Labor Activist : Bill Fletcher Speaks to Austin Audience

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Bill Fletcher. Photo by Alice Embree / The Rag Blog.

Bill Fletcher speaks to Austin audience:
Union organizing and class struggle

By Alice Embree / The Rag Blog / March 29, 2009

On Sunday night, March 28, Bill Fletcher, Jr. — union organizer, historian, and strategist, and progressive political activist — spoke at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin as part of the Third Coast Activist Final Sunday series. Responding to questions from UT-Austin Journalism Professor and Rag Blog contributor Bob Jensen, Fletcher said he’d be glad to take Glenn Beck on in a televised debate on class struggle.

Fletcher went on to discuss his views on working class organizing, coalescing with the community-based organizations, global capitalism, and the unprecedented income divide in this country.

[Bill Fletcher, Jr., is the co-author of Solidarity Divided, a book about labor’s role in the struggle for social justice, and is executive editor of The Black Commentator. He will speak again tonight, Monday, March 29, at 6:45 p.m., at the National Association of Letter Carriers Union Hall at 604 Williams in Austin. The event is open to the public.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Jonah Raskin : Marijuana Made Simple

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Poster for the movie Homegrown, based on a story by Jonah Raskin.

A primer:
Marijuana made simple

By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog / March 29, 2010

Author, activist, educator, former Yippie, and marijuana aficionado Jonah Raskin will be Thorne Dreyer’s guest on Rag Radio, Tuesday, March 30, 2-3 p.m. (CST) on KOOP 91.7 FM in Austin. They will discuss — among other things — the California initiative to legalize and tax the use of cannabis. (See “Cannabis in California : The Growing Storm” by Raskin on The Rag Blog.) For those outside the listening area, go here to stream the show.

I was a latecomer to the world of marijuana. I remember in the mid-1960s a friend invited me to a party and told me that there would be pot there. You smoked it and you got high, he explained. I just laughed. I thought that the idea was ridiculous. “Where do you go when you get high?” I asked.

I didn’t find out until a few years later when I was living in New York. My friend, Aaron, who went on to law school and later became an honest, ethical judge was the first person I knew who smoked marijuana regularly. He smoked everyday. In fact, he has smoked everyday for the past 45 years.

When I first met Aaron most of the marijuana that was available came to the U.S.A. from Mexico; it was smuggled across the border. The word “marijuana” comes from Mexican Spanish and in the early racist campaigns against marijuana, it was associated with the image of lawless, dirty, violent Mexicans.

The plant is the cannabis plant; it has many active ingredients, but THC is probably the most important. I say “probably” because while cannabis has been smoked for thousands of years — that is a fact — there are not a heck of a lot of reliable studies of marijuana. That’s because the U.S. government, which made cannabis illegal some 70 years ago, is afraid that government financed studies will show that it has medical benefits.

It does have medical benefits, and since the 1990s it has been recommended by doctors for all kinds of health issues and problems. Indeed, it has greatly helped people suffering from HIV and AIDS. In California, medical doctors tell patients — who have cancer and who are in pain or who have loss of appetite — to smoke it. It stimulates appetite. It is a pain reliever. That is proven.

The domestic cultivation of marijuana really took off in the late 1970s and the early 1980s in the more remote mountain areas of Northern California. Many of the pot farmers were 1960s folk who left the cities and went back to the land to homestead.

Rural life in Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, and Santa Cruz proved to be more challenging than the hippies realized. Marijuana came to the rescue. It was the one cash crop that they could grow and take to market and sell. The money they made enabled them to buy land, build houses, and schools and send their kids to college.

The domestic cultivation of marijuana received a big boost when Mexican marijuana was sprayed — because of U.S. government pressure — with Paraquat, a poisonous herbicide. Understandably no one wanted weed with poison.

The assault on marijuana came from all different directions including the Reagan White House that initiated the “War on Drugs” — a misnomer if ever there was one. Of course, you can’t make war on drugs. The Reagan White House made war on people.

Nancy Reagan, the president’s wife, helped to popularize the slogan, “Just say No.” Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese III insisted that marijuana was “The Gateway Drug” and that it led users to heroin, cocaine, and more. Of course, Meese, Reagan, and the Reaganites never acknowledge the truth about drugs in America: that tobacco and alcohol were the “gateway drugs,” that young people started by drinking beer and smoking cigarettes.

In the War on Drugs, Meese and law enforcement officials across the nation violated the rights of citizens, and locked up thousands of marijuana smokers. The persecution has not stopped.

The anti-marijuana propaganda has been relentless ever since the 1937 movie Reefer Madness. Of course, the movies have also popularized marijuana, especially the comedies by Richard “Cheech” Marin and Tommy Chong: Up in Smoke (1979) and Let’s Make a New Dope Deal (1980).

In 1979, I went to Hollywood to make a marijuana movie. My idea was for a remake of the black-and-white classic, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre that’s about gringo prospectors for gold in Mexico. It’s a tale of greed. My movie was to be about “the greed weed” and it would be about hippies in California.

I sold the idea, and a treatment for the film, to producer and director, Stephen Gyllenhaal — the father of Jake and Maggie Gyllenhaal — but it took 16 years for it to be made. Homegrown was finally filmed in 1996, the year that a medical marijuana initiative was passed by citizens in California. By then there was also a whole new generation of marijuana smokers and the producers of the film realized that the subject was of interest to more people than aging hippies.

I was a consultant on the movie, and on the set. I have a tiny part. Everyone in the movie had to sign an agreement not to use any illegal drugs while the movie was made. The “marijuana” in the movie was not real. The plants that are shown on screen were made from silk and bamboo at a cost of $1,000 a plant.

Since 1996, marijuana cultivation and use has spread across the country. Outdoor growers moved indoors. The quality of the marijuana improved; often one puff is enough to get the smoker stoned. Recent studies show that smoking marijuana is still on the rise. It seems to be a part of the lives of millions of people — though it is still illegal by federal law. It is still classified as a Schedule I drug which means that by U.S. government standards there are no medical benefits.

By last count, some 14 states now have recognized the medical benefits of marijuana. Doctors recommend it to patients. Dispensaries sell it at $45 for 1/8 of an ounce. The price varies, of course. As a rule of thumb, the further the marijuana has to travel from the place of cultivation the higher the price.

President Obama made a big difference in the world of marijuana when he announced that the U.S. Justice Department would not make it a priority to go after individuals who violated the marijuana laws. But in 2010, Americans are still arrested and jailed for possession and transportation of marijuana, and the prohibition of marijuana, which began just as the prohibition of alcohol ended in the 1930s, may yet go on and on.

Something, it seems, always has to be prohibited. Marijuana has long been the fall guy. The plant that was smoked in China and India thousands of years ago still does not receive the credit it deserves. Will it ever become a medical hero? It is today to thousands of people who suffered from cancer and other diseases, and it is beloved by heads who like to get stoned.

But something inside me tells me it will be regarded as a bad boy for some time to come. Alas, America is too Puritanical a place to allow marijuana to be smoked freely and without fear of punishment.

[Jonah Raskin was the Minister of Education of the Yippies and a member of SDS. These days he teaches media law at Sonoma State University in Northern California. He has written 12 books, including biographies of Allen Ginbserg, Abbie Hoffman, and Jack London. His most recent book which is about organic farming is called Field Days. He wrote the story for the marijuana movie Homegrown. He writes about drugs for High Times magazine and he is keeping close tabs on the campaigns to legalize marijuana in California. He is a regular contributor to The Rag Blog.]

Also see:

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Not By Bread Alone: Why the Tea Baggers are Successful

By Sherman DeBrosse / The Rag Blog / March 29, 2010

In January, 2010, David Brooks wrote “In the near term, the tea party will dominate the Republican party.” At that time, the Tea Party movement had a higher approval score –41% — than either of the major parties.

Tea baggism is an extreme form of right-wing populism that includes an intense desire to isolate or somehow eliminate the influence of opponents. It is marked by hate speech and a rejection of democratic dialogue and debate. Rather than attempt to reason with opponents, it aims to completely eliminate their influence.

Some call this phase of right-wing populism “eliminationism” and suggest that it has para-fascist tendencies. It certainly has a strong energizing and activating capacity, and for the moment it appears to have co-opted much of the American conservative movement. Of late, the apocalyptic language of the right-wing fringe is frequently being heard in the vast Republican echo chamber.

The religious right represents a somewhat milder form of right-wing populism. For the most part, the two phenomena are on the same page and are not in conflict.

The first serious signs of the Tea Party movement appeared during the 2008 presidential campaigns, when some Republican rallies took on the aspect of Klan rallies, with people shouting ugly things about Obama and menacing the press. From there the movement gathered steam as large numbers questioned whether Barack Obama was born in the United States and also disrupted town hall meetings about health care. Sometimes, people brought firearms to the meetings to intimidate others.

In August 2009 tea baggers carried out vandalism against the district offices of a number of Democrats. The final days of the fight against health care reform were certainly animated by the spirit of the tea baggers. Protesters gathered around the entrance to the Capitol, some bearing crude signs showing Obama as Hitler. A demonstrator spat on one black Congressman and another yelled the “N” word at Representative John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights struggle. The Democratic Whip reported that all but one black member of the House received similar treatment.

