown themselves to be true and the only reason that Iraqi oil isn’t completely under the direct control of U.S. oil monopolies now is because of the union resistance of 23,000 organized oil workers as well as the general resistance by the Iraqi people to the idea of Iraq’s resources being looted by U.S. corporations.

For the working class in the United States there is ever growing frustration with a war that is costing many lives and billions in dollars while needed programs for healthcare, jobs, the environment, and disaster relief do not get the funding they need. Just as the new imperialist masters of Iraq have shown a criminal lack of interest in the rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure, so too they left the people of New Orleans.

Yet for the ruling class their failure in Iraq is not in the murderous, undemocratic, and anti-woman puppet regime they have set up and the money that has been squandered in doing it, but in the failure of that regime to deliver the stability needed to acquire the oil loot. They complain that oil production in Iraq is below prewar levels and the occupation by U.S. and British troops serve as targets for the insurgency.

The words of Hillary Clinton, an icon of Democratic Party liberalism, makes abundantly clear that what she opposes is not the oil war itself, but the fact that Bush is not winning it:

“Let us not confuse the leadership’s failures with either the remaining mission in Iraq or the war on terrorism or with our support for our troops. What we have here is a failure of leadership to accomplish that mission. What was hailed as our shortest war has now become one of our longest. What was hailed as a model of democracy teeters on the brink of complete anarchy. What was the leadership that quickly claimed credit for success has been lethargic in the face of misjudgments and setbacks.” Hillary Clinton

As a result of imperialism’s failure in Iraq some Democrats that voted for the war like John Kerry have called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Yet the Kerry-Feingold plan actually calls for keeping troops in Iraq that are "critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces." The Kerry-Feingold plan also calls for "an over-the-horizon" troop presence in the region that could come to the aid of a failing puppet government in Iraq as well as intervene elsewhere in the so-called war on terror. (Lawmakers begin Bitter Debate on U.S. Troop Withdrawal Plan for Iraq, FOXNews, online report, June 2, 2006)

Hillary Clinton even opposed the Kerry-Feingold plan and voted against it arguing against any withdrawal timeline.

Unlike Hillary Clinton and the leading Democrats, Liberation News sees nothing good that can come from the continuation of the U.S. war against Iraq. The U.S. occupation of Iraq is doing nothing for anybody except the capitalists that are profiting from the war and the tax dollars of the American people. We call for no support to the Democrats and we demand: Iraq to the Iraqis! U.S. Out Now!

Liberation News calls for ending the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. Likewise we support the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. We support students, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. And we call for building the socialist movement to end imperialism through socialist revolution.

The Role of Peace Action (Formerly Sane / Freeze)

Hillary Clinton’s record is clearly pro-imperialist war. Yet the group “Peace Action” gives Hillary Clinton the passing grade of voting for peace 89% of the time. Other Democrats are given similar scores by these political hacks.

“Peace Action” is deceiving the anti-war vote. Why? Because Peace Action is a pillar of the status quo that sees no alternative to delivering votes to what they see as the “lesser evil” Democrat Party, even when the Democrats are equally pro-war. This strategy has made “Peace Action” an obstacle to peace and a pillar of the status quo of war.

Every few years the ruling class of the United States parades its selected representatives in front of the American people to give us the chance to vote for their so-called “lesser” and “greater evil” representatives in the Democrat and Republican Parties. The corporate media and liberal pro-war groups like “Peace Action” ignore the real anti-war candidates and back pro-war Democrats by misrepresenting their records to the people.

Liberation News urges all of the super-exploited workers that go door to door raising money for the Peace Action bureaucracy to quit your meaningless jobs and look for better work while looking for ways to hook up with the real anti-war/anti-imperialist movement that is marching in the streets. Likewise we urge all of the liberal and leftist minded people that give money to Peace Action to stop doing so and instead participate in the mass anti-war movement in the streets with your bodies, minds, and your money if you can afford it.

No to the twin parties of war and oppression! Yes to the independent organization and mobilization of working people!

Obama, Clinton, and Richardson, Supporters of Racist Israel

Hillary Clinton, like many Democrats, has pounded the war drum for the racist Zionist state of Israel even louder than the Republicans. The U.S. gives Israel billions of dollars in military aid every year and Senator Clinton’s vote backs that money for death. Israel is a racist settler state established in 1949 that has denied the original inhabitants, the Palestinians, many basic rights, often including the basic right to live. Besides denying Palestinians the same rights to travel, jobs, housing, and education as allowed Jews, the racist and religious Zionist State has used massacres and other forms of terror, wars, and torture to drive out the original Palestinian inhabitants.

Likewise Israel is always at war with its Arab neighbors. Israel’s recent attack against Lebanon where their aerial bombardment of the civilian population murdered 1,150 people and destroyed vital infrastructure is only the latest such terrorism by Israel. Yet Hillary Clinton recently told a pro-Israel rally “We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing up for American values as well as Israeli ones.”

She’s got it wrong, the mass murder and racism of Israel are in league with the values of American ruling class, as has been seen in Iraq, but these are not the values of the American people.

Claims of Israel being the victim, bombing and invading Lebanon on the pretext of two Israeli soldiers taken prisoner do not hold water in light of the fact that Israel is holding 2,000 Lebanese prisoners in their torture chamber dungeons from their previous invasion of Lebanon. In addition numerous reports say those two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, not in Israel. Those reports are from such sources as AP, Hindustan Times, and AFP.

On Israel “anti-war” Richardson shares Hillary Clinton’s views stating, “I am firmly committed to one of the United States' closest and most important allies - the State of Israel. Throughout my career, I've steadfastly supported Israel, obtaining a consistently pro-Israel voting record in Congress and defending Israeli interests as Ambassador to the United Nations.”

Barack Obama also backs racist Israel stating, “The United States and Israel share important interests - promoting a peaceful Middle East, combating terrorism, and encouraging reform in the Arab and Muslim world.” Likewise as a senator he has backed the massive military aid the United States gives Israel every year and says he will continue this policy as president stating he will, “insist on fully funding military assistance to Israel”.

For Socialist Democracy!

Let me be clear on this point, Obama and Clinton, and the rest of the pack will not betray us. They cannot betray us because they were never with us. Under the current politics most Americans would never have heard their names if they were on our side.

A truly democratic society would eliminate corporate control of the elections by nationalizing the corporate media and allowing all candidates equal access to the airwaves, cable, and print. Likewise a truly democratic society would carry out a sweeping “campaign finance reform” through the nationalization of the means of production (using that wealth for human and environmental needs rather than decadence and deception).

Up against the likes of Hillary Clinton, with her millions of dollars in corporate bribes, a sympathetic corporate media, growing police state, and increasing electoral fraud, it will take a socialist revolution to bring democracy to the United States.

How we can all resist:

Tell the truth!

Build the mass movement in the streets!

Strike against arms producers!

Become ungovernable!

Hot cargo war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks!

Build towards a general strike against the war!

Support the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war!

Drive military recruiters off campus!

No tolerance or excuses for the pro-war, racist, and capitalist Democrat Party!

Build the socialist movement to end imperialism, racism, environmental destruction, and capitalism!

End U.S. imperialism through socialist revolution!

Subscribe to Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

g8

wickissick — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:50:12 GMT

hope y'all are atleast keeping up on this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzHiyLMcnN8

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

presidential directive at whitehouse.gov gives Bush imperial powers

Alexander — Tue, 22 May 2007 17:59:57 GMT

presidential directive at whitehouse.gov gives Bush imperial powers

Just heard about this presidential directive from their own website. This means any event that is considered a disruption of the nation or its normal routine (from the mega-quake in Cascadia to the even a computer virus) then Mr Bush can declare this emergency with 90s imperial rule. They can even take over Native American Reservations or anything else deemed important for military stragedy. Add to this this week's ruling on environmentalism as possibly ecoterrorism.

One news report with the actualy whitehouse.gov announcement:

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild
May 18, 2007

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”

from http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807

___ actual presidential directive from whitehouse.gov:

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

White House News

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of

the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and

responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall

continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of

the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between

and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing

on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and

assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an

official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate

support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its

agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

giuliani in 08

wickissick — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:14:49 GMT

Giuliani to run in 2008

Reuters | February 15, 2007
JoAnne Allen

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, acclaimed for his leadership after the September 11 attacks, confirmed he is running for U.S. president in 2008, eliminating any lingering doubt about his candidacy.

"Yes, I'm running," Giuliani declared twice on Wednesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live" show.

There have been doubts among Republicans about whether Giuliani was serious about a White House run in 2008.

National polls have shown Giuliani leads eight other Republicans, in part because of his steely and comforting leadership amid the chaos of the 2001 hijacked plane attacks that brought down New York's most visible landmark.

"I think I can make a difference. I believe that the country needs leadership," Giuliani said on CNN when asked what led him to purse the top political job in the United States.

Earlier this month, Giuliani filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission establishing a committee to explore a presidential bid, but he stopped short of making a formal announcement.

Giuliani became one of the Republican Party's most popular figures after September 11. However, he faces an uphill battle winning over conservatives who wield considerable influence in party primaries because of his stance on some social issues, including his support for gay rights and abortion rights.

"TerrorStorm is something that should be seen by everyone, no ma

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Economist need to learn to subtract.

Tedster — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:11:44 GMT

http://www.adbusters.org/abtv/blog/player.php?id=356

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Fascist are the Tools of the State

Tedster — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:02:25 GMT

Fascists are the Tools of the State
Saturday, February 10 2007 @ 03:54 AM PST
Contributed by: Anonymous

Fascism is widespread in many industrial and postcolonial countries, existing as extreme nationalism, neo-Nazism, or some other extreme authoritarianism. In nearly all cases, the rank-and-file of the fascist movements tend to be dispossessed members of a privileged group in society (e.g. poor whites). In pre-WWII Germany, most working-class Germans were impoverished by the Depression, in contrast to their self-image as a wealthy, powerful nation.

Fascists are the Tools of the State
(and the State is the Tool of Capitalists)

by Peter Gelderloos

1. Fascism is widespread in many industrial and postcolonial countries, existing as extreme nationalism, neo-Nazism, or some other extreme authoritarianism. In nearly all cases, the rank-and-file of the fascist movements tend to be dispossessed members of a privileged group in society (e.g. poor whites). In pre-WWII Germany, most working-class Germans were impoverished by the Depression, in contrast to their self-image as a wealthy, powerful nation. In modern Germany, neo-Nazi political parties win the most votes, often more than 10% of the total, in states where unemployment is highest. In the US, poor southern whites who do not enjoy the wealth promised to white people of the richest nation on earth often join the Ku Klux Klan. In Rwanda the Hutus, impoverished and in great need of land, expressed their desire for more wealth and power by identifying with the majority ethnicity, joining the fascist Hutu parties responsible for the genocide. There has been a similar fascist movement among Hindus in India, asserting their power as the majority ethnicity. Thus, fascism can be seen as a response to disempowerment and broken promises of privilege.

2. Fascism can also be seen as an elite phenomenon, a gentleman’s movement. The German Nazi party included many of the richest industrialists, the Spanish fascists behind Franco were an alliance of generals, landowning aristocracy, and church leaders, while Mussolini said fascism should better be called “corporatism” because it is the blending of state and corporate power. In the US, the KKK was originally a gentleman’s club, and before WWII, the richest industrialists (Hearst, Rockefeller, Ford, DuPont, Morgan) supported the fascists in Europe. Currently in the US, many elite conservatives support the anti-immigrant group Minutemen and other crypto-fascist groups. Fascism is especially connected to conservative segments of the elite who are afraid the expansive strategies of the progressive elite will backfire and destabilize the whole system. In these manifestations, fascism is a way the elite preserve traditional morality, strengthen social hierarchy, and defend against revolutionary activity among the lower classes.

3. The basic ideas common to fascism (a: anti-immigration, b: racial purity, c: white supremacy, d: political empowerment through nationalism, e: the social Darwinist ideas of “survival of the fittest,” f: anti-Semitism) are all empty and incorrect. A: Anti-immigration is hypocrisy. The anti-immigration political parties in the US and European Union usually supported the same free trade deals and wars (e.g. NAFTA, the civil war in El Salvador) that are the cause of much of the immigration, and their economies depend on immigrant labor (US agriculture and the construction industry would collapse overnight without immigrant labor). European governments that are supposedly worried about protecting their cultures from immigrants are often the same ones that colonized the countries from which the immigrants are coming; they had no problem bringing their culture to someone else’s country, nor are they doing anything to stop the “cultural pollution” of McDonalds and MTV. B: As for racial purity, the idea has no scientific basis, and in fact race is an arbitrary generalization. There is no danger in cross-racial breeding, in fact a diverse gene pool is much healthier than a homogenous one, and no ethnic group is actually “pure.” We all in fact stem from the same ancestors and have been mixing since the beginning. C: White supremacy is also a lie with no factual basis other than the crude (and fabricated) pseudo-science of skull-measuring that took place in the 19th century. D: Nationalism is a blatant lie: the political and economic elite are constantly making deals with other countries and enriching themselves while they teach their blind followers to hate people from other countries, thus dividing the lower classes. Waving the flag and loving the nation empowers the government, and this is the opposite of empowering the people. Ridiculously, nationalists believe they will be free if their jailers look the same and speak the same language as them. E: Social Darwinism—the idea of “survival of the fittest” enshrined as a political system—has nothing to do with scientific Darwinism. In fact, Darwin never used the phrase “survival of the fittest,” and he found that species survive by adapting themselves to nature, not waging a war against it. In fact, humans waste their greatest evolutionary advantages—the abilities to communicate and think creatively—by conforming to strict social hierarchies that have no actual natural basis. F: As for anti-Semitism, in the Middle Ages, the same people who killed Jews also put them in the role of money lender and depended on them. In the 20th century, anti-Semitic capitalists claimed Jews were part of the “international Bolshevik conspiracy” while anti-capitalist anti-Semites said Jews were part of a conspiracy of bankers and capitalists. Clearly, fascists just use Jews to stand in wherever they need to blame someone.

4. So many fascists and neo-Nazis could not go on believing such stupid, baseless ideas unless their hatred served an important purpose. Clearly we cannot take fascist ideas seriously, but we must take fascists themselves seriously, because of all the murders, social violence, and intimidation they are responsible for. So, if fascism is useful, we must ask: to whom is it useful? The previous example of anti-Semitism offers a clue. Fascism provides a scapegoat. Fascism encourages poor members of the dominant group (e.g. poor whites or poor Christians) to hate some other group, so that their real enemy will be safe. Poor people have good reason to hate rich people. If Jews can stand in for rich people (as part of some international bankers’ conspiracy), then poor people will hate Jews, and Judaism, rather than hating rich people, and capitalism. When this happens, the elite can smile and be at peace: they are safe from the anger of those they exploit. The hatred of fascism also targets oppressed groups. In US history this means blacks, Native Americans, and latino immigrants. Poor whites must take part in exploiting the lowest classes (in the days of slavery they often held the whip). According to the mythology of white supremacy, all white people are supposed to be superior (including in terms of wealth and power). Fascism teaches poor, powerless whites to blame and hate the blacks and immigrants (for “causing crime” or “stealing our jobs”) instead of their true enemy, the elite. This hatred also creates a psychological distance that makes it easier for them to oppress people of color, and harder for them to unite. It is rich white people, the capitalists and government elite, who become rich from slavery, immigrant labor, and other forms of exploitation, but it is the working-class whites who must play the role of police. They get little material benefit, but fool themselves with psychological benefit, by pretending they are powerful and superior as members of some mythical white race. The rich whites can laugh all the way to the bank that they have made so many working-class whites into their tools so easily, and so cheaply.

5. If it is correct that the elite are the beneficiaries of fascism, then we should be able to find evidence of elite support for fascism. And in fact we do. Many European Union governments sponsor the idea of “cultural purity” and protecting superior European culture from the “pollution” of immigration, by requiring immigrants to pass cultural tests. The corporate media (owned by the elite) in the EU and the US cover the immigration issue in a way that is sure to encourage ignorance and fear. For example, they rarely give the context of why people immigrate, whose corporations and whose wars have destroyed their homelands. They rarely mention the fact that European or US economies would collapse without immigrant labor, that white consumers depend on the cheap labor and cheap imports (fruit, clothing, computers, cell phones, etc.) of the immigrants and the countries they come from. And in the US, members of the elite give great financial support to the more respectable fascist groups (especially the Christian fundamentalists). George W. Bush has even been successful (as was Reagan) in getting government money to such groups. In countries like Italy, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia it is also easy to find evidence of the government or church giving ideological or material support to fascists. Clearly, the elite feed the fears and ignorance that provide a foundation for fascism.

6. What do the elite get from fascism in return? Very much. Fascist tools do not disappoint their elite owners. Fascists help distract the lower-classes by blaming the problems of the elite (poverty, disempowerment, corporate globalization) on a scapegoat, such as immigrants. The 2006 riots in Hungary provide a perfect example. People were so upset with the horrible conditions that they took the streets, fought off police, and occupied the state television station, yet this was no revolution! The crowds were dominated by fascist ideologies, so in the face of capitalist exploitation (worsened after their government joined the EU) they instead blamed people poorer than themselves—immigrants, they attacked a synogogue, and they lapsed into a fantasy of an idyllic Hungarian history, hundreds of years past, even though most of the people directly responsible for their problems were also Hungarians. Fascists divide the lower classes, causing them to fight one another, and creating the hatred and distance that makes it easy for whites and Christians to oppress and exploit people of color, Muslims, etc. Thus, they protect the elite from revolution.

7. Some fascists (inspired by Hitler’s “national socialism”) are more consciously anti-capitalist, or they think they are. These extremists are also useful to the elite, even though they often hate the governments they are the tools of. Firstly, they make any potential anti-capitalist revolution less effective by dividing the lower classes, and emphasizing race. Because they confuse the actual nature of capitalism they end up supporting a national capitalism (at most this will only involve greater government control, similar to the “socialism” of Hitler or Lenin). Secondly, as extremists who pretend to be revolutionary, they reserve much of their hatred for communists, anti-fascists, and anarchists. Authoritarian communists are just like another competing sect of fascists, and once in power they have shown willingness to use their same methods to purge or purify their country. Right-wing and Left-wing fascists may fight, but in the end they can find much common ground (as we see in Lenin’s treaty with the Austro-Germans, the Nazi-Soviet treaty, and more recently the emergence of the fascist “National Bolsheviks” and the support of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for the xenophobic Movement Against Illegal Immigration). Anarchists, on the other hand, want to abolish all political power, so they present an uncompromising threat to the elite. It is no coincidence that fascists are uncompromising in their assault on anarchists. Fascists have attacked and even killed anarchists all across Europe and in the US. In some parts of eastern Europe, anarchists can hardly organize a fundraising concert, because of the certainty of attack by fascists. In this way, the fascists work as a paramilitary force for the state. In the US, the FBI (federal police) has long infiltrated the KKK and other white supremacist groups, using them for attacks against black radicals, such as the Greensboro Massacre; in Italy during the “Strategy of Tension” in the 70s, the intelligence services used fascist groups for murdering Leftists, or bombing crowded areas and blaming it on the Red Brigades; in Moscow in 2006, neo-Nazis fought alongside the police to attack the Gay Pride parade.

8. Aside from providing this constant service, fascists are useful tools of the state because the elite and bourgeoisie can use a fascist revolt to save it from a true lower-class revolution. Though fascism may topple a particular government, government is just a tool of the elite. In Italy, after the landowners, church leaders, and factory owners saw that they did so well under Mussolini, the bourgeoisie everywhere realized that fascism could save them from revolution. This realization led the elite in Spain to support Franco’s fascist coup, to save themselves from the growing anarchist movement.

9. Fascism is neither anti-authoritarian nor anti-capitalist, so the capitalist elite will be protected by fascism. Even fascists who are anti-rich and anti-globalization, who think they are anti-capitalist “national socialists” put their nationalism first, meaning they will be easily controlled by the capitalists of their own nationality. They have deprived themselves of the weapon of solidarity by cutting themselves off from the people of other nations. Nationalist governments that have won the support of fascists uphold capitalist inequalities and continue to facilitate globalization—the only problem is that they distract everyone from the same old problems by waving the flag, launching a war against a weaker country, or blaming some minority. But the problems of poverty and disempowerment remain. Thus, fascists who are think they are “defending the nation” or “strengthening their people” are really just licking the boot. They are asking to be controlled by leaders of the same nationality, they are blindly swearing allegiance to an elite who will indulge their petty prejudices, and they are ensuring that their exploitation and powerlessness will continue.

10. Many fascists (particularly the neo-Nazis) base much of their criticism of social problems on race. But it is important to understand that in scientific terms, race does not exist. Some people are lighter than others, some darker, but there are no clear lines, and everybody has mixed heritage. In terms of genetics, there is far more diversity within a single “race” than there is difference between the averages of the various races (i.e. your genes could easily be closer to those of someone from another race than to someone who is the same race as you). Race is a social invention. The concept did not exist until Europe began its colonial phase. Once they began enslaving Africans, colonizing Asians, and exterminating Native Americans, the European elite began speaking in terms of race to separate themselves, and dupe lower-class Europeans into filling the role of police and cooperating with the exploitation of the most oppressed. In the early American colonies, the ruling class had to quickly impose laws against whites marrying with Africans or living with Native Americans, because on several occasions the lower-class Europeans joined with the colonized people in rebellion, or ran off to live with them (finding those societies to have more freedom).

11. Capitalism and the state will always produce resentment and rebellion. People do not like to be controlled, or exploited. The racism and authoritarianism of the state will cause some malcontents to blame the scapegoats and cling to fascist ideals of rebellion. Direct propaganda by the state ensures the growth of fascism within the populations of the dispossessed. Thus, as long as the state exists, fascism is inevitable. Those who oppose fascism must support anti-authoritarian revolution. (Authoritarian revolution is no answer, because the state is a tool of domination, and even if it can be taken out of the hands of a particular capitalist class, it will turn those who wield it into a new, similar elite class. And after all, the authoritarian Left revolutions brought about governments like the USSR that were similar to the fascist states in many ways). But if there is a strong fascist movement, revolution becomes difficult or impossible, because of the ability of fascists to divide the lower-classes and attack revolutionaries.

12. Therefore, people opposed to fascism must attack government and capitalism as the causes, while treating fascism as an aggressive and disabling symptom. Anti-fascists with no critique of capitalism or the state are fighting a losing battle, because they confuse cause with effect. Fascists do not come from nowhere. They are encouraged by the state, and they draw on the anger that is produced by capitalism. Fascism cannot be defeated by simply beating up fascists (although in the short-term self-defense is certainly necessary). After all, fascists often recruit from the poor populations that might support true anti-capitalist revolution if they could be educated to see past xenophobia and racism.

13. So, to defeat fascism we need to create an anti-capitalist movement that is also anti-authoritarian. And such a movement needs to belong to people of all colors and nations, capable of international solidarity. But renouncing the national/ethnic divisions of the fascists does not mean ignoring any such divisions that do exist in society. It is the liberals who take the hypocritical “color blind” approach to racism. There are not inherent differences between people with different skin color—in this sense we are all equal. But there are differences in our cultures and histories. It makes a big difference if society has treated you and your ancestors like subhumans. Systems of privilege and oppression continue to divide us, even when we have good intentions. Often white anti-fascists ignore these divisions and make themselves unable to work with people of color by holding onto their privilege or being blind to real differences in needs, histories, and consequences of action (e.g. how harshly the police will react to different people based on skin-color). This is one reason that “anti-fascist” movements throughout Europe and the US are almost entirely white, effectively excluding people of color and immigrants. Overcoming white supremacy is just as important as overcoming capitalism, and being color-blind to the point of just seeing economics is a way that white people divide the movement (many people of color will not want to work with whites who minimize the far-reaching problems of white supremacy). White people must also find their own reasons for fighting against the alienating, disempowering system of white supremacy. Instead of ignoring it, seeing how it hurts and limits their own identities can help them become better allies to people of color who are more obviously hurt by racism. Overcoming the segregation that ironically plagues antifascists does not mean white antifascists inviting activist immigrants and people of color into their movement. On the contrary, it means white anti-fascists need to understand how they can be better allies to those who suffer fascism most directly; and it also means they need to take responsibility for, rather than disowning, those whites who have been misguided by racism into becoming the fascist base, and educating them. Therefore, the immediate steps towards building a movement capable of destroying fascism at its source are understanding how our society feeds fascism and learning where to obstruct this process; understanding how privileged and oppressed people experience fascism and resistance differently, and bringing these understandings together in a spirit of mutual assistance; and directing the rage of people insulted daily by exploitation and authority, away from the scapegoats and towards the deserving targets: capitalism and the state.

translations available and encouraged, pamphlet for use as anti-fascist educational tool, spread widely

0 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070210035440207

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Antiwar Protests Against Obama, Clinton, McCain, Farr, and Others

Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:51:32 GMT

In this mailing:
1. Santa Cruz, California action against Sam Farr
2. Antiwar Protests Against Obama, Clinton, McCain and Others

Protest To Bring The Troops Home Now!

Friday Feb. 16,
Santa Cruz County Building, 701 Ocean Street

Sit in at Representative Sam Farr’s Office to Demand:

Cut Off The War Funds!

Sam Farr has voted a number of times for the billions of dollars that have been used to wage war and murder hundreds of thousands in Iraq. He has promised to vote against the $93 billion emergency war appropriations bill that Bush has forwarded to congress, but Farr still consistently supports and votes for massive general appropriations for the military budget. These are votes for war.

The People of Santa Cruz Demand No Money For War!

This protest is part of the growing national movement demanding that representatives, like Sam Farr, that claim to oppose the war stop funding it.

Money For Jobs, Healthcare, Housing, and Education! Not a cent for war!

People holding all political philosophies in opposition to the war are welcome. This includes those that think that Democrats like Sam Farr can be persuaded or pressured into opposing the war as well as others that want to expose the Democrats as useless and put forward mass action, strike action, direct action, green, anarchist, and socialist alternatives towards ending the war.

This is being organized as a nonviolent event, but we cannot guarantee the conduct of the Santa Cruz Police.

Friday Feb. 16, Santa Cruz
Meet 1:00 PM on the front steps of the county building, 701 Ocean Street.

Sponsored by Liberation News
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

******
Project Occupation has been staging protests/sit-ins/demonstrations nationwide targeting the offices congresspersons that support the Iraq war by funding it.

In addition the Troops Out Now Coalition will be marching on the offices of Hillary Clinton on March 17 starting at Times Square (43rd and Broadway) at 1 PM. For more on Hillary Clinton's pro-war record see: Pro-War Hillary Clinton, What Are The Alternatives?
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/77262.html
Here are some actions that have already happened or are underway:

St. Louis has an feature about an action at Rep Russ Carnahan's office:
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/2840/index.php

Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) DC Offices
http://wmass.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1711/index.php

Barrak Obama’s and Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) offices in Chicago
(which resulted in 8 arrests)
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/82702.shtml

The San Francisco offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). For more on Senator Diane Feinstein's pro-war record read: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/28/18302034.php

The Portland office of Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR). More actions are planned (or underway)
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/353477.shtml

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Seattle, WA
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/257544.shtml

Rep. Mike Honda in the South Bay (by Raging Grannies!)
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/08/18359668.php

Rep Matsui in Sacramento, CA
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-01-28-22-10-01-news.php

De Moines, IA
http://www.kcci.com/news/10965748/detail.html (very brief)

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Dirty War of Oaxaca

Tedster — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:43:05 GMT

http://indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/02/18334698.php

Americas | International | Globalization & Capitalism
The Dirty War of Oaxaca
by Barucha Calamity Peller
Saturday Dec 2nd, 2006 5:36 PM

Amongst flames of resistance came death, torture, and a movement forced into clandestinity. (Reposted from Counterpunch.org)

Latin Americas' ¨dirty war¨ of the 70s and 80s has reemerged in its most blatant form in the case of Oaxaca, Mexico in the final days of November.

The APPO, the Popular Assembly of The People of Oaxaca, whose struggle to oust the PRI party governor Ulises Ruiz and to replace power with that of popular assemblies began on June 14th with an attempt to violently evict a sit-in of striking teachers. Six months later they find themselves living clandestinely with federal warrants on their names and on the run from the police.

In this past week, the government of Mexico has adopted a ¨gloves off ¨ policy and has clearly stated in the press its plans to do away with the popular movement in Oaxaca before Friday, the 1st of December, when PAN party Felipe Calderon was to take presidential office despite protests by millions of voters around the country amidst the fraudulent summer elections that stole the vote from PRD (Democratic Revolution Party) candidate Lopez Obrador.

Thousands of Preventive Federal Police, PFP, forces who entered the city of Oaxaca on the 28th of October, prompted by the death of Indymedia journalist Brad Will, are now in control of the local, state, and investigative police branches, and have expanded their operations to outside of the capital, Oaxaca City. A special operations department of the PFP joined the existing force there, and armed patrols circle the city.

The past week has resulted in over 171 detained, a number that rises everyday. 142 of those detained during weekend clashes were transported to a high security prison in Nayarit, a state over a hundred miles north of Oaxaca. The majority of these prisoners are out of communication with the outside and are assumed to be suffering torture. Human Rights organizations in Oaxaca and Nayarit say that they are aware of at least 36 cases of torture, and the few families who have been able to speak with their detained relatives say that they are badly beaten and that women are being threatened with rape. There is at least one report of a prisoner being tortured in order to sign a false confession of having participated in the damages to the capital under the pretext that the APPO paid him. Amongst those detained there are many accounts of arbitrary detentions, and prisoners who have nothing to do with the APPO. Human Rights organizations in Oaxaca say that the combined number of women raped by police or disappeared is over 60.

Participants in the Oaxacan social movement only expect the conditions of repression to worsen, especially with the entrance of Felipe Calderon of the PAN (National Action Party) into presidency today. A week and a half ago Calderon stated that upon entering into office he would do away with all social movements, no matter how many dead would have to fall.

During the Saturday night roundup, which resulted in at least 3 people killed and another 25 disappeared in the same twenty four hours, a hotel worker said that he came across a group of PFP officers who boasted to him that they had already killed 13 people, and that the press would never know because the bodies had been disappeared.

A Week of Hunting

The form in which the government is carrying out the operation to do away with the movement makes it apparent that it is not only an operation, but a spectacle of repression meant to cause psychological trauma and a widespread fear to prevent further uprising.

The government has banned marches in Oaxaca, and promised severe repression if mobilizations of any kind are carried out, making it impossible to rally for the 200 political prisoners arrested over the weekend, or to demand that the upwards of 25 people disappeared on Saturday and Sunday be returned alive. Despite this, a small number of family members of the detained and disappeared carried out a march in Oaxaca City today.

Moreover, the last APPO radio, Radio Universidad, was handed over to Benito Juarez Autonomous University officials on Wednesday. The APPO sympathizers said that the reason for their withdrawal was because of the lack of people wiling to protect the radio under the threat of arrest or disappearance, and because of the rumor that the Federal Preventive Police would enter before five that night. Indeed, different police forces operating in the city had been patrolling near the Cinco Señores barricade at the entrance to the university for days, and on Monday arrested three people leaving the radio, including a French woman, Mille Sarah Ilitch Welch, who faces deportation on Friday. Apparently there were many warrants out on the radio hosts as well.