Inside the Capitol, protesters shouted sexual epithets at Barney Frank, an openly gay Congressman. When Representative Bart Stupak announced his support for reform after having obtained a presidential executive order banning the use of the bill for abortions, an angry Congressman Randy Neugebeuer yelled “baby killer.” This was the same Texas representative who introduced a bill requiring candidates for president to file their birth certificates — his way of claiming Obama was born in Kenya.

During the final debate, protesters from the galleries shouted at Democrats. Republicans on the House floor cheered the disrupters and egged them on. Minority leader John Boehner tailored his final arguments to fit in with the tea bagger spirit — he ranted, shouted, and even used personal attacks. The day after the vote, Rush Limbaugh called the Democrats “bastards” and promised to hound, hassle, and wipe out” liberals.

Then, there were attacks on the Capitol offices of a number of House Democrats. Ten of them were threatened and had to be provided with protective units from the FBI and Capitol Hill police. Bart Stupak received many vile and threatening telephone calls; some of them must have come from anti-abortion people who were supposed to be Christians. The house of one Congressman’s brother was targeted.

The Tea Party movement is supported by FOX (Faux) News and counts among its leaders people like Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, and the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. She is a long-time Republican operative, and was working for the party when her husband helped hand the election of 2000 to George W. Bush. Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher), who was part of the John McCain campaign apparatus in 2008, is a prominent tea bagger.

They are well funded, and their meetings have been arranged by skilled corporate lobbyists. Republican Party chairman Michael Steele has been meeting regularly with Tea Party leaders to make certain the movement does not get away from its handlers and financers. The Leadership Institute funds the training of young tea baggers, would-be “Hitler Jugend.”

Rage and wild rhetoric

The predominant characteristic of the tea baggers is their paranoia, rage, and incivility.
Anger and fear have a way of spreading, and the tea bag spirit has essentially taken over the Republican Party. A few days before the final vote on health care reform, John Boehner, the House Republican leader, told The Hill that he is always cool and never shouts. Two days later he stood in the well of the House shouting and using profanity.

People in the galleries were shouting insults at the Democrats while Republicans on the floor egged them on. Afraid of fueling more rage, the Democrats’ presiding officers did not clear the galleries and meekly asked for order. Veiled threats were left on the benches of some of the uncommitted Democrats.

Some of their most outspoken members are strongly anti-tax and anti-government. Some of them come from fringe movements and are strongly libertarian. However, it is doubtful that all or even most of the tea baggers are libertarians

They claim to be anti-elitist though they are bankrolled by powerful interests. Most of them are deeply conservative. They claim to be bipartisan and they criticize both parties. That means, they would prefer even more conservative leadership in the Republican Party. They lean strongly Republican.

Theirs is the cult of victimhood, and the movement is marked by mushy nostalgia, screaming paranoia, scapegoating, demonization, rank hypocrisy, jingoism, and militarism. Richard Armey said, “When Republicans are fighting against the power of the state, we win.” It may be more accurate to say that Republicans are best at fighting the power of the state when they are out of power.

Few complained about excessive spending under George W. Bush or the unprecedented expansion of the power of the state then. The tea baggers were bizarrely silent when the Bush deficit kept increasing, and those who were in Congress voted to ramp up the spending.

There is much dissatisfaction within the Tea Party movement with some who run the Republican Party, but there is little they can do to change the leadership. Here and there, they will try to nominate some of their own people for office, but in the end they have little choice but to stay with the Republicans. As in the past, when Republicans have activated the extremists, there were subsequent efforts to dial them back a bit. We see signs of this again, but Tea Baggism seems too powerful now and will surely move the GOP more than just a few notches farther toward the far right.

Interesting comparisons

Tea Bag people are extraordinarily effective at getting across their message. Michael Hastings, a founder of the Tea Bagger movement, recommended that his followers borrow the playbook of the great leftist organizer Saul Alinsky. They did so and had great success disrupting the health care town meetings.

Some see in the Tea Baggers a revolt against educated America because these people seem to oppose educated elite, but the fact is that, at least in one sampling, three quarters of these people went to college, and their average income is well above the national average.

It has been suggested that the tea baggers are to the Republican Party what the Greens are to the Democrats. Of course, a major difference is that the tea baggers are not operating as a political party or fielding their own candidates. They are essentially a wing of the GOP. Like the Greens who represent left-wing orthodoxy, tea baggers represent the purest incarnation of the principles of the Right. Both are dissatisfied with the leadership of the major parties.

Comparisons with the John Birchers might be more apt. The tea baggers seem to believe many of the conspiracy theories that were hatched by the John Birch Society. In the Southern Poverty Law Center’s The Second Wave, it is noted that “fringe conspiracy theories [are] increasingly spread by mainstream figures.”

The tea baggers resemble the Patriots, whose first wave seemed to subside in the late 1990s. Within the Tea Party movement, there is much interaction between Patriot-types and mainstream people, and there is the danger that the extremists will recruit from the tea bagger membership. Like the Birchers, they are xenophobes and ultra-nationalists. Though they talk a lot about the constitution they take the view that “terrorists don’t have a right to a trial.”

More than a half century ago, the great historian Richard Hofstadter noted that the right has a particularly strong proclivity for political paranoia, a witches’ brew of massive exaggeration, super-heated anger, conspiratorial fantasy, and deep suspiciousness. This right-wing populism boasted a special ability to “see through” official claims and also a remarkable skill in detecting the plots of elitists who have disdain for ordinary, middle Americans.

Tea baggers roar their approval when an orator refers to Obama as “commander in thief.” Glenn Beck rants on about Obama leading a bunch of fascists, communists, and socialists. Apparently the poor man does not know that there is a great deal of difference between fascists and communists.

Tom Tancredo’s call for a return to the literacy test of the Jim Crow South won great approval among tea baggers. Angling for tea bagger and white supremacist backing in his quest to become governor of South Carolina, Lt. Governor Andre Bauer talked about not feeding stray animals because they breed.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa lamented the suicide/murder of Andrew Joseph Stack III and used it to explain that the IRS is unnecessary. He took the standard tea bagger line: Stack was a lone lunatic but sort of admirable because the IRS drove him to a foolish action. They cannot admit that tea bagger rhetoric can promote violence. King went on to tell C-Pac that there are many enemies in America, “They are liberals, they are progressives, they are Che Guevarans, they are Castroites, they are socialists.” He even added “Trotskyites, Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists… Gramscites — ring anybody’s bell?”

In fact, most of the Trotskyites we could name have long since become “Neocons” and made their way into leadership positions in the Republican Party. They no longer worry about the problems of the working class and have become very effective defenders of Wall Street. “As for Gramsciites — the only people who admit to reading this Italian socialist are Grover Norquist and some other Republican strategists. Unfortunately, they mastered the communications and organizational skills he wrote about, while Democrats seem to have learned nothing from his prison writings.

Former Reagan official Frank Gaffney compared Obama to Hitler and said he “may still be” a Muslim and involved with the Muslim Brotherhood. At a recent meeting, former Colorado Lt. Governor Jane Norton sat quietly as a tea bagger twice assured the assemblage that Obama was a Muslim. With the occasional exceptions of John McCain and Lindsay Graham, Republican leaders have failed to correct any of the Tea Party excesses.

At the CPAC convention, Joseph Farrah electrified the crowd with his claims that Obama was not born in the United States. Tea bag blogger Erie Erickson claimed that Justice David Souter was a “goat fucking child molester.”

In Ohio tea bag protesters threw dollar bills at a disabled man, shouting “No handouts here,” and in Washington they sported a sign that said “Your Health. Your Problem.”


Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Not By Bread Alone: Why the Tea Baggers are Successful

By Sherman DeBrosse / The Rag Blog / March 29, 2010

In January, 2010, David Brooks wrote “In the near term, the tea party will dominate the Republican party.” At that time, the Tea Party movement had a higher approval score –41% — than either of the major parties.

Tea baggism is an extreme form of right-wing populism that includes an intense desire to isolate or somehow eliminate the influence of opponents. It is marked by hate speech and a rejection of democratic dialogue and debate. Rather than attempt to reason with opponents, it aims to completely eliminate their influence.

Some call this phase of right-wing populism “eliminationism” and suggest that it has para-fascist tendencies. It certainly has a strong energizing and activating capacity, and for the moment it appears to have co-opted much of the American conservative movement. Of late, the apocalyptic language of the right-wing fringe is frequently being heard in the vast Republican echo chamber.

The religious right represents a somewhat milder form of right-wing populism. For the most part, the two phenomena are on the same page and are not in conflict.

The first serious signs of the Tea Party movement appeared during the 2008 presidential campaigns, when some Republican rallies took on the aspect of Klan rallies, with people shouting ugly things about Obama and menacing the press. From there the movement gathered steam as large numbers questioned whether Barack Obama was born in the United States and also disrupted town hall meetings about health care. Sometimes, people brought firearms to the meetings to intimidate others.

In August 2009 tea baggers carried out vandalism against the district offices of a number of Democrats. The final days of the fight against health care reform were certainly animated by the spirit of the tea baggers. Protesters gathered around the entrance to the Capitol, some bearing crude signs showing Obama as Hitler. A demonstrator spat on one black Congressman and another yelled the “N” word at Representative John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights struggle. The Democratic Whip reported that all but one black member of the House received similar treatment.

Inside the Capitol, protesters shouted sexual epithets at Barney Frank, an openly gay Congressman. When Representative Bart Stupak announced his support for reform after having obtained a presidential executive order banning the use of the bill for abortions, an angry Congressman Randy Neugebeuer yelled “baby killer.” This was the same Texas representative who introduced a bill requiring candidates for president to file their birth certificates — his way of claiming Obama was born in Kenya.

During the final debate, protesters from the galleries shouted at Democrats. Republicans on the House floor cheered the disrupters and egged them on. Minority leader John Boehner tailored his final arguments to fit in with the tea bagger spirit — he ranted, shouted, and even used personal attacks. The day after the vote, Rush Limbaugh called the Democrats “bastards” and promised to hound, hassle, and wipe out” liberals.

Then, there were attacks on the Capitol offices of a number of House Democrats. Ten of them were threatened and had to be provided with protective units from the FBI and Capitol Hill police. Bart Stupak received many vile and threatening telephone calls; some of them must have come from anti-abortion people who were supposed to be Christians. The house of one Congressman’s brother was targeted.

The Tea Party movement is supported by FOX (Faux) News and counts among its leaders people like Dick Armey, Dennis Hastert, and the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. She is a long-time Republican operative, and was working for the party when her husband helped hand the election of 2000 to George W. Bush. Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher), who was part of the John McCain campaign apparatus in 2008, is a prominent tea bagger.

They are well funded, and their meetings have been arranged by skilled corporate lobbyists. Republican Party chairman Michael Steele has been meeting regularly with Tea Party leaders to make certain the movement does not get away from its handlers and financers. The Leadership Institute funds the training of young tea baggers, would-be “Hitler Jugend.”

Rage and wild rhetoric

The predominant characteristic of the tea baggers is their paranoia, rage, and incivility.
Anger and fear have a way of spreading, and the tea bag spirit has essentially taken over the Republican Party. A few days before the final vote on health care reform, John Boehner, the House Republican leader, told The Hill that he is always cool and never shouts. Two days later he stood in the well of the House shouting and using profanity.

People in the galleries were shouting insults at the Democrats while Republicans on the floor egged them on. Afraid of fueling more rage, the Democrats’ presiding officers did not clear the galleries and meekly asked for order. Veiled threats were left on the benches of some of the uncommitted Democrats.

Some of their most outspoken members are strongly anti-tax and anti-government. Some of them come from fringe movements and are strongly libertarian. However, it is doubtful that all or even most of the tea baggers are libertarians

They claim to be anti-elitist though they are bankrolled by powerful interests. Most of them are deeply conservative. They claim to be bipartisan and they criticize both parties. That means, they would prefer even more conservative leadership in the Republican Party. They lean strongly Republican.

Theirs is the cult of victimhood, and the movement is marked by mushy nostalgia, screaming paranoia, scapegoating, demonization, rank hypocrisy, jingoism, and militarism. Richard Armey said, “When Republicans are fighting against the power of the state, we win.” It may be more accurate to say that Republicans are best at fighting the power of the state when they are out of power.

Few complained about excessive spending under George W. Bush or the unprecedented expansion of the power of the state then. The tea baggers were bizarrely silent when the Bush deficit kept increasing, and those who were in Congress voted to ramp up the spending.

There is much dissatisfaction within the Tea Party movement with some who run the Republican Party, but there is little they can do to change the leadership. Here and there, they will try to nominate some of their own people for office, but in the end they have little choice but to stay with the Republicans. As in the past, when Republicans have activated the extremists, there were subsequent efforts to dial them back a bit. We see signs of this again, but Tea Baggism seems too powerful now and will surely move the GOP more than just a few notches farther toward the far right.

Interesting comparisons

Tea Bag people are extraordinarily effective at getting across their message. Michael Hastings, a founder of the Tea Bagger movement, recommended that his followers borrow the playbook of the great leftist organizer Saul Alinsky. They did so and had great success disrupting the health care town meetings.

Some see in the Tea Baggers a revolt against educated America because these people seem to oppose educated elite, but the fact is that, at least in one sampling, three quarters of these people went to college, and their average income is well above the national average.

It has been suggested that the tea baggers are to the Republican Party what the Greens are to the Democrats. Of course, a major difference is that the tea baggers are not operating as a political party or fielding their own candidates. They are essentially a wing of the GOP. Like the Greens who represent left-wing orthodoxy, tea baggers represent the purest incarnation of the principles of the Right. Both are dissatisfied with the leadership of the major parties.

Comparisons with the John Birchers might be more apt. The tea baggers seem to believe many of the conspiracy theories that were hatched by the John Birch Society. In the Southern Poverty Law Center’s The Second Wave, it is noted that “fringe conspiracy theories [are] increasingly spread by mainstream figures.”

The tea baggers resemble the Patriots, whose first wave seemed to subside in the late 1990s. Within the Tea Party movement, there is much interaction between Patriot-types and mainstream people, and there is the danger that the extremists will recruit from the tea bagger membership. Like the Birchers, they are xenophobes and ultra-nationalists. Though they talk a lot about the constitution they take the view that “terrorists don’t have a right to a trial.”

More than a half century ago, the great historian Richard Hofstadter noted that the right has a particularly strong proclivity for political paranoia, a witches’ brew of massive exaggeration, super-heated anger, conspiratorial fantasy, and deep suspiciousness. This right-wing populism boasted a special ability to “see through” official claims and also a remarkable skill in detecting the plots of elitists who have disdain for ordinary, middle Americans.

Tea baggers roar their approval when an orator refers to Obama as “commander in thief.” Glenn Beck rants on about Obama leading a bunch of fascists, communists, and socialists. Apparently the poor man does not know that there is a great deal of difference between fascists and communists.

Tom Tancredo’s call for a return to the literacy test of the Jim Crow South won great approval among tea baggers. Angling for tea bagger and white supremacist backing in his quest to become governor of South Carolina, Lt. Governor Andre Bauer talked about not feeding stray animals because they breed.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa lamented the suicide/murder of Andrew Joseph Stack III and used it to explain that the IRS is unnecessary. He took the standard tea bagger line: Stack was a lone lunatic but sort of admirable because the IRS drove him to a foolish action. They cannot admit that tea bagger rhetoric can promote violence. King went on to tell C-Pac that there are many enemies in America, “They are liberals, they are progressives, they are Che Guevarans, they are Castroites, they are socialists.” He even added “Trotskyites, Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists… Gramscites — ring anybody’s bell?”

In fact, most of the Trotskyites we could name have long since become “Neocons” and made their way into leadership positions in the Republican Party. They no longer worry about the problems of the working class and have become very effective defenders of Wall Street. “As for Gramsciites — the only people who admit to reading this Italian socialist are Grover Norquist and some other Republican strategists. Unfortunately, they mastered the communications and organizational skills he wrote about, while Democrats seem to have learned nothing from his prison writings.

Former Reagan official Frank Gaffney compared Obama to Hitler and said he “may still be” a Muslim and involved with the Muslim Brotherhood. At a recent meeting, former Colorado Lt. Governor Jane Norton sat quietly as a tea bagger twice assured the assemblage that Obama was a Muslim. With the occasional exceptions of John McCain and Lindsay Graham, Republican leaders have failed to correct any of the Tea Party excesses.

At the CPAC convention, Joseph Farrah electrified the crowd with his claims that Obama was not born in the United States. Tea bag blogger Erie Erickson claimed that Justice David Souter was a “goat fucking child molester.”

In Ohio tea bag protesters threw dollar bills at a disabled man, shouting “No handouts here,” and in Washington they sported a sign that said “Your Health. Your Problem.”


Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

An Unaccustomed Truth : Commander McChrystal Admits to Afghan Atrocities

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP.

Times quotes Afghansistan commander:
American atrocities turn Afghans into insurgents

“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.” — Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

By Chris Floyd / March 29, 2010

Well, John the Baptist after torturing a thief
Looks up at his hero the Commander-in-Chief
Saying, ‘Tell me great hero, but please make it brief
Is there a hole for me to get sick in?’
— Bob Dylan, Tombstone Blues

One can only assume that the regular editors of the New York Times were all out at a party, or left early for a weekend in the Hamptons, or something — but somehow, the paper published a front webpage story that stated — without the usual thousand excuses and extenuations — that American troops are routinely slaughtering Afghan civilians at checkpoints. What’s more, the story unequivocally ties the civilian killings to the “surge” ordered by the noble Nobel Peace laureate, Barack Obama.

Here’s what the Times says:

American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul.

And what is the paper’s authority for this astounding admission of atrocity? Not the usual “unnamed sources” or “senior official in a position to have knowledge of the situation,” but none other than Obama’s hand-picked commander on the Af-Pak front, General Stanley “Black Ops” McChrystal his own self:

“We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,” said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties.

Let’s repeat the much-media-lauded general’s statement again: “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.” Now, what would the authorities say if you or I shot “an amazing number of people who have never proven to be a threat?” Why, they would call us murderers — even mass murderers. Yet this is precisely what “the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan” has just declared, on videotape.

The story goes on to make the extraordinarily straight — and indisputable — point that these wanton killings of civilians who have never even “proven to be a threat” is fanning the very “insurgency” (which is the Beltway term of art for any resistance to American military presence”) whose quelling is the ostensible reason for the Laureate’s “surge” in the first place:

Failure to reduce checkpoint and convoy shootings, known in the military as “escalation of force” episodes, has emerged as a major frustration for military commanders who believe that civilian casualties deeply undermine the American and NATO campaign in Afghanistan.

Many of the detainees at the military prison at Bagram Air Base joined the insurgency after the shootings of people they knew, said the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan, Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall.