The radio was the artery of communication and coordination for the movement in Oaxaca. Without the radio, disappearances and arrests can go unnoticed, and Oaxacans are left without a forum in which to organize and distribute information. For the past month in Oaxaca, the only other radio operating was Radio Ciurana, a PRI (Industrial Revolution Party) supported radio whose hosts and callers often threaten APPO sympathizers. In the days leading up to the "Mega Marcha" on the 25th of November, the radio was calling for PRIistas to throw hot water and hydrochloric acid on marchers. The radio often calls for movement offices to be burned and blatantly threatens violence against many of the participants.

And while PRD and PAN parliamentary representatives exchanged punches inside the Congress to gain a space for governance in the days leading up to the inauguration of Calderon, police forces in Oaxaca continued to carry out "cateos", or house raids in Oaxaca, a regular practice that has gained speed in the past days.

On Thursday November 30 there were house raids throughout the city and in surrounding towns, and 8 anarchists from the Ocupa Oaxaca collective were arrested in Colonia Reforma.

Police claim that they have a list and photos of 100 foreigners that they are searching to arrest for their participation in the movement. Immigration officials arrested an Argentinean. Beatriz Ana Livinter, and a Spaniard, Alfonso Gutierrez Ferrando, yesterday.

The PFP also entered Zaalchia on Thursday, a town 11 kilometers outside the capital where the people ran the mayor and the local police out of the town months ago, in protest of neoliberal policies threatening their land and water. The invading PFP were ran out of Zaalchia, but not before arresting 4 teachers.

In Ocatlan, the PFP entered schools and suspended classes, leaving the school children terrified.

On Monday Frederick Carmona Splinkter and a student were forcibly taken at gunpoint and tied up in a neon red car outside the Faculty of Medicine and shots were fired at the building of the faculty. The two kidnapped later turned up in a detention center on Oaxaca.

People have seldom left their houses this week in Oaxaca, and those involved in the movement have only left to buy food, others have attempted to leave the state to find refuge in other parts of the country. However, police have set up roadblocks on highways leading to Mexico City, and there are reports of people being taken off of buses, to be searched and arrested.

The disappearances, arrests, and rapes seem to be part of a government plan to force the popular movement into a state of fear by causing the movement's thousands of participants into geographical dispersion and into a state of living clandestinely. Under these conditions, it is difficult for people to organize, mobilize, or even communicate.

Night Terror

The heavy repression came after a mega march on Saturday, November 25th. The APPO had called for a peaceful march from a town outside of Oaxaca city to the Zocalo, the center square occupied by the federal police since their entrance into the city a month ago. The vision of the march was to surround the police by creating a chain of marchers in the streets around the Zocalo, essentially to reoccupy the city by closing in on the occupying federal forces. The marchers planned to camp in the streets for forty eight hours, to demand the exit of Ulises Ruiz from power and the PFP from Oaxaca City.

Only an hour after the march had arrived and surrounded the Zocalo, protesters built barricades in the streets, handed out food, and yelled insults at the police a block down. Not soon after, the first rounds of tear gas could be heard on Acala Street, near the APPO sit-in of Santo Domingo Plaza. This set off a six hour battle between protesters and police, in which both sides retreated and advanced on the downtown streets of Oaxaca City. The APPO stole city buses and cars and drove them into police lines or burned them to create barricades to defend Santo Domingo. Police shot continuous rounds of gas at the heads and bodies of protesters.

During the course of the confrontation, 36 buildings were burned, Among the targets were; the Benito Juarez Theatre, the Secretary of External Relations, the Superior Tribunal of Justice, a number of banks and upscale hotels and dozens of cars and busses to use as burning barricades.

Around eight o'clock that evening protesters finally retreated from Santo Domingo, after PFP water tanks began to advance from parallel streets and it seemed that it was no longer possible to defend the space that APPO had occupied for a month.

During the retreat, hundreds of protesters ran up a narrow street in the direction of Benito Juarez Boulevard. At least three gunshots rang out, and a young man was shot in the leg, presumably by paramilitaries on the roof. Upon reaching the boulevard, a few hundred protesters attempted to regroup, while blocking the street with 18 wheelers and buses. In other parts of the city, groups of protesters sought refuge in houses or attempted to fend off police and paramilitaries circling the city.

In the course of the night, police beat and arbitrarily arrested almost anyone they found on the street, including people who were in neighborhoods far away from the conflict in the center of Oaxaca City.

Unmarked cars could be seen passing through the same streets over and over again, presumably containing PRI party supporters and government paramilitaries who were carrying out disappearances.

At approximately 11 o'clock at night, automatic weapon gunshots were heard for ten minutes straight. The shots were fired towards the Faculty of Medicine, just north of the Center, where protesters ran to seek refuge. According to a witness, when teachers and other protesters attempted to leave the faculty, a group of porros (government backed paramilitaries) ordered them to stop at gunpoint.

The group refused and the porros opened fire, killing three people.

Some of the teachers began to fire back in defense as they were retreating.

And at 7 am on Sunday morning, as APPO sympathizers hid out in houses around the city and the police and PRI paramilitary groups disappeared people off the streets, PRI party outlet Radio Ciudana was naming out neighborhoods and houses where protesters could be found.

¨We know of one house where there are six Americans who have been helping the APPO¨, the host said, creating a fear for anyone who had an American in their house that paramilitaries would arrive to massacre everyone inside.

How to Continue?

Many people wonder what the past week's repression will mean for the movement in Oaxaca and what its effect will be on a national scale.

Comparisons have been made to the siege of Atenco in the first days of May this year, where 3,500 PFP police entered the town to quell an anti-neoliberal movement. The Atenco siege resulted in two deaths, 40 unconfirmed disappearances, and 218 political prisoners, 35 of which were women who suffered rapes at the hands of the police.

Indeed Oaxaca has prompted many contextual questions on part of both the movement and the government. On Monday, as the PFP in Oaxaca patrolled Santo Domingo plaza, the APPO encampment lost during the Saturday battle, popularly ousted Governor Ulises Ruiz appeared at the scene to assess the damage to the burned buildings downtown. He said that the detentions carried out in the previous nights meant a step towards stability. For months the federal government has been calling the "ungovernability" of Oaxaca a local problem that has no significance to Mexican society as a whole, even so, paradoxically Ruiz blamed outsiders from other states for the damages in Oaxaca.

Activists in Mexico have had the task of assessing the situation in Oaxaca in comparison to the rest of the country, and there remain many questions of how different movements can relate to that of the APPO in terms of coordination and solidarity. While those suffering repression in Oaxaca remain isolated by the mainstream Mexican media, who have hardly reported on deaths, disappearances and torture, there is also a danger coming from some of those on "the left" in Mexico who isolate the Oaxacan movement as a protest against the governor Ulises, and not a broader struggle against neoliberalism and capitalist exploitation whose context is surely national. Despite this, at the moment there are still organizations and collectives around the country who are strategizing their modes of solidarity for Oaxaca, particularly concentrating on the grave human rights situation for those incarcerated and those remaining inside the city.

Calderon took presidency today in a veritable coup d'etat, accompanied into the parliament by military and PAN party supporters. Meanwhile, social movements around Mexico brace themselves for the "mano duro", or hard-hand, of repression that is sure to come.

Yet an APPO member from the Section 22 teachers union, the same union that set off the Oaxaca uprising when the government violently attempted to evict their sit-in in June, said on Thursday night outside of a human rights coordination meeting, "What they don't realize is that it doesn't matter who they arrest, who they disappear in Oaxaca. There will always be more that come from behind and rise up, after all, they can't detain the whole state."

© 2000–2006 SF Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

Kick Ass Signs

catalystism — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:12:46 GMT

I found this site. Has some really good ideas on how to put up signs, BIG SIGNS!!!

Happy Culture Jammin!

http://www.freewayblogger.com/howto.htm

fighting till my last breath (in action and words),
jax

(jaxfitzgibbon@yahoo.ca)

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Illogic of Capitalism

Tedster — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:52:56 GMT

The Illogic Of Capitalism
Friday, December 29 2006 @ 09:45 AM PST
Contributed by: Anonymous

Under capitalism, the condition for economic activity is the business owner's ability to reap profit. Under logic, the condition for economic activity is to alleviate material scarcity.
Under capitalism, food is produced to sell for profit. Under logic, food is produced to feed people. Under capitalism, the Earth is a resource. Under logic, the Earth is our habitat.

The Illogic of Capitalism

by Jae Muzzin
Windsor Guerilla Gardening Collective
roadwindsor@riseup.net

Under capitalism, the condition for economic activity is the business owner's ability to reap profit. Under logic, the condition for economic activity is to alleviate material scarcity.
Under capitalism, food is produced to sell for profit. Under logic, food is produced to feed people. Under capitalism, the Earth is a resource. Under logic, the Earth is our habitat.

1)There can be a shortage of consumable goods, yet massive unemployment.
Labour produces goods, so it's logical that when there is a shortage of goods, more labour is needed to end the shortage. This is a very simple concept, and anywhere there is poverty, there are people looking for work who see employment as a way to eradicate this poverty. A community without adequate housing would logically seek to build more houses, and a people without food would logically seek to grow more food. As humans, we are able to find solutions to problems, and we are willing to labour at these solutions until the problem is solved.

In spite of the logic described above, poverty and unemployment go hand-in-hand in capitalist societies. Through private property laws, capitalists literally own the means of production. They own and control the land, the tools, and the assets required to produce goods and alleviate poverty. When the preconditions of production are such that the capitalist will profit from this economic activity, the capitalist will use these assets to produce goods, and through the wage he gives to his employees, they are able to purchase goods which keeps them from falling into material scarcity. However, when the preconditions of production do not allow profit to be made, either because of market forces or otherwise, the capitalist halts production and closes the factory, farm or shop. Although unused, the capitalist class (banks, mortgage companies, holding firms), retains ownership of these assets incase they can be used at a later time or sold off. With the business closed, and the employees out of work, they no longer have a wage to purchase the necessities of life. So the workers are now in a position of material scarcity. Logic would tell them to labour and produce the things they need, but this solution is not viable because the means of production are owned by the capitalist class, and this ownership is enforced by the state, which has a monopoly on violence thus preventing people from forcibly taking back the means to produce.

Under capitalism, the condition for economic activity is the business owner's ability to reap profit. Under logic, the condition for economic activity is to alleviate material scarcity.

2)There can be enough food for everybody, yet people go hungry
Food alleviates hunger, so its logical that when there is hunger, food will be produced to end that hunger. All species have the ability to feed themselves, and the procurement of food is a prerequisite of any living being. Modern humans have the ability to control their food production, and almost every geographical region on Earth has the ability to sustain human life. Given these facts, there is no reason why any person should go hungry. But as we shall see, capitalism finds ways to ignore the most obvious of logic.

In "developed" and "underdeveloped" countries alike, people go hungry who are not able to acquire the food they need to maintain a healthy diet. Despite the vast amounts of food being produced, people still cannot find enough to eat. Once again, the illogical capitalist pursuit of profit is to blame. By using food as a way to reap profit, the emphasis is put no longer on feeding people, but on securing a fruitful economy for the owning class. By alienating people from the growing and processing of food, the capitalist economy forces us to procure food through monetary exchange. Inherent in capitalist economy is the monopolistic accumulation of money by the owning class, thus the vast majority of people are left with little or no money and entrapped in debt and servitude. Since we trade money for food, and the distribution of money is grossly unequal, it follows that the distribution of food is grossly unequal. This is proved empirically by observing that the poorest of people are also the ones who have the least food available.

Since we proved that the unequal distribution of food is due to the unequal distribution of money, we may hypothesize that an unmediated, direct method of producing food would alleviate hunger (ie people/communities growing their own food). This hypothesis is true, but only if we do not consider the capitalist monopolization of land and assets. For people to grow their own food, they must first procure land, but this would bring them into conflict with the capitalist owner of that land, who has the violent force of the state on his side.

Under capitalism, food is produced to sell for profit. Under logic, food is produced to feed people.

3)There can be impending ecological disaster, yet a continued drive towards development
Science shows us that modern humans are having a detrimental effect on the environment. Logic tells us that we must adjust our living habits in order to preserve the world's ecosystems. This has become engrained in people's consciousness, and individuals have taken on initiatives like reusing goods, cutting down on their waste, carpooling, etc. As humans we have the capacity to determine how we are harming the Earth, and we have the empathy to stop these harmful practices. However, the institutions, social organization, and production methods imposed on us by capitalism have made true ecological reform impossible as long as capitalism continues to exist.

The goal of the capitalist is to reap profit and accumulate more wealth. The method of reaching this goal is through economy. The process of producing and selling a commodity is how capitalists make their profit. The labour of workers is sold on the market (by selling the goods produced by these workers), and the capitalist gives only a fraction of this money back to the worker (this is the wage system). The surplus from this sale is what gives the capitalist wealth. From this, we can ascertain that without this process of producing and selling, the capitalist would have no way of procuring wealth. Thus production is necessary for the existence of capitalism, and the more commodities that are produced, the more surplus wealth is generated for the owning class. With more wealth, the capitalist is able to buy more assets, which in turn makes him more wealth, and this perpetuates until he is able to beat other businesses in a price war or outright buy them out. This is the 'grow or die' principle often cited in capitalist economic discourse. We know that matter and energy cannot be created from nothing, so this growth of production is only possible if we take matter and energy from something else. The only possibilities is to take matter and energy from existing production facilities, or natural resources. The clearcutting of forests, the depletion of fish stocks, the scarcity of fossil fuels, these are all examples of capitalist production growing at the cost of the natural world.

Other kinds of ecological destruction(CO2 emissions, species extinction) are byproducts of the economy that capitalists created. Since profit is the goal of the capitalist, and economy is the source of this profit, it follows that the existence of the economy takes precedence over the existence of a healthy environment. It is not possible for a capitalism to balance both concerns, because this violates the 'grow or die' principle, which is inherent to capitalism.

Under capitalism, the Earth is a resource. Under logic, the Earth is our habitat.

1 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20061229094541744

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment

Tedster — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:39:39 GMT

Please read and discuss

http://www.is.wayne.edu/StuartHenry/Effectiveness_of_Punishment.htm

On the Effectiveness of Prison as Punishment

Stuart Henry, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair of Interdisciplinary Studies,

College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs

Wayne State University

Paper presented at the Conference: Incarceration Nation: The Warehousing of America’s Poor, October 24, 2003, Ivy Tech State College, South Bend, Indiana.

Introduction

The issue of punishment is emotionally charged, misunderstood and nothing if not uncertain in its outcome. The central question is “Does Punishment Work?” The answer clearly depends on what is meant by “punishment” and what is meant by “work.” Also important, is for whom is punishment effective, and by what mechanism? For example, are potential offenders likely to be affected by, even deterred by the existence of punishment? Are the kinds of behavior that are changeable though punishment the same as those which we classify as crime? In other words, are all behaviors equally able to be reduced or eliminated by the use of punishment? In addition, is the effective mechanism in the use of punishment its severity or the effectiveness/certainty of punishment as a consequence for the behavior? Finally, is prison an effective method of punishment for crime, or are other methods more effective in bringing about reductions in crime and changes in harmful behavior?

The empirical question of the effectiveness of punishment is considerably clouded by the commonsense view of the efficacy of punishment. Most people believe punishment works because they use it in their everyday life, with their children, their co-workers and their pets, and, are themselves subject to it. Indeed,

“punishment is what most of us do. . .first. It is our teaching legacy passed down from generation to generation. We are virtually surrounded by punishing strategies used to influence our behavior: From overdue library books to dogs without licenses; fines, penalties and reprimands whirl around us like leaves in a storm. For many of us, to give up punishment as our primary tool with which to influence negative behavior is to leave us empty handed.” (Friedman and Brinker, 2001: 1).

Not surprisingly, the populist pro-punishment stance is reflected in public opinion surveys on the value of punishment, particularly extreme punishments like prison and the death penalty. According to punishment advocates like Morgan Reynolds of the Texas-based National Center for Policy Analysis:

The answer is obvious to most Americans -- yes, of course punishment reduces crime. Punishment converts criminal activity from a paying proposition to a nonpaying proposition, at least sometimes, and people respond accordingly. We all are aware of how similar incentives work in our lives, for example, choosing whether or not to drive faster than the law allows . . . Incentives matter, including the risks we are willing to run. This is only a commonsense observation about how people choose to behave . . . . Public opinion strongly supports the increased use of prisons to give criminals their just desserts. The endorsement of punishment is relatively uniform across all groups. More than three-quarters of the public see punishment as the primary justification for sentencing. More than 70 percent believe that incapacitation is the only sure way to prevent future crimes, and more than three-quarters believe that the courts are too easy on criminals. Three-quarters favor the death penalty for murder. (Reynolds, 2000)

Notice, however, that these beliefs are based on two conservative philosophies: (1) “incapacitation” i.e. that prison stops offenders incarcerated from offending while they are in prison, and (2) “just deserts” that those who commit crime deserve to be punished. The question of whether punishment is effective, is much more problematic, even though many, particularly economists who study crime, such as Isaac Ehrlich and Gary Becker, and criminological advocates from the political right, such as Charles Murray (1997) claim to have demonstrated evidence that it reduces crime by deterrence. So what do we know about the effectiveness of punishment, and in particular, what do we know about prison as an effective punishment? To answer this we need to first define punishment.

Defining punishment and how it works

What is punishment? Most psychologists define punishment as a process of presenting a consequence, delivered after a behavior, which serves to reduce the frequency or intensity with which the behavior occurs (Lefton, 1991). The consequence, i.e. the punishment, can either be providing an undesirable stimulus or removing a desirable stimulus. In either case the idea is that punishment decreases the probability of the behavior occurring again.

There are two mechanisms that explain how punishment works to suppress unwanted behavior. The economic model is that of rational calculation: punishment is painful and therefore a cost which will be avoided; if the punishment is associated with the behavior, avoidance of pain is accomplished by avoidance of the behavior. The psychological model is that of learning though conditioned responses: repeated associations made between a behavior and aversive stimulus or removal of desired stimulus or positive reinforcer can, over time, lead to an “automatic” learned response to avoid the behavior.

It is also important to appreciate that punishment can vary in intensity along a continuum from mild to severe: “Punishment is not one single strategy but a collection of strategies that exist on a continuum from very mild to highly aversive approaches. Given our definition of punishment as a behavior-reducing technique, it is important to understand the nature of this continuum.” (Friedman and Brinker, 2001)

Punishment effectiveness

The effectiveness of punishment relates to how far it is successful in suppressing the undesired behavior. Effectiveness depends upon practices that work in general, and those that work with specific populations; the effects are not necessarily the same.

Psychological research on punishment in has shown that mild punishment can be effective in changing behavior, but the evidence is less clear about the effectiveness of severe punishment. Effectiveness of punishment is increased by:

1. Frequency of application

2. Immediacy of application

3. Punishment used in conjunction with positive reinforcement of pro-social behavior

However, punishment, especially in its severe form has several negative effects:

1. Avoidance or escape

2. Alienation of those punished, to the point of inaction

3. Aggressiveness, both targeted and generalized, by those punished

4. Conditioning of the punishers through rewarding them for behavioral change

5. Reproducing punishment behavior in those punished

Crucial seems to be the relationship between effectiveness and severity. In criminal justice this translates into whether certainty of apprehension is more effective than the severity of punishment. Clearly if there was a severe punishment but no one got caught, the likely effect on behavior change because of the punishment would be low. Alternatively, having a high certainty of getting caught with no consequences is not likely to prove effective (although, because of the apprehension effect, it still has some ability to depress the occurrence of unwanted behavior). An optimization of a low to moderate punishment combined with a moderate to high certainty of apprehension seems to be the most effective combination. In criminal justice terms this translates to increased levels of policing. Evidence shows that increased levels of policing produce a substantial reduction in crime over time (Kovandzic and Sloan, 2002; Levitt, 1997; Marvel and Moody, 1996), and that this effect is enhanced when police efforts are targeted at certain problem areas. Indeed, even advocates of punishment, like Reynolds concede this point:

Scholars also ask which provides the greater deterrent, certainty or severity of punishment? One provocative study involving prisoners and college students came down firmly on the side of certainty. When tested, both groups responded in virtually identical terms. Prisoners could identify their financial self-interest in an experimental setting as well as students could. However, in their decision-making, prisoners were much more sensitive to changes in certainty than in severity of punishment. In terms of real-world application, the authors of the study speculate that long prison terms are likely to be more impressive to lawmakers than lawbreakers. . . . Supporting evidence for this viewpoint comes from a National Academy of Sciences panel which claimed that a 50 percent increase in the probability of incarceration prevents about twice as much violent crime as a 50 percent increase in the average term of incarceration. (Reynolds, 2000)

While research by Charles Murray (1997) and the NCPA has claimed that increasing the probability of severe sentences for crimes can reduce the incidence of crimes committed, there is little consensus among criminologists about this and general agreement that just increasing the severity of punishment for specific crimes does not reduce their occurrence. Murray, in his 1997 paper “Does Prison Work?” argues that the crime rate declines in relation to the sentence per crime and rises when the sentence per crime falls. He says that in the US the 10-year decline in the crime rate from the period 1990-2000, at 5% per year, resulted in one third less assaults, 50% less burglaries and 66% less robberies, and 75% less auto theft. This correlated with a substantially higher rate of imprisonment per population and a rising rate of imprisonment per recorded crime. He concludes that the crime reduction in the US is a direct result of the policy of imprisonment, which has both a deterrence effect and an incapacitation effect. Moreover, he believe that offenders should be incarcerated even when the crime rate is low, as prison sentences can stop rising crime and reverse the trend. Others have applied Murray’s findings (Saunders and Billante, 2002-3) and drawn similar conclusions.

Critics charge that demonstrating a correlation is not establishing a cause; that rates are aggregate for the US and ignore important state differences; that crime rates have risen again after 2000 while the incapacitation and sentence/crime imprisonment/population both remained high; and that the reliance on official crimes known to the police and use of index crime rather than all crime, make the analysis highly suspect. Others point to at least 14 explanations for the decline in the US crime rate during the period covered including: (1) a strong economy and low unemployment; (2) a decline in the nature of drug markets, especially a change in the crack-cocaine market; (3) a reduction in the number of young males in the population as the 1960s birth cohort matured; (4) increased law enforcement budgets under the Clinton presidency; (5) increased adoption of community policing strategies. Clearly whether crime was reduced as a result of higher prison sentences or other factors is an open question, although the combination of factors probably had a significant impact. However, we should be extremely cautious since the improved economy argument is potentially very significant, especially for the rational choice argument. Most research has consistently shown that unemployment is correlated with increased levels of crime. In particular, if the rational choice argument is believed, that during full employment potential offenders commit less recorded crime, then why is it not also likely that potential offenders among the formerly unemployed would, when employed, choose to commit their crime in the relatively unpoliced privacy of their work place. Here they can engage in property offenses, with virtually no risk of prosecution and incarceration, rather than the relatively high risk/cost arenas of the street? Thus the rational choice model here would predict that there would be a reduction of officially recorded crime during high employment, not because of severe punishments, but because of a shift of crime reward opportunities from the risk-averse public arena to the risk-free workplace. In addition, the whole question of whether a prison is an effective punishment, begs the question of whether prison is a punishment is perceived by potential offenders as a cost, and if so, to whom and for what kinds of behavior?

Prison as an effective punishment?

There is no question that prison is seen as a severe punishment for most people. The critical question is whether it is an effective punishment for potential offenders. This depends on what motivates potential offenders. The deterrence argument is based on the arguments of economic rational choice theory and the classical assumption that offenders are self-interested, reasoning, rational cost-benefit calculators. However, much of the criminological literature has demonstrated that there are a variety of motivations that shape criminal activity ranging from biological predispositions, psychological personality traits, social learning, cognitive thinking, geographical location and the ecology of place, relative deprivation and the strain of capitalist society, political conflict and social and sub-cultural meaning. The result is that most criminologists reject the arguments of pure rationality contained in Ehrlich and Becker’s utility and wealth maximization theories. Even those like Clarke and Cornish, who favor the rational choice argument, advocate the idea of “limited rationality.” Indeed, as supporters of Murray’s argument are forced to concede: “The economic theory of crime that has developed out of Becker. . .recognizes that different individuals break the law for different reasons, that not all law breakers are rational utility maximizers, and that different offenders will weight the risks of benefits in different ways.” (Saunders and Billante, 2003: 4). So, who are the offenders who are supposedly influenced to reduce their commission of crime by deterrence through the severity of prison as a punishment? To answer this question we need to examine who are prisoners, and what are their crimes.

Prisoners and their Crimes Punished in US State Prisons

There are four key facts on prisoners and their crimes: (1) demographics, such as the gender, race and age of prisoners; (2) their level of education; (3) the nature of their offenses, and (4) their criminal history. Data for 1997 shows the following:

Source: BJS, Sourcebook, 2001

Source: BJS, Sourcebook, 2001

Source: BJS, Sourcebook, 2001

Thus the data show us that 67% of the state prison population are male, Black, Hispanic or other non-white and that 86.8% are aged between 18 and 44; in other words, young minority males. Moreover, the data also shows that this population is relatively illiterate compared with the US population as a whole, with 40% functional illiteracy rate compared with 21% among the population as a whole.

Source: Open Society Institute, Research Brief, Sept 1997

One might conclude that those incarcerated are less likely to be rational, cost-benefit calculators. Indeed, a look at incarcerated offenders criminal history supports exactly this point. Data shows that the national re-arrest rate is 63%, although can be as high as 84% for juveniles (Open Society, 1997) but that 76% of the state prison population has a previous criminal history of prior convictions. The data for 1997 shows that almost half of those with prior convictions are for violent offenses. Importantly, 59% of recidivists have more than two previous convictions and 43% have more than 3 convictions.

Criminal History of State Prisoners, 1997

Prior Convictions

Percent of State Prisoners

0

24.5%

1

16.7

2

16.2

3-5

24.7

6-10

12.0

11

6

Source: BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2001

Clearly, the threat of prison as punishment did not work for the majority of these offenders. This picture of the deterrence effect of prison as punishment is further undermined when examining the kinds of crimes that those in state prison have committed.

Offenses

Percent prison population

Violence

47%

Property

22

Drugs

21

Public Order

10

Source: BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2001

Of these offenses, only 22% are property crimes, the most likely to be deterrable; the rest are violent or drugs crimes, the least likely to be deterrable since they are typically motivated by irrational, expressive acts, or are the result of addiction or behavioral and personality problems. Indeed, only 10.7% of crimes are “burglaries” which are those most frequently cited as “deterrable” by prison as punishment advocates. In short, neither the majority of offenders nor the types of offenses committed by state convicted prisoners are of a kind that are the outcome of cost-benefit calculations that take account of the potential prison sentence, prior to the act.

If prison is not effective as a disincentive to offending, what is?

Research over the past 10 years has consistently demonstrated that the most effective way to reduce offending, and particularly reoffending is through education, particularly literacy training and GED (Steurer, Smith, and Tracy, 2001). An Arizona Department of Adult Probation Study showed that probationers who received literacy training had 35% rearrest rate compared with a control group that had 46% rearrest, and those who received a GED had a rearrest rate of 24% (Siegal, 1997). Less dramatic but equally encouraging results were received from a Florida study of 18,414 inmates released from prison in FY1996-97 followed up after 2 years, which found that “inmates who earn a GED are 8.7% less likely to recidivate than those who do not complete a program. . . Inmates who receive a GED and improve their TABE score to 9th grade level or higher are 25.0% less likely to recidivate than those who receive a GED and have a TABE level of 8th grade or less.” (Florida Department of Corrections, 2003). The Florida study also found that “Academic program impacts are found even among offender groups that normally have higher recidivism, for example, males, younger males, black offenders and prior recidivists.” Importantly, a New York State study found that “young inmates who earned a GED while incarcerated returned to custody at a rate of 40% compared with 54% of inmates under 21 released with no degree” (Staley, 2001). Most dramatic, however, is the data on those in prison: Inmates with at least two years college education have a 10% re-arrest rate, compared to the national rearrest rate of 62%. A Texas study is most revealing showing that the overall recidivism rate for degree holders in the Texas Department of Corrections between 1990-1991 was 15% compared to 60% for the national rate and a two year follow-up study showed that those with associates degrees had a recidivism rate of 13.7%, those with bachelor’s degrees, 5.6%, and those with master’s degrees zero (Tracy and Johnson, 1994):

Source: Open Society Institute, Research Brief, Sept 1997, based on Tracy and Johnson, 1994

So, if the evidence is clear that prison as punishment is ineffective in deterring offenders, but education makes a substantial difference to recidivism, why do we continue to use prison as punishment? Moreover, why did we stop using education, particularly college-level education, for prisoners? The analogy of criminal justice and social policy as a “toolbox” comes to mind (Einstadter and Henry, 1995). We have many “tools” each refined for serving different functions. Just as a screwdriver, hammer, saw, wrench serves different functions to solve technical problems, so various policy options are available to deal with crime problems, whether this is biologically based treatment, psychologically based therapy, sociologically based education and training, and economically based punishment. However, it seems that policy makers peering into the justice toolbox only see one tool, the hammer of punishment, and they try to use it to fix everything. Imagine what would happen if your plumber showed up to fix a leak and all he had was a hammer. Imagine if you took your car to be serviced and all they had was a hammer! Why, given the bio-social, psycho-political complexity of human beings do we restrict our policy to this one-dimensional approach. It makes no sense. Indeed, we seem to have a better appreciation for how to bring behavioral change in parrots than in people. As noted parrot experts say:

There will always be many unknowns about behavior; there will always be important variables that are out of our control. Behavior is just too complex for simplistic cookbook approaches to mentoring our birds . . . Each situation is unique and requires careful analysis and informed consideration. Facilitating well-adjusted, independent, confident companion parrots through the use of positive teaching techniques is more than just a commitment to learning new strategies; it is also a commitment to changing our legacy. The time for such change is now. (Friedman and Brinker, 2001)

So what are the policy implications of the prison-as-punishment does not deter crime conclusion? First, we need to consider ceasing to use prison as punishment. Incapacitating the most seriously harmful offenders is a different argument. Second, we should draw on the research of what we know works to prevent recidivism, especially literacy programs, skills training and GED, as well as educating prisoners to associate’s degree level in higher education and restore financial support for these successful practices. Third, we should train corrections officers to be corrections officers rather than guards, and if that means training them to be effective and qualified teachers, then this will be money well spent. Fourth, we should invest the money spent on incarceration on ensuring that the illiteracy rate among the nation’s population is reduced dramatically. Doing so will ensure that our general population is equipped to make the very kind of rational choice decisions that will enable them to make better choices in the first place. Finally, we should abandon the discourse of punishment as our response to unwanted behavior. It doesn’t work for parrots and it doesn’t work for people.

posted in //class war// - 6 replies

Congress Votes 368-31 to Back Mumia’s Racist Frame-up

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:20:36 GMT

Congress Votes 368-31 to Back Mumia’s Racist Frame-up

By Steven Argue

On December 6th Congress voted 368 to 31 to back the racist frame-up of Mumia Abu Jamal by condemning the decision of the French city of St. Denis to name a street after the innocent death row inmate. This anti-Mumia resolution, HR 1082 (also called HR 407), asks the French government to intervene against the city.