“There are stories after stories about how these people are turned into insurgents,” Sergeant Major Hall told troops during the videoconference. “Every time there is an escalation of force we are finding that innocents are being killed,” he said.

The story even states plainly that the official figures of admitted killing of unthreatening civilians — already unconscionably high — might not be the true extent of these atrocities:

Shootings from convoys and checkpoints involving American, NATO and Afghan forces accounted for 36 civilian deaths last year, down from 41 in 2008, according to the United Nations. With at least 30 Afghans killed since last June in 95 such shootings, according to military statistics, the rate shows no signs of abating.

And those numbers do not include shooting deaths caused by convoys guarded by private security contractors. Some tallies have put the total number of escalation of force deaths far higher.

A spokesman for the Afghan Interior Ministry, Zemary Bashary, said private security contractors sometimes killed civilians during escalation of force episodes, but he said he did not know the number of instances.

The story also presents an example of one slaughter of civilians, and shows how it leads directly to the rise of resistance against the American military presence:

One such case was the death of Mohammed Yonus, a 36-year-old imam and a respected religious authority, who was killed two months ago in eastern Kabul while commuting to a madrasa where he taught 150 students.

A passing military convoy raked his car with bullets, ripping open his chest as his two sons sat in the car. The shooting inflamed residents and turned his neighborhood against the occupation, elders there say.

“The people are tired of all these cruel actions by the foreigners, and we can’t suffer it anymore,” said Naqibullah Samim, a village elder from Hodkail, where Mr. Yonus lived. “The people do not have any other choice, they will rise against the government and fight them and the foreigners. There are a lot of cases of killing of innocent people.”

Finally, the story depicts McChrystal — again, the handpicked commander of the commander-in-chief — stating flatly when it comes to the widely ballyhooed “counterinsurgency doctrine” that is supposedly now governing the military occupation of Afghanistan, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In other words, it’s a full-scale, four-star FUBAR:

More recently, General McChrystal moved to bring nearly all Special Operations forces in Afghanistan under his control. NATO officials said concern about civilian casualties caused by these forces was partly behind the decision, along with the need to better coordinate units and ensure that local commanders were aware of what was happening.

One unit could be doing counterinsurgency, while another carried out “a raid that might in fact upset progress,” General McChrystal explained during the videoconference.

Beyond the bare facts reported by the story — i.e., the top American commanders acknowledge that their forces are killing scores of innocent civilians who pose no threat to the occupiers, and that their own incompetent policies are actually breeding more hatred and resistance — there is also the astonishing circumstance that we have a story on the Laureate’s “good war” in Afghanistan that is almost entirely nothing but bare facts.

Of course, the story appeared late on a Friday, and will no doubt disappear down the memory hole in short order… Still, I must admit that when I read the piece, I honestly did a double-take; I thought it was a hoax — or perhaps a hack. Not because the story seemed implausible — but precisely because it didn’t, and because it was shorn of most of the self-serving, empire-justifying bullshit that surrounds accounts of the “Peace Prize Surge.”

Again, just think of it, let it sink in, attend to the word of the commander: “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.” Again: “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.” Again: “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat.”

Again: what do you call it when innocent, unarmed, defenseless people who “have never proven to be a threat” are gunned down in cold blood? What do you call such an act?

Source / Empire Burlesque

[A version of the Times article also appeared in the print edition.]

Thanks to Fran Hanlon / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Colombia and the TLC : Just Who Benefits from ‘Free Trade’?

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

And we’re not talking “Tender Loving Care” here. Graffiti image from Parades Que Hablan (Talking Walls).

Colombia and the TLC:
Jobs, deficits, and keeping ‘free trade’ alive

The organizations that stand to benefit the most from this trade agreement — U.S. multinational corporations — have been involved in aiding and abetting [the] bloodshed [against trade unionists].

By Marion Delgado / The Rag Blog / March 27, 2010

AT LARGE IN COLOMBIA — On Thursday, February 18, U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R-FL), visited Colombia’s President Álvaro Uribe at his ranch. His pilgrimage promoted a proposed Colombian/U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA), known locally as the Tratado de Libre Comercio (TLC).

Sen. George

After their rural meeting, LeMieux released a statement in which he said, among other things,

Colombia is a strong ally and partner of the United States. In my meeting with President Uribe, I raised the issue of trade and committed to continue encouraging ratification of the [FTA/TLC]. I again call upon President Obama to send the free trade agreement with Colombia to the United States Congress. Bilateral trade produces clear benefits including jobs in Florida and throughout the United States.

For example, more than 95% of the flowers commercially grown in Colombia come through Miami for distribution throughout the nation. That creates thousands of jobs and opportunities in the United States. Free trade produces prosperity and strengthens democracies in Latin America as well.

He didn’t mention that those “thousands” of jobs and opportunities in the U.S. already exist without the TLC. It’s almost funny; he said that Free Trade produces prosperity; the facts, which Congresspeople never seem to work into their pro-free trade statements, show that just the opposite is true.

Take the original TLC: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

Prez George

Before leaving office, President George W. Bush of the Bush Crime Family claimed that, “From 1993 to 2007, trade among the NAFTA nations more than tripled, from $297 billion to $930 billion.”

Facts

Never one to rely on facts, Bush skipped over the reality that increased trade flow only benefits an economy as long as it doesn’t lead to unsustainable deficits. Much of the increased volume of trade under NAFTA was a massive surge in imports into the U.S.

A small pre-NAFTA U.S. trade surplus with Mexico in 1993 reversed into a $91 billion deficit in 2007, while a pre-NAFTA deficit with Canada grew exponentially. NAFTA foreign investor protections, which remove most of the risks otherwise associated with offshore production — coupled with the high dollar policies of the Clinton administration — acted as a subsidy for off-shoring U.S. jobs.

The result? A 691% increase in the U.S.’ combined trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, from $24 billion in 1993 to $190 billion in 2007. This artificially induced, distorted composition of trade flows — shaped by specific rules in NAFTA — puts the entire region at economic risk.

Senator LeMieux was big on job creation. He obviously knows nothing of which he speaks, and as with any politician cares less, he just says what he thinks sounds good. The real facts about job creation under NAFTA tell a different story.

More facts

Trade affects the composition of jobs, not the total number. Three million net U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost under NAFTA.

The job creation claim is particularly sly, as economists know that total employment numbers and unemployment rates are not typically affected by trade policy, but by central bankers who set interest rates. In fact, they define labor force growth as simply income growth minus productivity growth.

Thus, if income growth were 2 percent and productivity growth were 1 percent, this would imply a labor force growth rate of 1 percent, or roughly 1.4 million jobs — irrespective of trade flows.

What trade policy affects is the composition of jobs in the economy, in particular tradable sectors like manufacturing. The original claim by NAFTA boosters in 1993 that the pact would lead to 170,000 annual U.S. job gains was premised on the projection that the U.S. would have a growing trade surplus with Mexico. We were supposed to be exporting U.S.-made goods to them.

Ever since NAFTA critics’ projection of increased trade deficits proved true, pro-NAFTA analysts have tried to move the discussion away from the pact’s damage to U.S. workers and to focus on the combined import-export volume of trade flows’ effect on overall U.S. employment rates.

Here are the relevant numbers: U.S. manufacturing employment declined from 16.8 million people in 1993 to 13.9 million people in 2007, a decrease of nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs, nearly 20% of the total. Moreover, today’s $190 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA countries — as a simple accounting matter — equals manufacturing jobs that could have been here. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the U.S. could have had over 1 million additional manufacturing jobs had there been trade balance between NAFTA countries alone, or no NAFTA at all.

Sen. George LeMeiux, Republican of Florida. Photo from AP / Politico.

Other Congressional visits

President Uribe also met with a group of U.S. Congressmen on January 9, at a working breakfast at his ranch known as Fertile Farm in Monteria, Cordoba Department, 310km Northeast of Bogota.

Among them was Eliot Engel, a Democrat from New York’s 17th district (Westchester County), chairman of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee of the House.

The meeting marked the start of an offensive by the president to achieve, as soon as possible, ratification of the FTA/TLC by the U.S. Congress.

Uribe’s purpose became clear on December 31, 2009, when he asked the U.S. to “recognize the efforts” of Colombia in the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism. A week later, he reiterated to Democratic Reps. Engel; Lynn Woolsey from Marin County, CA; Shelley Berkley, Las Vegas, NV; and Republican Marsha Blackburn from Southwestern Tennessee, (a T-bagger favorite): “I said with all honesty and with all the solidarity that we need rapid adoption of this treaty.”

What the fight against drug trafficking and “terrorism” has to do with Free Trade is beyond me.

Pending congressional approval

The FTA/TLC was signed by Presidents Bush and Uribe on November 22, 2006. When it enters into force, Colombia will immediately eliminate most tariffs on U.S. exports, with all remaining tariffs phased out over defined time periods.

The FTA/TLC also includes important rules on customs administration and trade facilitation, technical barriers to trade, government procurement, investment, telecommunications, electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, and labor and environmental protection.

Labor Protection?

If labor needs protection anywhere, it is here in Colombia. Here is the situation:

Colombia today has some of the worst labor rights violations in the world. Trade unionists are routinely murdered, tortured, and threatened with death: since 1991, over 2200 have been assassinated. Many of these extrajudicial killings have been directly linked to the Colombian Military and the President’s own secret police, the Administrative Department for Security or Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS). Out of so many murders, there have been only 37 convictions. The FTA/TLC will only embolden anti-union attacks here.

The organizations that stand to benefit the most from this trade agreement — U.S. multinational corporations — have been involved in aiding and abetting this bloodshed. Cases have been brought against Coca-Cola, Drummond Mining Company, and Occidental Petroleum accusing them of employing paramilitaries that terrorized and killed union organizers.

Forty-three U.S. corporations have been named as having hired paracos to “protect” them from guerrillas and unions. More cases are expected to be made, and fines will be levied. (Not as cheap as the $2000 a head reportedly paid for U.S. Army/mercenary baby killing in Afghanistan, but cheap enough for the Wall Street gang.)

It should be noted that most Colombian workers and their unions are against the proposed FTA/TLC; unlike American investors, workers in Colombia have little to gain by further U.S. investment without real accountability for violence against unions and for multiple other human rights abuses.

U.S. firms will have better access to Colombia’s service sector than other World Trade Organization members under the pact’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. All service sectors are covered by the FTA/TLC except where Colombia has made specific exceptions.

Colombia’s Congress approved the FTA/TLC and a protocol of amendment in 2007. Colombia’s Constitutional Court completed its review in July 2008, and concluded that the FTA/TLC conforms to Colombia’s Constitution.

Obama’s duplicity

In his January 27 State of the Union Speech, President Barack H. Obama said, “We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are… And that is why we will continue to shape a… trade agreement that will open…markets…with key partners like Colombia.”

To flesh out what his boss meant, deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis expounded on trade policy in a morning-after speech before a gathering sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Key pillars of Obama’s trade policy, Marantis said, will include pursuing the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) — while also pushing ratification of already-negotiated free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. The trade agreements were each presented to Congress at least three years ago but have not been acted upon.

One big question is why Obama is pursuing free trade in the first place. As a candidate, Obama argued that the American public had been oversold on the benefits of free trade and specifically came out against the Colombia FTA. What happened?

Mitch

Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Clown-in-Chief, was quick to jump on the FTA/TLC band wagon the day after BHO’s speech. “Republicans agree with the need to increase trade and with the need to ratify trade agreements with Colombia and other important trading partners that so far have met resistance on the other side of the aisle,” he declared.

Mitch was referring to the reluctance of some Democrats to address the FTA/TLC created by their awareness of the thousands of murders of trade unionists since 1991. Many other union members were threatened, tortured, and driven out of their country.

For proponents, the FTA/TLC is tied as much to hemispheric politics as it is to trade. The U.S. and Colombia are strategic partners, having signed a Defense Cooperation Agreement on October 30, 2009, which gives the U.S. access to Colombian bases from which to carry out “counter-drug” surveillance flights. Colombia has proved a bulwark against the two countries’ mutual antagonist, the Bolivarian Revolutionary country of Venezuela.

Some Congressional Democrats have spoken out stridently against the FTA/TLC, criticizing the Colombian government for not doing enough to curb violence against union organizers and members.

Harry

Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV), has argued that “it is a major mistake to set up the Colombia [FTA/TLC] legislation as the proxy for support for Colombia… An FTA is not a foreign-aid package. It is neither a favor for friendly governments, nor a substitute for sensible and sustained foreign-policy engagement in the hemisphere.”

Obama may well see the FTA/TLC in strategic terms, but some think Congress is unlikely to follow that lead. One reason is that opponents — most notably, organized labor — comprise part of the Democrats’ political base. In addition, polls show that most Americans have turned away from free trade. A 2009 Rasmussen poll found that 73% of Americans believe that free-trade agreements have had a negative effect on their families, while only 14% say they have benefited.

With those kinds of numbers and congressional elections approaching, it is doubtful members of Congress will want to stick their necks out for free trade, at least this year.

Cartoon from Witness for Peace.

Down but not out

Does that mean the FTA/TLC is dead? Hardly. It lingers ready to go to Congress, an Obama bargaining chip to appease Republicans or to trade for their votes on some other crazy Democratic scheme.

Ron

Colombia’s Trade Minister, Luis Guillermo Plata, asked the U.S. on March 9 to “be sincere and tell us if the [FTA/TLC] is going to go ahead or not.” A response from the White House came the next day when U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, said, “we are hopeful we can come to some resolution with members of Congress over the next several months, if not weeks… so that we can then go back to Colombia with a finite list of what we’d like to see get done.”

Kirk said that passing the agreement with Colombia is a priority of the Obama administration. The U.S. plans to give Colombia a “workable list” of legislative and judicial reforms that the administration would like to see the South American nation execute.

Chuck

Senator Charles “Chuck” Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, whined about the “apparent lack of urgency” in resolving issues surrounding the trade accord. “This delay in implementation hurts U.S. credibility around the world, not just economically but geopolitically as well.” He didn’t elaborate on how that is so, or what credibility he was referring to or what was so urgent about it.

Hillary

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who bypassed Colombia on her recent South American tour, met privately with Uribe in Montevideo, Uruguay, on Monday, Mar. 1, and confirmed Washington’s plans to push the FTA/TLC.

Both were there for the inauguration of President Jose Mujica, a co-founder of the Tupamaro guerrillas who spent 15 years in prison, enduring torture at the hands of the brutal, U.S. backed, military dictatorship that ruled Uruguay from 1973-1985.

A midnight vote on an unrelated bill wherein the FTA/TLC is a silent partner may be more likely than open passage. Transparency, honesty, and giving a shit about the lives of the Colombian working class (or any other workers) are never on the Capitalist agenda. It’s always about the false value of Profit.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

VERSE / Mariann G. Wizard : Pirates of Health-Care Reform

Posted on March 28, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Corporate Pirate. Image from jacobdivett.


Pirates of Health-Care Reform

Of all the old pirates of story and song,
Blackbeard; and Bluebeard; John Silver, called “Long”;
each had his own favorite way to do wrong!

Some liked to pillage, and some liked to loot,
some preferred swordplay, and some liked to shoot,
and some liked a gangplank for giving the boot!

But the one thing that all of them liked very best
was opening a just-grabbed treasure chest,
right in front of an unwilling guest!

“Was these your fine jools, dear?” they’d pleasantly coo,
“and was these your doubloons? Well, that will not do!”
And they’d take for themselves everything nice or new.

But at least when they did this, they didn’t pretend
it was for your own good, but their larcenous ends,
upon which such thievery clearly depends!

Our modern day pirates are much more discreet,
with old school ties and nicely-shod feet,
and business arrangements so tidy and neat.

They’ve elected themselves to the highest posts,
bought men with money, or blackmailed their hosts;
poisoned the wells and turned us into ghosts.

There’s never a sign of a saber or gun,
just fine-printed contracts and thefts quietly done,
so smooth that the robbers do not even run!

Just the money, that’s all, runs away in the night
to foreign bank fortresses tucked out of sight,
in places where Empire still flexes its might.

The factories left, and all the real jobs
turned into vast slave ships, filled with poor slobs
who don’t even know how bad they’ve been robbed.

And we, poor blighters, left holding the bag,
empty as a promise, wrapped in a flag,
have little left over but a real stone drag!

Now they’ve passed a new law for our pirate lords:
we’re to empty our wallets or face down their swords,
in the form of new taxes and sugar-pill words.

Here’s a thought for the rascals that pillage and steal:
with our dignity may go our bleeding-heart zeal!
We may soon see you lashed to the old breaking wheel!

Let’s bring back the gallows, the rack, and the whip!
Catch these corporate pirates and let the cat rip!
Don’t pay the ransom, you’re just being clipped!

Mariann G. Wizard
27 March 2010

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 10 Comments

Next Nuke Nightmare? Paid for with Your Taxes

Posted on March 28, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

In 1979, roughly 25,000 people lived within five miles of the giant cooling towers at Three Mile Island that became symbols of the nation’s worst commercial nuclear accident. Photo by Martha Cooper / AP.

We are now paying
For the next Three Mile Island

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / March 27, 2010

As radiation poured from Three Mile Island 31 years ago this weekend, utility executives rested easy.

They knew that no matter how many people their errant nuke killed, and no matter how much property it destroyed, they would not be held liable.

Today this same class of executives demands untold taxpayer billions to build still more TMIs. No matter how many meltdowns they cause, and how much havoc they visit down on the public, they still believe they’re above the law.

Fueled with more than $600 million public relations slush money, they demand a risk-free “renaissance” financed by you and yours.

As if!

In 1980 I reported from central Pennsylvania on the dead and dying one year after. Dozens of interviews documented a horrifying range of radiation-related diseases including cancer, leukemia, birth defects, still births, malformations, sterility, heart attacks, strokes, emphysema, skin lesions, hair loss, a metallic taste and much more. As reported by the Baltimore News-American among others, such ailments also ripped through the animal population..

To this day no one knows how much radiation was released at the 1979 TMI accident, where it went, or whom it harmed. The official line that “no one was killed” is arguably the biggest lie ever told in U.S. industrial history. It is to public health what the promise of power “too cheap to meter” was to public finance.

It parallels Soviet lies about the 1986 catastrophe at Chernobyl, whose health effects continue to skyrocket. A devastating summary report issued by the New York Academy of Sciences (Yablokov, Nesterenko & Nesterenko: Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People & the Environment) says at least 980,000 people are likely to die from the fallout.

That would be a small fraction of the casualties had 9/11 terrorists dived into the two reactors at New York’s Indian Point instead of hitting the World Trade Center.