Voting against the resolution were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Congressperson Robert Scott. He argued that the case was still being decided in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and that it was inappropriate for Congress to take a position.

In reality Mumia’s case is such a blatant and outrageous frame-up that it should be considered the responsibility of Congress to intervene on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal in particular and against the racist death penalty in general. Yet under the current racist government of Democrats and Republicans Robert Scott is correct in opposing Congress’s intervention. As Pam Africa, chair of the International Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, has pointed out, “the House action is designed to weigh in on and promote an atmosphere in the U.S. judiciary that is prejudicial to Mumia's receiving any form of justice today.”

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals will be hearing arguments in January. This is Mumia’s final appeal. It will decide if Mumia is set free, given a new trial, held in prison for life, or executed.

The resolution falsely claims, “Mumia Abu-Jamal stood over Officer Faulkner and shot him in the face, mortally wounding him…” Yet this is not what the eyewitnesses said. For instance William Singletary says, "Mumia Abu-Jamal didn't shoot Daniel Faulkner. The passenger in the right-hand side of the Volkswagen [that Faulkner had stopped] got out of the car and shot him. When Mumia came on the scene, we [Singletary and another man] were on the police radio trying to radio for help." ("Witness: Abu-Jamal didn't do it" Philadelphia Daily News Dec. 8, 2006)

Five California Democrats in Congress voted nay while 23 voted for the resolution. Those voting against were Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Fortney Stark, Michael Honda, and Maxine Waters.

Joining in the racist lynch mob voting for the blood of an innocent black man were California Democrats C. Thompson, Doris Matsui, Nancy Pelosi, Ellen Tauscher, Tom Lantos, Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren, Dennis Cardoza, Lois Capps, Jim Costa, Linda Sanchez, Brad Sherman, Adam Schiff, Henry Waxman, Hilda Solis, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Jane Harman, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Grace Napolitano, Joe Baca, Loretta Sanchez, Bob Filner, and Susan Davis. Not voting were Diane Watson, Howard Berman, and Xavier Becerra.

Also voting for blood were California Republicans Walter Herger, Daniel Lungren, John Doolittle, Richard Pombo, George Radanovich, Devin Nunes, William Thomas, Elton Gallegly, David Dreier, Edward Royce, Jerry Lewis, Gary Miller, Ken Calvert, Mary Bono, Dana Rohrabacher, John Campbell, Darrell Issa, Brian Bilbray, and Duncan Hunter. Howard McKeon didn’t vote.

Nationally, among those voting for the anti-Mumia resolution was Democrat House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She has also announced that she and the other Democrats will continue funding the war in Iraq. In voting against Mumia Abu-Jamal Nancy Pelosi has voted for the death of an actual anti-war and anti-racist leader of the people, while her career has been firmly planted atop the corpses of over 650,000 dead Iraqis by her continuation of the slaughter.

It is outrageous that that the Democrat party would vote in its House majority to condemn a French city for daring to make an issue of a racist legal lynching, while doing nothing about the liar and killer, Bush. But then again that should be no surprise either since the Democrat Party voted in its majority for the war in Iraq.

The Democrat Party was also involved in the frame-up of Mumia Abu-Jamal from the beginning. Democrat Ed Rendell was the Philadelphia district attorney that successfully worked to frame Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1982. Later, with a lynch mob attitude created by the lies of the corporate press, he successfully ran for mayor of Philadelphia on a platform that included promoting the murder of Mumia Abu-Jamal. He was Mayor from 1992-1999. Bill Clinton then helped get him the position of chair of the National Democratic Committee. Since 2003 he has been the Governor of Pennsylvania. In addition Ed Rendell is a member of the Fraternal Order of Police that is calling for Mumia’s blood while his wife is an appellate judge on the Third Circuit US Court of Appeals that is going to hear Mumia's appeal. Besides framing Mumia, Rendell also presided over the police bombing of the MOVE home in Philadelphia in 1984, resulting in 11 deaths and 65 homes destroyed.

Nationally eight voted “present”, including California Democrats George Miller and Sam Farr, choosing not to vote for or against the resolution. In effect Miller and Farr, while present in the mob, chose silence while the United States Congress was transformed into a racist lynch mob calling for the blood of an innocent black man and political prisoner.

Sam Farr cast his “present” vote despite sending this author a letter promising to back the Congressional Black Caucus’s position, that having been a position in support of framed political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal. Sam Farr also sent me a copy of a letter that he sent to the Congressional Black Caucus with the same promise. These promises, as it turns out, were nothing but lies.

This vote by the racist US Congress was also an affront to the people of St. Denis that have chosen to support and honor Mumia. Would Sam Farr stand aside in a similar way if a resolution came before him that called for action against his constituents in the City of Santa Cruz, where the city has also passed resolutions in favor of Mumia Abu-Jamal?

Mumia is innocent, and much of the world knows it.

Here is the response the City of St. Denis had to earlier attempts to coerce them into ending their support for Mumia Abu-Jamal:

“The city hall of Saint Denis denounces the manipulations of certain ultra-conservative pressure groups, and reasserts its commitment in favor of Mumia Abu-Jamal

“The city hall of Saint Denis re-affirms yet again its support to the women and men who are demanding Mumia Abu-Jamal be treated with fairness and justice. The picket this 30th day of November 2006 has been organized to protest against the pressure brought to bear on the city of Saint Denis by members of the American extreme right in order to bring about the cancellation of our decision to name one of our streets after an African American militant who has been unfairly incarcerated and sentenced to the death penalty.

“This ultra conservative pressure group, based in Philadelphia, has not hesitated to make use of the grossest manipulations. Thus, the widely disseminated information according to which the city of Philadelphia is suing the cities of Saint Denis and Paris, because of their commitment in favor of Mumia Abu-Jamal - is nothing but a lie. The Mayor of Philadelphia, as well as the president of its city council, informed the city of Saint Denis that they never intended to file any kind of suit, and have absolutely nothing to do with this campaign.

“This manipulation was unmasked, and it should be know that the Philadelphia politician who initiated it, though a member of George Bush's party, was defeated during the recent American elections.

“Whatever the case may be, the city hall of Saint Denis is proud to have named a street of this city in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has become one of the symbols, of the struggle for justice and the abolition of the death penalty in the US and throughout the world.

“It is not the first time that an international mobilization has taken place in favor of American citizens who are unfairly sentenced in their own country. Such was the case for Nicola Sacco, and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, between 1920 and 1927, for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who died on the electric chair in 1953, and subsequently in 1972 for Angela Davis initially sentenced [sic, she was actually never sentenced] for murder, before being acquitted of all charges.

“The city hall of Saint Denis will steadfastly pursue the struggle to save Mumia Abu-Jamal, so that this man incarcerated for a quarter of a century for a crime he has always claimed he did not commit - be reinstated in his human rights.

“Saint Denis 30th of November 2006”

The people of the world should not forget this hypocritical act of the US Congress, a governing body of a nation that falsely claims to uphold the values of human rights on a world scale. Likewise this once again exposes the need for the American people to build a socialist alternative to racist and repressive Democrat and Republican Parties.

As Mumia Abu-Jamal says, “Conventional wisdom would have one believe that it is insane to resist this, the mightiest of empires. But what history really shows is that today's empire is tomorrow's ashes, that nothing lasts forever, and that to not resist is to acquiesce in your own oppression. The greatest form of sanity that anyone can exercise is to resist that force that is trying to repress, oppress, and fight down the human spirit...”

Mumia stands up for unions, against war, against racism, equality for gays and lesbians, for the poor, and against the many injustices of the so-called criminal justice system. Mumia speaks up on many of the issues ignored, lied about, or glossed over by the corporate media and the corporate politicians. We need Mumia, yes we need him alive, but we also need him free. Yet all of the evidence shows that Mumia won't get justice in America unless we turn up the heat.

********************
Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner in the United States on death row. For more information on Mumia's case and how to get involved, check out the following web sites:

Yet Another Witness Comes Forward and Refutes The Frame-Up Of Mumia
Abu-Jamal!
http://www.freemumia.com/policecoercion.html

Labor Action Committee To Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
http://www.laboractionmumia.org/

International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
http://www.mumia.org/freedom.now/

Free Mumia Coalition, NYC
http://www.freemumia.com/

San Francisco Free Mumia Site
http://www.freemumia.org

Chicago Committee To Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
http://www.chicagofreemumia.org/

This is an article of Liberation News, subscribe free:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Propaganda War over Venezuela (in free online films)

Alexander — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:38:36 GMT

The Propaganda War over Venezuela (in free online films)

The following are video files about the current situation in Venezuela. The first movie is actually not about Venezuela, but is about he American orchestrated coup in the “Banana Republic” of Guatemala in 1954 for the United Fruits. This movie looks how American imperialism manufactures lies and distorts information for corporatist pursuits. The next two films are by Greg Palast. Followed by an eight part documentary called “Chavez - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised” followed by “Venezuela Bolivariana: People and the struggle of the 4th world war” and “Venezuela - Uncle Sam's Coup?” (which also documents unknown snipers that killed average citizens). The next series is films from the opposition. Watch how they use imagery to link Chavez to communism and even prostitution. Over the last summer, Gene Sharp's group Albert Einstein Institute (AEI), which does workshops on non-violent revolutions, has been having workshops with oppositions to Hugo Chavez. There is a strong possibility the corporatists with American Imperialist financing could try to generated “manufactured consent” the hours and days after this news series of Venezuelan elections. Beware that Venezuela maybe the stage for a false "color revolution" that would be manufactured in the corporate media.

the following are descriptions and links to films documenting Venezuela the last few years:

Engeniering of Consent: Guatemala coup 1954
07:09
Extract from "The century of the self" by Adam Curtis. Story behind the coup d'etat which toppled elected president Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954. The film explains how Edward Bernays, recruited by United Fruits, created the conditions for a government intervention. Mass media were successfully used for manipulating the public and generating consensus around a military action involving the CIA.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jnYZVNVqBgU

Greg Palast covers a story on President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4991354545733857055&q=VENEZUELA&hl=en or google video search of Greg Palast covers a story on President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela

Hugo Chavez interview by Greg Palast

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-742015553245977789&q=Hugo+Chavez

HUGO CHAVEZ ELECTED PRESIDENT OF VENEZUELA IN 1998, IS A COLORFUL, UNPREDICTABLE FOLK HERO, beloved by his nation's working class and a tough-as-nails, quixotic opponent to the power structure that would see him deposed. Two independent filmmakers were inside the presidential palace on April 11, 2002, when he was forcibly removed from office. They were also present 48 hours later when, remarkably, he returned to power amid cheering aides. Their film records what was probably history's shortest-lived coup d'état. It's a unique document about political muscle and an extraordinary portrait of the man The Wall Street Journal credits with making Venezuela "Washington‚s biggest Latin American headache after the old standby, Cuba."

Part 1 of 8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=8kmMzukS1cs
Part 2 of 8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=M6oEvlvk56s&mode=related&search=
Part 3 of 8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ft2435ycuZU&mode=related&search=
Part 4 of 8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=25rLLizbwoI&mode=related&search=
Part 5 of 8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=lTuSjU8IVL4&mode=related&search=
Part 6 of 8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=DY24bo9jnX8
Part 7 of 8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=a1ruUmNubhU
Part 8 of 8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=qzIV0OA5Oao

Venezuela Bolivariana: People and the struggle of the 4th world war

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117181384995669233&q=VENEZUELA

Venezuela - Uncle Sam's Coup?
When Chavez was briefly ousted from power in 2002, many suspected America was involved. Now, a lawyer has obtained incriminating CIA documents proving it was.

A top secret CIA brief, written five days before the coup, proves the most incriminating. “It says the coup will take place in the first weeks of April, violence will be provoked in an opposition rally and the President will be taken prisoner”, states lawyer, Eva Golinger. “This is what happened.” Golinger has spent the last three years investigating the coup, tracing the money trail from Washington to key organisations involved. “It wasn’t just that they were giving them money. They quadrupled the funding from 2001 to 2002.” Other declassified documents show the US Embassy praising the coup leader as “the right man at the right time for Venezuela”. Remarkably, although the coup failed, Washington has stepped up its funding for the opposition. As Golinger states: “It’s as if they said ‘We didn’t give you guys enough. We’ve got to give you more because you failed.’” But ironically, America’s support for the opposition seems to have only strengthened Chavez’s hold on power.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4124074101371070575&q=VENEZUELA&hl=en

Plan V para recuparar la Democracia en Venezuela el 3-D
03:37
Este es el Plan de acción No Violenta que promueve la oposición en Venezuela para salvarla del Castro Comunismo de Hugo Chávez y su llamada Revolución Bolivariana.

"La teoria de que el poder deriva de la violencia, y que la victoria necesariamente va del lado de la mayor capacidad para ejercer la violencia, es falsa".

Gene Sharp
El Poder de la Fe

Este video fue realizado por ORVEX (Organización de Venezolanos en el Exilio) tomando la presentación en FLASH que aparece en la sección del Plan V del sitio www.atrevetevenezuela.com.

ORVEX
www.orvex.org/noviolencia.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BJ989_vIjhQ

Una Versión Diferente del Amor de Hugo Chávez
05:00
Todo tiene su final. En ORVEX creemos que esta pesadilla que se viste de demócrata solo podrá salir si se usan los espacios democráticos que aún quedan en Venezuela para aplicar técnicas no violentas de lucha.

"La teoria de que
el poder deriva de la violencia,
y que la victoria necesariamente va del lado
de la mayor capacidad para ejercer
la violencia, es falsa"

Gene Sharp
El Poder de la Fe

Te invitamos a conocer las técnicas no violentas, las mismas que utilizaron Gandhi en la India y Martin Luther King en los Estados Unidos, para devolverle la Libertad y la Democracia a Venezuela.

http://www.orvex.org/noviolencia.html

"Huid del país donde uno solo ejerce todos los poderes. Es un país de Esclavos". Simón Bolivar

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t64GCvNIcck

¿Qué será de los Venezolanos después del 3-D?
03:59
Video que busca motivar a todos los Venezolanos para que SIN MIEDO este 3 de Diciembre de 2006 SALGAN A VOTAR en contra de Hugo Chávez y a COBRAR.

Aún cuando sabemos que Hugo Chávez no va a dejar el poder, independientemente de los resultados, porque simplemente él no es democrático, el ir a votar masivamente en su contra es un signo de que NO LE TENEMOS MIEDO.

Otro signo de que NO LE TENEMOS MIEDO a Hugo Chávez será el quedarnos en las mesas para observar LOS ESCRUTINIOS, es decir, el conteo de los votos, ya que ese acto es público, Y EXIGIR EL CONTEO MANUAL.

Es muy importante NO TENER MIEDO, porque lo único que le puede seguir dando el poder a Hugo Chávez es si nosotros le demostramos MIEDO y si ACTUAMOS CON MIEDO.

Es importante saber que el poder que hoy día tiene Hugo Chávez se basa en el MIEDO que nosotros le demostremos, y NO en LA VIOLENCIA que el pueda ejercer. Y Hugo Chávez, COMO ES MILITAR, piensa (ERRADAMENTE) que las ARMAS Y LA VIOLENCIA lo mantendrán en el poder, ya que las utiliza PARA INFLIGIR MIEDO en los Venezolanos. De hecho, él ya ha comprado más de 100 mil fusiles Kalasmikov para amedrentar a la oposición interna más que para defenderse de una supuesta agresión externa imaginaria que nunca llega.

A medida que la oposición sucumba al miedo, más poder le estará otorgando a Hugo Chávez y a sus seguidores.

El peligro actual que tiene la oposición, y que sellará su derrota el 3 de Diciembre si no actua correctamente de aquí en adelante, está en creer que la violencia es el único camino de obtener el poder, y que la victoria esta del lado del que tiene más armas.

La buena noticia es la siguiente:

"La teoria de que el poder deriva de la violencia, y de que la victoria necesariamente va del lado de la mayor capacidad para ejercer la violencia, es falsa."

Gene Sharp
El Rol del Poder en la Lucha No Violenta
www.orvex.org/noviolencia.html

Para Hugo CHavez, el PODER actual que tiene deriva del MIEDO que la gente le pueda tener. Y si NO LE TENEMOS MIEDO a Hugo Chávez, éste caerá sin remedio INDEPENDIENTEMENTE DE QUE EL TENGA MAS ARMAS QUE EL PUEBLO.

Es por ello que "LA CAPACIDAD DE DESAFIAR Y LA CAPACIDAD DE RESISTIR" se convierten en el aspecto central del poder, y que su acción efectiva radica en que exista una oposición unida, o lo que Gene Sharp llama "oposición corporativa".

ORVEX, en su afán por reducir el fenómeno del Exilio, la Persecución Política, y el Número de Solicitudes de Asilo Político, está promoviendo la utilización de TECNICAS DE LUCHA NO VIOLENTA para que la oposición venezolana las conozca y las ponga en práctica DE LA MANERA CORRECTA, y evitar que suceda lo que pasó en Venezuela, por ejemplo, durante la Huelga General de 2 meses realizada entre el 2 de Diciembre de 2002 y el 2 de Febrero de 2003, la cual buscaba sacar a Hugo Chávez de una manera pacífica y democrática, pero que NO FUE DEBIDAMENTE LIDERADA porque la misma sirvió para desgastar a la oposición y desmoralizarla, y no cumplió el objeto para la cual fue convocada: SACAR A HUGO CHAVEZ.

Por la fatídica experiencia venezolana, se podría llegar a pensar que la LUCHA NO VIOLENTA no tiene sentido ni es efectiva. Sin embargo, si nos detenemos a ver que Gandhi en la India logró vencer a los Británicos SIN HACER UN SOLO DISPARO, y que Martin Luther King Jr. logró los Derechos Civiles de las personas de color en los Estados Unidos SIN VIOLENCIA, entonces la pregunta no es si las técnicas de protestas no violentas sirven o no sirven, sino que la cuestión está en COMO APLICARLAS.

La diferencia que tenemos con los Cubanos, es que a los Venezolanos AUN NOS QUEDAN PEQUEÑOS ESPACIOS DEMOCRATICOS como el de IR A ELECCIONES.

Si no nos ponemos las pilas los Venezolanos este 3 de Diciembre de 2006, Hugo Chávez cerrará los pequeños espacios democrátioos que quedan en Venezuela, para hacer que toda Venezuela sea ROJA ROJITA. Es por ello que las elecciones del 3 de Diciembre no son unas elecciones más, sino LA ULTIMA OPORTUNIDAD de demostrarle a Hugo Chávez QUE NO LE TENEMOS MIEDO, que VAMOS A VOTAR, que VAMOS ESTAR AHI PRESENTES durante el conteo de votos, y que VAMOS A RECUPERAR la Libertad y Democracia en Venezuela.

Es nuestra ULTIMA OPORTUNIDAD. No hay otra.

Si tenemos MIEDO y no aprovechamos esta ULTIMA OPORTUNIDAD, entonces VENEZUELA SERA OTRA CUBA, y creo que ninguno de nosotros deseará que nuestras mujeres, hijas y nietas terminen como las mujeres cubanas que aparecen en el Video, y creo que ninguno de nosotros deseará vivir en un sistema BASADO EN EL MIEDO Y EL TERROR.

Si no, no nos quedará otra que seguir el consejos de Simón Bolivar (que no era chavista, por cierto):

"Huid del país donde uno solo ejerce todos los poderes: Es un país de esclavos".

Animo, y a cobrar este 3-D.

Elio Aponte
C.I. V.- 5.531.657
Presidente
www.orvex.org

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u1PF2n4c1a0

El Terrorismo Petrolero de la PDVSA Chavista

Se puede creer en cosas que no se han visto. Y si alguien tenía dudas del secuestro de PDVSA, este memo podrá ayudar.

Es un tema en technicolor para hacer algo útil del amor. AMOR, palabra vilmente prostituida:

" ... he actuado unicamente por AMOR y lealtad a MI PUEBLO en todos mis pensamientos, y actos de mi vida. Ellos me dieron la fuerza para tomar las decisiones mas difíciles que mortal alguno nunca confrontó. En ello he empleado mi vida, mi esfuerzo en el trabajo y mi salud ..."

"Mi Testamento Político", primera parte, 1945.
Adolfo Hitler.

No se puede negar la existencia de algo palpado, por más etereo que sea. No se puede exigir una prueba de decencia de aquello que es tan verdadero.

Que más prueba que este memo de PDVSA, de tantos que hay, de la verdadera ilegalidad, inmoralidad, indecencia, e ignorancia.

La nobleza y pureza del Sistema Democrático ha sido vilmente burlada, violada y secuestrada por el Chavismo.

Los Chavistas están desbordados.

Venezuela es cual Supermercado, en donde uno encuentra que no hay cajeros, y ve a la gente salir con lo que puede, con sus carritos y bolsillos llenos de víveres y productos, mientras que por la parte trasera van llegando más camiones con mercancia, y el ciudadano decente mira desde afuera y le pide al vigilante que haga algo para detener el saqueo, y éste responde con indiferencia: "Si no tienes el Carnet Rojo de entrada, no puedes pasar ni agarrar nada. Ellos están con el proceso, y pasan cuando quieren y agarran cuanto quieren. ¿Que esperas para unirte al cambio?".

El Chavismo se desbordó con su indecencia; banda de delincuentes, que violan la Ley, malversando los fondos del país, violando los derechos humanos ante la mirada impune de las autoridades.

Los Chavistas, viviendo en la romería de los mutilados, en la fantasía de los infelices, en el día a día de las meretrices, de todos los bandidos y desvalidos.

No tienen decencia, ni nunca tendrán.

Oh, ¿que será de Venezuela, oh que será?

En pantalla, solo algunos de los nombres de los miles. Como dice su líder: "AL MUNDO".

Finalmente, por sus crímenes pagarán. Porque ya se oye la puerta tocar ... ay ! .... la puerta tocar. La puerta de salida de este régimen nefasto que algún día le llegará su hora.

Viva Venezuela Libre, Democrática, Decente y Próspera en donde impere la Ley y haya igualdad de Deberes y Derechos.

________

Música del gran Willie Colón.

ORGANIZACION DE VENEZOLANOS EN EL EXILIO
ORVEX
www.orvex.org

Transcripciones de Asilo Politico en Estados Unidos trabajamos por Internet - Ni importa en que parte de los EE.UU. ud. se encuentre. Precios solidarios y facilidades de pago:
www.miasiloenusa.com

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gG3bQ7lJoDY&mode=related&search=

posted in //class war// - 2 replies

I need photos songs and documents about the working class struggle in us in the 30's

Jakkred — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:38:45 GMT

I'm from greece and we want to make a presentation of a book about the class stuggle in the us. we have gathered a lot of stuff from that time but i need more.
most of all i'm interested in "almanac singers" songs and photos from miners strikes.
please help me if you have any or you know where i can find them.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Leading Democrats say "No to Impeachment of Bush.. it is off the table"

Alexander — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:39:33 GMT

Leading Democrats say "No to Impeachment of Bush.. it is off the table"

Conyers Toes Party Line: No Impeachment
Something Is Extremely 'Rotten In The State Of Denmark'

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, November 10, 2006

The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of
their victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today
said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to
distort my position on impeachment, " Conyers said in a statement
released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker
(Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the
table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment
is off the table."

Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the
grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The
Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception,
Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War"
and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance. "

For a while Conyers was the darling of left leaning bloggers and
readers everywhere:

At this site, we are especially proud of the new Conyers
Report, "The Constitution in Crisis." By purchasing this book, you
have the opportunity to own a part of history and help the
Congressman hold the Bush Administration accountable. Your
assistance in helping Congressman Conyers become the next Chairman
of the House Judiciary Committee will bring us one step closer to
getting the American people the answers from this Administration
that they deserve.
- www.afterdowningstr eet.org

Conyers is so admirable. One of the very few in Congress who still
has integrity and principles. It is too bad that he does not get
more MSM coverage but why would they do that? He might upset the
Republican and Corporate plans for total control and could expose
their nefarious doings.
He is risking much by not following the official DNC program too, in
addition to challenging the Bushies.
- Huffington Post

In december 2005, upon release of the report, Conyers stated:

The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima
facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the
allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated.
Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to
whistleblower laws... The Report also concludes that these charges
clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct... In response to
the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have
introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee
with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush
Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible
impeachable offenses.

So Conyers was already underway with setting up investigations into
impeachable offences, but now he says that impeachment is off the
table? Clearly he has been given orders to toe the party line or
face the consequences.

Despite the fact that 86% want to see the President impeached,
leading Democrats have already ruled this out. The same leading
Democrats that voted for the war in Afghanistan, for the Patriot
Act, for Homeland Security and against a bill that simply condemned
torture of prisoners in Iraq.

After Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, Conyers is the latest Democrat
to show us their true colours once in power.

Conyers and the other Democrats highlight precisely why we need to
regroup, consolidate and redouble our efforts in light of the
theatrical shift of power in Washington to the left. Because as soon
as this happened, overnight, the truth movement lost a great deal of
support from those that believe the job is now done.

Taking note of many reader comments over the past few days I have
noticed a startling uprise in the amount of negative and dismissive
feedback from some readers. Evidently those who expected us to be
out dancing in the streets at the news of a Democrat landslide in
Washington have been bitterly disappointed.

We have never once suggested that the solution to a corrupt and
fascist Neocon leadership is a passive and capitulating Democrat
sideshow leadership, so why is it any surprise that we are
continuing on the same course as before?

Comments such as the following emphasize my point:

"You can only have it one way. What the hell is up with you people.
The whole time the Bush regime was in power you begged for change.
Now you have it, but your still complaining. "

Yes we are seeking change, but not a simple change of personnel as
we have witnessed this week. As we reported yesterday "There's no
doubt about it, to see frothing Neo-Cons who have been strutting
around like John Wayne for the past five years finally eat humble
pie is a breath of fresh air, but let's not be so deluded as to
think that the Neo-Con agenda, which took decades to craft, was
simply brushed aside by the victory of a party that has supported
Bush every step of the way on major issues."

Seeing Bush on TV admitting he'd took a hell of a beating was great,
for about five minutes, then he started laughing and joking about it
and talking about pushing forward to work closely with a new crowd.

Is rolling over and going back to sleep going to get Bush impeached?
Should we shut down the websites now and go save the whales or
something else we'd all love to be doing if we didn't have to
relentlessly keep fighting to stop our leaders killing our freedoms?

Within hours the Democratic elite have shown us that they don't give
a damn about holding the Bush administration up to scrutiny. With no
effective opposition in the form of a political party it is up to
the people to continue to demand justice and to continue to attempt
to reign in those who have heinously abused their power.

Thomas Jefferson described Congress as "a body to which the people
send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question
everything and yield nothing."

In light of this how can any representative say something like
impeachment is 'off the table?'

found at
http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/101106Rotten.htm

Nancy Pelosi on YouTube and Howard Dean

Nancy Pelosi on the YouTube saying "NO TO IMPEACHMENT... ITS OFF THE TABLE"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=R-4vw2qw3Wc
or
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mAGCgY4PDNA

Howard Dean Says No Impeachment Of Bush
Lapdog Democrats to waste two years on minimum wage and mass illegal amnesty, no to Iraq inquiry, no to police state rollback, no to bringing troops home

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, November 9, 2006

Howard Dean last night said there would be no impeachment proceedings against President Bush under a Democrat controlled Congress, echoing the pledge of Nancy Pelosi to protect the administration that lied a nation into a war and dismantled the very fabric of America.

Here's the exchange from Dean's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.

STEWART: "How long in your mind do you feel it's gonna be before power corrupts you absolutely?"

DEAN: "Well, you know...."

STEWART: "The last guys did it in three and a half days, what are you guys aiming for?"

DEAN: "Longer than that."

DEAN: "I know half the audience wants us to impeach the President and all that kind of stuff but we're not gonna do that - we're not gonna do that."

Dean is toeing the party line first crystallized by Nancy Pelosi when she told the 60 Minutes program, "Impeachment is off the table....it's a pledge....it is a waste of time."

When will jubilant mindless liberals realize that their darling Democrats have been installed as ringers to halt the momentum of the anti-war and 9/11 truth movements while committing to shielding the Bush administration for the very crimes and misdemeanors that supposedly cost them the House and Senate in the first place?

Democrats have already clearly stated how they intend to "get to work" over the next two years - by helping Bush push through a mass amnesty for illegal aliens - something his own republican House even prevented him doing - and also wasting time on the non-issue of the minimum wage.

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens help rollback the devastation the Bush administration has wrought on the U.S. Constitution?

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens bring the troops home?

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens re-instate the nine amendments to the Constitution that were abolished under the Military Commissions Act?

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens do anything to can the unconstitutional domestic eavesdropping program?

Will raising the minimum wage and legalizing all illegal aliens do anything to claw back the out of control deficit?

We were told the Republicans were abandoned because of corruption and Iraq and yet the Democrat shills have completely avoided specifics about how they intend to address these issues and on the question of impeachment have vowed to protect Bush. Empty rhetoric about a "policy change" in Iraq is nothing more than hot air betrayed by a legacy of Democrat support for keeping the troops in the quagmire - exemplified no better than Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, who both support imperial jaunts in the name of the "war on terror."

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has already stated that Blair's government will not co-operate with any move to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and she needn't worry because the Democrats are not going to even try it.

The Associated Press reports that Pelosi and Bush have already proclaimed reconciliation and are now "making nice" and devising how they can work in tandem. Tuesday's vote and its superficial euphoric aftermath was not about a populist reaction to six years of abuse and deceit - it was a sad indictment of the fact that a majority of Americans, particularly the establishment left, still buy the hoax that the Republicrats and the Democons are anything more than two different CEO's bidding for control of Slavery Incorporated.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/091106deansaysno.htm

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

Plan To Establish Government Operated Slave Labor Camps In The US

Alexander — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:53:26 GMT

Plan To Establish Government Operated Slave Labor Camps In The US
2006-11-03 12:41:08
Posted By: JWSmythe
)

Earlier this week, we ran a story on the $385 million contract to Halliburton to build detainment facilities on domestic US military bases for an emergency influx of immigrants; to support the rapid development of new programs; in the event of other emergencies, such as natural disaster. This was an update to previous stories throughout the year on the same plan.

In several stories over the last month, we've reviewed the "Military Commissions Act of 2006", which effectively does away with Habeas Corpus. If you are considered to be an enemy of the state, through action or otherwise, you can and will be thrown in prison. Lets not forget that the pseudo-trial that you may receive will have evidence of your own confessions given up during torture. Well, not torture by the new definition. You'll keep most of your limbs, and you may survive, but you'll be living a whole new life for what you were forced to say.

Now US Army Regulation 210-35 "Civilian Inmate Labor Program" been brought to our attention. Who needs to pay for labor, when you can use the prison population for your slave labor.

Lets review.

Anyone can be arrested for pretty much anything. Charges are optional, as long as you can be considered to be against the state. Having a dissenting opinion is definately fair game.

Anyone can be thrown in prison, without trial or even a lawyer to advise them.

One an individual is in prison, they are fair game to be sent off to the "Civilian Inmate Labor Program" camps.