In a time of deep financial stress, it also counts that the TMI accident turned a $900 million asset into a $2 billion liability in a matter of minutes. Chernobyl has cost Belarus and Ukraine at least $500 billion and counting. And the price tag on a major meltdown anywhere in the U.S. is virtually beyond calculation.

Thus those who think a flood of new nukes will flow unimpeded into the American pocketbook haven’t been paying attention:

  1. Four northeastern nukes — in Vermont, New Jersey, and the two at Indian Point — are under intense public pressure to shut within the next two years. Numerous other elderly reactors are likely to go down long before any new nukes could come on line.

  2. French President Sarkozy is demanding that world financial institutions buy a bevy of new French-built reactors. But huge delays and cost-overruns at French projects in Finland and France itself have made the investment community wary to say the least, thus prompting his foot-stomping.

  3. Documents leaked from inside France’s national utility EDF indicate cost-cutting has made the new French reactor design exceedingly prone to explosion, further unsettling potential investors.

  4. The future of new U.S. reactor construction hinges on massive loan guarantees and handouts. The public number is $54 billion, but the Nuclear Information and Resource Service says the real bill could top a trillion.

  5. In the polarized, cost-conscious wake of the health care bill, and the apparent demise of cap and trade as a centerpiece of climate legislation, the idea of such huge sums flowing to a deeply polarizing energy source has become increasingly problematic. Without a clear trade-off for fossil/nuclear giveaways, and with stiffening resistance from the rightist National Taxpayers Union, Cato Institute, and Heritage Foundation, the nuke bonanza is anything but certain. The technology may now, in fact, be “too expensive to matter.”

  6. An attempt by Entergy to shift six reactors into an asset-free corporate shell has been nixed by New York authorities, leaving liability for Vermont Yankee, Indian Point and other northeastern nukes in limbo.

  7. As elderly nukes stumble toward oblivion, various funds allegedly set aside for decommissioning may be significantly under-funded, deeply exacerbating the financial battles that now encircle the industry.

  8. As a lame duck, George W. Bush signed agreements apparently obligating the feds to assume responsibility for enough radioactive waste to fill two of the canceled Yucca Mountain waste dumps. The complete lack of even one such facility means the potential taxpayer bill is beyond meaningful calculation.

  9. Above all the exemption from liability for a major accident — first perpetrated by a pro-nuke Congress in 1957 — remains the largest potential cost to us all. Renewed by Bush in 2005, some believe the statute is clearly unconstitutional.

To this day the families of those harmed by radiation at Three Mile Island have been denied the right to make their case in federal court.

But now the shoe is on the other foot.

Desperate for cash, the nuclear industry wants us all to pay hundreds of billions for the joy of living downwind from still more Three Mile Islands for which they intend to assume NO liability.

They want our money AND our lives.

From central Pennsylvania after 31 years, the message is clear: Just Say NO!

[Harvey Wasserman’s Solartopia! is at www.harveywasserman.com, as is The Last Energy War. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Health Care : Lies, Damn Lies, and Republicans

Posted on March 27, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer


Republicans and health care:
The lie as art form

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / March 27, 2010

Since the start of the health care reform discussion last year, the Republicans have told us lie after lie. They have accused Democrats of perpetrating a huge government takeover of the health care system.

The truth is that no doctor or hospital will be taken over or run out of business. What they will have is more customers with better insurance to pay for their services. And that insurance will be purchased from private insurance companies in the free market — either directly or through health insurance exchanges.

They have accused the Democrats of creating death panels that will choose to kill off the elderly and disabled. This is one of the most scurrilous of the lies, because none of the proposed legislation or the legislation that was actually passed ever had anything even remotely close to this. The truth is that the elderly will still be covered by Medicare, and the disabled will be covered by either Medicaid or private insurance. And both Medicare and Medicaid have been enhanced to make them function better.

They have told Americans that the new health care bill will create enormous debt for our country. And they are still telling this lie, even though the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has reported the new laws will actually lower the government deficit by over a trillion dollars in the next 10 years. It’s funny how they swear by the CBO’s numbers when those numbers agree with their position and ignore the numbers when they don’t back up what they are saying.

They claim the new laws amount to a huge tax increase, and imply that this will apply to all Americans. It won’t. There are some increases in Medicare and Medicaid taxes, but they only apply to those making more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for a married couple). Frankly, if you make more than that in a year, you can afford a small tax increase (and that’s what it is — a small increase). It also imposes a small tax on the most expensive insurance policies — the so-called “Cadillac” policies. You can be sure this will not affect the huge majority of working Americans with private insurance.

Now they are telling us that the new laws will cost many thousands of jobs, because the businesses will not be able to afford buying insurance or alternatively paying a tax for the employees they have. Ridiculous! This argument has the same flaw as their lie about raising the minumum wage costing jobs.

The fact is that there is only one reason a business hires workers — because that business needs those workers to meet the demand for their products or services, and they will hire only the amount they need regardless of the wage scale or need for insurance coverage.

If they hire less than the number that is needed, then their business will suffer because they cannot meet the demand. If they hire more than needed, then it will needlessly cut into owner profits (and no businessman will do that). A business may raise it’s prices to cover costs, but it will always hire only the number of workers needed — not more and not less.

When demand goes up, more workers will be hired. When demand goes down, workers will be laid off. That’s just the way it is in a capitalist system (and all costs are figured into prices and expected profit margin).

Now they are telling Americans that the new law will force doctors to refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. This is already a problem in many places, but it has nothing to do with the new laws. Do you know who is to blame? THE REPUBLICANS — because in their years in power they repeatedly cut the payments to doctors for Medicare and Medicaid patients. They have always hated these programs and the cuts were an effort to destabilize the programs. Hopefully the Democrats will fix this inequity if the new laws don’t.

But the biggest lie, the most outrageous lie, they are now telling is that they are in favor of health care reform (just not the reform passed by Democrats). Well if they were really in favor of health care reform, why didn’t they do it when they were in control (and had a Republican president for eight of those years). They had a golden opportunity to enact reform on their terms, but did nothing. They spent billions on unnecessary wars and corporate giveaways, but did absolutely nothing to fix the health care system.

It was obvious (and frustrating to many progressives) that President Obama reached out to the Republicans for bipartisan action on reforming health care. Every time he was snubbed. The Republicans had made a decision that they would oppose any effort at reform, because they believed if Obama failed to deliver on health care reform that would help them at the polls. They were more concerned with party politics than helping Americans access needed health care.

These are only a few of the more egregious lies the Republicans have told to try to stop health care reform and protect the profits of Big Insurance and Big Pharma. There were many others. I had hoped the lies and obstructions would stop now that “Obamacare” is law, but if Senator John McCain is to believed it looks like that won’t happen. McCain said the Republicans were so mad about the passage of these two health reform bills that “There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year.”

I really hope that is just another Republican lie, because important things remain to be done and Republican lies and obstructionism will just make it harder (though not impossible). Let me finish with an excellent quote I found on a friend’s blog (a gal and her blog):

In my life I’ve heard that: civil rights for people of color would destroy this country, Medicare would destroy this country, environmental protections would destroy this country. It must be indescribably horrible to live one’s life in fear as these folks seem to be doing.

Now the Republicans are telling us that health care reform will destroy our country. Don’t believe them as they try to spread fear. It’s just another of their many lies.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Health Care Reform : The End of the Beginning

Posted on March 27, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Photo from Circlemp / treehugger.

The end of the beginning:
How ‘historic’ is this reform?

By Dr. Stephen R. Keister / The Rag Blog / March 27, 2010

Health care reform was finally passed by the House and Senate and many consider it an historic occasion. But let’s look at that “historic occasion” and view the legislation objectively. This is primarily health insurance reform and does not produce a sensible program of health care for all citizens on the level to those found in most countries of the civilized world.

We can address that a bit later; however, I am alarmed at the spin-off of a very disruptive right-wing populist movement in the United States, which has emerged out of reaction to the fight for health care reform.

Many of my progressive friends consider this to be a passing phenomenon; however, let us pause for a moment and remember the 9th-10th of November 1938 in Berlin or the 17th Century witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts. Perhaps at my advanced age, with lots of unpleasant memories, I am unduly alarmed; however, more than one social scientist feels that the tea bag movement, which is surreptitiously financed by extremely wealthy members of the financial elite, is of much more concern than many of my liberal friends believe.

I refer all to an article by Chip Berlet, of Political Research Associates, entitled “Right wing ‘populist moment’ could get worse. Message to the Left: stop whining and organize!”

I recall the writings of Eric Hoffer when he noted:

The impression that mass movements, and revolutions in particular, are born of the resolve of the masses to overthrow a corrupt and oppressive tyranny and win for themselves freedom of action, speech and conscience has its origin in the din of words let loose by the intellectual originators of the movement in their skirmishes with the prevailing order. The fact that mass movements as they arise often less individual freedom than the order they supplant, is usually ascribed to the trickery of a power-hungry clique that kidnaps the movement at a critical stage and cheats the masses of the freedom about to dawn.

Coverage on MSNBC last evening was largely dedicated to the proliferation of extreme threats of violence to members of Congress — and their spouses and children — who voted for the health care legislation. Not only are the threats based on misinformation, deceit, and out and out lies, but the foul language being used suggests serious paranoia. It has been estimated that 30% of the population is involved in the right-wing movements; but, considering that the population of the United States is something like 300 million, that’s a lot of crazies.

According to the Erie Times News, my local congressperson, Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper, is receiving extremely frightening messages directed at her and her family. This is a locale where folks line up at the Wal-Mart some mornings waiting for the doors to open so they can buy more ammunition, and where a local gun dealer has problems maintaining his stock in certain types of weapons.

I have disagreements with some of Ms. Dahlkemper’s votes; however, she has given the citizens of her district much more input into matters of national importance than her Republican predecessor did, and she seems much more enlightened in matters of the public good than her likely Republican challengers. In a civilized nation she is deserving of our concern and protection.

I hope that the news media will rise to the occasion and present the news in a fair and honest fashion during the period leading up the elections this coming Autumn, and not give in to the influence of the waves of corporate baksheesh. Meanwhile, it is the responsibility of the Democrats in power to take a cue from the Republican voice machine and do a much better job of getting out the truth to the 70% of the American people who may pay attention to morality and reason

I have had the privilege of following the progress of health care reform on the pages of The Rag Blog for over a year now. This has been an invaluable experience in my final years, and I will forever be grateful to the editor for his forbearance and patience. I would anticipate that my participation will be at irregular intervals in the future, but before I close the current exposition, a few observations:

The current insurance reform legislation in no way resembles a government take over of health care. In fact, as E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post and Commonweal points out, we have a bill that the Republicans could well have passed. It is very similar to the health care legislation that was passed in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.

There is absolutely nothing in the legislation that resembles a single payer system or even a public option, Medicare for All.

There is nothing in the legislation that approximates the excellent German health system that is, in fact, run by private insurance companies with government oversight of costs and services. Nor is it anything like the Canadian system — for which its driving force, Tommy Douglas, was voted by the people of Canada “the greatest Canadian of all time.”

I notice that health insurance stocks are doing quite well on Wall Street! Unfortunately, in the new legislation there is no effort to control insurance prices or to eliminate the health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption. I am concerned about the mandatory inclusion of citizens in the plan under threat of fine, and — unlike the Swiss or German plans — it doesn’t at the same time set standards to ensure that the insurance companies provide adequate coverage, and to prevent price-gouging.

I would have wished for less equivocal language regarding the rights of the states to establish honest, effective plans — like that currently proposed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I would have hoped for the inclusion of community health clinics, as proposed by Sen Bernie Sanders, to be established on the European model. And that the establishment of medical dispensaries be expedited — to address the crowding of emergency rooms and thus reduce the overall cost of medical care, while at the same time providing a reasonable option for follow-up care. These facilities are absolutely necessary considering the fact that the fees paid under Medicaid make it economically impossible for a physician to take many of these folks as ongoing patients and still be able to cover office overhead.

There was some encouraging language in the legislation regarding subsidies for medical education that should result in more physicians for underserved areas; however, this requires much more fine tuning. As has been repeatedly pointed out by the American College of Physicians, much more attention must be directed at the paucity of primary care physicians — general internists, pediatricians, and family physicians — throughout the nation.

This problem is largely due to the inequitable fee schedules for these fields when compared with those in the surgical subspecialists, who are very well rewarded despite spending no more time in training than the internist or pediatrician. This has become a societal problem, largely driven by misinformation on TV that creates the myth that it is only those in the highly publicized specialties who are really in the “life saving” business.

We should express thanks for the collective courage of the orders of Sisters throughout the nation who came out in support of universal health care, especially in the face of pressure from their ecclesiastical “superiors.” We must remember the dedication of the nuns in the areas of healing dating back to the great medieval hospitals they founded during the Middle Ages, including the Hotel-Dieu in Lyons in 542; the Santa Maria della Scala in Siena in 898; St. Bartholomew’s in London in 1123; the Ospedale di Santa Mana degli Innocenti in Florence in 1421; and the Hotel-Dieu in Beaune in 1452.

These Sisters cared for the ill, the infirm, the dying, and the mentally ill without regard to pay or their own well-being as they administered to the dying during the plague. At the same time, the Papacy in Rome, influenced by the Borgia family, was pursuing other less spiritual interests!

In any event we have in hand a bill that according to the AP:

  1. Within 90 days will provide access to high risk pools for people with no insurance because of preexisting conditions. (The politicians like to compare these pools to those provided for the members of Congress, neglecting to say that 80% of their premiums are paid by the government.)

  2. Six months after enactment will bar insurers from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions; will bar insurers from imposing lifetime caps on coverage; will require insurers to allow children to stay on their parents policies until they turn age 26.

  3. In 2013 will increase the Medicare payroll tax and expand it to cover dividend interest and other unearned income for singles earning more than $200,000 or joint filers making more than $250,000.

  4. In 2014 will provide subsidies for families earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level, currently about $88.000 a year, to purchase health insurance; will require most employers to provide coverage or face penalties; will require most people to obtain coverage or face penalties. (Nowhere, it seems, does the legislation provide assurance that the insurance companies will not triple the rates for those with preexisting conditions.)

We must congratulate the Congress, in a supplement to the health care legislation, for providing student loans directly to the students, and preventing the banking industry from gouging the program as has been the practice in years past.

[Dr. Stephen R. Keister, a regular contributor to The Rag Blog, lives in Erie, PA. He is a retired physician who is active in health care reform.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Jordan Flaherty : Racist Coup in Waterproof, Louisiana?

Posted on March 27, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Waterproof, LA. Photo from Fox 44 / Baton Rouge.

Did racist coup in northern Louisiana town
Overthrow Black mayor and police chief?

By Jordan Flaherty / The Rag Blog / March 27, 2010

NEW ORLEANS — In Waterproof, a small northern Louisiana town near Natchez, Mississippi, the African-American mayor and police chief assert that they have been forced from office and arrested as part of an illegal coup carried out by an alliance of white politicians and their followers.

In a lawsuit filed last week, Police Chief Miles Jenkins asserts a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the area’s district attorney and parish sheriff, along with several other members of the region’s entrenched political power structure. These events come at a time when the validity of federal power is being questioned because of the race of the U.S. president, and in a state where white political corruption and violence have been and continue to be used as tools to fight Black political power.

About 800 people live in Waterproof, a rural community in the south of Tensas Parish. Tensas has just over 6,000 residents, making it both the smallest parish in the state, and the parish with the state’s fastest declining population. The parish’s schools remain mostly segregated, with nearly all the Black students attending public schools, and nearly all the white students attending private schools.

Waterproof Police Chief Miles Jenkins.

With a median household income of $10,250, Waterproof is also one of the poorest communities in the U.S. The only jobs for Black people in town are in work for white farmers, according to Chief Jenkins. “Unless you go out of town to work,” he says, “You’re going to ride the white man’s tractor. That’s it.”

Bobby Higginbotham was elected mayor of Waterproof in September of 2006. The next year, he appointed Miles Jenkins as chief of police. Jenkins, who served in the U.S. military for 30 years and earned a master’s degree in public administration from Troy University in Alabama, immediately began the work of professionalizing a small town police department that had previously been mostly inactive.

“You called the Waterproof police for help before,” says Chief Jenkins, “He would say, wait ‘til tomorrow, it’s too hot to come out today.” He also sought to reform the town’s financial practices, which Chief Jenkins says were in disorder and consumed by debt.

Chief Jenkins asserts that a white political infrastructure, led by the Parish Sheriff Ricky Jones and District Attorney James Paxton, were threatened by their actions. This group immediately sought to orchestrate a coup against the two Black men, including clandestine meetings, false arrests, harassment, and even physical violence.

Court documents describe how Paxton, Jones, and their allies formed an alliance “designed to harass intimidate, arrest, imprison, prosecute, illegally remove plaintiff from his position of police chief, prevent plaintiff from performing his law duties as police chief and/or force plaintiff to leave the town of Waterproof.”

Ms. Annie Watson, a Black school board member in her 60s who was born and raised in Waterproof, worked as a volunteer for the mayor. She says that the mayor and chief, who had both lived in New Orleans, brought a new attitude that Parish officials didn’t like.

“The Mayor and the Chief said you can’t treat people this way, and the Sheriff and DA said you got to know your place. If you’re educated and intelligent and know your rights and in this parish, you are in trouble,” she says. “They are determined to let you know you have a place and if you don’t jump when they say jump you are in trouble.”

Ms. Watson explains that Paxton and Jones were threatened by Chief Jenkins’ efforts to professionalize the town’s police force. Aside from representing a challenge to Sheriff Jones’ political power, this also took away a source of his funding. “Before Mayor Higginbotham, all traffic tickets went to St. Joseph,” she says, referring to the Parish seat, where Sheriff Jones is based. “So he cut their income by having a police department.”

Jack McMillan, an African American deputy sheriff in Tensas Parish, says he tried to warn Chief Jenkins to back down. “You’ve got to adapt to your environment,” he says. “You can’t come to a small town and do things the same way you might in a big city. Like the song says, you got to know when to hold ‘em, and know when to fold ‘em.”

Waterproof District Attorney James Paxton.

Tensas Parish

Tensas and the nearby parishes of Madison and East Carroll all share the sixth judicial district — currently represented by District Attorney James Paxton. Buddy Caldwell, DA for the sixth judicial district from 1979 to 2008, is now Attorney General for the state of Louisiana.

The sixth district parishes all have majority Black populations and mostly white elected officials, which Chief Jenkins and Watson attribute to political corruption and disenfranchisement of Black voters. Prior to the registration of 15 voters in 1964, there was not a single Black voter registered in Tensas, despite having more than 7,000 African American residents (and about 4,000 white residents), making it the last Parish in Louisiana to allow African Americans to register.