For those who are unfamiliar with history, lets point out a few real winning examples of how this was done in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_camp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

Read US Army Regulation 210-35 - Civilian Inmate Labor Program [PDF]http://www.freeinternetpress.com/mirrors/usapa.army.mil/r210_35.pdf

found at http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=9133

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

Call to Action Across the US Against Mexican Consulates

Tedster — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 03:16:57 GMT

Call to Action Across the US Against Mexican Consulates
Saturday, October 28 2006 @ 02:26 PM PDT
Contributed by: Anonymous

This is a call to action to remember Brad, show solidarity with the teachers and protesters of Oaxaca, and attempt to interrupt the invasion of Oaxaca that Fox is beginning. Yesterday, as many who are reading this probably already know, an amazing companero, journalist, anarchist, freedom fighter, earth firster, musician, and human being was shot down and killed in cold blood, along with three other companeros, by officials employed by the Mexican Government. His name was Bradley Will, and he was shot at the barricades of Santa Lucia, in Oaxaca, Mexico, as an indymedia reporter telling the story of the amazing resistance of people of Oaxaca.

This is a call to action to remember Brad, show solidarity with the teachers and protesters of Oaxaca, and attempt to interrupt the invasion of Oaxaca that Fox is beginning.

Yesterday, as many who are reading this probably already know, an amazing companero, journalist, anarchist, freedom fighter, earth firster, musician, and human being was shot down and killed in cold blood, along with three other companeros, by officials employed by the Mexican Government. His name was Bradley Will, and he was shot at the barricades of Santa Lucia, in Oaxaca, Mexico, as an indymedia reporter telling the story of the amazing resistance of people of Oaxaca. For over five months residents have occupied the streets in an attempt to oust the corrupt, brutal governor Ruiz, and achieve the dignity, freedom, and autonomy initially sought after by the teacher’s strike which was so brutally repressed by that same governor.

While it is not yet clear which segment of the Mexican government is responsible, it is clear from the many photos taken during the shooting that the chief of police, another policeman, and important members of PRI party which supports Ruiz were involved.

To add insult to injury, President Fox is now using the tragedy of these deaths as an excuse to bring in federal forces, to restore “lawfulness.” We can only assume, given the student massacre of ’68, the history of repression of the Zapatistas by Fox’s military, his recent threats to invade Oaxaca, and the fact that his own government is instigated in the murders, that Fox means to repress the rebellion.

Days before we US residents may have been watching Oaxaca, waiting to “see what happens.” No longer shall we wait. We are now a part of this unfolding history. If the Mexican Army invades Oaxaca, it will be with the financial and military support of the US government. We can not let this happen.

On Monday morning, October 30th, Mexican consulates around the US will attempt to open their doors, to continue business as usual. But they will not succeed in doing so, because we will be there to stop them. At every embassy, at every consulate, we will be there, to remember Brad, to support the teacher’s strike, to fight alongside Oaxacans in their struggle for self-determination and autonomy from the corrupt Mexican government. This call to action against consulates is in line with what companeros from the APPO have already called for earlier this week before this shooting.

We already know of many groups who are planning for Monday, and every day following if necessary. Please spread this call to action as wide as possible. Spread the word: to activists, teachers, students, earth firsters, latino social services centers, places where day laborers gather, anti-racist action groups, food not bombs chapters, peace and justice organizations, Zapatista solidarity groups, anarchist people of color chapters, people you work with, your neighbors. Copy and paste this the whole world wide, and do so quickly. And please translate a version of this to Spanish as well, and spread it around!

A directory of all the locations of all the Mexican consulates in the US and Canada can be found at:

http://www.mexonline.com/consulate.htm

In memory of my friend, who I know will be with us in spirit,

a friend and companero of Brad, who is sad, angry, and organizing.

2 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20061028142639376

posted in //class war// - 3 replies

We have lived as if in a trance.

Alexander — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:41:29 GMT

We have lived as if in a trance.

"The Beginning of the End of America."

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
Countdown
Updated: 3:00 p.m. ET Oct. 19, 2006

On Tuesday, President Bush signed legislation authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and paving the way for trials before military commissions.

Tonight, "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann addresses the legislation in a special comment entitled "The Beginning of the End of America."

You can read an excerpt of Olbermann's comment below.

We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived as people in fear.

And now—our rights and our freedoms in peril—we slowly awaken to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before—and we have been here before, led here by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.

We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.”

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been only human.

We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, “the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass.”

We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always wrong.

“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly—of course—the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?

“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, “in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them.”

"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies that imperil us all.

“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” you told us yesterday, “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”

And did it even occur to you once, sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know—just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “unlawful enemy combatant” for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, Sir, all of them—as always—wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

audio:

http://podcast.msnbc.com/audio/podcast/pd_countdown-10-18-2006-180800.mp3

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

No to Angelides and Schwarzenegger! Yes to Janice Jordan!

Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:44:50 GMT

No to Angelides and Schwarzenegger!

Critical Support For Janice Jordan, Peace and Freedom Party Candidate For Governor

By Steven Argue

Last night’s debate between Phil Angelides and Arnold Schwarzenegger was a grueling hour of corporate politics. Angelides leveled criticisms against Schwarzenegger for cuts to education under his governorship. Schwarzenegger countered by asking where Angelides was when Democrat governor Gray Davis was making cuts to education and asked why Angelides supported those cuts under Davis. Schwarzenegger went so far as to ask why Angelides didn’t join in the student protests for education that had marched by his office under Davis.

It was a valid criticism, yet Schwarzenegger never supported those student protests either and as Angelides pointed out, he has made his own cuts to education.

On a similar note Angelides criticized Schwarzenegger for his praise for the racist anti-immigrant vigilantes called the “Minutemen” while in the same breath calling for a "guest worker" program that would create a new class of super-exploited worker with no political rights. Under the same type of program in the past U.S. bosses often failed to even pay Mexican workers for their hard labor. The fact that Angelides and the Democrat Party are now calling for this kind of legalization of indentured servitude place them firmly in the same racist camp as Schwarzenegger.

What was missing from the debate was the voice of an official candidate that will be on the ballot in November, but was excluded from the debate by the California Broadcasters Association. This candidate, Janice Jordan of the Peace and Freedom Party, could have chimed in that she did in fact support the protests against the cuts of both Davis and Schwarzenegger and that she opposes both the racist Minutemen and the racist guest worker program. But she was excluded from the debates, showing once again the bias of the corporate media as a pillar in preventing true democracy in America.

A truly democratic society would eliminate corporate control of the elections by nationalizing the corporate media and allowing all candidates equal access to the airwaves, cable, and print. Likewise a truly democratic society would carry out a sweeping “campaign finance reform” through the nationalization of the means of production (using that wealth for human and environmental needs rather than decadence and deception).

It will take a socialist revolution to bring democracy to America.

Liberation News sees the participation of socialists in the corrupted electoral politics of America as a critical platform in explaining how we differ from the capitalist Democrat and Republican parties. Likewise all of the undemocratic measures that are used against us, which will only intensify as we grow stronger, expose the parallel need for a revolutionary program to accompany any socialist electoral activity.

The Peace and Freedom Party is primarily an electoral party that speaks of the need for socialism, but generally avoids talk of the only step that will bring socialism, a step that can be summed up in one word: revolution. Revolution is about abolishing the current racist anti-worker and anti-poor police, military, and judicial system and carrying out a sweeping redistribution of the wealth.

Likewise the campaign literature the Peace and Freedom Party hand out at demonstrations often contain good criticisms of the Democrats and Republicans and outline a good platform for social and economic emancipation, but are usually missing another key component that will make putting human and environmental needs before profits possible in a socialist society. That being the nationalization of industry including oil (and other energy), “defense”, auto, the banks, the railroads, chemical, and the agricultural monopolies.

It is due to this lack of a true socialist program in the Peace and Freedom Party, and lack of any campaign statements from Janice Jordan countering it, that Liberation News can only give critical support to the campaign of Janice Jordan.

In giving this critical support to Janice Jordan we recognize that the social reforms called for by the Peace and Freedom Party do still have a revolutionary component in that they go far beyond anything that the capitalist class of the United States will ever allow short of their total overthrow. In giving critical support we intervene to denounce the undemocratic actions of the corporate media and capitalist campaign financing used against the campaign of Janice Jordan, but unlike the Peace and Freedom Party, we take those undemocratic actions to their logical conclusion: the ultimate need for socialist revolution.

While giving critical support to Janice Jordan’s campaign for governor, Liberation News is withholding support for the Peace and Freedom Party’s candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Stewart Alexander. Alexander’s campaign is spreading illusions in the Democrat Party. In his campaign statements Alexander pretends that the Republicans represent corporate interests and that the Democrats do not, their problems being "sitting on the fence" and an unwillingness to spend "political capital". This is nonsense; the Democrat Party is just as much a corporate party as the Republican, both in its financing and in its program.

In another campaign statement Stewart Alexander opposes the Peace and Freedom Party’s platform that calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq from the right. In the statement he claims that the Peace and Freedom Party needs to draw up an exit strategy from Iraq. Yet immediate withdrawal is an exit strategy. It is an exit strategy that takes no consideration of continuing to prop up the undemocratic puppet death squad government the U.S. established, nor does it consider the logistical needs of keeping troops fighting and dying in Iraq to defend military hardware as it is evacuated. Troops are to be evacuated immediately by air, sea, and land the same way they were sent in; and the biggest cause of the bloodshed in Iraq will be gone. This is the exit strategy.

Liberation News calls for U.S. troops out now! Build the mass movement! For the labor movement to break from the Democrat Party of war and exploitation and to end the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. For the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. For student actions against recruiters, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. For building the socialist movement as part of the anti-war resistance today and to ultimately end U.S. imperialism through socialist revolution.

While Phil Angelides and Arnold Schwarzenegger will carry out austerity connected to the U.S. war in Iraq and the economic problems of capitalism, neither the Democrats nor Republicans offer any solutions to the problems of war and capitalism because they support both.

Vote Janice Jordan for governor!

Money for social and environmental needs, not for war and capitalist profit!

For socialist revolution to end imperialism and establish democracy in the United States!
On other state offices Liberation News critical support to the following Peace and Freedom Party candidates:

Gerald Sanders for State Treasurer

Margie Akin for Secretary of State

Liz Barron for Controller

Jack Harison for Attorney General

Tom Condit for Insurance Commissioner

Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

mirror Liberation News:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Liberation-News/

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

New web community!

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:02:31 GMT

Hey all,

just wanted to let interested parties know about the activist web community my friends and I are trying to get off the ground. Its focus is alternative politics, science, and philosophy, as well as, user arts and literature.

We have recently created a new web forum and are really looking to boost the member levels to get some great debates going.

If you are interested, please visit: www.redguerrilla.info

Thanks Everyone!
Gavin

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

Tedster — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:30:32 GMT

CNN.com
Powered by

Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

Air Force chief: Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.

Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.

On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.

The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (&euro15.75 billion).

Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.

Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (&euro1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.

He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.

"We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts," said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to "take some appetite suppressant pills." He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.

The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap

Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Pro-War Diane Feinstein, What Are The Alternatives?

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:18:23 GMT

Pro-War Diane Feinstein, What Are The Alternatives?

By Steven Argue

In California pro-war incumbent Democrat Diane Feinstein has a lead of around 20% over Republican challenger Richard Mountjoy. There are also three socialist candidates running in California for the Senatorial seat now held by Feinstein. Of these, the two that Liberation News is giving critical support are Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action and Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party. In addition International Socialist Organization (ISO) member, Todd Chretien, is running as a Green Party candidate.

Feinstein has voted for every war the United States has carried out since she came into office in 1992. Diane Feinstein also voted to take away our civil liberties by supporting the “Patriot Act” and its renewal. She voted for the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act speeding up the government’s ability to carry out the racist death penalty and ignore evidence of innocence. And she has supported expanded wire tapping as well as a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

Feinstein is a capitalist politician, representing a capitalist party. She also has a personal net worth of 50 million dollars, so she benefited directly when she voted to eliminate the estate tax. Ironically Feinstein has also stated, “Food stamps for the poor are cut ... so that millionaires can have a tax cut.'' Indeed, while this statement was directed at the Republicans, it also applies to her. (Feinstein Urges Regime Change, San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2006)

Diane Feinstein, like many Democrats, has pounded the war drum of the racist Zionist state of Israel even louder than the Republicans.

And just as she is no defender of human rights in the United States she has voted for continued military support to the right wing death squad government of Colombia.

Diane Feinstein: Supporter of Imperialist War

In a press conference on August 21, 2006 George Bush Jr. finally admitted what Liberation News has been pointing out since before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Yet Bush had used a supposed connection as a pretext for the U.S.’s unprovoked aggression against Iraq. In addition, Bush Jr. also admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Most of the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Diane Feinstein included, supported going to war with Iraq. As anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has pointed out, “She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops." (Cindy Sheehan May Challenge California Senator AP, Jan. 26, 2006) Cindy Sheehan’s son was a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq.

In trying to let herself of the hook Diane Feinstein claims that Bush “did not fairly represent intelligence”. Feeble cries by these politicians today that their votes for war weren’t their fault because they were lied to by Bush not only make Feinstein look stupid, they are an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

While the Democrats helped promote the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had no right to defend itself, Liberation News pointed out that it is the United States that has the weapons of mass destruction. Instead we supported the right of Iraq to acquire the weapons necessary to defend themselves from U.S. aggression. There can be little doubt that if Iraq had acquired those weapons they may not be in the mess they are now.

Yet for Bush and Feinstein Iraqi weapons were never the real motive for mass murder in Iraq. The capitalist ruling class, and their Democrat and Republican representatives, thought that they could use their superior military power to quickly move into Iraq and establish by force a stable neo-colonial puppet regime, and then make massive profits from the privatization of the Iraqi economy, especially oil. It is the failures of this imperialist plan, in the face of Iraqi resistance and growing unpopularity at home, that has forced some Democrats and Republicans to try to rethink, or at least distance themselves from, the Bush policies they have supported.

Feinstein herself has directly profiteered from the U.S. imposed misery in Iraq. Her husband, Richard Blum, is a billionaire investor that together with CEO Ronald Tutor own investment companies that hold 75% of the voting stock in a company called Perini. On March 12, 2004 Perini was awarded a $500,000,000 contract for rebuilding the electrical infrastructure of southern Iraq. So Feinstein is profiting from the U.S. bombing of the Iraqi infrastructure as well as its inefficient rebuilding by private U.S. contractors. Perini also received the contract for the construction of facilities to support the First Brigade of the Afghan National Army. These include barracks, dining facilities, a power plant, a water treatment facility and a wastewater treatment plant. Diane Feinstein not only voted for the wars and occupations that made these contracts possible, she also sits on the Appropriations Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. (Perini Corporation, The Center For Public Integrity)

Just as Liberation News opposes the U.S. occupation and corporate looting of Iraq, we also denounced the starvation blockade that was carried out through the UN by the Clinton administration. That blockade, due to the capitalist nature of the Iraqi economy under Saddam Hussein, cost the lives of about a million people, many of them children. While a socialist economy like that of Cuba could have made sure that everyone in Iraq had food, blame for this mass murder should also be put on the Clinton administration. Likewise, it was this Clinton starvation blockade that also weakened Iraq for the Bush invasion.

Today, while the U.S. occupation of Iraq has murdered over 100,000 people and the U.S. starvation blockade of Iraq murdered a million or more, the U.S. government and its puppets in Iraq have the nerve to put Saddam Hussein on trial for propaganda purposes. Yet the worst crimes of the Saddam Hussein regime were also carried out when he was directly backed by the United States. In the 1980’s the U.S. was giving massive military assistance to Iraq to help Saddam Hussein commit genocide against Kurds and carry out a bloody war with Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein was used as an ally of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. Likewise the CIA helped Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party come to power supplying them with the names of 5,000 socialists and labor leaders that the Ba’athists subsequently rounded up and executed.

Yet to those who claimed that an invasion of Iraq would be a chance for the U.S. to finally set things straight and set up a democracy in Iraq, Liberation News responded before the U.S. invasion saying:

“In the 1970s Iraq nationalized its oil fields. This helped the Iraqi people by taking a chunk of the profits made off of oil out of the hands of the international oil monopolies and instead keeping them in Iraq. This money helped pay for free healthcare and education. As such this was a socialist measure carried out by Saddam Hussein’s capitalist government. It was also a measure that stood up to the interests of the rich and powerful nations. For both reasons socialists supported the nationalization of Iraqi oil while those measures infuriated the imperialists...

“While defending Iraq against imperialist attack and supporting their right to defend themselves socialists also recognize that Saddam Hussein is a capitalist leader and that the Iraqi people have their own scores to settle with him. Yet any government set up by a US occupation army will not be democratic and will only lead to the privatization of the resources that American oil monopolies intend to steal...”

“U.S. imperialism will never solve the question of women’s liberation in the Middle East. Unlike all of the US supported governments and forces in the Arab World, Iraqi women have many rights found nowhere else in the Arab World except in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Over 50% of Iraqi doctors are women. Iraqi women are allowed to walk unescorted in the streets. They are allowed to drive. Iraqi women can even freely criticize men. In addition Iraqi women have the right to work and control their own funds. This is in stark contrast to the treatment of women under the repressive U.S. backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia where women have no rights what-so-ever.

“The U.S. ruling class hates governments like Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela who use the profits of their oil resources partly to benefit the people with social programs. Likewise they love governments like that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that strip the people of all their rights and keep the oil profits in the hands of the international oil monopolies and their corrupt local servants. Today in the United States we face unemployment, homelessness, and a lack of health care. The billions of dollars the U.S. will squander on killing Iraqis to steal their resources should be spent to benefit the working class and poor of the United States instead.” -From Liberation News: What Is Socialism, and Why We Oppose The Invasion of Iraq

What was predicted is reality. Those predictions were accurate because they were based on the past behavior of U.S. imperialism. The U.S. has set up a puppet Islamic government with functioning death squads and torture chambers. Socialists have been excluded from participating in elections and unarmed demonstrators have been shot down and murdered in the streets by U.S. troops. The puppet Islamic government also opposes women’s rights and women’s rights have deteriorated dramatically since the U.S. invasion. The rebuilding of basic infrastructure, such as electricity, has lagged way behind what was rebuilt by Saddam Hussein after the massive U.S. bombardment of Iraq in 1992.

With the exception of the privatization of Iraqi oil, all of the predictions have shown themselves to be true and the only reason that Iraqi oil isn’t completely under the direct control of U.S. oil monopolies now is because of the union resistance of 23,000 organized oil workers as well as the general resistance by the Iraqi people to the idea of Iraq’s resources being looted by U.S. corporations.

For the working class in the United States there is ever growing frustration with a war that is costing many lives and billions in dollars while needed programs for healthcare, jobs, the environment, and disaster relief do not get the funding they need.

Yet for the ruling class their failure in Iraq is not in the undemocratic and anti-woman nature of the puppet regime they have set up and the money that has been squandered in doing it, but in the failure of that regime to deliver the stability needed to acquire the oil loot. They complain that oil production in Iraq is below prewar levels and the occupation by U.S. and British troops serve as targets for the insurgency.

As a result some Democrats that voted for the war like John Kerry have called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Yet the Kerry-Feingold plan actually calls for keeping troops in Iraq that are "critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces." The Kerry-Feingold plan also calls for "an over-the-horizon" troop presence in the region that could come to the aid of a failing puppet government in Iraq as well as intervene elsewhere in the so-called war on terror. (Lawmakers begin Bitter Debate on U.S. Troop Withdrawal Plan for Iraq, FOXNews, online report, June 2, 2006)

Senators Harry Reid and Carl Levin have put forward a similar proposal, rendered meaningless with similar loopholes to Kerry-Feingold’s, but their proposal calls for the [partial] withdrawal of troops by the end of 1997.

Diane Feinstein supported the Levin-Reid proposal. Defending the proposal Feinstein said, “Our amendment is not about cutting and running. Rather, our amendment acknowledges that staying the course is a strategy that shows no promise of success, and it is time to change that strategy.” (Video clip shown on CNN’s O’brien Show, online transcript, June 23, 2006)

Unlike Feinstein, Liberation News sees nothing good that can come from the Levin-Reid proposal of staying at full war with the Iraqi people for another year and then carrying out a possible partial Iraqification of the war the year after. We disagree with Feinstein when she says, "We all know we can't cut and run, what I'm talking about is changing the nature of this mission. We have to say to Iraq that it's time for your soldiers and police forces to take over.'' (Feinstein Urges Regime Change, San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 2006)

The U.S. occupation of Iraq is doing nothing for anybody except the capitalists that are profiting from the war and the tax dollars of the American people. We demand: Iraq to the Iraqis! U.S. Out Now! On this issue we agree with the campaigns of Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action, Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party, and Todd Chretien of the Green Party that are all calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq:

“More than 2,250 young American troops and over 100,000 Iraqis have died with no end in sight. If we want to stop the dying and respect the Iraqi people's right to run their own country, then we must immediately withdraw all American military forces from Iraq and the surrounding countries.” -Todd Chretien, California Senate candidate of the Green Party

“Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East!”
Marsha Feinland, California Senate candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party

"Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq! War is an inherent part of capitalism and the ultimate solution to the internal contradictions of the profit-driven and competition-driven system. The U.S. military-industrial complex is organized and designed to maximize profit rates for the corporate few and to serve the imperial economic and political interests of the war-making class—regardless of the capitalist party in power. Socialists acknowledge our fundamental obligation to challenge the U.S. war-makers and their twin parties and to defend the rights and struggles of all those who resist imperialist domination and oppression.” -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action

Liberation news agrees with these calls for U.S. troops out now. In addition we call for the labor movement to break from the Democrat Party of war and exploitation and to end the war through building the mass movement in the streets; striking against arms producers; hot cargoing war materials on the docks, trains, and trucks; and building towards a general strike against the war. Likewise we support the right of military personal to refuse orders and resist this war. We support students, such as those at UC Santa Cruz that have repeatedly driven military recruiters off campus. And we call for building the socialist movement to end imperialism through socialist revolution.

The Role of Peace Action (Formerly Sane / Freeze)

Diane Feinstein has never seen a pending imperialist war she didn’t like. In her entire time in office she has voted for them all. Likewise Feinstein voted for the “Missile Defense System” and other “defense” boondoggles meant to line the pockets of the military industrial capitalists. Yet the group “Peace Action” gives Feinstein the passing grade of voting for peace 89% of the time.

“Peace Action” is deceiving the anti-war vote. Why? Because Peace Action is a pillar of the status quo that sees no alternative to delivering votes to what they see as the “lesser evil” Democrat Party, even when the Democrats are equally pro-war. This strategy has made “Peace Action” an obstacle to peace and a pillar of the status quo.

Every few years the ruling class of the United States parades its selected representatives in front of the American people to give us the chance to vote for their so-called “lesser” and “greater evil” representatives in the Democrat and Republican Parties. The corporate media and liberal pro-war groups like “Peace Action” ignore the anti-war candidates and back pro-war Democrats by misrepresenting their records to the people.

Liberation News urges all of the super-exploited workers that go door to door raising money for the Peace Action bureaucracy to quit your meaningless jobs and look for better work while looking for ways to hook up with the real anti-war/anti-imperialist movement that is marching in the streets. Likewise we urge all of the liberal and leftist minded people that give money to Peace Action to stop doing so and instead participate in the mass anti-war movement in the streets with your bodies, minds, and your money if you can afford it.

In response to the reformist call of, "Anybody But Bush," Socialist Action candidate Jeff Mackler aptly replied, "No to the twin parties of war and oppression!" and "Yes to the independent organization and mobilization of working people!"

Feinstein, Supporter of Racist Israel

Diane Feinstein, like many Democrats, has pounded the war drum for the racist Zionist state of Israel even louder than the Republicans. The U.S. gives Israel billions of dollars in military aid every year and Senator Feinstein’s vote backs that money for death. Israel is a racist settler state established in 1949 that has denied the original inhabitants, the Palestinians, all basic rights. Besides denying Palestinians the same rights to travel, jobs, housing, and education as allowed Jews, the racist Zionist State has used massacres and other forms of terror, wars, and torture to drive out the original Palestinian inhabitants.

Likewise Israel is always at war with its Arab neighbors. Israel’s recent attack against Lebanon where their aerial bombardment of the civilian population murdered 1,150 people and destroyed vital infrastructure is only the latest such terrorism by Israel. Yet when Senator Bill Frist introduced a bill backing Israeli / U.S. aggression in Lebanon Diane Feinstein voted for it along with Senate Democrat colleagues John Kerry (Mass.), Barack Obama (Ill.), Harry Reid (Nevada), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), and Edward Kennedy (Mass.).

Claims of Israel being the victim, bombing and invading Lebanon on the pretext of two Israeli soldiers taken prisoner do not hold water in light of the fact that Israel is holding 2,000 Lebanese prisoners in their torture chamber dungeons from their previous invasion of Lebanon. In addition numerous reports say those two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon, not in Israel. Those reports are from such sources as AP, Hindustan Times, and AFP.

In contrast to Diane Feinstein and her pro-war Democrat colleagues, here is what the candidates to the left of her have to say:

“Israel is a racist state. It has separate laws for Arabs and Jews. The leader of the South African trade union COSATU recently stated that he thinks that the Palestinians face worse conditions than Blacks faced during South African Apartheid. There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as the Zionist state is given a blank check from the United States to treat the Palestinian people as less than human. Israel is part of the American empire and is key to US plans for permanent domination of the Middle East. If we ever want to see our troops come home from Iraq, then the anti-war movement must fight to cut off all American aid to Israel.” -Todd Chretien, California Senate candidate of the Green Party

“As a Jewish American, I chose to run for U.S. Senate partly as an act of conscience in support of the rights of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. The wall which impedes people from conducting a normal life must come down. Israel should abandon the settlements and retreat to its pre-1967 borders. I do not condone any violence against civilians, and favor full rights for all people in any state…End U.S. aid to Israel until it withdraws to its 1967 borders.” -Marsha Feinland, California Senate candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party

“For a democratic and secular Palestine! End all U.S. aid to apartheid Israel! Stop the bombing of Lebanon and Gaza! For a united socialist federation of the Middle East! Socialists reject the legitimacy of the Zionist colonial settler state of Israel, just as we do all colonial settler states. We see no difference between the imperialist colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East of yesteryear and today’s U.S.-backed Zionist conquest and occupation of Palestine. Israel today serves as the chief U.S. instrument for the imperialist domination and exploitation of the Middle East”. -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action

All three candidates of the left take the correct and most important position of ending U.S. aid to Israel, but there are important differences in building an international movement.

While Todd Chretien holds a good position on Israel, the Israeli Green Party is a Zionist capitalist party that holds the position of deputy mayor of Tel Aviv. In a recent letter to the Green Party of the United States by Green Party chairman and deputy mayor, Pe’er Visner, the closest he got to recognizing any crimes by the Israeli government was saying, “We are “sorry” that the Israeli army prevents Palestinian suicide bombers from “expressing” their “human rights” to bomb themselves among Israeli citizens.” This racist response to the suffering of the Palestinian people should serve as a warning to Green Party members in the United States of what happens to parties that fail to put forward a revolutionary program for the overthrow of capitalism as well as fail to be a tribune for all of the most oppressed and exploited in society.

Unlike Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party, Liberation News does not call for a withdrawal of Israel to its conquered borders of 1967. We instead call for pushing Israel back to its 1948 borders for a democratic, secular, and socialist Palestine within the 1948 borders with a separation of religion and state and equal rights for Palestinians and Jews including the Palestinian right to return, a society to be formed by the multi-ethnic working class through socialist revolution.

This is our context of demanding an end to U.S. military aid to racist Israel as well as to the repressive capitalist governments of Egypt and Jordan. Such a cut off is not intended to pressure Israel into a better two state “solution” as Marsha Feinland asks the U.S. government to do, but to allow the people of the Near East self-determination and revolution without the interference of billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to murderous regimes.

Jeff Mackler, in seeing Socialist Action as part of an international socialist movement with an international revolutionary program, has proposed a similar revolutionary program to that of Liberation News, but missing a key ingredient:

“Zionism is an ideology of racism and apartheid segregation. It is a deathtrap for the Jewish people, a central source of almost 60 years of war and oppression of the Palestinians. Socialist Action supports the creation of a democratic and secular Palestine, where Jews and Arabs can live together as equals in a new society, a society predicated on the immediate right of return of all dispossessed Palestinians. In this society, revolutionaries will fight for the construction of an egalitarian socialist state.” -Jeff Mackler, California Senate candidate of Socialist Action

Missing from this formula is the understanding that only socialist revolution, led by (a) secular multi-ethnic socialist party or parties will be capable of solving the national and democratic questions of Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. The capitalists and their parties, be they Kadima, Likud, Labour, Shas, Hamas, Fatah, or the Hashemite King Hussein of Jordan base their rule on capitalist exploitation and are incapable of providing any real solutions. Liberation News disagrees with the idea that democratic secular revolution should occur now and provide the basis for a later struggle for socialism, pointing out that this is the essence of Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory of Revolution when we instead hold high the banner of Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution.

It was this Stalinist Two-Stage Theory that provided the political basis for the Communist Party of South Africa putting all of their resources into building the African National Congress (ANC) as the democratic alternative to the racist apartheid government of South Africa. Yet by building a political party and movement that supported the continuation of the capitalist system they created a new capitalist party that now rules South Africa for the rich white capitalists at the continued expense of the super-exploited and poor black majority workers, minus overt racist laws. Strikes for healthcare and other workers’ demands have been broken by the ANC for the capitalists, HIV-AIDS goes untreated, and the massive mineral wealth of South Africa continues to go into the pockets of the capitalists instead of their potential of benefiting the workers, environment, and world revolution.

So when is the Communist Party of South Africa going to set about fighting for the next stage of the revolution? The answer is never. They are now part of the capitalist apparatus and part of the problem. It will take the other socialist parties of South Africa, the Trotskyist parties, to lead the socialist revolution.

While Stalinism has done much to stifle workers’ democracy in the deformed workers states under Stalinist control, it has also greatly sabotaged the world socialist revolution through Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory. Socialist Action is not a Stalinist organization, but they appear to have adopted part of their program.

So what would be Socialist Action’s ANC for Palestine? Fatah? They’ve already discredited themselves. They’ve sold the Palestinian people out with the Oslo Accords placing the Palestinian people on tiny Bantustan’s without a real basis for an economy. Would their ANC be Hamas? The imposition of Islamic law could hardly be considered a democratic secular revolution. Would they then suggest that Palestinian and Israeli socialists build a party with a purely democratic secular program, abandoning the socialist program as the Communist Party of South Africa did? Let’s drop the nonsense, build for the socialist revolution! For a democratic, secular, and socialist Palestine!

Liberation News rejects Stalin’s Two-Stage Theory of Revolution. We instead hold up the banner of Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution. It was through this theory that Trotsky explained that the democratic and the socialist revolutions are inseparably linked.

Yet the differences between Liberation News and Socialist Action as well as our differences with the Peace and Freedom Party on these questions do not prevent us from giving critical support to both in this election.

The Role of the Green Party

While Todd Cretien of the Green Party has good immediate positions on the war, Liberation News does not support Green Party candidates because the Green Party is a capitalist party. In Santa Cruz, where the Green Party has elected their party member Tim Fitzemaurice to office, Tim Fitzemaurice has backed the fears of local shop owners by voting for anti-homeless laws such as the law that makes it illegal for the homeless to sleep at night. While criminalizing those who cannot pay the high rent Fitzemaurice refuses to take a stand for rent control. Likewise Tim Fitzemaurice has refused to take any stand against police violence used against anti-war protesters in 1999 and other repressive measures against activists including my arrest and beating for distributing literature and the police murder of homeless activist John Dine. Recently Fitzemaurice did take a stand against police infiltration of the organizers of a Santa Cruz anti-war parade, but his stated reason for doing so was an attempt to maintain the credibility of the Santa Cruz police.

Tim Fitzemaurice is not a leader for change in Santa Cruz. He is instead a pillar of the status quo. This is the future of all political parties and politicians that do not have a clear program for the overthrow of the capitalist system.

The Green Party is clear in their program. They state that they are for a system of small capitalism. Yet the small capitalists commonly have a smaller profit margin and often exploit workers worse than the big capitalists. In opposition to such a vision of small and inefficient capitalist exploiters, Liberation News looks to labor struggle and the nationalization of industry under workers’ control as the way to fight and neutralize the corporate exploiters and bring justice for the working class.

On a national level the Green Party generally is not even seeking power, but pressure and reform of the Democrat Party. Yet the policy of many Greens in promoting votes for Democrats when the vote between the Democrat and Republican is close only promotes further illusions in the Democrats. Likewise promising votes to Democrats when it looks close does nothing to pressure the Democrats and their super rich backers to move to the left.

It was a massive and fighting labor movement led to large extent by socialists that forced the American ruling class and Franklin Delano Roosevelt to carry out the New Deal reforms in the 1930’s. This was out of fear of further unrest and potential revolution. It is the position of Liberation News that the most meaningful reforms do not come from reformism, such as that of the Green Party, but from revolutionary and working class struggle.

While making these criticisms Liberation News does recognize that there are differences between the program of Todd Chretien and that of the Green Party. If Todd Chretien was also speaking out for the Green Party to adopt a socialist program we could possibly give him support, but he is not. By running as a candidate and being a spokesperson for a party with a capitalist program Todd Chretien is helping build that capitalist party and program, so we must respectfully withhold our support.

Critical Support To The Socialist Candidates

Liberation News is giving critical support to Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action and Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party. These are two socialist parties that hold socialist programs (for the most part) and are also active in the anti-war, free Mumia, and labor movements. To a large degree they represent the kind of political alternative that Liberation News promotes in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans.

Jeff Mackler of Socialist Action

Jeff Mackler is a long time socialist that has done much in organizing protests against imperialist wars, for the freedom of Mumia Abu-Jamal, for socialism, and other leftist causes.

Jeff Mackler and other expelled members of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) were part of establishing new groups that continued on in some of the better traditions of the SWP, a party that led the 1934 Teamster’s Strike (a turning point in U.S. labor history), a party that was a major leader in the anti-war movement of the 1970’s and 1960’s, and a party that helped establish the world Trotskyist movement and expose the crimes of Stalinism.

Yet Jeff Mackler’s group, Socialist Action, was also born with a few programmatical errors. One was their abandonment of Trotsky’s concept of Political Revolution. The call for political revolution in the deformed workers states, such as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, was a call for overthrowing the repressive Stalinist bureaucracy and institutionalizing workers’ democracy without overthrowing the nationalized planned economy itself. While Trotskyists call for political revolution in the deformed workers’ states, we also defend those socialist economies from imperialist attack and internal counter-revolution. The failure of Socialist Action to understand the true nature of the counter revolutionary movements in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and Afghanistan led to important mistakes.

In supporting Solidarnosc in Poland Socialist Action backed a political movement that had a clear program for capitalist counter revolution and joined ranks with the CIA, the Pope, and Ronald Reagan in backing Solidarnosc’s rise to power. After taking power Solidarnosc’s program became even clearer with the outlawing of abortion (that used to be free on demand) and privatizations of the economy that led to 50% unemployment. Yet despite how clear it is today that Solidarnosc led a capitalist counter-revolution as opposed to a socialist political revolution (that would maintain the socialist economy, but oust the Stalinist bureaucracy and institute workers’ democracy) Socialist Action has not changed their position on Solidarnosc.

On Black liberation we at Liberation News advocate Richard Fraser’s Theory of Revolutionary Integrationism as opposed to the Black Nationalism promoted by Socialist Action. Socialist Action’s advocacy of Black Nationalism has brought them to the point of even promoting the religious and pro-capitalist Nation of Islam of Louis Farrakhan. Liberation News sees the promotion of Black Nationalism as a dead end. There is no geographical area that we can point to on a map and say by its demographics that it would make sense to set up Black nation there. Even if it were possible or desirable to set up a separate Black Nation in the United States the pain and suffering such an adventure would cause in terms of dislocations of the working class would not be worth the price. Liberation News, in contrast, calls for the overthrow of the racist capitalist system and the building of an egalitarian socialist society that guarantees racial equality, full employment, and access to health care for all.

Liberation News does, however, see Socialist Action’s campaign for Senate as a supportable campaign that, despite its mistakes, is promoting socialism as the alternative to the capitalist Democrats, Republicans, and Greens.

Here are some of the demands that Mackler is putting forward with his campaign:

1) Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq! No U.S. aid to Israel! Israel out of Lebanon and Gaza! Shut down Guantanamo! U.S. hands off Cuba and Venezuela! End the Cuba blockade!
2) Tax the rich, not working people! Jobs at top union wages for all! Shorten the work-week with no cut in pay! For a revitalized and fighting labor movement! For a Labor Party!
3) Human needs before capitalist profits! Nationalize so-called bankrupt corporations under workers’ control.
4) Free quality health care and education for people of all ages! Build schools not jails! Quality affordable housing for all!
5) An emergency program to combat global warming! End our dependency on fossil fuels! No to nuclear power and weapons!
6) Stop the attacks on civil liberties! Repeal the Patriot Act! End police brutality! Support the right of marriage for same sex couples!
7) Defend a woman’s right to control her own body! Ready access to abortion is a fundamental right!
8) Immediate amnesty, legalization, and equal rights for all immigrants! No to La Migra! Demilitarize and open the border! Self-determination for oppressed nationalities! Affirmative action with quotas to remedy past discrimination! Support to Black and Latino independent political action!
9) For a government of, by, and for working people and the oppressed! For socialism!

While Liberation News agrees with many of these slogans we see a couple as too transitional. We do not see any good reason for limiting calls for nationalization to so-called “bankrupt corporations”. Perhaps this is in imitation of the economic crisis of Argentina and the many “bankrupt corporations” that have been taken over and run by workers as part of a miniature workers’ economy that employs about 10,000 Argentinean workers.

Liberation News sees no reason for limiting the nationalization of companies to those that the capitalists don’t want anymore, companies that the capitalists are no longer making super profits from. The exploitation of workers’ and the environment have produced all wealth, and the revolutionary movement of the working class wants it all back! We want the railroads, the banks, the health care industry, and of course oil! Only a society with a planned economy can meet the needs of the working class, can end war for capitalist profit, and can begin to save the environment. Revolution takes bold vision; we want it all; leave the conservatism to the Democrats and Republicans!

Imperialism has caused the poverty of Mexico, and an open border is the only right thing to do. Yet an open border would be coupled with a massive influx of immigrants and should be combined with the call for a socialist economy that guarantees jobs for all. Only socialism can solve the national question.

Jeff Mackler’s campaign for senate, despite its errors, does help show the way forward by pointing to socialist demands and solutions.

Due to the undemocratic laws of the state of California making it very difficult for third parties to gain ballot access Jeff Mackler will not be on the ballot so if you choose to vote for him you will have to write in his name.

Marsha Feinland of the Peace and Freedom Party

The Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) is the only socialist party in California that does have ballot status. Liberation News is also extending critical support to the PFP candidacy of Marsha Feinland. Here are key points of Marsha Feinland’s campaign:

1) Withdraw troops and advisors from Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and Colombia
2) End aid to Israel until it withdraws to its pre-1967 borders
3) Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour
4) Create universal health care with a "single payer" (Canadian type) system- no insurance company profits
5) Shorten the work week with no loss in pay and guarantee paid vacation time for all workers
6) Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act - restore the right to strike and end "right to work" laws
7) Abolish the death penalty
8) End the phony "war on drugs" - legalize marijuana and decriminalize drug use
9) Fully fund the U.S. government share of education costs, particularly special education
10) End the war on children - stop the government mandated testing craze in public schools
11) Protect the National Forests and other public and native lands from corporate exploitation
12) Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College - one person, one vote

In this platform Marsha Feinland raises a number of good points, including opposing the undemocratic nature of the Senate itself stating, "Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College - one person, one vote." This is in reference to the way that the senate has equal numbers of representatives from each state, regardless of that state’s population. On a similar issue Diane Feinstein has been criticized by activists in Washington D.C., a district where the people do not get representation in the Senate, for supporting Washington D.C. school vouchers that were undemocratically crammed down their throats.

In the United States more than 45 million Americans have no health coverage. These include 9 million children. Millions of others have inadequate coverage. It is a crime that the richest nation (rich due to imperialist exploitation of the world) leads in medical technology, but has the worst access to healthcare of any developed nation. Marsha Feinland’s call for single payer healthcare of the Canadian model, covering everyone and getting rid of the insurance industry middlemen would be a welcome change. And yes, despite the propaganda, government programs are always more efficient than private profiteering with its stockholders, overpaid CEOs, and advertising. But the Cuban model with nationalized healthcare and no private hospitals or pharmaceutical companies profiteering from illness works even better. It is this healthcare model that Liberation News advocates.

In fact Marsha Feinland’s platform is not just missing a full socialized medicine program, it is missing another key ingredient. Besides calling for eliminating the private insurance industry through single payer, nowhere in her platform or other materials does she call for the nationalization of the capitalist economy. She has no reference to the expropriation of big oil, industry, and finance capital or even any calls for the nationalization or municipalization of the generation, distribution and sales of electric power. Without such a socialist program it will be impossible to neutralize the power of the capitalist class and meet the needs of the working class.

Liberation News also strongly disagrees with the Peace and Freedom Party’s practice of endorsing Democrats in city elections. In Santa Cruz this has meant that the Peace and Freedom Party has helped elect some of the most anti-worker, anti-homeless, and pro-police oppression Democrats such as Mike Rotkin. Rotten Rotkin publicly opposed the bus drivers when they went on strike, is currently campaigning against a city initiative to raise the minimum wage, has voted for and supported every anti-homeless law in Santa Cruz, and has backed the police in every act of repression, violence, and spying that they have carried out against the left in the city. The local PFP may not support Rotkin anymore, but they did help get him elected, and they continue to help elect other Democrats and Greens in Santa Cruz that have virtually identical programs to that of Rotkin. Liberation News says: No to support for Democrats or Greens in local or national elections! Yes to the socialist candidates!

It will take a massive working class movement for good socialist candidates to actually win elections. An important element of this will be breaking the labor movement from the Democrat Party. By backing the candidates worth voting for today we at Liberation News feel that we are helping build the foundations of that movement today and into the future as people get more and more fed up with capitalist exploitation and wars. Ultimately the ruling class will use ever more violence to try to maintain their grip on power and a revolution will be necessary for the working class to actually seize power and transform society.

Liberation News:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

Marsha Feinland, California Peace and Freedom Party Candidate for Senate:
http://feinlandforsenate.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Jeff Mackler, California Socialist Action Candidate for Senate:
http://www.socialistaction.org/macklerforsenate/index.html

Todd Cretien, Green Party Candidate for Senate:
http://www.todd4senate.org/

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Walden by Henry David Thoreau free online

Alexander — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 10:58:35 GMT

Walden by Henry David Thoreau free online

I have been reading (while listening to) Walden by Henry David Thoreau again. I have tried to read this many many years ago (back in my high school years (in the late 70s and earler 80s). I think Walden by Henry David Thoreau is more relavent today in the era of Corporatism, debt slavery and resourse wars; a period of bioregional thinking; an age of needed action (such as civil disobience); a time for a return to the simple, local and the organic (Mother Nature)

free online audio reading:
http://librivox.org/walden-by-henry-david-thoreau

free online text:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WALDEN/walden.html

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Revolutionary Situation in Mexico and Revolution in the US

Tedster — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 00:10:57 GMT

The Revolutionary Situation in Mexico and Revolution in the u.s.
Friday, September 01 2006 @ 06:40 PM PDT
Contributed by: Anonymous

Oaxaca, Mexico has setting an example to the people of Mexico and to people all around the world. What started as a teacher’s movement against the privatization of education has turned into a popular movement against the state government. The APPO (Asemblea Popular de Pueblo de Oaxaca – Popular Peoples Assembly of Oaxaca) has been where the people have been connecting through and organizing themselves.

The Revolutionary Situation in Mexico and Revolution in the u.s.

By Joaquin Cienfuegos

(Member of Cop Watch Los Angeles)

Oaxaca, Mexico has setting an example to the people of Mexico and to people all around the world. What started as a teacher’s movement against the privatization of education has turned into a popular movement against the state government. The APPO (Asemblea Popular de Pueblo de Oaxaca – Popular Peoples Assembly of Oaxaca) has been where the people have been connecting through and organizing themselves.

The state has assassinated and tried to repress this movement, but people have continued to mobilize and organize themselves and step up the resistance (because if they do not, the government’s massacre will continue). People in Oaxaca have been taking over the means of communication, from TV stations to radio stations. Community members are defending each other with homemade weapons, rocks, sticks, and bricks against riot police, and their paramilitaries. The people set up barricades and block streets and their main demand is for the disappearance of the state government. The APPO is the democracy of the people not the PRI (Institutional “Revolutionary” Party).

The state government is afraid, and they’re trying hold on to their power as the people revolt. They call the popular movement subversive urban guerrilla warfare. In an article from La Jornada titled “Oaxaca, magisterial y la lucha armada” (Oaxaca, the teachers, and armed struggle), it talks about how armed resistance and armed struggle have been present in Oaxaca for decades. In Mexico teachers who have taken up arms have been the famous revolutionaries Lucio Cabanas and Genaro Vasquez. The situation today in Oaxaca, where people have continued to step up the resistance, where armed struggle is a tactic that is necessary when the state is murdering the population that opposes it. Armed resistance is not what has made the struggle in Oaxaca revolutionary though, but the level of self-organization, autonomy, and the community building that has raised the consciousness of the population to raise their sights and demand their self-determination from bad governments.

This plays into and fans the flame of the growing revolutionary movement on the national level. In Chiapas, Atenco, Guerrerro, Michoacan, Baja California, and in other parts of Mexico – there has been communities organizing themselves, building liberated autonomous communities, defending themselves from attacks from the state, and taking direct action against imperialism and neo-liberalism. It’s a situation where people are raising their consciousness through seeing the corruption of the government, because of stolen elections. It is a situation where oppressed people look to more hope in the Other Campaign of Adherents to the Sixth Declaration from the Selva Lacandona, rather than the Presidential Election. This is what is called a revolutionary situation: a situation where the contradictions between the people and those in power have become so great that the state cannot hide them and keep the people in check.

Revolutions are made by people, and by their popular movements. They do not happen through vanguard organizations, or professional revolutionaries, even though historically those vanguard organizations co-opt the popular movements and become the new oppressor once in power. What is happening in Oaxaca, is what indigenous people there have been doing for centuries, organizing themselves and relying on themselves.

A revolution in Mexico, means a great deal to oppressed people around the world, and especially oppressed people within the u.s. The revolution in Mexico can and will spill over into the u.s. The imperialist government of the united states has always dominated politically and economically the government in Mexico. They’re responsible for NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and other economic policies that steal resources from indigenous people and farmers from Mexico, forcing them to leave their homes and migrate to the u.s. to survive. They have always put in place the governments in Mexico that will follow their orders. The u.s. has armed and trained the militaries, police, and paramilitaries that massacre, rape, disappear, repress the oppressed people and their communities in Mexico. The u.s is the overseer in the misery people around the world suffer.

At the same time oppressed people in the u.s. are being killed, repressed, raped, exploited, and imprisoned. Black, Brown, Indigenous, Asian, and all people of color, young, working class, homeless, undocumented, unemployed, women, queer, transgender people living in the “richest country” in the world suffer from third world conditions. Especially us in the South West region who suffer from colonialism and neo-colonialism (as do people in the South, and other regions of the us), because we are living on stolen land and our communities are being occupied by the police departments, the courts, the prison industrial complex, an the entire police state. The struggle in Mexico is similar to our struggle, and it is our revolution. We have a responsibility to do our part, to organize in our communities, build autonomy, self-determination, self-organization and the self-defense of our neighborhoods, our people, and ourselves. We have a responsibility to bring down u.s. imperialism. Oppressed and colonized people all around the world have a common enemy, the white supremacist- patriarchal- and imperialist system and those who maintain it.

5 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060901184048140

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Steal this Film

Tedster — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:15:47 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw3HNTRpP-I

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Oh, Those Bad Bosses

Tedster — Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:55:45 GMT

AlterNet
Oh, Those Bad Bosses
By Barbara Ehrenreich, The Progressive
Posted on August 5, 2006, Printed on August 5, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/39928/

The AFL-CIO's Working America project has launched a "bad boss" contest. Unfortunately, the prize is only a free vacation, rather than the opportunity to see your nominee drawn and quartered after a lengthy and humiliating public trial.

I've heard so many bad boss stories that I'd hate to be one of the judges. The boss who makes you work overtime without pay (which would include Wal-Mart, unless it has cleaned up this practice)

...the boss who expects little personal services, like back rubs or picking up his or her dry-cleaning ... the boss who regards you as sexual chattel .... the boss who likes to keep you in a state of constant anxiety about your employment status ... the boss who throws tantrums, along with various heavy objects.

Much as I'd like to see all these miscreants brought to justice, I tend to think the emphasis on bad bosses is a little misguided. The problem isn't particular bosses, but what I call Bossism -- the hierarchical system that governs all known bureaucracies, both public and private. Giving one person huge power over others is like a giving a three-year-old a hose: not everyone will get soaked, but the chances of coming out dry are slender.

But, you may be wondering, how would anything get done without bosses and Bossism? Well, a surprising amount gets done that way all the time, as I saw in my Nickel and Dimed jobs. If the restaurant gets swamped or the nursing home residents start tossing their food around, don't count on a manager to tell you what to do -- if, indeed, there is a manager within hailing distance. In crisis situations, I again and again saw low-paid workers organize themselves, more or less spontaneously, everyone pitching in and helping each other, with no one playing the role of "boss." As for any real boss on the scene, the best he or she could do in a crisis was to pitch in -- or get out of the way.

What I was witnessing was workplace democracy in action, or, more fancily put, what French sociologists call autogestion or workers' self-determination. It may sound exotic, but it's not just an attribute of the rare anarchist collective. In fact, it's a notion revered in contemporary corporate culture as the team.

The rhetoric of teams, implying some sort of equality among the players, is everywhere today. You're not an employee of Whole Foods; you're a "team member." You don't work for Wal-Mart; you're an "associate," theoretically as capable of making a creative contribution as the regional manager. According to Wal-Mart folklore, for example, it was a lowly associate who came up with the brilliant idea of "people greeters." (But whenever I, in my brief stint as a Wal-Mart associate, made a useful suggestion -- like why stack so many of the women's plus-size clothes at floor-level, where they were accessible only to the young and agile? -- I was always told that such decisions were made by the big bosses in Bentonville.) When corporations uphold the idea of "teams," they're grasping for the kind of ingenuity and creativity people naturally bring to a challenging situation -- if they're allowed to, i.e., if they're treated like participants instead of like servants or subordinates.

So, yes, line the bad bosses up against the wall, but let's not forget that the real problem is Bossism, with all its nasty effects. It's Bossism that generates arrogance among the bosses and learned passivity among the bossed, along with fatalism or corrosive resentment. Everyone knows there's an alternative embodied in the idea of the team. When are we going to start taking it seriously?

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of 13 books, most recently "Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream."
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/39928/

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Moronic local media confuses Anarchism with boneheads...

Colin — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:58:48 GMT

I caught this on Anarchistnews.org, with a link to WQAD.com. What passes for a reporter in Il. named Dana Derflinger writes a story entitled "Anarchist Group Rallies in Small Town". Now, I'm all for being a bit of a bogeyman to the mundane but WHAT THE HELL. You stupid jackass of a reporter.
She proceeds to confuse the fucking aryan nation boneheads with anarchists!!!
Check this out...
www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp
I say we have a lil fun with this station. Call up pretending to be a vicious bonehead offended at being labeled an anarchist maybe? This station needs to be jammed up a bit.
Check this shit out folks...

posted in //class war// - 5 replies

Mexican Anarchist movement spreading to Oaxaca

Tedster — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:06:00 GMT

Paramilitary attacks University of Oaxaca
Saturday, July 22 2006 @ 10:04 PM PDT
Contributed by: coyote

Radio Universidad de Oaxaca reports that a strongly armed paramilitary commando tonight tried to take radio facilities which covers the ongoing popular mobilizations in Oaxaca. The aggression was repelled and paramilitaries fled while shooting with intend to kill.

Paramilitary attacks University of Oaxaca

This is a shortened and edited babelfish translation of breaking news from mexico

Radio Universidad de Oaxaca reports that a strongly armed paramilitary commando tonight tried to take radio facilities which covers the ongoing popular mobilizations in Oaxaca. The aggression was repelled and paramilitaries fled while shooting with intend to kill.

The teachers hold state and federal government officials responsible for the attack

The radio signal that was interrupted for several minutes was restored via Internet and in radio frequency. In the studio they continue receiving threats of death via telephone.

It has been confirmed that at the same time as the attack on the University radio station another commando evicted the city council of the autonomous municipality of Zaachila, fifteen kilometers south of Oaxaca

http://mexico.indymedia.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=140

Radio Universidad en Vivo
http://www.uabjo.mx/radio/radioOnLine.php

0 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060722220417206

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Bias of the Associated Press

Tedster — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:31:36 GMT

A Study of Bias in the Associated Press

By Peter Phillips, Sarah Randle, Brian Fuch, Zoe Huffman, and Fabrice Romero

On October 25, 2005 the American Civil Liberties (ACLU) posted to their website 44 autopsy reports, acquired from American military sources, covering the deaths of civilians who died while in US military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002-2004. A press release by ACLU announcing the deaths resulted from torture was immediately picked up by Associated Press (AP) wire service, making the story available to US corporate media nationwide. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest electronic data bases, using the keywords ACLU and autopsy, showed that at least 95 percent of the daily papers in the US did not to pick up the story nor did AP ever conduct follow up coverage on the issue.

The autopsy reports provide positive proof of widespread torture by US forces. Our research team at Project Censored felt that this story should have been front page news throughout the country. Instead the story was hardly covered and quickly disappeared.
One of forty-four US military autopsy reports reads as follows: “Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq.”

A second report describes how a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004 in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.
Another Iraqi detainee died on January 9, 2004 in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated. He was standing, shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth, at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries.
Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, “There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths.” ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, “These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations.”

Our research showed that the Los Angeles Times covered the story on page A-4 with a 635-word report headlined “Autopsies Support Abuse Allegations.” Fewer than a dozen other daily newspapers including: Bangor Daily News, Maine, page 8; Telegraph-Herald, Dubuque Iowa, page 6; Charleston Gazette, page 5; Advocate, Baton Rouge, page 11; and a half dozen others actually covered the story. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Seattle Times buried the story inside general Iraq news articles. USA Today posted the story on their website. MSNBC posted the story to their website, but apparently did not consider it newsworthy enough to air on television.

Given that nearly every daily newspaper in the United States subscribes to AP wire service and that AP had in fact sent out the torture story led us to question if story selection bias was widespread within US newspapers and if bias was evident within the AP system itself.

Associated Press

The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative wire service for news at a national and global level. The mission of the AP is “to be the essential global news network.” It boasts of “distinctive news services with the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.” The AP has 242 bureaus worldwide that delivers news report 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to 121 countries in 5 languages including English, German, Dutch, French, and Spanish and has 3,700 employees. In the US alone, 1,700 daily, weekly, non-English, college newspapers, and 5,000 radio and television stations receive the AP. The AP reaches over a billion people every day via print, radio, or television. Internationally, the AP has 8,500 subscribers. To subsidize revenue, the AP has sold selections of text, photo, audio, and video to commercial online operations. Annual revenues in 2004 were $630 million.

There are two types of members in the cooperative, regular and associate. The regular membership is only available to printed newspapers, mainly dailies, published in the US. It entails regular exclusive contributions of news to AP and entitles the member to a vote in elections for the AP Board of Directors. Associate membership is available to daily newspapers, some weekly newspaper, and broadcast stations but do not allow a vote in elections for the Board of Directors. Associate members also contribute news to the AP and receive the same services.

Members pay a subscription fee, based on the size of circulation, to have access to the newswire services. The smaller the circulation, the smaller the services and thus the smaller the number of stories available to the newspaper. If a story is run on the state wire, only those in that state will see the story. But if the story is more nationally pertinent then it will be put out on the national wire, and so forth up to the international level. Once the story has been put out on the wire, it is up to the individual member whether the story will go into their newspaper, air on their radio or television station.

The AP Board of Directors is made up of 22 newspaper and media executives including the Presidents/CEOs of ABC, Cox News, McClatchy, Gannett, Scripps, Tribune, Hearst, Washington Post and several smaller/regional newspaper chains. Two directors are members of conservative policy councils including the Hoover Institute and the Business Round Table. Three are on the board of directors of Mutual Insurance, and one is on the board of the world’s largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin. The AP Board represents a solid corporate media network of the largest publishers in the US and provides a clear tilt towards right-wing conservative perspectives. (see appendix for full listing of AP directors)

Impeachment Movement and AP

Impeachment advocates are mobilizing widely in the US. Over 1,000 pro-impeachment letters to the editors in major newspapers were published during a six month period from October 2005 to March of 2006. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette letter writer George Matus says, “I am still enraged over unasked questions about exit polls, touch-screen voting, Iraq, the cost of the new Medicare…who formulated our energy policy, Jack Abramoff, the Downing Street Memos, and impeachment.” David Anderson in McMinnville, Oregon pens to the Oregonian, “Where are the members of our congressional delegation now in demanding the current president’s actions be investigated to see if impeachment or censure are appropriate actions?” William Dwyer’s letter in the Charleston Gazette says, “Congress will never have the courage to start the impeachment process without a groundswell of outrage from the people.”

Dozens of city councils, boards of supervisors, and local and state level Democrat central committees have voted for impeachment. Arcata, California voted for impeachment on January 6, 2006. The City and County of San Francisco, voted Yes on February 28. The Sonoma County Democrat Central Committee (CA) voted for Impeachment on March 16. The city council of Sebastopol California voted for impeachment in May. The townships of Newfane, Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro, Rockingham, Battleboro and Putney in Vermont all voted for impeachment in March and April. The New Mexico State Democrat party convention rallied on March 18 for the “impeachment of George Bush and his lawful removal from office.” The national Green Party called for impeachment on January 3. New Hampshire Democrats voted for Impeachment on June 9. Democrats in Maine called for Impeachment June 4. Vermont’s Democrat party called for impeachment in April, and an impeachment resolution was introduced into the Illinois Legislature April 24. Brookline, Massachusetts called for impeachment in late May of 2006.

Op-ed writers at the St. Petersburg Times, Newsday, Yale Daily News, Barrons, Detroit Free Press, and the Boston Globe have called for impeachment. The San Francisco Bay Guardian (1/25/06) The Nation (1/30/06) and Harpers (3/06) published cover articles calling for impeachment. As of March 16, 2006, thirty-two US House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors to House Resolution 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment.
Polls show that nearly a majority of Americans favor impeachment. In October of 2005, Public Affairs Research found that 50 percent of Americans said that President Bush should be impeached if he lied about the war in Iraq. A Zogby International poll from early November 2005 found that 53 percent of Americans say, “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.” A March 16, 2006 poll by American Research Group showed that 42 percent of Americans favored impeaching Bush.

Despite all this advocacy and sentiment for impeachment, AP has yet to cover this emerging mass movement. While AP has covered most incidental calls for impeachment listed above, they have not evaluated impeachment as a widespread national issue. Instead AP has covered impeachment very much like the Wall Street Journal’s editorial on March 16 which said it is the “the loony left” seeking impeachment, and perhaps some Democrats will join in feeding on the “bile of the censure/impeachment brigades.”

Along this line AP released a national story by Deborah Hasting on April 29, 2006 critical of former attorney general Ramsey Clark’s impeachment efforts. Hasting’s writes [Clark] “lives in a reality of his own making…” and went on to link Clark to an international “rogues gallery” of criminals including: Slobodan Milosevic, (See Chapter 14 for a discussion of Milosevic’s trail) Charles Taylor, Moammar Gadhafi, and Saddam Hussean. Hasting dismisses Clark and impeachment as “gullible and misinformed,” leaving out the fact that tens of millions of American agree with Clark’s position.
AP’s coverage of impeachment leaves one to question — if a national movement calling for the impeachment of the President is rapidly emerging and AP and the corporate media are not covering it, is there really a national movement for the impeachment of the President?

AP Bias on the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Alison Weir, Joy Ellison, and Peter Weir of the organization If Americans Knew recently conducted research on the AP’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The study was a statistical analysis of the AP newswire in the year 2004, looking at the number of Israeli and Palestinian deaths reported. Specifically they looked at headlines and the lead paragraph coverage to determine what an average person would actually read.

The study found that there is a strong correlation between the likelihood of a person’s death receiving coverage by AP and that person’s nationality. In 2004 there were 141 reports of Israeli deaths in AP headlines and lead paragraphs, while in reality there were only 108 Israeli deaths, this difference comes from reporting a death more than once. During this same period, Palestinian deaths were reported as 543 by the AP, but at the time 821 Palestinians had been killed. The ratio of actual number of Israeli conflict deaths to Palestinian deaths in 2004 was 1:7, yet AP reported deaths of Israelis to Palestinians at a 2:1 ratio. In other words, the AP reported 131 percent of Israeli deaths, whereas they only reported 66 percent of Palestinian deaths.

The same could be said of AP’s reporting of children’s deaths. Nine reports of Israeli children’s deaths were reported by the AP in headlines and leading paragraphs in 2004, while eight actually occurred. Only 27 Palestinian children deaths were reported by AP when actually 179 children died. While there were 22 times more Palestinian children’s deaths than Israeli children’s deaths, the AP reported 113 percent of Israeli children’s deaths and 15 percent of Palestinian children’s deaths. Israeli children’s deaths were reported at a rate 7.5 times grater than that of Palestinian children.

The report also looked into how often the AP used the words “clash” and “clashes” in AP reports pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They found that of all the conflicts the AP reported in 2004, 47 deaths occurred during a clash, and all of these 47 deaths were Palestinian. AP covered over 700 news stories on deaths in Israel and Palestine in 2004, showing that while there is plenty of coverage of the conflict, the information given was significantly biased.

AP Bias on the Overthrow of President Aristide in Haiti

On February 29, 2004 AP widely reported that President Aristide was ousted by Haitian rebels and that the United States provided an escort to take Aristide out of the country to a safe asylum. Within 24 hours an entirely different story emerged that placed the US at the center of a forced regime change. Instead of the US being the supportive facilitator of Aristide’s safety, independent news sources though Pacifica radio news were reporting that Aristide was kidnapped by US forces.

AP quickly changed their story. On March 1, 2004 an AP report by Deb Riechman said, “White House officials said Aristide left willingly and that the United States aided his safe departure. But in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Aristide said: ‘No. I was forced to leave.’ ‘They were telling me that if I don't leave they would start shooting and be killing in a matter of time,’ Aristide said during the interview, which was interrupted at times by static. It was unclear whether Aristide meant that rebels or U.S. agents would begin shooting. Asked to identify the ‘agents,’ Aristide said: ‘White American, white military.’ “They came at night ... There were too many. I couldn't count them,’ he added.”

Another account on March 1, 2004 by AP writer Clive Bacchus stated that “Aristide said he was being held prisoner at the presidential palace in Bangui, Central African Republic, according to Randall Robinson, former president of TransAfrica, a Washington-based group that monitors US policy toward Africa and the Caribbean and supported Aristide. ‘About 20 American soldiers, in full battle gear with automatic weapons, came to the residence ... took them to the airport, at gunpoint, put them on a plane,’ said Robinson, who currently lives on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts. ‘He said three times before he hung up 'Tell the world it was a coup, it was a coup.'“

The last AP report of Aristide exclaiming he was kidnapped by the US in a State Department coup was on June 27, 2004. Since then there have been 60 news stories by the AP with Aristide mentioned in the articles. Of these stories none mentioned Aristide’s claim that he was kidnapped by the United States military. None mention the US backing of the coup. There have been no articles examining claims that the US government sent 20,000 M-16s to the Dominican Republic, many of which ended up in the hands of the Haitian rebels, nor about how the US blocked arms sales to Haiti during Aristide’s presidency. Nor has AP covered that Aristide was elected in 2000 by 92 percent of the vote in an election declared free and fair by the Organization of American States.
Continuing stories about Haiti on AP’s wire since June of 2004 say Aristide was ousted by rebel forces with no mention US involvement. AP’s bias in favor of the State Department’s version of the Aristide’s removal is a deliberate re-writing of history and a documented case of AP-sanctioned forgetting.

AP’s Character Assassination of Cynthia McKinney

During the morning of March 29, 2006, Congress member Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) allegedly slapped a Capitol Hill police officer who has grabbed her while walking to a congressional session. According to AP accounts; “McKinney, 51, scuffled with a police officer …when she entered a House office building without her identifying lapel pin and did not stop when asked. Several police sources said the officer asked her three times to stop. When she kept going, he placed a hand somewhere on her and she hit him.” (AP March 30, 2006 Laurie Kellman, Washington DC). AP writer Giovanna Dell’Orto in Atlanta, McKinney’s home district, quoted DeKalb County commissioner Hank Johnson as saying, “Voters should hold her (McKinney) accountable for her irresponsible and reckless behavior.” Dell’Orto went on to include quotes from e-mails sent to the Atlanta Journal Constitution say that, McKinney should be “arrested,” and “she is a laughing stock because of her continued childish and boorish behavior.” (AP March 30, 2006 Giovanna Dell’Otto, Atlanta GA)

According to John Judge, (McKinney’s Chief of Staff) there have been repeated misidentifications of Cynthia McKinney by the Capital Police for the past year. The police have actually put McKinney’s picture up in their office to make sure officers knew her by sight. While AP reports made a significant issue of McKinney’s failure to wear her congressional lapel pin, (AP Aril 6, Editorial Roundup) Judge claims that members of Congress often do not wear their pins, and are recognized by police nonetheless.
AP’s Laurie Kellman did report on Black leaders coming to McKinney’s defense including Rev. Darrel Wlligan, the president of Concerned Black Clergy, and celebrities Danny Glover, and Harry Belafonte, (AP April 1, 2005, Kellman) but those reports quickly fell away to a piling on of negative comments in multiple succeeding articles.

“I don’t think it’s fair to attack the Capital Police,” Patrick McHenry (R-NC) (AP (April 5, 2005, Kellman)

“I don’t think any of it justifies hitting a police office,” said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (AP April 5, Kellman)

“She (McKinney) has a long history of racism,” said Tom Delay, former House majority leader. (AP April 6, Kellman)

“With a grand jury investigation and little support from House of Representative colleagues, Cynthia McKinney reversed course and apologized for an altercation…” (April 7, 2006 Kellman)

“Apology or not, US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) should be held fully accountable for what appears to be her inexcusable conduct and attitude toward police authority.” (AP news release from editorials in Washington State April 8)

“Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney messed up,…apparently she realized that; she has since apologized on the House floor.” (AP news wire Editorials from Ohio April 17)

In a national AP release April 5, Doug Gross (Atlanta) traced McKinney’s history as the first Black woman elected to Congress from Georgia in 1992. “Known mostly for her flashy fashions, including braids and gold tennis shoes, McKinney had a brash style that made her a target for conservatives and an embarrassment to some of her more moderate democratic colleagues,” Gross writes. “She once said,” Gross pens…” that officials in the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks”… she had been criticized for her outspoken support of the Palestinian cause in Israel.”

In a TV interview on April 24, 2006 McKinney was repeatedly badgered by WGCL-TV (CBS) Atlanta reporter about the Capital Hill police incident. At the end of the interview an irritated McKinney said while still on film, “Oh crap, now you know what…” they lied to Coz and Coz is a fool.” Coz Carson is McKinney’s communication director. McKinney then immediately stated that her comments at that point were off the record, but the station aired her taped words anyway. CNN joined in the fray by broadcasting her comments, and AP released a wire report with the headline, “TV Station Catches McKinney Bad-mouthing Staffer.” (AP state and local wire April 24)

One supporter of Cynthia McKinney stated, “Cynthia is guilty of being in Congress while Black.” Undoubtedly racism is a factor in the coverage of this incident. However there seems to be even a bigger factor in AP’s coverage. McKinney represents a strong Black congresswoman, who has historically challenged the upper-class white establishment, especially the neo-conservatives in power today. (See Chapter 10) Her positions on 9/11, Palestine, and social class clearly come from a left progressive perspective, as she openly challenges the status quo. In it coverage of McKinney, AP has demonstrated bias towards the status quo and the powerful in the US.

Associate Press as Protectors of the Powerful

AP is a massive institutionalized bureaucracy that feeds new stories to nearly every newspaper and radio/TV station in the United States and the world. They are so large that top-down control of single news stories is literally impossible. However, our evidence clearly indicates a built-in bias favoring the powerful. ACLU evidence on torture is ignored by the corporate press and AP never mentions it again. The State Department’s position on Haiti becomes established history. Cynthia McKinney is bashed and marginalized. Coverage of the Israel-Palestine situation has a clear pro-Israel bias, and the national impeachment movement is totally ignored. The American people absorb these biases and make political decisions on skewed understandings. Without media systems that provide balanced, fair and accurate reporting democracy is faced with a dismal future.

Peter Phillips is a professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and Director of Project Censored. Sarah Randle, Brian Fuch, Zoe Huffman, and Fabrice Romero undergraduate research interns with Project Censored.

Appendix

Associate Press Board of Directors

Burl Osborne
Chairman of the AP Board since 2002
Director since 1993 and member of the Executive Committee of The Associated Press
President, Publishing Division from 1995 to 2001
Director from 1987 to 2002 of the Belo Corp.; Publisher Emeritus since 2001
Director at J.C. Penney Holding Company

R. Jack Fishman
President and CEO of Lakeway Publishers, Inc., that produces the Citizen Tribune for the Morristown, Tenn., area, along with the Tullahoma News

Dennis J. FitzSimons
Chairman, President and CEO Tribune, Co.
He is also a member of The Business Council as well as the Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago,
Joe Hladky
President and Publisher, The Gazette Co.

Walter E. Hussman Jr.
Publisher, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Hoover Institution Board of Overseers
Julie Inskeep
Publisher, The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, Indiana

George B. Irish
President of Hearst Newspapers and a senior vice president of Hearst Corporation.
A past president of the Texas Daily Newspaper Association
He currently serves on the boards of the American Press Institute, the Newspaper Association of America, and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism Millikin University

Boisfeuillet (Bo) Jones
Boisfeuillet Jones Jr., publisher and chief executive officer of The Washington Post, has been elected to serve as the Newspaper Association of America’s next chairman He also is a member of the University of Maryland School of Journalism Board of Visitors.

Mary Junck
CEO and Chairman of the Board of Lee Enterprises Inc. chain of 58 mid-West daily newspapers, Former senior executive positions at Times Mirror Company

David Lord
Board member of PAGE buying cooperative and the Newspaper Association of America. He is the current president of the Inland Press Association
.
Kenneth W. Lowe
President, CEO and Director of the E.W. Scripps Company

Douglas H. McCorkindale
At Gannett Co., Inc. he is the Chairman of the board, since 2001. He was the CEO and President from 2000 to 2005, and before that was the Vice Chairman from 1984 to 2001. Board of Directors at Lockheed Martin Corp. Continental Airlines, Inc. and Mutual Insurance Company Ltd

R. John Mitchell
Rutland, Vermont
He is the publisher of the Rutland Herald and long-time publisher of The Times Argus in Barre. He is a charter member of the New England Press Association Hall of Fame.

Steven O. Newhouse
New York, New York
He is the Chairman of Advance.net which runs the Newhouse Papers online and owned by Advance Publications, Inc. which reaches newspapers, cable T.V. and the internet. He is also the Editor in Chief at the Jersey Journal in New Jersey.

Gary Pruitt
Chairman, president, and CEO of the McClatchy Company. He is a board member of the James Irvine Foundation; He is the Secretary of the Board at the Newspaper Association of America and has a seat on the board of directors at Mutual Insurance, Co.

Michael E. Reed
He is the CEO at GateHouse Media Inc., formerly known as Liberty Group Publishing, Inc. He is also on the Board of Directors at the Newspaper Association of America and the Inland Newspaper Association.

Bruce T. Reese
Salt Lake City, UT
He is the President and CEO of Bonneville International Corp,. He is also the Joint Chairman of the Board of the National Association of Broadcasters and on the Board of Directors of the Radio Advertising Bureau

Jon Rust
Publisher at the Southeast Missourian and the Co-President, since 2001 with his brother Rex Rust, at Rust Communications

William Dean Singleton
CEO of MediaNews Group Inc. He is a former Chairman of the Newspaper Association of America, and during his term worked on easing FCC regulations on cross ownership. MediaNews Group is the 55 percent owner of the California Newspaper Partnership, which with the help of Gannett Co. Inc and Stephens was able to purchase from McClatchy the San Jose Mercury and the Contra Costa Times

Jay R. Smith
President of Cox Newspapers, Inc. He is the former, 2005-2006, Chairman of the Board at the Newspaper Association of America. He is the Vice Chairman of the Board at the American Press Institute. He is on the Board of Directors for Mutual Insurance, Co. Ltd.

David Westin
President of ABC News since 1996. He is also a member of the board of the International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences

H. Graham Woodlief
President of the Publishing Division and the Vice President, since 1989, of Media General Inc. He is the Board Chairman of Southern Production Program Inc.

http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/ap_bias.html

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

(panties in a bunch) liberal angst

bradleyalbus — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 21:38:12 GMT

You liberals, and your communist agendas.

It's like a bagel without cream cheese. None of you have any butter.

I mean, you go to cook something in the skillet and every time something starts smoking, gets burnt.
I mean, that's some dumb shit.

Why don't you go downtown and protest or something, because you're starting to stink up the place.

posted in //class war// - 9 replies

nobody has to be vile- great piece by Zizek

Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:57:28 GMT

the buffet article made me remember this one...

Nobody has to be vile
By Slavoj Zizek

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/print/zize01_.html

Since 2001, Davos and Porto Alegre have been the twin cities of globalisation: Davos, the exclusive Swiss resort where the global elite of managers, statesmen and media personalities meets for the World Economic Forum under heavy police protection, trying to convince us (and themselves) that globalisation is its own best remedy; Porto Alegre, the subtropical Brazilian city where the counter-elite of the anti-globalisation movement meets, trying to convince us (and themselves) that capitalist globalisation is not our inevitable fate – that, as the official slogan puts it, ‘another world is possible.’ It seems, however, that the Porto Alegre reunions have somehow lost their impetus – we have heard less and less about them over the past couple of years. Where did the bright stars of Porto Alegre go?

Some of them, at least, moved to Davos. The tone of the Davos meetings is now predominantly set by the group of entrepreneurs who ironically refer to themselves as ‘liberal communists’ and who no longer accept the opposition between Davos and Porto Alegre: their claim is that we can have the global capitalist cake (thrive as entrepreneurs) and eat it (endorse the anti-capitalist causes of social responsibility, ecological concern etc). There is no need for Porto Alegre: instead, Davos can become Porto Davos.

So who are these liberal communists? The usual suspects: Bill Gates and George Soros, the CEOs of Google, IBM, Intel, eBay, as well as court-philosophers like Thomas Friedman. The true conservatives today, they argue, are not only the old right, with its ridiculous belief in authority, order and parochial patriotism, but also the old left, with its war against capitalism: both fight their shadow-theatre battles in disregard of the new realities. The signifier of this new reality in the liberal communist Newspeak is ‘smart’. Being smart means being dynamic and nomadic, and against centralised bureaucracy; believing in dialogue and co-operation as against central authority; in flexibility as against routine; culture and knowledge as against industrial production; in spontaneous interaction and autopoiesis as against fixed hierarchy.

Bill Gates is the icon of what he has called ‘frictionless capitalism’, the post-industrial society and the ‘end of labour’. Software is winning over hardware and the young nerd over the old manager in his black suit. In the new company headquarters, there is little external discipline; former hackers dominate the scene, working long hours, enjoying free drinks in green surroundings. The underlying notion here is that Gates is a subversive marginal hooligan, an ex-hacker, who has taken over and dressed himself up as a respectable chairman.

Liberal communists are top executives reviving the spirit of contest or, to put it the other way round, countercultural geeks who have taken over big corporations. Their dogma is a new, postmodernised version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: the market and social responsibility are not opposites, but can be reunited for mutual benefit. As Friedman puts it, nobody has to be vile in order to do business these days; collaboration with employees, dialogue with customers, respect for the environment, transparency of deals – these are the keys to success. Olivier Malnuit recently drew up the liberal communist’s ten commandments in the French magazine Technikart:

1. You shall give everything away free (free access, no copyright); just charge for the additional services, which will make you rich.

2. You shall change the world, not just sell things.

3. You shall be sharing, aware of social responsibility.

4. You shall be creative: focus on design, new technologies and science.

5. You shall tell all: have no secrets, endorse and practise the cult of transparency and the free flow of information; all humanity should collaborate and interact.

6. You shall not work: have no fixed 9 to 5 job, but engage in smart, dynamic, flexible communication.

7. You shall return to school: engage in permanent education.

8. You shall act as an enzyme: work not only for the market, but trigger new forms of social collaboration.

9. You shall die poor: return your wealth to those who need it, since you have more than you can ever spend.

10. You shall be the state: companies should be in partnership with the state.

Liberal communists are pragmatic; they hate a doctrinaire approach. There is no exploited working class today, only concrete problems to be solved: starvation in Africa, the plight of Muslim women, religious fundamentalist violence. When there is a humanitarian crisis in Africa (liberal communists love a humanitarian crisis; it brings out the best in them), instead of engaging in anti-imperialist rhetoric, we should get together and work out the best way of solving the problem, engage people, governments and business in a common enterprise, start moving things instead of relying on centralised state help, approach the crisis in a creative and unconventional way.

Liberal communists like to point out that the decision of some large international corporations to ignore apartheid rules within their companies was as important as the direct political struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Abolishing segregation within the company, paying blacks and whites the same salary for the same job etc: this was a perfect instance of the overlap between the struggle for political freedom and business interests, since the same companies can now thrive in post-apartheid South Africa.

Liberal communists love May 1968. What an explosion of youthful energy and creativity! How it shattered the bureaucratic order! What an impetus it gave to economic and social life after the political illusions dropped away! Those who were old enough were themselves protesting and fighting on the streets: now they have changed in order to change the world, to revolutionise our lives for real. Didn’t Marx say that all political upheavals were unimportant compared to the invention of the steam engine? And would Marx not have said today: what are all the protests against global capitalism in comparison with the internet?

Above all, liberal communists are true citizens of the world – good people who worry. They worry about populist fundamentalism and irresponsible greedy capitalist corporations. They see the ‘deeper causes’ of today’s problems: mass poverty and hopelessness breed fundamentalist terror. Their goal is not to earn money, but to change the world (and, as a by-product, make even more money). Bill Gates is already the single greatest benefactor in the history of humanity, displaying his love for his neighbours by giving hundreds of millions of dollars for education, the fight against hunger and malaria etc. The catch is that before you can give all this away you have to take it (or, as the liberal communists would put it, create it). In order to help people, the justification goes, you must have the means to do so, and experience – that is, recognition of the dismal failure of all centralised statist and collectivist approaches – teaches us that private enterprise is by far the most effective way. By regulating their business, taxing them excessively, the state is undermining the official goal of its own activity (to make life better for the majority, to help those in need).

Liberal communists do not want to be mere profit-machines: they want their lives to have deeper meaning. They are against old-fashioned religion and for spirituality, for non-confessional meditation (everybody knows that Buddhism foreshadows brain science, that the power of meditation can be measured scientifically). Their motto is social responsibility and gratitude: they are the first to admit that society has been incredibly good to them, allowing them to deploy their talents and amass wealth, so they feel that it is their duty to give something back to society and help people. This beneficence is what makes business success worthwhile.

This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. Remember Andrew Carnegie, who employed a private army to suppress organised labour in his steelworks and then distributed large parts of his wealth for educational, cultural and humanitarian causes, proving that, although a man of steel, he had a heart of gold? In the same way, today’s liberal communists give away with one hand what they grabbed with the other.

There is a chocolate-flavoured laxative available on the shelves of US stores which is publicised with the paradoxical injunction: Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate! – i.e. eat more of something that itself causes constipation. The structure of the chocolate laxative can be discerned throughout today’s ideological landscape; it is what makes a figure like Soros so objectionable. He stands for ruthless financial exploitation combined with its counter-agent, humanitarian worry about the catastrophic social consequences of the unbridled market economy. Soros’s daily routine is a lie embodied: half of his working time is devoted to financial speculation, the other half to ‘humanitarian’ activities (financing cultural and democratic activities in post-Communist countries, writing essays and books) which work against the effects of his own speculations. The two faces of Bill Gates are exactly like the two faces of Soros: on the one hand, a cruel businessman, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at a virtual monopoly; on the other, the great philanthropist who makes a point of saying: ‘What does it serve to have computers if people do not have enough to eat?’

According to liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity: charity is part of the game, a humanitarian mask hiding the underlying economic exploitation. Developed countries are constantly ‘helping’ undeveloped ones (with aid, credits etc), and so avoiding the key issue: their complicity in and responsibility for the miserable situation of the Third World. As for the opposition between ‘smart’ and ‘non-smart’, outsourcing is the key notion. You export the (necessary) dark side of production – disciplined, hierarchical labour, ecological pollution – to ‘non-smart’ Third World locations (or invisible ones in the First World). The ultimate liberal communist dream is to export the entire working class to invisible Third World sweat shops.

We should have no illusions: liberal communists are the enemy of every true progressive struggle today. All other enemies – religious fundamentalists, terrorists, corrupt and inefficient state bureaucracies – depend on contingent local circumstances. Precisely because they want to resolve all these secondary malfunctions of the global system, liberal communists are the direct embodiment of what is wrong with the system. It may be necessary to enter into tactical alliances with liberal communists in order to fight racism, sexism and religious obscurantism, but it’s important to remember exactly what they are up to.

Etienne Balibar, in La Crainte des masses (1997), distinguishes the two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence in today’s capitalism: the objective (structural) violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the automatic creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the subjective violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) fundamentalisms. They may fight subjective violence, but liberal communists are the agents of the structural violence that creates the conditions for explosions of subjective violence. The same Soros who gives millions to fund education has ruined the lives of thousands thanks to his financial speculations and in doing so created the conditions for the rise of the intolerance he denounces.

--

Slavoj Zizek, a philosopher and a (Lacanian) psychoanalyst, is international director of the Centre for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at Birkbeck. The Parallax View, his latest attempt to rehabilitate dialectical materialism, comes out in April 2006.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

When the Union Is the Boss

Tedster — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 07:15:50 GMT

When the Union Is the Boss
by Kevin Funk

I. Meeting North America's "Fastest-Growing Union"

Late in the summer of 2005, as I geared up for my post-college graduation job search, a group of labor unions broke away from the AFL-CIO to form the Change to Win Federation. While media commentary generally portrayed the split as detrimental to working-class interests -- as if commentators actually cared about such matters -- I instead saw flashes of hope and a renewed commitment to reinvigorating a fading labor movement.

Wanting my place on the ground floor of this struggle, I applied for a job as a union organizer with Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a founding member of the Federation and a union with a reputation for leading the charge to organize low-wage workers. Idealism in hand, I happily accepted an offer from District 1199WV/KY/OH, whose expansive region covers the states of Ohio and West Virginia, as well as parts of Kentucky.

On my first day of work, a typically crisp fall day in September, I entered an SEIU District that triumphantly wore a badge of success. Covering mostly low-wage health care workers, 1199 professes to have one of the fastest growth rates of union membership within SEIU, which itself claims the title of the country's "fastest-growing union."1

Fellow organizers and higher-ups within the union alike, displaying a striking unity of message that would later give me pause, frequently bandied about the idea that it was the most hardcore SEIU District; "while organizers at other locals around the country have off every weekend," an organizer or leader would commonly say, "WE only have off every other weekend."

And if the spirit of hard work and devotion was present in union employee attitudes, it also manifested itself in the battles that 1199 was choosing to fight. With grand hopes of becoming a powerhouse in Ohio state politics and rapidly approaching November elections, 1199 was employing several dozen organizers statewide to work in support of mayoral candidates in Cincinnati, Toledo, and Youngstown, and was also the major player behind a ballot initiative in Springfield.

It was this ballot initiative that most dominated 1199's agenda. Faced with the dilemma of how to grow exponentially as a union at a time when most organizing was being done by conducting long, slow, and expensive piecemeal, hospital-by-hospital campaigns, 1199 set its sights on what it saw as the bigger picture, and one with a potential payout to be won in a few fell swoops: passing ballot initiatives to establish "Hospital Accountability Commissions" in cities throughout Ohio in order to prohibit the state's largest health system, Catholic Healthcare Partners, from interfering in future statewide organizing efforts.

District 1199 was, indeed, talking the progressive talk -- not only in its expressed desire to unionize systemically-underpaid healthcare employees throughout Ohio, but also in its aim to establish a regulatory mechanism for a hospital system that receives sizable taxpayer subsidies and nevertheless mercilessly sues countless patients who are unable to pay for overpriced services.

On the surface, then, 1199 was striking the pose of a forward-thinking, progressive-to-the-bone organization, one firmly entrenched on the front line of a battle for working-class survival against modern-day robber barons.

Yet while this initial impression retains kernels of truth, I also began to discover a different union reality from inside, one characterized by an often subtle yet convoluted net of deceit, fear-mongering, incompetence, and, in fact, union-busting.

II. Deceiving the Public for Its Own Good

Perhaps my first encounter with 1199's seedy underbelly occurred when former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards was to speak in Springfield to rally "Yes" votes for the then-upcoming referendum on the SEIU-backed Hospital Accountability Commission.

Officials in 1199 hoped for (and later claimed to have attracted) a crowd of 1,000 for the event, seeing the presence of a major politician in a minor market during a non-presidential election year as a means to create a stir in the normally sleepy Rust Belt city of 65,000.

As I soon found out, however, there was a disquieting number of outsiders doing the stirring.

In the course of my duties in guiding attendees from a downtown parking lot to the nearby rally site, I watched as bus after out-of-town SEIU bus poured its riders into the lot adjacent to a Springfield library for their attendance at the rally. The end result of this transfer was that perhaps half of the crowd consisted of either 1199 employees like me -- almost all drawn from a college campus instead of the rank-n-file -- or representatives from workplaces organized under 1199, who were bussed into Springfield from a meeting in nearby Columbus. Thus, what 1199 leadership spun as a strong display of organic community support masked the fact that half of those in attendance were not even from Springfield.

To attempt to conceal this from the press -- a ballsy move given the lengthy row of out-of-town busses parked conspicuously only a few blocks from the rally location -- 1199 higher-ups instructed staffers and representatives to simply ignore the media or to say that we were indeed from Springfield, when in fact some had never even set foot there prior to that afternoon.

Yet this was merely one -- and amongst the more benign -- of the instances in which 1199, under the auspices of the Springfield Fair Care Coalition, either deceived or concealed motives from the same people whom the union was supposedly seeking to help2 -- the net result of which created a significant, and fatal, backlash.

The Coalition, backed and dominated by SEIU, was selling the idea of a Hospital Accountability Commission to the people of Springfield primarily as a means to assure that Catholic Healthcare Partners, which operates both of the hospitals in Springfield, would be held responsible to community standards in light of the large tax breaks the company receives. Feeding on popular discontent with the hospitals' liberal policy of suing patient debtors, as well as a recent and controversial decision to merge the two hospitals into a downtown location, the Coalition sought to portray itself as an altruistic community group whose sole goal was to ensure that the hospitals did their job and served the needs of the people of Springfield, especially those of the poor and working class.

This was the message pumped into the city by advertising campaigns, billboards, mailings, and, most importantly, by 1199 organizers such as myself, who were in constant contact with any reachable resident of Springfield through repeated rounds of phone calls and house visits.

Yet in the course of spreading this message to the people of Springfield, union leadership directly ordered us to misrepresent our positions and refer to ourselves as "volunteers with the Springfield Fair Care Coalition." There was nothing "voluntary" about it -- it was both a mandatory part of the job and a task for which SEIU was compensating us as normal. Not "volunteering" for the Coalition would have earned me, or anyone else, a one-way ticket to the unemployment lines.

The obfuscation of SEIU's role in the campaign, however, extended far beyond how we introduced ourselves at people's front doors. Rarely in any facet of this communications deluge was the union mentioned, rarer still was the ultimate goal of the entire campaign: the unionization of hospital employees.

When it did become common knowledge that this was the goal of the Coalition, many Springfield residents rightfully felt deceived. As I heard several times during house visits, many people were not opposed to unionization per se (though some indeed were), but they were clearly incensed at being subjected to a campaign fed to them on slogans of "accountability," while the Coalition was obscuring from them its ultimate purpose.3

On November 7, 2005, Springfield voters rejected the establishment of a Hospital Accountability Commission.4

While extrapolating specific causal factors in this defeat is indeed a Herculean task, the eventual recognition by many Springfield residents of the fact that SEIU was pursuing a hidden agenda surely played a significant role, as did the oft-expressed perception that the constancy of SEIU mailings, house visits, and phone calls bordered on harassment.

Whether this loss can be attributed to mere tactical errors or 1199's sheer arrogance, the end result is the same: the people of Springfield are still suffering at the hands of an inhuman, corporate health care machine. Yet either cause for this botched opportunity begs for profound soul-searching amongst 1199 decision-makers.

III. Hierarchy Is Okay in the Name of Your Preferred Social Class

While the people of Springfield were preparing to vote on a matter whose core purpose the Springfield Fair Care Coalition was carefully shielding from the public eye, elements within 1199 were submitting its very own organizers, such as myself, to an even more sustained propaganda campaign.

Before being hired, I had wondered if 1199 staffers were organized in any form into their own union. After all, it struck me as the height of common sense that we, who were cashing paychecks supposedly in the service of empowering workers to have a greater voice in their own places of employment, would have the very same rights for ourselves.

I was wrong.

Not only was there a complete lack of representation for 1199 employees, but even broaching the idea in public was a ground for castigation from the leadership and stern glances of disapproval from the well-oiled de facto politburo, composed of organizers who were around long enough to become veterans by proving sufficiently loyal in toeing the "company line" in instances such as these.

One organizer, a recently-hired African-American male who at a staff meeting raised questions about 1199's lack of both a union and an outlet for diversity-related issues, was thereafter reassigned to Akron for a solo project. A more senior organizer unsympathetically described it as a "bad sign" for the relocated organizer to be forced into working alone so soon after being hired, a "bad sign" in this case being a euphemism for "a way to shut him up."

At the height of its display of arbitrary power, 1199 leadership called nearly all of us organizers, who were going door-to-door to speak to registered voters in Springfield, to an emergency meeting 45 minutes away at District headquarters in Columbus. Having been given no prior indication as to the content of the meeting, the other organizers and I arrived at the meeting, only to be subjected to a nearly hour-long tongue-lashing by the union leadership for a supposed lack of discipline in the midst of a major campaign season. Despite our 70-hour work weeks, as well as our having worked, at times. more than two weeks without a single day or weekend off, the union bosses castigated us for not being sufficiently focused on winning the upcoming round of elections.

One staffer commented in the course of the meeting that workers represented by the union were being paid poverty wages "to wipe people's asses for a living" -- the comment made to make any criticism of union policy seem like a whining of spoiled bourgeois children. If you are unwilling to submit entirely to 1199 dogma and march in lockstep with company dictates, you are not dedicated to the working class.

At the core of those dictates was the idea that 1199 employees should not be unionized, justified by the argument that their boss is not their class enemy like in a normal place of employment, but instead is technically the workers whose wages allow the union to function. Thus, union employees can make no claim to having distinct interests from leadership, as they are all united in a common front under the power of the workers. Therefore, the idea of a union for union employees was, in this view, at best a distraction from the real task of organizing workers, at worst a ploy by slacking, reactionary, and uncommitted organizers to find a way to work shorter hours for higher pay.

As it played itself out in real-life scenarios, this belief turned into the basis for a comical yet tragic informal system designed to extract unrelenting loyalty from the organizers.

One organizer, upon replying with a "boo" to management's decree that we would be losing an expected and rare weekend break, found himself pulled out of the group to be scolded by more senior organizers.

More systematically, senior organizers would broach the topic of having a union with newer employees, trying to both gain information as to the stance of the individuals in question, as well as to plant within them the idea that forming a union would be detrimental to the very same workers that the union was supposedly trying to help. Those deemed "trouble-makers," if not inspired to leave by the cultish tint of it all, were left to contend with a mind-numbing workweek and unsympathetic management.

It is excruciating enough, after all, to spend nearly all waking hours in a windowless basement making the same 30 second phone call over and over again to Springfield voters in the course of conducting surveys, even more so to have one's loyalty directly questioned at every turn by management and sycophantic co-workers alike.5

It is in this way that the system perpetuates itself. Members of the unruly mob, unwilling to tolerate witch-hunts and being treated like schoolchildren, move to greener pastures; left behind is an ever-increasing sect of idealistic youth turned into automatons.

One might find it difficult to imagine how the workers represented by SEIU benefit from this arrangement.

IV. A Call for a Democratic Labor Movement

It is, indeed, a serious act of both hubris and hypocrisy to publicly espouse a commitment to "workers' power" while denying it to the union's very own employees. A simple application of principle, after all, would hold that the employees of a union should be represented within their own union. While its opponents in the SEIU power structure paint such an effort as a mere ploy by lazy, uncommitted employees interested in nothing more than fattening their pockets -- eerily similar to how bosses whom we supposedly oppose intimidate their employees -- it is instead an effort to gain desperately needed worker representation in decision-making, in matters financial and otherwise, and to ensure that workers have an avenue for the resolution of grievances.

Denying the universality of such a principle -- that workers deserve representation no matter for whom they work and indeed possess the competence to manage their own affairs -- not only defies any possible conception of common sense, but surely condemns the labor movement to be built on nothing but flimsy propaganda slogans to be tossed around for external purposes yet callously discarded for internal matters.

Yet the conservative nature of the labor hierarchy in general stands directly in the way of these democratic reforms. In the course of brief attempts by me and a few other organizers to explore the possibility of an outside union organizing 1199 employees, we were turned down by even the most "progressive" outfits, generally for the mere fear of "damaging relations" with SEIU at the national level.6 Any pretense of caring about principle was thus crudely cast aside so as not to upset camaraderie within the ranks of the labor oligarchy.

It is an oligarchy which has often been guilty of undermining the vitality (and, indeed, numerical strength) of organized labor as a whole, its conservatism in tactical considerations and unrepresentative structure a clear hindrance to true union democracy and sound decision-making.7 From frequent collaboration with management at the expense of workers in the United States, to support for anti-democratic forces in Latin America and the Caribbean through the Solidarity Center, labor movement leaders have done little to justify their usurpation of power from those to whom it rightfully belongs: the workers themselves.

The formation of a true "Change to Win" would require recognition of this fact and an obligatory dismantling of the structures that allow a select few to rule from above. Then, and only then, could a true labor movement thrive, free from reactionary, power-hungry, and anti-democratic leadership, free to be true community representatives and struggle for the rights of workers everywhere.

After all, if a Springfield hospital would function more smoothly with worker participation, then why not a labor union?

1 For just one amongst a plethora of instances where this is stated, see the following: SEIU, "A Closer Look Inside Labor's Fastest-Growing Union."

2 The Coalition's official website can be viewed here: www.springfieldfaircare.org/. Despite 1199's dominant role in this group, neither SEIU nor District 1199 seems to be mentioned at all in the entire site. The only hint of union involvement in the campaign is that the physical address listed at the bottom of the page, 240 Ludlow Avenue, is the headquarters of Carpenters Local 712, and indeed SEIU's main base of operations in the Springfield area.

3 This was not technically a secret. In fact, SEIU held a rally in April of 2005 in Cincinnati to launch a unionization campaign in Catholic Healthcare Partners' hospitals (see Tim Bonfield, "Health-care Workers Seeking to Unionize," Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 April 2005). However, this was not well known in Springfield, and even less so in conjunction with the Hospital Accountability Commission.

4 The final election result was 9,179 to 7,445, in spite of SEIU's polling that indicated that it would pass. SEIU's assertion that the defeat was caused by "unexpected turnout" is not exactly believable (previously available at www.seiu1199.org/action/legislative_update.cfm, since removed).

5 Worse still, perhaps, was tolerating the consultant who had been contracted to direct the phone call operations and who spent a large portion of the day, apparently oblivious to our toiling, doing Sudoku puzzles. At one point, conjuring images of an Upton Sinclair character, he decided to lecture us on taking both fewer bathroom breaks and spending only "two to three" minutes in the bathroom when we did have to go.

6 To its credit, the only union to express willingness in this regard was the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), though I had already left by the time I received this information.

7 For a critique of the SEIU hierarchy, and additional general insight into the SEIU model, see Steve Early, "What Happens When Poor Workers' Unions Wear the Color Purple," Labor Notes, September 2004.
Kevin Funk, a recent university graduate, worked as a field organizer in September and October of 2005 for Service Employees Union Local 1199WV/KY/OH, based out of Columbus, Ohio. URL: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/funk020706.html
MR
StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The White People Tribe

eric — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:30:27 GMT

I have been coming a disturbing conclusion, that tribe.net is an almost all-white community, with little or no diversity or minority voice. Once I linked this to the burning man, it made more sense, since that event is also like a white people convention. It's not like I hate white people, or their society and culture; I was brought up in that world, and now I am bored of it.

I am for diversity and internationalism, and this tribe stuff is very parochial. What is a tribe, anyway? It's an exclusionary device used to enmesh a bunch of people who have the same viewpoints, if not DNA, and organize the group using arbitrary criteria to expropriate labor. So; the tribe organizes around the titular leader, all wealth and power accrue to him who then dispenses it downwards. It's very autocratic without the benefits of even that symbiosis of class structure and dualism.

Everything passes through the leader. In order for the males to have sex with the females, they have to have to submit to the will of the leader. This is how you can identify all tribal social structure. Tribalism is even more primitive than capitalism, and even more self-delusional.

Tribes are dying everywhere, it's a dying social system because everyone is frozen in their tracks forver, there is no movement, no dialectic, only stagnation.

posted in //class war// - 18 replies

Non-racialism through race (and class)

djapollo2k — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 03:56:56 GMT

Non-racialism through race (and class)

By Betsy Esch and David Roediger

Shortly before the end of the apartheid regime in South
Africa, amidst wonderfully frantic activity by newly
legalized and relaunched organizations of struggle, one
of the many keywords being debated was "non-racialism."

Since building a "non-racial" nation was a longstanding
African National Congress goal, the word gave shape to
discussions about how to address racial inequality
amidst other social transformations in a Free South
Africa, especially during considerations of affirmative
action in the draft constitution. Both liberals and
some Marxists argued against stressing the "racial" in
the sophisticated analyses of racial capitalism that
held purchase in that time and place. The former could
claim that capitalism without apartheid would settle
racial inequalities through growth. The latter could
emphasize that ending capitalism was the key, and
perhaps the prerequisite, to a non-racial future. In
this context, a certain phrase used by other militants
struck home as particularly brave, precise and worth
thinking about as a starting place for any discussion
of race and racism: "The way to non-racialism is
through race."

As defenders of this approach we wish to challenge
readers of New Socialist to go beyond considerations of
race and class which begin from - and therefore can't
transcend - an either-or stance. If the 20th century
drove home any point to revolutionaries it is that
oppressions are multiple and cannot be explained
entirely through class relations. Even as we criticize
some Marxists for economic reductionist analyses of
racism, or for failing to see the critical place of
anti-racism in building resistance to capitalism, we
see ourselves as part of the struggle to define a
political economy of racism from within the Marxist
tradition.

Marxist Tools of Analysis

Marxism has produced the best tools for understanding
race and racism. The idea that race is constructed by
society has been best and most articulately explored by
Marxists, and the tradition of the critical study of
whiteness has been led by materialists as pluralistic
in their approaches as James Baldwin, W.E.B. Du Bois,
Oliver Cox, Karen Brodkin, Michael Rogin, Theodore
Allen and Noel Ignatiev.

So, too, was the fundamental refusal to accept race as
scientifically real and measurable a contribution of
Marxism. It is no surprise that the leading de-bunkers
of racist science, most notably the late Stephen Gould,
would be influenced by historical materialism. Among
other brilliant contributions, Gould's analysis of how
race was assumed as it was measured in order to prove
its existence gave us one of the most trenchant
historical materialist arguments against racial
difference as biologically measurable and thus real,
long before the human genome arrived with its "new"
evidence.

These tools have never been more needed than they are
now. Much of the world continues to throw up clear
lessons regarding the continuing significance of race
to the structuring of oppression, to the shaping of
strategies of rule under capitalism and to some of the
contours of resistance.

In Venezuela, opposition to Hugo Chavez and to his
social base includes anti-indigenous and anti-African
characterizations so broad and so racist that the
veteran left-wing journalist Tariq Ali regards the
elite there as the world's most self-consciously white
reactionary force; in Brazil affirmative action has
just begun, while in the US it has grown ever more
clear that powerful right-wing forces promote a
"colorblind conservatism" that seeks to end not only
affirmative action but also the very gathering of
statistical evidence on racial inequality.

In the last presidential election a Bush vote was
equally well-predicted by making over $200 000 a year
and by being a white male. Recently, a top French
politician suffered criticism for his racist attacks on
Muslim youth rebelling against police violence in and
around Paris. His response was to quickly plan a trip
to Martinique designed to emphasize how little colour
matters in the French colonial world. He was so
thoroughly unwelcomed by Martinique's great poet and
theorist of liberation Aime Cesaire and others that the
publicity stunt had to be cancelled.

Class Without Race?

Surprisingly, amidst such realities, we are now
witnessing an attempt by sections of the Left and of
liberalism to distance race from class analysis in a
way that leaves no doubt as to the overwhelmingly
greater import of the latter and indeed calls into
question the very use of race and racism as categories
of analysis.

The late activist sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his
co-thinker Loic Wacquant, for example, have attempted
to portray aspects of the analysis of the racial axis
of power in the world, and particularly the rise of
affirmative action in Brazil, as the terrible result of
the heavily funded export of "cunning" and
"imperialist" US ideas. Antonia Darder and Rodolfo
Torres hold that the "problem of the twenty-first
century" is the use of concepts like "race" and
"whiteness," echoing US socialist Eugene V. Debs's
claim a century ago that (assumedly white) socialists
properly had "nothing special" to offer African
Americans except a place in the class struggle.

To these people, concerns about the racialization of
power or structural analyses of whiteness allegedly,
and even by design, provide a "smokescreen" to
"successfully obscure and disguise class interests."
While Darder and Torres allow that "racism" is still a
problem worth addressing, the recent writings of the
radical political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. are done
even with all that. "Exposing racism," he argues, is
for activists "the political equivalent of an appendix:
a useless vestige of an earlier evolutionary moment
that's usually innocuous but can flare up and become
harmful." Echoing Debs, Reed maintains that class is
the "real divide."

This kind of one-sidedness and dismissiveness arises
out of the fact that class and race are different kinds
of categories, out of the distressing continuing
popular associations of race with biology in the face
of decisive scientific evidence to the contrary, out of
the tacit acceptance of ethnic cleansing as a tool of
warfare, out of the decades of defeat for anti-racist
movements in some nations and out of the difficulties
in bringing the worldwide struggles against what
participants call "racism" closer together. But this
context does not provide an excuse.

In this article we argue that the way to both non-
racialism and to anti-capitalism is still through race
and class analysis as well as anti-racist action. The
editors of New Socialist have given us not just the
task of explaining our method but of offering some
thoughts on the nature of racism today. In doing that
we hope to touch on several aspects that we think are
particularly vital to an anti-racism that is
sophisticated without being jargonistic, and militant
while realizing that the slogan "Black and White Unite
and Fight" is, as the Trinidadian-born revolutionary
socialist CLR James once said, "unimpeachable in
principle ...But... often misleading and sometimes even
offensive in the face of the infinitely varied,
tumultuous, passionate and often murderous reality of
race relations."

There is an overriding Marxian tendency to reduce the
cause of racism to labour market competition among
workers for jobs. Yet the idea that racism is produced
always as a result of labour market competition cruelly
disregards the possibility that racist acts are
sometimes or maybe often acts of racial empowerment,
rather than of class disempowerment. The existence of
all-white schools and neighbourhoods originates now
less than ever in patterns of job discrimination, as
workplaces and residences are geographically separated
sometimes by great distances. And if we acknowledge
that some of the most white places in society are
untouched by multi-racial labour market competition
then we have to grapple with the idea that race and
racism grow and develop beyond the specific relations
of production or reproduction.

Drawing inspiration from Lenin's understanding that
ideology is real and Du Bois's that race gives white
workers a psychological wage, we understand that race '
like gender ' organizes relations of power in multiple
ways. Understanding racism necessitates a separate and
distinct perspective on power relations beyond the
terms of class. The history of death row in the US
makes it clear that killing a white person is
considered a more harshly punishable crime than killing
a Black person in US society, highlighting the need to
understand the state's role in not just overseeing but
creating social rules based on race.

Learning from Australia

A brief account of the recent travails of the Left and
labour in Australia shows why it is so urgent to raise
the call for continued focus on race as well as class
relations of power. In early December 2005, the right-
wing Liberal Party government rammed through, largely
without debate, a harrowing series of laws that put
that nation in the front ranks of reaction worldwide.
John Howard's government passed a draconian new labour
code squarely in the tradition of Thatcherism and an
anti-terrorism act that rivals the US Patriot Act.

The centerpiece of the triumph of neoliberalism, and
the focus of the most successful left and labour
opposition, lies in the dramatic reverses in labour
law. The massive and euphemistically named
"WorkChoices" bill abolishes unfair termination appeals
in all businesses with less than 100 workers and in all
of the sure-to-be-many cases where the employer claims
that layoffs reflect "operational requirements." It
guts overtime premium pay and enables forced overtime
work in a way that will be the envy of Bush
administration anti-labour strategists. It severely
restricts union access to workplaces while sharply
limiting and increasingly criminalizing the right to
strike. The bill allows for unilateral termination of
expired agreements by management. Minimum wage
settlements are put in the hands of a commission
mandated to make economic competitiveness - not the
living and fair wage ideas so prominent in white
Australian industrial history - the benchmark in
setting standards. In the run-up to the bill's passage
its opponents mobilized hundreds of thousands of
demonstrators in what were, with the anti-Iraq War
protests of 2003, the biggest in the nation's history.

The anti-terrorism bill, passed without similar mass
protest after gag orders to curb reporting on its
contents, authorizes detentions without evidence of
criminal involvement and without disclosure of
incarceration. Even the disclosure of facts regarding
these irregular seizures and interrogations of persons
is itself made a crime both for journalists and others.
The bill grants "shoot to kill" immunities in pursuits
of possible detainees. It opens the way - in a manner
chilling to aboriginal activists who necessarily build
their campaigns for land rights and "stolen wages" on
searching and vocal criticism of government policy - to
prosecutions on charges of "urging disaffection" with
the state.

The great South African novelist JM Coetzee, now living
in Australia, put the new law's inhumanity squarely in
human terms. He offered a scenario in which "someone
called a reporter and said 'Tell the world - some men
came last night, took my husband, my son, my father
away, I don't know who they were, they didn't give
names, they had guns.'" And he spelled out the results:
"the next thing that would happen would be that you and
the reporter in question would be brought into custody
for furthering the aims of a terrorist [and]
endangering the security of the state." Coetzee
continued, "All of this [was done] during apartheid in
South Africa in the name of the fight against terror. .
. I used to think that the people who created [South
African] law that effectively suspended the rule of law
were moral barbarians. Now I know that they were just
pioneers ahead of their times."

While elements of the Labour Party fought relatively
hard on the trade union legislation, its historically
racialized perspective on labour allowed it to define
class interests separate from what it believed to be
its security interest. Thus Labour voted with the
Howard government on the anti-terror bill, even as the
United Nations warned of the possibility that the
legislation would ratify anti-immigrant racist hysteria
and victimize asylum-seekers. In an angry post-mortem
when the law passed, the Law Council of Australia held,
"Unlike the Labour Party, we've put up a good fight."

Within a week of the legislation's passage, many
Australians mobilized in a militant demonstration in
the Sydney area, though not of the kind for which we
would hope. At the time of these historic legislative
defeats for the working class and the Left, what in
Australia is called "talkback radio" became saturated
with political exchanges and calls to action. The
popular populist radio host Alan Jones strongly urged
the need for "a rally, a street march, call it what you
will. A community show of force." Radical groups joined
in building the protest. When thousands gathered at the
week's end the policing was so hesitant as to suggest
broad sympathy with the demonstrators. Nonetheless the
crowd of between five and ten thousand embraced
extralegal tactics, and violence lasted for many hours.
The early December actions absolutely galvanized press
attention with giant headlines clearly distilling the
crowd's message.

But, as the blaring headlines showed, that message did
not include a murmur of protest against the week's
legislative barbarisms. Instead it urged "RACE HATE"
(Herald Sun) and threatened to begin "RACE WAR" (The
Australian). Jones, the talkback radio riot organizer,
was a racist populist of the variety so familiar on US
airwaves. The radical groups building the mob were
white supremacist ones. The victims of the extremely
bloody and well-photographed militancy were the few
Arab youths on beaches that organizers and the mob had
declared off limits. Arab swimmers suffered taunts and
attacks as potential bombers, as threats to Australian
women, and as puritans opposed to bikinis, nudity and
beer on the beaches. On Cronulla Beach, the white crowd
could see itself as the beleaguered combative essence
of the Australian nation. "And the mob," as one
newspaper put it, gesturing towards The Pogues' great
antiwar anthem, "sang 'Waltzing Matilda.'"

After parliamentary defeats and the beach riots, for
many on the Left the tasks seem to be to build
resistance in single-issue campaigns that so
effectively focus on the "real" and "unifying" issues
of class and capitalism as to draw energies away from
the irrationalities that fuelled the Cronulla mob and
to identify and champion alternative national
traditions and values in Australia that could lead to
deep opposition to attacks on both workers and on
immigrants. Yet to follow this seemingly non-racialized
course is to ignore the very real, and distinct,
problem of racism. That the full and excellent website
of the main Australian trade union federation did not
mention the riots underscores this point.

Such a response continues patterns firmly established
in the campaigns against repressive labour legislation.
In the former campaign, the labour federation argued
for the existing laws because "for more than a hundred
years, Australia has had an industrial relations system
that has given working people a share of the benefits
of economic prosperity when times are good and ensured
that there are decent protections... when times get
tough." The left-wing journalist John Pilger worries
that the new labour code has "put paid to Australia's
tenuous self-regard as the 'land of fair go.'" He
recites a litany of firsts that gave reason for such a
self-image: women's suffrage, the minimum wage, Labour
Party government, the eight-hour day, the Australian
ballot. "In the 1960s," Pilger concludes, "with the
exception of the Aboriginal people... Australians could
boast of the most equitable spread of national income
in the world." Such appeals ignore, or in Pilger's case
literally bracket, the decimation of aboriginal people,
land seizures, stolen wages, stolen children and
exclusion from the very social goods for which the
nation is extolled. Similarly disappeared is the
unambiguous grounding of Australian social democracy
and women's suffrage in white supremacy and Asian and
Pacific Islander exclusion.

Right-wing victories are not explicable without
understanding the dynamics of white supremacy exposed
by the beach riots. While the Howard government does
not generally more than flirt with openly vulgar racism
- the prime minister's response to the riots was that
Australia is a colorblind society - its attacks on
indigenous land rights, stalling of the reconciliation
process without even a symbolic apology for settler
colonialism and setting up of offshore compounds in
which asylum seekers are indefinitely detained as a
precondition of entry speak powerfully. As radio talk
shows turned the conversation away from class, labour
law and civil liberties to beaches and Arabs, the
Howard government announced a study of the alleged
pathology and waste of small aboriginal settlements,
with a view to the withdrawal of government services
and support from them. The Labour Party's feeble
colorblind response was to suggest that small white
settlements also be investigated.

Such sidestepping cannot work. In Australia, right-wing
politics has successfully won votes by uniting
nationalism and an individualism leavened by male-
bonding around the image of the "battler," the hard-
working man struggling indomitably in a hostile and
changed world. Made up of elements of frontier
mythology, imperial sport and "mateship," the battler
is distinctly white. The important indigenous
Australian scholar of whiteness Aileen Moreton-Robinson
has recently written that "representations of mateship,
egalitarianism, individualism and citizenship" are
presented as if they have no "connection to whiteness,"
but that in fact at every turn they do connect with it,
and with right-wing political success.

The literal wrapping of those in the beachfront mob in
flags and flag headbands, the avowals of defense of
Australian womanhood and the claiming of the high-
ground of talkback radio commonsense before the show of
force all tie Cronulla to everyday politics of race and
gender. Editorial cartoons in the wake of the bloodshed
were far more acute than written editorials. The best
of them, in The Australian, showed in extreme closeup a
gaggle of flabbily fierce white men, brandishing
weapons and sporting t-shirts that read "Muslims Out!!"
"Bash Lebs!" and "Kill Wogs!" The caption read
"Howard's Battlers."

Potent in its linking of racial violence to the
policies of the Howard regime, the cartoon accomplishes
what the Left should. With racist demonstrators
themselves rationalizing their attacks on immigrants
and non-white Australian citizens as a direct response
to Howard's legislative victories, leftists need to
think about the timing of such events. That the most
militant expression of rage to follow the passage of
the WorkChoices legislation as well as the anti-terror
bill was a demonstration of white power - notably aimed
at recruiting working-class youths, but not led by them
- should inspire leftists to creative and innovative
thinking about the explanatory power of race in
people's lives today.

Three Issues for Activists

This kind of thinking requires us to accept the complex
but plain notion that race has been created
historically and changes over time. Of course, this
statement is more true at the level of the state than
the individual, but we have to acknowledge that race
and racism, while structurally organized, are created
and reproduced in everyday life. Indeed, this dimension
of race, in which it is created while class is
supposedly "real," is one of the crutches the Left has
leaned on in order to think less hard about how to
combat racism.

Toward the end of creating both anti-racist theory and
practice we want to speak to three issues we think
activists must confront in the process of multi-racial
movement building.

1. Rights and Privileges

In a world in which rights are constructed as
privileges, it is logical to speak of racism in terms
of white skin privilege. But precisely because some of
what exist as privileges are in fact rights it is
imperative that activists understand the difference
between what we are fighting for and what we are
fighting against.

As anti-racist activist and scholar George Lipsitz has
beautifully articulated, "opposing whiteness is not the
same as opposing white people...one way of becoming a
[white] insider is by participating in the exclusion of
others. White people always have the option of becoming
anti-racist...we do not choose our colour, but we do
choose our commitments. Yet we do not make these
decisions in a vacuum; they occur within a social
structure that gives value to whiteness and offers
rewards for racism." If opposing racism means opposing
social exclusion and expanding opportunity and
possibility for those historically and still excluded,
it is critical that we strive to understand the
difference between rights and privileges.

What is it that white people must give up? For example,
white privilege shields white people from much
repressive everyday policing. So, after white
supremacist Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal
building in Oklahoma City, should anti-racists have
demanded that young, white men with short hair be
randomly questioned, stopped and detained? Of course
not! But today when terrorism comes up and people think
they are only talking about security and not at all
about race it's worth pointing out that young white men
weren't singled out after McVeigh's bombing in the way
that young men of colour have been since Sept. 11,
2001. Should we argue for more policing of white youth
because immigrant and Black youths are more harshly
policed? No, though we should creatively and with
conviction develop language to talk about how skin
privilege does shape life experiences without urging
personal guilt as a solution.

Knowing the difference between rights that should be
expanded and privileges which should not be taken for
granted is essential in building genuine multiracial
organizations and societies.

2. Understanding Racism

Theoretically-informed writing, even when the language
is tough-sledding, can help inform our practice. Thus
when Lisa Lowe writes in Immigrant Acts that capital
often profits "not through rendering labour 'abstract'
but by... creating, preserving, and reproducing the
specifically racialized and gendered character of
labour power" she speaks to what happened in
Australia's labour law and on its beaches. She shows us
that race is no "fixed essence" but a convergence of
contradictions. She models how Marxist insights can be
both deployed and extended. Developing as it does out
of so many different kinds of intersections, so many
different kinds of state actions regarding citizenship,
and so many different degrees of unfreedom, race must
constantly be specifically situated, which means that
racism must also be. One task of activists should be to
continue developing new language for understanding the
myriad actions and ideas that fall under the heading
"racism." As the freedom movement in South Africa gave
us the concept of non-racialism, as the Civil Rights
and Black Power movements each expanded our
understanding of the difference between legal and
extra-legal discrimination along with the importance of
understanding and taking on both, and as women of
colour feminists challenged and fundamentally
transformed national liberation movements with regard
to gender roles, so, too, do today's activists need to
understand the systems of oppression we confront and
need to shift. If the UN Conference on Racism proved
one thing it is that there are multiple racisms in the
world and thus there must be multiple strategies for
resistance.

3. What Should We Do?

We must support every small effort, including
especially demands for reparations for people oppressed
by racism that potentially educate white people about
the ways in which capitalism, settler colonialism,
slavery and racism developed together in the past and
about how serious anti-racist actions can benefit all
of us today. We must expand participation, resist
complacency and demand reform while opposing top-down
reformism. We must insist that quiet desperation is the
best we can expect without direct action for
transformation.

http://newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=848

[Note: New Socialist is published by New Socialist
Group in Canada]
__________________

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Philanthropy of Warren Buffett

Tedster — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:27:10 GMT

The philanthropy of Warren Buffett
Tuesday, June 27 2006 @ 10:56 AM PDT
Contributed by: arch_stanton

This past weekend investor Warren Buffett, to a vast fanfare from the media, announced his decision to donate some $37 billion worth of shares in his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, to five charitable foundations. The largest recipient (receiving some $31 billion) will be The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which specializes in global health and education projects.

The philanthropy of Warren Buffett

By David Walsh
WSWS

This past weekend investor Warren Buffett, to a vast fanfare from the media, announced his decision to donate some $37 billion worth of shares in his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, to five charitable foundations. The largest recipient (receiving some $31 billion) will be The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which specializes in global health and education projects.

That one solitary human being has nearly forty billion dollars to dispose of, with a good deal left over, is appalling in itself, at a time when 1.1 billion people, one-fifth of the world’s population, live on less than $1 a day and some 3 billion on less than $2. The planet’s three wealthiest individuals in 2005 (including Messrs. Buffett and Gates) had greater wealth than the combined gross domestic product of the world’s 48 poorest nations.

There is, in any event, something intrinsically degrading and demeaning about philanthropy. A society in need of philanthropists is one rooted in inequality, in which the deprivation of the many is supposedly addressed by the largesse of the few. No one can seriously suggest that social problems will be solved in this manner. Especially in America, where an aristocracy has taken shape before our eyes over the past decade and the Bush administration is taking blind, reckless measures to eliminate all restrictions on the accumulation of personal wealth.

As for Mr. Buffett himself, there are no doubt immense personal contradictions in his life. If one takes the media accounts at face value, he seems an honest and civilized man. Among many unsavory, rotten types, he appears to stand out as something of an exception. He has liberal views on social issues and has put his money to use in a number of worthy causes. He lives modestly in a home bought decades ago.

It is worth noting that Buffett’s lifestyle puts the lie to the claims by the media and the assorted apologists for corporate thievery that the fabulous sums paid to American executives are necessary to retain “the best and the brightest.” For Buffett, at least, the accumulation of personal wealth seems not to have been the principal motivation.

There can hardly be any doubt about his abilities as an investor. Highly skilled at what he does, this is clearly a man who knows his way around money. And his success has earned him a devoted following.

While we have no intention of taking part in the current media adulation, there is no reason to demonize Buffett, as an individual, on account of his great wealth—or Bill Gates either, for that matter. In the final analysis, the issues raised by their fortunes don’t go to their personal moral qualities.

That said, those tempted to get dewy-eyed on hearing of Buffett’s billion-dollar donations to good works would do well to consider certain facts of economic life. Whatever his intentions, Buffett has played a part in recent economic processes that have had devastating implications for large numbers of people. Under consideration here is not Buffett the individual, but the social process he embodies. Its terrible impact on the lives of workers may be painful to him and, in fact, “extremely demoralising,” as Oscar Wilde suggested the burdens of possessing private property often are for the rich, but that is only a further argument for socialism.

Notwithstanding his evident personal decency, Buffett is one of those figures who have helped drive the ever more ruthless exploitation of the American working class. The very mechanisms by which he earned his billions, a portion of which he now intends to give away, have contributed to the growth of poverty and social inequality. An analyst, Jonathan Davis, describes Buffett’s operations:

“His holding company Berkshire Hathaway is built around a core of cash-generative insurance companies; the cash they generate provides the capital that Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger then invest on their shareholders’ behalf. Capital allocation is what Buffett and Munger see as being their ‘core competence.’

“Buffett is well-known for his large ‘semi-permanent’ minority holdings in a handful of America’s largest companies, the likes of American Express, Coca-Cola and Gillette. Yet these represent only one part (and a declining one) of the company’s overall investment activities. In addition to his insurance operations, Berkshire Hathaway now owns outright a string of industrial and retail companies, many in deeply boring but lucrative fields of business. While many of these were originally family-owned companies, an increasing number are now former quoted companies that Buffett has acquired outright on the stock market.”

Buffett’s operations, his organization of mergers and acquisitions, are inevitably tied in with corporate structural reorganizing aimed at generating a greater return on investment. His business is to see that assets are deployed more effectively, i.e., more profitably, and his success indicates his brilliance at that. There is nothing sentimental in Buffett’s approach. He can undoubtedly read a balance-sheet like few others.

Buffett’s financial maneuverings have an objective character, i.e., his decisions are always understandable from a business point of view. His concerns for his employees may be very real, but, as “capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will,” in Marx’s expression, he hardly has a choice. Buffett’s goal is, of necessity within the capitalist market, to increase the per-share value of Berkshire Hathaway, at any cost. He may draw only a modest salary, but the werewolf-like investors must be satisfied.

Buffett has inevitably left a trail of closed facilities and ruined communities behind him. He may find it regrettable, it may play a role in his decision to give up tens of billions, but that should not blind anyone to implacable economic realities. On the contrary, the fact that a decent man is forced to destroy jobs and lives is the strongest argument against those, in the trade unions and in left-liberal circles, who would have workers appeal to the ‘humanity’ of the capitalists.

Buffett began cutting jobs at the age of 32, when he purchased Dempster, a windmill manufacturing company, and placed one Harry Bottle in charge. “Bottle cut costs, laid off workers, and caused the company to generate cash,” notes a commentator. The same year he discovered a textile manufacturing firm, Berkshire Hathaway, which was selling for less than $8 a share. It became one of the springboards to his empire.

In 1985, Buffett shut down the Berkshire Hathaway textile operations in New Bedford, Massachusetts, throwing 425 people out of work. The closing came in response to increased competition from Japan and Taiwan, compounded by depressed prices and the strength of the US dollar.

In 1985, Buffett, together with Capital Cities Communications, put together a deal to buy ABC. At the same time, Laurence Tisch took over as chief executive officer of CBS and RCA sold NBC to General Electric. The results of this process: “The new corporate leaders found their properties losing audience and revenue to cable networks. Round after round of budget cutting and layoffs followed.”

One could go on. Big business is inevitably dirty business. In 2000, Buffet’s firm purchased a stake in US Gypsum (USG), according to one web site, betting “that the company’s legacy of asbestos litigation would soon be resolved through some agreed-on scheme of compensation for injured workers.” With no such measure forthcoming, USG sought protection in the bankruptcy courts from asbestos suits, behind which lie disease and misery for thousands of workers.

Buffett is no more a savior to workers than any other capitalist. In 2003, he declined to purchase bankrupt textile maker Burlington Industries after a bankruptcy court rejected a $14 million fee Burlington would have had to pay if the deal fell through.

In August 2004, Fruit of the Loom, the underwear manufacturer now owned by Berkshire Hathaway, announced that its plant in Cameron County, Texas would close by the end of the year and that much of its production would be shifted to Honduras. The jobs of 800 workers were eliminated. Cameron County already had a double-digit unemployment rate and a 33 percent poverty rate, according to a piece in the New Yorker magazine.

“When Warren Buffett ... acquired Fruit of the Loom, the news sparked applause on the Cameron County shop floor. Buffett, workers had heard, was smart. They did not anticipate that a smart businessman might consider the global market and the opinions of his shareholders and take their workplace out from under them. The newly unemployed Fruit of the Loomers didn’t blame Buffett, whose company would soon report doubled profits. That was just the way the system worked.” (New Yorker)

In 2005, Buffett helped engineer the merger of Gillette, of which he was the largest shareholder, with Procter & Gamble. Buffett reportedly made $645 million on the deal. From a news account: “This deal will spark off the M&A [mergers and acquisitions] frenzy for the year, and expect to see more consolidation, mergers and layoffs. P&G expects to cut about 6,000 jobs, or about 4 percent of the combined workforce of 140,000.”

American capitalists, even the most benevolent, dominate the workplace like colossi. An article in the Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser provides some sense of this. It concerns the fate of workers at a Russell Corporation textile plant. The headline reads, “Russell Waits on Buffett,” and the piece begins: “What does it mean to be purchased by the world’s second richest man?

“It’s a question Russell Corp. employees are mulling over this week after Berkshire Hathaway, a holding company led by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, announced it would acquire the sportswear maker. The acquisition adds both uncertainty and hope to the lives of 3,700 Russell employees working at the company’s plants in Alexander City—where the company was founded in 1902—and other locations in Alabama.

“Just two months ago, Russell downsized its workforce by 700 in Alexander City and the company pledged this week to proceed with restructuring plans that would further shave the work force by the end of 2007.”

The article notes: “Buffett has a reputation for stabilizing company finances, but he also has proven his capacity for Machiavellian tactics like plant closures and layoffs.”

The Advertiser piece points out that the “turnaround” at Fruit of the Loom organized by Buffett wasn’t free of cost. “Just last month Fruit of the Loom shuttered a yarn facility in Rabun Gap, Ga., leaving 930 workers without a job. The company blamed the continued ‘onslaught’ from Asian imports for the closure.”

This is the work of a glorified asset-stripper.

Balzac argued that behind every great fortune lay a great crime. This does not mean that the fortune-maker, in his personal make-up, is disposed to depravity. No, his actions may very well be driven only by the soundest business principles. But no one accumulates billions with clean hands.

Buffett may not have directed the shooting down of workers, like his Robber Baron-philanthropist predecessors, such as Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick, but he has been one of the human instruments by means of which the destruction of decent-paying jobs has taken place, with all the human suffering that implies.

His wealth is bound up with the counteroffensive against workers’ living standards that began in earnest under Ronald Reagan and has never stopped, as well as the parasitic stock market boom of the 1990s. In 1983, Buffett’s net worth reached a respectable $620 million. By 1989 it had increased more than six-fold, to $3.8 billion; it has grown by a factor of more than ten since then.

Carnegie and Frick also distributed millions (billions in contemporary dollars) to charities and good causes. Carnegie declared, “He who dies rich dies thus disgraced.” Frick was more unrepentant. He and Carnegie had a bitter falling out; when, years later, Carnegie proposed a meeting for the purposes of reconciling, Frick allegedly replied, “Tell him I’ll see him in Hell, where we both are going.” Deservedly, the pair are remembered more for their crimes than for their philanthropy.

We live in different times, and Buffett has not been called upon to defend his billions through direct police-military force. Nonetheless, we are confident that history will render a harsh judgment on the period in which he made his billions and the means by which he did so.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/buff-j27.shtml

1 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060627105651987

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Here's EXACTLY What Pisses Me OFF...

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:54:54 GMT

So what are we gonna do about it? Read, seethe, and get ready for WAR!

GOP-run Senate kills minimum wage increase By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Republican-controlled Senate smothered a proposed election-year increase in the minimum wage Wednesday, rejecting Democratic claims that it was past time to boost the $5.15 hourly pay floor that has been in effect for nearly a decade.

The 52-46 vote was eight short of the 60 needed for approval under budget rules and came one day after House Republican leaders made clear they do not intend to allow a vote on the issue, fearing it might pass.

The Senate vote marked the ninth time since 1997 that Democrats there have proposed — and Republicans have blocked — a stand-alone increase in the minimum wage. The debate fell along predictable lines.

"Americans believe that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty. A job should lift you out of poverty, not keep you in it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass. He said a worker paid $5.15 an hour would earn $10,700 a year, "almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three."

Kennedy also said lawmakers' annual pay has risen by roughly $30,000 since the last increase in the minimum wage.

Republicans said a minimum wage increase would wind up hurting the low-wage workers that Democrats said they want to help.

"For every increase you make in the minimum wage, you will cost some of them their jobs," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

He described the clash as a "classic debate between two very different philosophies. One philosophy that believes in the marketplace, the competitive system ... and entrepreneurship. And secondly is the argument that says the government knows better and that topdown mandates work."

The measure drew the support of 43 Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent. Four of those eight Republicans are seeking re-election in the fall.

Democrats had conceded in advance that this attempt to raise the minimum wage would fare no better than their previous attempts. At the same time, they have made clear in recent days they hope to gain support in the coming midterm elections by stressing the issue. Organized labor supports the legislation, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said that contrary to some impressions, most minimum wage workers are adults, not teenagers, and many of them are women.

"When the Democrats control the Senate, one of the first pieces of legislation we'll see is an increase in the minimum wage," said Kennedy.

His proposal would have increased the minimum wage to $5.85 beginning 60 days after the legislation was enacted; to $6.55 one year later; and to $7.25 a year after that. He said inflation has eroded the value of the current $5.15 minimum wage by 20 percent.

With the help of a few rebellious Republicans, House Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee succeeded in attaching a minimum wage increase last week to legislation providing funding for federal social programs. Fearing that the House would pass the measure with the increase intact, the GOP leadership swiftly decided to sidetrack the entire bill.

"I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our (rank and file) is opposed to it," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday.

Pressed by reporters, he said, "There are limits to my willingness to just throw anything out on the floor."

On Wednesday, his spokesman, Kevin Madden, said Boehner has told fellow Republicans "the House will have to deal with this some way." He said no decisions had been made.

While Democrats depend on organized labor to win elections, Republicans are closely aligned with business interests that oppose any increase in the federal wage floor or would like changes in the current system.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, offered an alternative that proposed a minimum wage increase of $1.10 over 18 months, in two steps.

The increase was coupled with a variety of provisions offering regulatory or tax relief to small businesses, including one to exempt enterprises with less than $1 million in annual receipts from the federal wage and hour law entirely. The current exemption level is $500,000, and a Republican document noted the amount had "lagged behind inflation."

Additionally, Republicans proposed a system of optional "flextime" for workers, a step that Enzi said would allow employees, at their discretion, to work more than 40 hours one week in exchange for more time off the next. Unions generally oppose such initiatives, and the Republican plan drew 45 votes, with 53 in opposition.

WE have the NUMBERS. So why haven't told 'em where they can all GO?! The give themselves raises AT WILL and won't do a fucking thing for the rest of us. YET, WE give them they're JOBS! Time to VOTE, and if that don't work, time to TAKE IT TO THE STREET!!!

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

YO!

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:45:22 GMT

Are folks dead or just resting your eyes? I see all these OLD threads swinging in the breeze like dead limbs of a rotted tree, and vague admonishments to be nice. If this is how you think you fight the rich, we're in a LOT of trouble. Last time I checked, it was still open season on Blue Collar Americans, even if the NASCAR crowd is too dumb to get it right now. So get LOUD people! Show some PRIDE! And don't get MAD, get EVEN! That should be the only thing you're talking about, in my humble little estimation...

Anyone got a problem with that? Please feel free to say so, before Bush burns the 1st Ammendmant in public...

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Interview with Aaron Russo director of "Freedom to Fascism"

Alexander — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:24:57 GMT

Interview with Aaron Russo director of "Freedom to Fascism"

An interview by http://consciousmedianetwork.com of Aaron Russo about his new film, America: Freedom to Fascism. In this film Russo sets out to find the law that requires American citizens pay a direct income tax. This interview contains info about the fiat currency owned by private, for profit bank that we call "dollars". He explains how the Federal Reserve is neither 'Federal' nor has any reserves. He also gives a spot on critique of Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 . America: Freedom to Fascism is opening in USA . Also included on the radio.indymedia php page associated with this file will be a short excerpt from the inteview and the 14 min. trailer to the film.
http://fromfreedomtofascism.com
listen for excerpts of it in the daily rotation of radioActive sanDiego http://radioactiveradio.org
look for mp3 links to 16 min. trailer to film, and 4 minute audio clip of interview at the ".php" page on http://radioactiveradio.org
36 min.

http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/aluhlooyah_aaronrussointerviewcmn.mp3

http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/10251.php

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Fourth of July Flag Burn

Stephanie — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:31:06 GMT

Hello East Bay Comrades! This fourth of july, instead of celebrating a holiday that is loaded with American nationalism, let's take the opportunity to organize locally to have a celebration of our own. This is a chance to unite and show our "representatives" that they do not speak for us and we won't celebrate our countries freedom when it takes so much freedom from us and others. I'm going to need help organizing (finding a good spot that will get attention, making posters, flyers, getting the word out all that good stuff) Remember, this is not JUST a flag burning it's a chance for us to meet up, have some fun and let people know we're out there and we're active. Email me at ClassWarMolotov@gmail.com. Let's get the media's attention on this and get it as big as we can.

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

FBI confidential informant also said to be provocateur

Tedster — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:49:04 GMT

FBI confidential informant also said to be provocateur
Thursday, June 08 2006 @ 11:13 PM PDT
Contributed by: Anonymous

According to activists from Des Moines, Philadelphia, Miami, Sacramento, and other locations, a young woman named "Anna" allegedly infiltrated peace and justice rallies and anarchist meetings, and even attempted to join protests against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) ahead of the DNC's national convention last year as a paid FBI confidential "informant." Activists say that she has tried to provoke conflict at various advocacy events and violent incidents with police to get people arrested. In other words, Anna is not just an informant, she may be a provocateur.

FBI confidential informant also said to be provocateur

Jennifer Van Bergen
Published: Thursday June 8, 2006
RAW STORY

According to activists from Des Moines, Philadelphia, Miami, Sacramento, and other locations, a young woman named "Anna" allegedly infiltrated peace and justice rallies and anarchist meetings, and even attempted to join protests against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) ahead of the DNC's national convention last year as a paid FBI confidential "informant." Activists say that she has tried to provoke conflict at various advocacy events and violent incidents with police to get people arrested. In other words, Anna is not just an informant, she may be a provocateur.

Although she is known among activist groups as either Anna Davies or Anna Davidson, others know her as Grai Damiani. She focuses her efforts largely on "anarchist" groups.

The McDavid Case

In January 2006, Eric McDavid, Lauren Weiner, and Zachary Jenson were arrested in California and charged with knowingly conspiring to use fire or explosives to damage property. Their arrest was the direct result of work by Anna, who was "deeply embedded within the subjects' cell," according to FBI documents.

The FBI affidavit in support of the complaint against the three defendants states that they planned on their own to engage in "direct action" – which the FBI agent equated with criminal activity – apparently without Anna's input or guidance. The direct action involved bombing one or several locations in California.

However, McDavid's attorney, Mark Reichel, states that Anna was always pushing McDavid to do something criminal, taught the three how to make the bombs, supervised their activities, and repeatedly threatened to leave them if they didn't start doing "something."

McDavid allegedly wanted to target banks, commercial trucks, mountaintop removal projects in West Virginia, Communist party office, and the U.S. Forest Service Institute of Forest Genetics in California, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit, which was written by FBI Special Agent Nasson Walker, shows that the agency has identified the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) as "a recognized eco-terrorist group," which Walker states has been involved in over $100 million dollars worth of damage since 1997. Walker further notes that: "Environmental extremists under the ELF banner have been known to use arson and/or explosives to damage or destroy or attempt to damage or destroy government, commercial, and residential facilities." Walker also states that "ELF adherents share a strong philosophical connection to the anarchist movement," which he notes "seeks to end the current system of government, economy and replace them with systems characterized by a lack of authoritarian/hierarchical relationships." Walker states that all three of the defendants are anarchists.

The FBI claims that Anna has "provided information that has been utilized in at least twelve separate anarchist cases" and that her "information has proved accurate and reliable."

But just who is Anna and what makes her reliable?

Organization of American States (OAS) Protests

In June of last year, according to witnesses, Anna showed up in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida for an anti-OAS protest which drew approximately 1200 people. Wearing a shirt with a red cross on it and carrying a bag with the same logo, she appeared on the day the protests began and identified herself as a "medic" from California.

One protester who had become ill during the event was treated by Anna. "She was pushy," said Barbara Collins, a retired Miami resident who says Anna gave her Gatorade with water and then left. "She gave me that drink that made me sick, but later on she didn't seem that interested in treating me. She wanted to get back to the others." Collins was subsequently hospitalized for heat stroke.

Linda Belgrave, a sociology professor at University of Miami, who assisted Collins that day, had to go find Anna again when Barbara got worse. According to Belgrave, Anna told her she was "busy." Belgrave did not see Anna attending to any other person in need of medical attention. She was simply "hanging out" with the "kids."

Indeed, Anna was busy, according to other protesters at the OAS rally.

During the march to the rally where Collins fell ill, one Miami resident, who asked that her name not be used, heard people talking about doing a sit-in. Since the coalition had decided against sit-ins and had negotiated carefully with the police about routes and activities, she warned people individually not to participate in the sit-in. Most did not, but Ray Del Papa from Ft. Lauderdale subsequently saw Anna directing young people to sit down on the street directly in front of a line of police in riot gear. In describing what he saw, Del Papa motions with his arms to show how Anna instructed individuals to sit here and there. Del Papa felt that it was a "set-up," a "trap, similar to what the police did during the protests against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) in Miami in 2003."

The fences penned the protesters in completely except where the riot police were, which was exactly where Anna instructed the young people to do their sit-in, according to Del Papa.

"She knew they could get their heads bashed in," notes Mark Reichel, based on conversations with the activists. "If you saw their faces as well, you would understand that these people were not lying."

Under the Attorney General's Guidelines, the FBI and prosecutors are required to keep secret the identity of a confidential informant. However, Anna was seemingly "outed" last year by activists who recognized what they saw as disruptive and provocative tactics and posted pictures of her on the internet.

The allegations were later confirmed by Reichel, who identified the unnamed FBI confidential source cited in the January 2006 complaint affidavit for the McDavid case as Anna.

Reichel also viewed hundreds of hours of surveillance tapes of Anna and McDavid and his cohorts. He notes that Anna's forte is identifying "radical" young men and women and "getting them" to fall in love with her.

The FBI will not discuss Anna's status or the specifics of her training or operations but denies that informants are trained to provoke. In response to RAW STORY's queries about Anna, FBI media representative Karen Ernst said that "Sources are admonished not to provoke criminal activity,"

"Sources operated by the FBI are closely monitored and the information received from them is corroborated through other investigative techniques."

Additionally, Ernst explains that the FBI corroborates information obtained from an informant "before charges are brought" against an individual. "Charges are brought when the totality of the evidence is sufficient for either a criminal complaint or indictment. Information from a source would never be the only evidence used to bring charges; other evidence would include recordings, surveillance video, results of witness testimony, etc.," adds Ernst.

Despite being outed, Anna continues to infiltrate groups and presently is living in a collective home with some young people in Iowa, according to Reichel.

Criminal Activity Plus Salary

According to the "Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants" (AG Guidelines), a "Confidential Informant" or "CI" is "any individual who provides useful and credible information to [the FBI] regarding felonious criminal activities, and from whom the [FBI] expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information regarding such activities in the future."

The FBI conducts a "suitability determination" for each informant, which includes consideration of the candidate's age, affiliations, motivations, reliability, truthfulness, and criminal and drug history.

Every informant receives and must acknowledge her understanding of a written set of instructions, which are reviewed by an agent with the CI. The CI is not allowed to engage in criminal activity without authorization. A CI who is authorized to engage in "Tier 1 Otherwise Illegal Activity" – which includes involvement with violent activities by other persons, corrupt conduct by officials, and trafficking of controlled substances – becomes a "High Level Confidential Informant."

Given Anna's involvement in the McDavid case, where she was involved in allegedly planning violent activities, she became a High Level CI.

According to Ernst, all sources are operated in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines. Sources are required to meet on a regular basis with an agent who provides them guidance and instructions.

Yet in a scathing report released by the Department of Justice in September of last year, DOJ inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found "that FBI agents violated procedures in 87 percent of the cases, including some in which informants allegedly engaged in illegal activity without proper oversight or permission."

As for Anna, she receives about $37,500 a year, plus expenses, for her work. In the McDavid case, for example, in addition to her salary, the FBI paid for Anna to rent a house in California, paid for helicopter surveillance at her behest, and ostensibly also paid for the audio and video surveillance rigged in the rental house.

Are there other Annas?

Although the FBI states that it does not target lawful activity or activity protected by the First Amendment, in Florida alone, groups advocating against the invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the OAS, and the FTAA have all been infiltrated, according to participants -- who cannot prove that the suspicious persons were infiltrators or informants. But documents released last year show that a counter-recruitment meeting at the Quaker House in Lake Worth, Florida was infiltrated by the Department of Defense. And the revelations about Anna, who participated in at least two of the major protests in Florida, further confirm activists' fears.

While officials have claimed that anarchists advocate violence, Fred Frost, President of the Florida AFL-CIO, stated in 2004 at public hearings after the FTAA demonstrations that anarchists "may look different from you and me, but they are some of the nicest, most peaceful people I've ever met, helping everyone – I have a great deal of respect for them."

None of the above-mentioned peace and justice groups advocates violence; all advocate using peaceful and lawful means of expression. #

Jennifer Van Bergen is a freelance journalist with a law degree. Her book "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America" is available on Amazon. Her book "Archetypes for Writers: Using the Power of Your Subconscious" will be out next year. She can be reached at jvbxyz@earthlink.net.

27 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060608231344890

posted in //class war// - 1 reply

power to the people

Alan — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:07:53 GMT

Is it really possible to have a peoples party at this point in time? A party who's candidate was chosen, and supported by the American people?
Yes... it really is possible. And high time if you ask me.
When I was in school they told me I could be anything I wanted. Even the president of the United States. But they never taught me how. Oh sure, we had a class president and all that, (and I seem to remember something about a cartoon bill that kept getting vetoed or something), but somehow I just don't think it's the same thing. But I have asked dozens of people (smart ones too) if they new how to go about being president if they chose to. None of them had the slightest clue. Not that I would ever want to be the president. I can't even ballance my own check book, (or remember if that cartoon bill ever got passed or not) let alone trying to balance the budget for a nation. However, I have met quite a few people along my journeys that I thought had all the attributes I would like to see in a president. Strong, responsible, honorable people, always seeming to naturally look out for the needs of others, less fortunate, and weaker than themselves, while at the same time accomplishing great feats of productivity, (including balancing their check books). Ive met them in all walks of life. All shapes, sizes, sexes, and colors. Proud Americans, all of them. According to our constitution they have the right to run for president. The only question is... how? Well check it out...
A Letter to Michael Moore
Hey Mike,
I hope all is going good with the new project. I can't express to you how much I appreciate your work. You both inspire me and give me hope that someday we the People will find our voice again and take our country back. On that note, I have a great Idea I’d like to share with you. This is an idea I’ve spent serious time thinking about. I’d like to humbly ask for your help. The idea needs shepherding from someone of your caliber. So here it is…

“The People’s Party”
A reality television game show
by Alan Abbott
Contestants will compete for a chance to run for President of the United States for the People’s Party.
Possible contestants, chosen from the general public, are asked (via television & radio) to send in a video tape or DVD, 3 minutes or less explaining why they or the person they are nominating should be considered as a presidential candidate.
The show will be run Documentary/American Idol/ style. The cameras follow each contestant on their quest. Throughout the campaign contestants and their entourage travel together, eat together, stay at the same hotels, and share the same campaign headquarters in the convention rooms at the hotels where they stay.
The American public will have the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice by telephone and the contestants with the lowest number of votes steps down each week.
The winner of the show wins the candidacy for the Peoples Party, and actually runs for president of the United States of America.

That is the basic idea. I see it as an entertaining way to empower the people to establish their own party, educate the public about what it takes to run for president. Most importantly, it will give the people a chance to take their country back.

I have been developing the show for over a year and have a lot more material. I didn’t want to bombard you with it all right now. I have made several trips to and from L.A. (from Maui) trying to contact you through “more appropriate means” than e-mail, but to no avail. So here we are.

This is actually the second e-mail I have sent you, but I fear the first may have gotten lost in the crowd, as I know you try to respond to all your e-mails. So just to give you a heads up, I am going to ask a few friends to give me a hand in getting your attention. After all, election time is around the corner, and I’d like you to be given the first opportunity to give the country back to the people. Hope you don’t mind. Please feel free to e-mail me or call me at; 808-264-0984. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Alan

We The People
Really can make this happen. More impossible dreams have come true. But we have to work together. Together... the American people can do anything.
I am asking all of you to please copy this entire post and send it to michael@michaelmoore.com then send it to everyone you know.
Michael Moore is my first choice, but I know he is not everybody's cup of tea. Do you have someone in mind you like better for the task of producing, directing, and/or hosting The Peoples Party? Copy and send this entire post to them, and tell them so. But please keep in mind that the show, and everything written here is copywritten so please don't try to pass it off as your own, you'll just get yourself in a lot of trouble. Do however feel free to share with as many people as you want. In fact please do
I sent this letter to Michael Moore on May 19th, 2006 but Mikes a busy guy. He is currently shooting another feature documentary, and I'm sure the shooting schedule is very labor intensive. Not ot mention the amount of e-mails the guy must get every day. Then when he does finaly get a chance to read them, I'm sure he has a priority list of some kind. Either way, he has not returned this e-mail yet.
But Michael is not the only person that is important to reach. If we are going to make a difference we have to work together, and spread the word to everyone.
Thank you all very much.
Sincerely, Alan
Power To The People

michael@michaelmoore.com
thealanabbott@icqmail.com
profile.myspace.com/index.cfm

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Not that it would suprise anybody

Tedster — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 01:04:05 GMT

U.S.: Amidst record profits, "the return going to workers in decline"
Monday, June 05 2006 @ 07:14 AM PDT
Contributed by: Anonymous

US companies have increased their share of the economic pie at a faster rate over the past five years than at any time since the second world war.

US groups boost share of economic pie

By Christopher Swann in Washington and Francesco Guerrera in New York
Published: June 4 2006
Financial Times By Christopher Swann in Washington and Francesco Guerrera in New York

Published: June 4 2006 22:11 | Last updated: June 4 2006 22:11

US companies have increased their share of the economic pie at a faster rate over the past five years than at any time since the second world war.

Recent government figures show that profits from current production as a share of national income have risen from 7 per cent in mid-2001 to 12.2 per cent at the start of this year. This rate of growth is unprecedented since collection of these figures began in 1947.

Profits have climbed by 123 per cent over the same period, soaring from $714.5bn (€552.57bn, £378.89bn) to $1,595.4bn – also the fastest increase since records began. Other official data have shown that profit growth by manufacturing companies, often seen as one of the weakest sectors, has outstripped the rest of the economy. The figures suggest corporate America is enjoying one of its best periods despite more competition from low-cost countries and tougher corporate governance and disclosure rules.

Even during the boom of the late 1990s, companies only managed a 90 per cent increase in profits over a four and a half year period. Annual data on profits go back to 1929; there were faster rates of profit growth in the 1930s, as the US emerged from the great depression.

“Companies have had an extraordinary winning streak, that has lasted longer than most expected,” said Nigel Gault, director of US economics at Global Insight, an economic consultancy.

But he said: “It is unlikely that this is sustainable for much longer.”

The figures in the national accounts are the broadest measure of corporate profitability, measuring everything from Microsoft’s performance to an accountant working out of his garage.

As profits have increased as a share of national income, the return going to workers has been in decline, falling from 58.6 per cent in the middle of 2001 to 56.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2006. Paul Donovan, a global economist at UBS, believes the negotiating position of US workers may have been weakened by globalisation, giving companies the upper hand.

“The US labour market may be tightening, but there is still an ample supply of workers worldwide, and this may be capping what domestic workers can demand,” he said.

Over the past year, unit labour costs rose just 0.3 per cent – a downward revision from the first estimate. Since labour costs represent about 70 per cent of corporate ex-penses, the slow real growth in compensation, coupled with greater efficiency, has more than offset the impact of rising raw material prices for companies.

David Rosenberg, north American economist at Merrill Lynch, said competitive pressure had forced companies to slash healthcare and pension benefits for workers.

Fat margins and low compensation growth have been positive signs for the Federal Reserve. The minutes of the Fed’s May meeting showed members of the rate-setting open markets committee believe companies may initially choose to absorb any rise in costs by cutting profit margins rather than passing costs on to consumers.

Businesses have also benefited from low borrowing costs.

Net interest paid as a per cent of national income has fallen from 5.6 per cent to 4.1 per cent since mid 2001.

0 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060605071435818

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

The Peoples Party (a reality tv game show)

Alan — Mon, 29 May 2006 13:13:35 GMT

Is it really possible to have a peoples party at this point in time? A party who's candidate was chosen, and supported by the American people?
Yes... it really is possible. And high time if you ask me.
When I was in school they told me I could be anything I wanted. Even the president of the United States. But they never taught me how. Oh sure, we had a class president and all that, (and I seem to remember something about a cartoon bill that kept getting vetoed or something), but somehow I just don't think it's the same thing. But I have asked dozens of people (smart ones too) if they new how to go about being president if they chose to. None of them had the slightest clue. Not that I would ever want to be the president. I can't even ballance my own check book, (or remember if that cartoon bill ever got passed or not) let alone trying to balance the budget for a nation. However, I have met quite a few people along my journeys that I thought had all the attributes I would like to see in a president. Strong, responsible, honorable people, always seeming to naturally look out for the needs of others, less fortunate, and weaker than themselves, while at the same time accomplishing great feats of productivity, (including balancing their check books).
Ive met them in all walks of life. All shapes, sizes, sexes, and colors. Proud Americans, all of them. According to our constitution they have the right to run for president. The only question is... how? Well check it out...

A Letter to Michael Moore...

Hey Mike,
I hope all is going good with the new project. I can't express to you how much I appreciate your work. You both inspire me and give me hope that someday we the People will find our voice again and take our country back. On that note, I have a great Idea I’d like to share with you. This is an idea I’ve spent serious time thinking about. I’d like to humbly ask for your help. The idea needs shepherding from someone of your caliber. So here it is…

“The People’s Party”
A reality television game show
by Alan Abbott

Contestants will compete for a chance to run for President of the United States for the People’s Party.

Possible contestants, chosen from the general public, are asked (via television & radio) to send in a video tape or DVD, 3 minutes or less explaining why they or the person they are nominating should be considered as a presidential candidate.

The show will be run Documentary/American Idol style. The cameras follow each contestant on their quest. Throughout the campaign contestants and their entourage travel together, eat together, stay at the same hotels, and share the same campaign headquarters in the convention rooms at the hotels where they stay.

The American public will have the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice by telephone and the contestants with the lowest number of votes steps down each week.

The winner of the show wins the candidacy for the Peoples Party, and actually runs for president of the United States of America.

That is the basic idea. I see it as an entertaining way to empower the people to establish their own party, educate the public about what it takes to run for president. Most importantly, it will give the people a chance to take their country back.

I have been developing the show for over a year and have a lot more material. I didn’t want to bombard you with it all right now. I have made several trips to and from L.A. (from Maui) trying to contact you through “more appropriate means” than e-mail, but to no avail. So here we are.

This is actually the second e-mail I have sent you, but I fear the first may have gotten lost in the crowd, as I know you try to respond to all your e-mails. So just to give you a heads up, I am going to ask a few friends to give me a hand in getting your attention. After all, election time is around the corner, and I’d like you to be given the first opportunity to give the country back to the people. Hope you don’t mind. Please feel free to e-mail me or call me at; 808-264-0984. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Alan

We The People
Really can make this happen. More impossible dreams have come true. But we have to work together. Together... the American people can do anything.
I am asking all of you to please copy this entire post and send it to michael@michaelmoore.com then send it to everyone you know.
Michael Moore is my first choice, but I know he is not everybody's cup of tea. If you have someone in mind you like better for the task of producing, directing, and/or hosting The Peoples Party? Copy and send this entire post to them, and tell them so.
But please keep in mind that the show, and everything written here is copywritten so please don't try to pass it off as your own, you'll just get yourself in a lot of trouble. Do however feel free to share with as many people as you want. In fact please do. Post it everywhere!
I sent this letter to Michael Moore on May 19th, 2006 but Mikes a busy guy. He probably hasn't even checked his email yet. He is currently shooting another feature documentary, and I'm sure the shooting schedule is very labor intensive. Not ot mention the amount of e-mails the guy must get every day. Then when he does finaly get a chance to read them, I'm sure he has a priority list of some kind. Either way, he has not returned this e-mail yet.
But Michael is not the only person that is important to reach. If we are going to make a difference we have to work together, and spread the word to everyone.

Thank you all very much.
Sincerely, Alan
Power To The People

michael@michaelmoore.com

posted in //class war// - 0 replies

Coffee

Tedster — Sat, 27 May 2006 23:07:28 GMT

This is really about two issues that are closesly linked. One is about the unionization of Starbucks with a union that is non-hierarchal, and the other is about fair trade coffee. Both links are embedded into the article.

Justice at Starbucks: A Call for Campus Activists
Saturday, May 27 2006 @ 07:15 AM PDT
Contributed by: WorkerFreedom

Despite its attempt to create a socially responsible image, Starbucks' failure to meaningfully embrace Fair Trade coffee has left coffee farmers and their children teetering on the brink of starvation in the Global South. A new documentary, Black Gold (www.blackgoldmovie.com), reveals in detail the pained existence of coffee farmers under the purchasing practices of Starbucks and other multinational corporations.

A Campus Campaign for Starbucks Baristas and Coffee Farmers

Friends:

This is a call for activists towards a campus campaign to achieve dignity on the job for Starbucks baristas and coffee farmers.

Despite its attempt to create a socially responsible image, Starbucks' failure to meaningfully embrace Fair Trade coffee has left coffee farmers and their children teetering on the brink of starvation in the Global South. A new documentary, Black Gold (www.blackgoldmovie.com), reveals in detail the pained existence of coffee farmers under the purchasing practices of Starbucks and other multinational corporations.

In Starbucks cafes, baristas are paid a poverty wage and the company insures a lower percentage of employees than Wal-Mart. Starbucks baristas are organizing a union (www.starbucksunion.org) with the Industrial Workers of the World for a better life on and off the job. In response, the company has waged a fierce and relentless anti-union campaign that tramples on workers' rights. In this union-busting operation unburdened by the law, Starbucks routinely retaliates against baristas for supporting the union. In addition, Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz recently broke the union of roasting plant employees.

Coffee farmers and baristas need solidarity from students and workers to rein in Starbucks. Starbucks does not deserve to operate on campuses until it respects the rights of workers.

To that end, the IWW Starbucks Workers Union is forming a coalition of individuals and groups over the summer to launch a campaign in the fall to remove Starbucks products and non-union Starbucks-licensed cafes from campus unless Starbucks makes a non-token commitment to Fair Trade and respects the right of baristas to organize a union. Campus communities will also support workers in their local area organizing for justice at Starbucks.

If you or your group is interested in getting involved with the campaign on the ground floor please contact IWW organizer and Starbucks barista Daniel Gross at dgross@iww.org or 917-577-1110. Together we will show that global solidarity is stronger than the greed of the multinational corporations.

http://www.iww.org/en/node/2548

0 comments

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060527071542236

posted in //class war// - 1 reply