Waterproof is “Reminiscent of the bygone days of southern politics,” with a white power structure maintaining political power over a Black majority, according to veteran civil rights attorney Ron Wilson, who is representing Jenkins in his civil rights lawsuit. “At any and all costs, even jeopardizing the life and freedom of my client, they will ruin him to maintain power. This case is ultimately about whether an African-American can be guaranteed the rights that are assured to him in the constitution.”

According to court papers, this Jim Crow alliance dominates elected power in the area, and “even on the local level, where the office holders tend to be African American, they are powerless to control their own destiny.” According to Chief Jenkins, the District Attorney once boasted that he controlled the votes of Waterproof’s Black Aldermen.

Chief Jenkins says he faced an immediate campaign of harassment from Sheriff Jones. “They just wanted this town to be white-controlled,” explained Chief Jenkins. The police chief described being arrested multiple times under the order of District Attorney Paxton and Sheriff Jones.

The charges, says Jenkins, range from charges of theft for a pay raise he received from the town’s board of Aldermen to criminal trespass for going to the home of a citizen who had been stopped for speeding without a valid driver’s license, to disturbing the peace for an incident where individuals threatened the police chief with violence for issuing traffic citations.

Ms. Watson says the charges were invented out of thin air. “It was a sad case of lies,” she says, adding that, “The majority of the town of Waterproof supports the chief and supports the mayor.”

Chief Jenkins says he was arrested and declared a flight risk by District Attorney Paxton, despite living and owning property in the Parish. “In all my years,” says attorney Ron Wilson, “I’ve never seen a police officer, and certainly not a police chief, charged for something like this.”

Chief Jenkins alleges he was attacked and choked by a deputy sheriff, who he says shouted, “Shut up… We are in charge…We are the sheriff and the sheriff controls Tensas Parish. The sooner you all learn this the better off you will be,” an action that Ms. Watson says she also witnessed.

Chief Jenkins says his police car was shoved in a ditch, and when he arrested the people who had committed the act, the DA refused to press charges. In fact, he says the DA refused almost all charges he presented and released anyone he arrested. The chief was even charged with kidnapping for one incident in which he arrested the former town clerk for illegal entry.

“That’s the most ludicrous notion I’ve ever come across,” says Wilson. “That a police chief can be arrested for kidnapping, because he placed someone under arrest who was breaking the law.”

A grand jury has returned indictments of Chief Jenkins and Mayor Higginbotham, and Higginbotham’s trial is scheduled to begin this Monday. The mayor faces 44 charges, including multiple counts of malfeasance in office and felony theft. The charges appear to be based on the results of a state audit of Waterproof that found irregularities in the town’s record keeping going back to before the election of Higginbotham — irregularities that the mayor and police chief say they had repaired.

Waterproof Sheriff Ricky Jones.

Patterns of violence

Mayor Higginbotham was elected at the same time as two other Black mayors of small Louisiana towns, both of whom also received threats based on race. In December of 2006, shortly after Higginbotham was elected mayor of Waterproof, Gerald Washington was shot and killed three days before he was to become the first Black mayor of the small southwest Louisiana town of Westlake.

An official investigation called his death a suicide, but family members call it an assassination. Less than two weeks after that, shots were fired into the house of Earnest Lampkins, the first Black mayor of the northwest Louisiana town of Greenwood. Lampkins reported that he continued to receive threats throughout his term, including a “for sale” sign that someone planted outside his house.

Waterproof was Klan country from the reconstruction era until well into the 20th century, and violence frequently broke out in the area. Seven Black men in Madison Parish were lynched over a period of three days in 1894 for the charge of “insurrection,” apparently because one man refused to follow an order from a sheriff.

“The Klan was very active here,” says Ms. Watson, recalling her childhood in the 50s and 60s. “We had crosses burned on people’s lawns. The school principal had a cross burned on his lawn. A man named Sun Turner was shot and killed on the streets by the Klan.”

Waterproof is an hour south of Tallulah, the site of a notoriously abusive youth prison, and a little more than hour east of Jena, where accusations of systemic racism brought 40,000 people from around the country, including many civil rights leaders, to a 2007 march. Like Jena, Waterproof is also home to a prison that contracts to hold federal immigration prisoners.

When asked for comment on Chief Jenkins’ lawsuit, Tensas Parish Sheriff Ricky Jones denied that race was a factor, claiming that Jenkins had abused his office and that many of the local citizens who filed complaints against him were Black. “I’m not going to support any type of corruption,” said Jones. “Certainly not from him.”

District Attorney Paxton, also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, disputed all accusations from Jenkins, suggesting that he had tried to help Jenkins when he was first elected. “A lot of this will become clear when the case against Mayor Higginbotham goes to trial on Monday,” he added.

Flood Caldwell, one of the town’s aldermen, is currently serving as the town’s mayor. Jenkins points to Caldwell’s appointment as further evidence of a coup, saying that the town aldermen, under the direction of DA Paxton, illegally voted to remove Mayor Higginbotham. “No one recognizes Caldwell as mayor except the DA and his friends,” says Chief Jenkins. The office of the Louisiana Secretary of State confirms that they still have Higginbotham listed as mayor, adding that they cannot comment further because of pending litigation.

Wilson says this case is ultimately about the repression of Black political and civil rights. “I think this has been going on in Tensas for a while,” he says. “I think they’ve gone too far in this case, and someone finally has come along and says they won’t go along.” Wilson hopes this lawsuit will bring federal attention. “We hope the justice department will look into this and bring some much-needed reform to this part of the world,” he says.

Chief Jenkins says he took the Sheriff’s job to serve the community, “You’ve given this country the best years of your life and you get treated like an unwanted stepchild,” he says. “I didn’t realize there was so much politics to just doing your job.”

Ms. Watson believes that this is a struggle for self-determination and basic civil rights. “I was born in 1948,” she says. “Ever since I was born, Blacks never had a say in this parish, until Chief Jenkins and Mayor Higginbotham. They spoke up, and tried to change things. That’s why the parish is going after them.”

Jacques Morial of the Louisiana Justice Institute contributed to this story.

[Jordan Flaherty is a journalist, an editor of Left Turn Magazine, and a staffer with the Louisiana Justice Institute. He was the first writer to bring the story of the Jena Six to a national audience and audiences around the world have seen the television reports he’s produced for Al-Jazeera, TeleSur, Press-TV, GritTV, and Democracy Now, as well as his appearances on Anderson Cooper 360, CNN Headline News, and several other programs. His post-Katrina reporting for ColorLines shared an award from New America Media for best Katrina-related reporting in ethnic press. Haymarket Press will release his new book, FLOODLINES: Community and Resistance from Katrina to the Jena Six, in 2010. He can be reached at neworleans@leftturn.org.]

Links to Resources Mentioned in Story:

Other Resources:

Also by Jordan Flaherty on The Rag Blog:

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Tom Hayden : Health Care a Big Win for Progressives

Posted on March 26, 2010 by Thorne Dreyer

Grab of CSPAN screen. Image from gothamist.

We achieved what was possible:
Health care is victory for progressives

Passage of a trillion-dollar health care package means a trillion dollars not available to the Pentagon for their long war.

By Tom Hayden / The Rag Blog / March 26, 2010

This is not the time for progressives to mourn the defeat of single-payer or the public option, it is the time to cheer the health care victory as an important victory and prepare to stop the right wing in their tracks and discredit their religion of market fundamentalism. It’s the time to push further against that same fundamentalism by demanding such reforms as regulation of Wall Street and a rollback of the Supreme Court decision on campaign finance — all before the November election.

We did not achieve what was politically impossible, Medicare for All. Insurance companies and Big Pharma will benefit from the health care legislation, but the Machiavellians always get their pound of flesh in exchange for conceding reform. We added new health protections for millions of Americans, opened possibilities for further health reforms, and avoided the beginning of the end of the Obama era, which frankly is what the unified right-wing is still trying to bring about.

It is the nature of social movements to fragment and decline when they achieve victories which fall short of their hopes and dreams. It is the nature of counter-movements to become more dangerous and unified when they feel threatened with decline.

There is plenty of analysis of how the public came out ahead in this final package despite all its flaws and chicanery. Let me add one fundamental point no one has mentioned:

Passage of a trillion-dollar health care package means a trillion dollars not available to the Pentagon for their long war.

In his book making the case for the U.S. as a modern Goliath, the conservative political philosopher Michael Mandelbaum wrote of his fear that Sixties social programs will undermine the appetite and resources for empire, which he described as an American “world government.” [MM, The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Government for the 21st Century, Public Affairs, 2005]

“Democracy [will] favor butter over guns,” Mandelbaum worried. As programs like health care expand and social security cutbacks are fought, “it will become increasingly difficult for the foreign policy elite to persuade the wider public to support the kinds of policies that, collectively, make up the American role as the world’s government. Foreign policy will be relegated to the back burner,” he groused.

We have no moral right or even competence to be “the world’s government,” of course. The more we invest in our domestic needs — health care, schools and universities, environmental restoration, green jobs — the more unsustainable become trillion-dollar wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and beyond. The seeds of an alternative foreign policy lie in building an alternative domestic one.

[A political activist for more than four decades, Tom Hayden is director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center . A founder of SDS and a former California State Senator, Hayden is the author of The Long Sixties (Paradigm, 2009).]

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments