President Barack Obama said March 30 that the government will withhold additional long-term federal loans for General Motors and Chrysler unless the company, its creditors and the unions make more concessions. He also raised the possibility of “controlled bankruptcy” for one or both of the two companies.
Hoping to reassure potential car customers, the president announced that the federal government would immediately back the warranties that new car buyers receive – a move he hopes will assure people it is safe to buy American automobiles despite the sorry shape of the industry.
In a statement from the White House, Obama said he is “absolutely committed to the survival of a domestic auto industry that can compete internationally. And yet, our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough.”
Obama’s remarks underlined the extent to which the government is now calling the shots for the two auto giants after recent moves that gave it controlling interest in banks, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In an unprecedented move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend.
Ford Motor Co. has not requested federal bailout loans, and was not included in what the president had to say.
The Bush administration, last year, approved $17 billion in federal funds to help GM and Chrysler survive. It also demanded both companies submit restructuring plans that the Obama administration would review. Although he called their efforts “unsatisfactory,” the president offered General Motors “adequate working capital” over the next 60 days to produce a reorganization plan acceptable to the administration.
Obama said Chrysler’s situation is more precarious, and the government will give the company 30 days to sell itself to Fiat, the Italian automaker. “If they are successful, we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed,” the president said.
The Obama move came after an explosion of public outrage over bonuses paid to business executives and AIG executives while the economy tanked. Critics of the president are saying that dumping Wagoner lets the administration deflect attention away from Wall Street where the Treasury Dept. is still up to its neck as it struggles for solutions to the mess there. The administration’s detractors say the moves in Detroit allow Obama to portray himself as tough on the corporate executives who are ruining America, without having to draw blood from the bankers.
Defenders of the administration note that Obama has yet to give AIG one cent. The TARP bailout happened under President Bush. If additional funds are given to AIG or any other banks with no guarantees in exchange, they say, then they might be willing to point the finger.
There is a way forward for the auto industry right now. Beyond turning out “green” cars and a variety of other fuel-efficient vehicles, the industry should re-tool to help meet the enormous mass transit needs of the country. Hopefully, this is the direction in which the Obama administration wants to move.
Unfortunately, “restructuring” has usually meant shutting down production in the U.S., laying off workers and squeezing those remaining for more concessions. The auto workers resent being called on again to be the fall guys. They resent being told that corruption and greed on Wall Street and incompetence in Detroit’s corporate boardrooms can only be solved by busting them and their union.
They particularly resent this because, for decades now, they have been the ones who always lose. The slow drain of the auto industry has drained them of their benefits, wages and jobs.
In his speech Obama announced the appointment of a new “director of recovery for the auto community and workers.”
What will determine the success of any plan for the auto industry is not whether GM or Chrysler survive as profitable outfits. More than keeping any particular company operating, it is the responsibility of government to keep workers of the auto industry employed. “Retraining,” by itself, is meaningless to a worker who asks, “Retraining for what?”
The people of Michigan need a lot more than “training” and tax breaks.
They need a program that involves major government subsidies for new industries to locate in hard-hit areas like Michigan.
The new employers will have to be required to hire the union members who lost their jobs and to pay union wages to the additional workers hired. The Employee Free Choice Act would help a lot in this area.
A massive effort to enlist the universities in establishment of training centers for workers who need new high-tech skills, might not be a bad idea.
A massive plan to create government jobs in the area will be needed. These can include jobs resulting from a new national healthcare plan, for example, or jobs connected with the rebuilding of mass transit,infrastructure or numerous other areas.
In cases where nothing can realistically be done for individuals or for groups of workers, the government plan should incorporate meaningful help in relocating people.
The auto workers were left out of the auto company deliberations when those companies devised their restructuring plans.
The auto workers were left out of the deliberations of the experts who advised the Obama administration about the positions it should take.
The auto workers have been left out of all the bailouts and rescue plans.
The time for leaving them out is over.
jwojcik @ pww.org
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Auto workers left with no bailout
Let spy laws fade into the sunset, group urges
NEW YORK, Mar 30 (IPS) - One of the nation’s leading legal rights groups is calling on the U.S. Congress to make major changes in the USA Patriot Act to reverse parts of the hurriedly passed law that have been found unconstitutional or have been abused to collect information on innocent people.
On Dec. 31, 2009, three provisions of the Patriot Act will expire unless reenacted. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says this provides lawmakers with "the perfect opportunity for Congress to examine all of our surveillance laws."
The Patriot Act was rushed through a stunned Congress, with virtually no debate, shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001. The act substantially expanded the powers of law enforcement agencies.
The ACLU says many of these expanded powers have been abused, and that "the public has yet to receive real information about how these powerful tools are being used to collect information on Americans and how that information is being used."
The ACLU's recent report, "Reclaiming Patriotism," says, "Congress should begin vigorous and comprehensive oversight hearings to examine all post-9/11 national security programs to evaluate their effectiveness and their impact on Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. This oversight is essential to the proper functioning of our constitutional system of government and becomes even more necessary during times of crisis."
Mike German is an advisor to the ACLU on national security, immigration and privacy, and a former FBI agent who resigned from the agency in protest of what he saw as continuing failures in the FBI counter-terrorism programme.
"The Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments and the Mukasey Attorney General Guidelines have vastly expanded the government's authority to pry into Americans' private lives, even without suspecting wrongdoing," German told IPS. "The American people have the right to know how these powers are being used, and Congress has the duty to find out."
The guidelines adopted by Bush-era Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008 loosened restrictions on the FBI to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion.
The ACLU report identifies sections of the Patriot Act that need to be amended. These are:
National Security Letters (NSLs): The FBI uses NSLs to compel internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people. Government reports confirm that upwards of 50,000 of these secret record demands go out each year.
In response to an ACLU lawsuit, Doe v. Holder, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal struck down as unconstitutional the part of the NSL law that gives the FBI the power to prohibit NSL recipients from telling anyone that the government has secretly requested customer Internet records. The FBI has admitted numerous incidences of NSLs being improperly used.
The "Material Support" statute: This provision criminalises providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalises a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organisations.
Federal courts have struck portions of the statute as unconstitutional and a number of cases have been dismissed or ended in mistrial. The law gives the government the power to shut down charitable organisations suspected of financing terrorist activities with virtually no notice and no due process.
The 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: This past summer, Congress passed a law to permit the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails. The ACLU and many other similar groups are seeking amendments to provide "meaningful privacy protections and judicial oversight of the government's intrusive surveillance power."
The ACLU report charges that "More than seven years after its implementation, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the Patriot Act has made America more secure from terrorists. But there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violated the rights of innocent people and squandered precious security resources."
Little is known about the government’s use of many of its authorities under the Patriot Act, but raw numbers available through government reports reflect a rapidly increasing level of surveillance. The statistics show skyrocketing numbers of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders, NSL requests and Suspicious Activity Reports while terrorism prosecution numbers are down. The government has increased the numbers of terrorism investigations it has declined to prosecute.
Reports from the Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) revealed the government’s widespread misuse of NSLs and the authorities contained in Section 215, which allow the FBI to demand information about innocent people who are not the targets of any investigation.
The first two IG audits, covering NSLs and section 215 orders issued from 2003 through 2005, were released in March 2007. They confirmed widespread FBI mismanagement, misuse and abuse of these Patriot Act authorities.
The NSL audit revealed that the FBI managed its use of NSLs so negligently that it literally did not know how many NSLs it had issued. As a result, the FBI seriously under-reported its use of NSLs in its previous reports to Congress.
The IG also found that FBI agents repeatedly ignored or confused the requirements of the NSL authorising statutes, and used NSLs to collect private information against individuals two or three times removed from the subjects of FBI investigations.
In March 2008, the IG released a second pair of audit reports covering 2006 and evaluating the reforms implemented by the DOJ and the FBI after the first audits were released in 2007. The new reports identified many of the same problems discovered in the earlier audits.
The 2008 NSL report showed that the FBI issued 49,425 NSLs in 2006 (a 4.7 percent increase over 2005), and confirmed the FBI is increasingly using NSLs to gather information on U.S. citizens (57 percent in 2006, up from 53 percent in 2005).
The 2008 IG audit also revealed that high-ranking FBI officials, including an assistant director, a deputy assistant director, two acting deputy directors and a special agent in charge, improperly issued 11 "blanket NSLs" in 2006 seeking data on 3,860 telephone numbers. None of these "blanket NSLs" complied with FBI policy and eight imposed unlawful non-disclosure requirements on recipients.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Canada and the G20 – State-Monopoly Capital Fights for Advantage
| |
click here for related stories: capitalism
 | 3-28-09, 10:05 pm |
Original source: Focus on Socialism
Prime Minister Harper will head to the London G20 on April 2nd boasting of Canada’s superior banking system that he says will pull the country out of recession faster than any other country on earth. Harper’s boast is made even as Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page told MP’s on March 28th that the Canadian economy is contracting faster than the predictions of Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney. Page told Parliamentarians that his departments scrutiny of government data and private forecasters predict that GDP will decline by 8.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009 and 3.5 percent in the second quarter, contradicting the Harper Government’s claim that the economy would decline 0.08 percent in 2009 and actually expand in the first quarter of 2010. Page also predicted that the government deficit will be $38 billion in 2010-2011 not the $33.75 billion claimed by Flaherty. The Parliamentary budget officer also predicted that unemployment will increase by another 385,000 by June 2009 bringing the official overall unemployment rate close to 8 percent. The Harper Government’s response to Page’s report to Parliament was to cut his departmental budget, refuse to provide him with vital government data and to refer all public requests for information to an out of date Government website loaded with Conservative Party propaganda.
Page is not alone in exposing the flaws in the Harper forecasts. Former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge also disparaged Flaherty and Carney’s rosy forecasts warning that the Conservative government’s budget stimulus won’t even be felt until 2010 and 2011. Dodge predicts it will take years to correct the global capitalist financial system. Dodge asserts the most optimistic forecast doesn’t foresee a return to pre-recession levels of capacity in production until late 2013. In his report Dodge examined trade imbalances and predicted rising consumption taxes. The latter was confirmed by the McGuinty Ontario budget that is planning a rise in combined GST/PST taxes. Dodge called for all financial institutions to build up their reserves and to agree to controls imposed on derivative and credit default swaps.
Prime Minister Harper confronts a dilemma. The captains of high finance can’t agree on what is really happening in the Canadian economy as it slides inexorably into depression. For the first time in his political career Harper’s instinct to provide knee jerk support for US Government formulas is not an option. President Barack Obama has not interfered aggressively into the US economy to save Canada. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is struggling to get Congressional approval for a half a trillion dollars to remove toxic mortgage debt from US banks and to implement a $787 billion stimulus package. The US sweet heart deal means for every $100 in toxic mortgages purchased from banks, the private sector will put up $7, the government puts up $7 and the remaining $86 would be covered by a government loan provided by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Christina Romer, chairwoman of the US White House Council of Economic Advisers told CBS' The Early Show Monday March 23rd. “We're not trying to rescue everyone. We're trying to rescue the system." A similar bailout has taken place in Britain where last October Prime Minister Gordon Brown flooded collapsing British Banks with 500 billion pounds sterling to little effect as several of Great Britain’s leading banks collapsed in ruin. The comparable figures in Canada are $125 billion bank bailout and a $40 billion stimulus.
All of the leaders of the capitalist states are “trying to rescue the system” by adopting massive bank bail outs while at the same time fighting among themselves to impose regulations on banks and financial institutions that are responsible for triggering the crisis in the first place. They just can’t agree on how to do it. The April 2nd meeting was preceded by the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governor’s meeting of March 14. The Central Bankers and Finance Ministers issued a joint communiqué. That should mean that all those attending agree with its central thesis. That is far from the case.
Point two of the G20 finance ministers’ and central bank governor’s communiqué states:
“Our key priority now is to restore lending by tackling, where needed, problems in the financial system head on, through continued liquidity support, bank recapitalization and dealing with impaired assets, through a common framework. We reaffirm our commitment to take all necessary actions to ensure the soundness of systemically important institutions.”
Point three of the communiqué claims that fiscal expansion provided at the previous Washington G20 meeting, supports growth and jobs. Where has that happened? Unemployment has increased in all of the G7 countries since the banker bailouts. In spite of their miserable failure, brazenly the central bankers and finance ministers declare:
“We are committed to deliver the scale of sustained effort necessary to restore growth, and call on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to assess the actions taken and the actions required. We will ensure the restoration of growth and long-run fiscal sustainability.”
The G20 April Meeting will do nothing of the kind. The G20 will reveal deep inter-imperialist divisions and the clash of separate global ambitions of Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Canada and the USA. A variety of regional interests lead by such emerging capitalist economies as Russia, Brazil and India, will be contending for influence. Looming over the entire event will be The People’s Republic of China, a mixed socialist-capitalist economy and the only member of the G20 that is still recording growth and that commands critical influence over the debt crisis in the USA.
The G20 slogans against protectionism and appealing for a global solution to the economic crisis of capitalism are imperialist slogans calling upon the working class to assist the capitalists to rescue the capitalist system. The slogans of the leading capitalist states are designed to separate the working class from the nation. Assailing protectionism is nothing more than an imperialist appeal to subordinate people’s sovereignty over the destiny of the countries involved.
What the leaders of the G20 have in mind as a role for the IMF is fully exposed in what is happening to Iceland, Latvia, Hungary, Rumania, Ukraine and Czechoslovakia.
In the former socialist east, in exchange for IMF bail outs, the “new capitalists” of the former socialist states must accept instructions from their US-British-French and Canadian betters to burden their working people with more decades of heavy labour, further reduce spending on social programs, give up the last vestiges of sovereign control over their economies and natural resources and spend hefty portions of any IMF loans they may receive on NATO military projects on their sovereign territory. The Canadian banks, swollen with capital provided by Finance Minister Flaherty, will be there skulking about to see what ‘deals” can be had for investor insiders eager to plunder the weakened once viable socialist economies.
And what about the US-EU-and British bankrupt banks the Wall Street-Canary Wharf citadels of finance capital, now teetering and in ruins? These are the “systemically important financial institutions” that collaborated with rogue capital to roam the world in a frenzy of greed wrecking the global capitalist financial system? They are already forgiven, propped up, refinanced and encouraged to do it all over again, this time with some rules and properly chastised to show more discretion.
What militant worker, labour leader or Communist believes such balderdash? Incredibly some do and advise workers their only option is back one of the variants that will emerge from the G20. “Back our team – we are the home team?”
Opportunism on the left today is to assert that workers have to choose between one of the capitalist variants that will appear at the G20 attempting to save the profit system. It is not the task of the left to assist the capitalist system out of its crisis. It is the task of the left to take advantage of the crisis to advance the cause of socialism. Some Communist leaders disagree. They assert that socialism is not on the agenda, and that our task is to back the lesser of the evils as the crisis deepens.
When since the advent of capitalism has socialism not been on the agenda? Militancy today is to advance a labour program for the nation! Labour militants condemn and repudiate all of the capitalist formulas as providing nothing more than a mitigation of the suffering of the working people – not a solution!
Call for humanitarian signal on Cuba
On April 10, family members of the Cuban Five will again apply for U.S. visas. For Adriana Perez, it will be the 10th time she tries to obtain a visa to see her husband, Gerardo Hernandez, who has been serving an unjust sentence in U.S. prisons for nearly 11 years. Over that time, our government has denied this husband and wife any possibility of seeing each other. It’s time for a change.
Since 1959, Cuba has been subjected to invasions, sabotage and terrorist attacks, resulting in 3,478 deaths and another 2,099 wounded, thecuban5.org reports.
In 1976, 73 people died when a bomb exploded mid-air aboard a commercial Cuban airliner. The masterminds, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, are former CIA operatives who currently live in Miami.
In 1997, a bombing at Havana’s Hotel Copacabana killed an Italian tourist. Cuban authorities arrested a man who confessed to having been paid thousands of dollars by Miami-based anti-Castro groups to plant the bomb.
The U.S. failed to act to stop such attacks. So Cuba sent five people to Miami to gather information about plans for similar acts in order to derail them before they were carried out. The five found evidence implicating specific Miami groups and individuals.
In 1998 Cuban President Fidel Castro sent a personal emissary, Nobel laureate Gabriel García Márquez, to deliver a note to President Clinton, asking that the U.S. take action. Castro wrote, “It is impossible to stop this terrorism without United States involvement. … Unless it is stopped now, in the future any country could be victimized by this new terrorism.”
Cuba gave the FBI detailed information on terrorist plotters in the U.S. But instead of going after those, our government arrested the Cuban Five.
Today, welcome winds of change are blowing in Washington. President Obama has made a first step to easing relations with our neighbor, Cuba, by dropping some Bush-imposed travel and financial restrictions.
Now a simple humanitarian gesture would send a message that the U.S. is launching a real “good neighbor” policy.
Contact Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and ask that humanitarian visas be granted to the families of the Cuban Five.
Northern Ireland unites to prevent return of The Troubles
The separate attacks by paramilitary sects caused wide-spread worry that Northern Ireland would plunge into sectarian bloodshed again. Known as The Troubles, the 40-year conflict had left 3,700 dead.
More than 2,000 people gathered at lunchtime in front of Belfast City Hall to oppose the worst violence since 1998, the year both sides’ politicians struck the Good Friday peace deal (also known as the Belfast Agreement) that sought lasting compromise through a Catholic-Protestant government.
Thousands more gathered in the predominantly Catholic border cities of Londonderry and Newry, where some splinter groups reportedly remain active in the shadows despite overwhelming public opposition.
“No going back,” read placards at all the protests.
In Belfast, as a lone bagpiper played a lament, the crowd — among them firefighters and postal workers, former paramilitary convicts and child-cradling mothers — fell silent for five minutes. Some wept.
“I’m a Catholic. I grew up in an area where the police were the enemy. Now things have changed so completely for the better,” said Aidan Kane, a paramedic who came to the rally with his 6-year-old boy on his shoulders. “If my wee lad here wants to be a policeman when he grows up, I’d be proud. I shouldn’t have to worry that some nut might shoot him for serving his community.”
Patricia McKeown, president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, chief organizer of the protests, said she hoped the silence of the crowds would “be a silence that thunders around the world.” The union congress organizes in both the north and south.
The Communist Party of Ireland issued a statement condemning the attacks. Calling the armed attacks “failed methods of struggle” the party said, “it is a barren strategy that will lead us nowhere except to further deaths, imprisonment, unnecessary suffering, and division.”
The party welcomed the “recent mobilization of working people by the Northern Ireland Committee of the ICTU” as an important statement by working people that they do not want a return to violence, that the new political institutions set up under the Belfast Agreement must be made to work, and that no group has the right to abrogate the will of the people.”
The party sought to distance itself unequivocally from the violence. “As an anti-imperialist party committed to securing national unity and sovereignty” the Communists called for an end to the attacks. “We repudiate their approach as tactically and strategically futile and both anti-people and anti-republican.”
The statement also called for the full implementation of the peace agreement. “While the condemnation of these armed attacks is important in itself, there is also a great responsibility on those forces that support the Belfast Agreement to push forward to secure its full implementation. The Belfast Agreement and the institutions deriving from it are not the end of the process, nor the end of struggle, but rather they provide a forum from which new struggle and new demands must be made.”
Recognizing “the growing and deepening economic and social crisis being experienced by all working people in our country, north and south” the party called for “greater unity among all workers” and “securing greater economic and social integration” between the two.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
French workers burn tires, hold 3M manager hostage
PARIS – French workers burned tires, marched on the presidential palace and held a manager of U.S. manufacturer 3M hostage Wednesday as anger mounted over job cuts and executive bonuses.
Rising public outrage at employers on both sides of the Atlantic has been triggered by executives cashing in bonus checks even as their companies were kept afloat with billions of euros (dollars) in taxpayers' money and unemployment soars.
As the U.S. administration seeks ways of recouping some of the $165 million in bonuses paid to executives at insurance giant American International Group Inc., kept afloat by $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is threatening new laws on bonuses and golden parachutes.
Sarkozy is also trying to deflect anger against his government's failure to ward off the job losses and economic hardship that comes with recession.
The euro3.2 million ($4.3 million) exit bonus paid to the former head of Valeo SA, an auto parts maker that received state aid, has fueled outrage in France. Controversy also grew Wednesday over bonuses at brokerage company Cheuvreux, a unit of a French bank that got state handouts.
"The risks of repercussions of ill-feeling from employees and from a political backlash are real if execs continue to be compensated at pre-crisis levels," said Cubillas Ding, a senior analyst at financial research firm Celent. "Bonus and pay cuts are now seen as the politically correct thing to do."
Rising public outrage at employers has led to kidnappings, marches and strikes in France, a country with a long tradition of labor unrest.
A French 3M executive was being held hostage for the second day at a plant in Pithiviers, south of Paris, as workers protested layoffs. The situation was calm, however, with labor talks taking place there Wednesday.
Detained 3M manager Luc Rousselet told an AP reporter "Everything's fine" and workers planned to bring him mussels and French fries for dinner.
In Paris, rage boiled over into an angry march on the presidential palace and a bonfire of tires set alight by workers from Germany's Continental AG, whose auto parts factory in Clairoix, northeast of Paris, plans to shut down in 2010.
Similar resentment is emerging in many parts of Europe. Vandals smashed windows early Wednesday at the home of the former CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Sir Fred Godwin resigned in disgrace but waltzed out at age 50 with an annual pension of about 700,000 pounds ($1.2 million).
Bonus payments are dominating headlines in Sweden, which prides itself on a relatively egalitarian society. Big companies like truck maker Volvo and bank SEB have been forced to withdraw compensation schemes for top executives amid public outrage.
And in Switzerland, top executives at UBS AG, which is benefiting from a $60 billion government bailout, have given up their 2008 bonuses.
Henri Guaino, a top aide to Sarkozy, issued an ultimatum to French employers, saying in a radio interview Wednesday that the government will step in and legislate if France's main employers' federation, Medef, doesn't come up with proposals setting guidelines on executive pay by March 31.
Medef chief Laurence Parisot was expected to respond to Sarkozy shortly.
Executives from government-assisted banks like Societe Generale to Dexia have come under fire over their compensation, as the global crisis has prompted the state to take a bigger role in corporate France.
Thierry Morin, the former head of Valeo, was awarded a euro3.2 million ($4.3 million) exit package after citing "strategic differences" and leaving. The government, which owns 8 percent of Valeo, said it will oppose the payment, and even Parisot urged Morin to hand back his check.
The mood soured further after Liberation newspaper reported Wednesday that Cheuvreux executives will get bonuses worth euro51 million even as the bank is cutting 75 jobs. Its parent company, Credit Agricole, took euro3 billion in a government bailout plan last year.
The bank declined to confirm the amount, but said 2008 bonuses will be paid. Job cuts are on a voluntary basis and concern 31 positions, the bank said.
"There shouldn't be any more bonuses, distribution of free shares or stock options in companies which get state aid" or who make large job cuts, Sarkozy said late Tuesday in the northern town of Saint-Quentin.
__
Associated press writers Scott Sayare and Laurent Pirot in Paris, George Frey and Antje Homburger in Frankfurt, and Ben McConville in Edinburgh contributed to this report.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A 12 point program to combat the economic crisis
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from Sam Webb's report to the CPUSA National Committee meeting, March 21-22, 2009)
Because of the election of Barack Obama, the American people in their great majority have a leg up, but there is still a long way to go. To his credit, the new president is off to a quick start. In less than three months in office he has:
* Issued an order to close Guantanamo prison and end torture — a practice that stains our image, violates our constitution and endangers our troops in the field.
* Signed the Lilly Ledbetter bill that would give much greater scope to workers’ discrimination claims as well as a bill that would extend health care to millions of children.
* Released funds to clinics that serve women’s health care needs in developing countries.
* Expressed support for higher fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles - something the United Autoworkers Union (UAW) also supports.
* Opened up a greatly-needed dialogue with the Muslim and Arab world, including overtures to Syria and Iran.
* Dispatched George Mitchell to the Middle East in hopes of mediating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - a conflict that cannot be solved by military means, but only by negotiation between the Israeli government and the representatives of the Palestinian people with the aim of establishing an independent and viable Palestinian state and the right of both states to live peacefully and within secure borders.
* Ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq no later than 2011.
* Rolled out a new framework for diplomacy and conflict resolution, notwithstanding an escalation of troops to Afghanistan, which we oppose.
* Reinstated Davis Bacon.
* Changed the framework for nuclear nonproliferation and dismantlement in a very positive way.
* Reversed many of the Bush administration’s rulings that have been so harmful to the environment.
* Took some steps to reverse the draconian policies toward Cuba.
* Dropped some of the worst aspects of our immigration policy.
* Placed health care at the top of the administration’s agenda.
* Supported new Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ recent rulings overturning many of the anti-labor directives of the Bush years.
I could go on, but I think it is obvious that the Obama administration represents a qualitative break with right-wing extremism and free market fundamentalism.
Not to see this, not to acknowledge this, not to welcome this, no matter whether you live in or outside U.S. borders, is to act like the ostrich that sticks its head in the sand and misses what is happening on the ground.
Immediate challenge
As important as the initiatives are, the immediate challenge of the White House is to revive and then sustain economic activity. So far, the Obama administration has correctly ruled out some standard answers for addressing this economic crisis.
To begin with, no one in the administration thinks the economy on its own will return to near-full capacity and full employment.
Nor does anyone think that the Republican Party prescription to freeze spending is worth a moment’s consideration.
Nor can you find anyone in the White House who believes that the debt overhang can be reduced except in the long term.
Nor can you find a taker in the administration or among progressive Democrats in Congress who subscribes to the notion that fine-tuning with standard monetary and fiscal tools is enough.
Finally, no one in the Oval office is persuaded that punishing homebuyers is an anti-crisis measure. The fact is that homeowners and especially sub-prime borrowers are neither the cause nor share responsibility for the housing market collapse.
Moreover, as our own blogger Joe Sims has laid bare, this Wall Street-Washington nurtured crisis is steeped in cynical and virulent racism.
Lagging demand
Obama understands that the near and medium term problem is lagging demand for goods and services, or insufficient purchasing power in the hands of working people — high income, low income, and no income.
The president's stimulus bill goes in this direction. Despite what Republicans say, it is a good bill that will ease the pain of this crisis, create jobs, and begin to re-inflate the economy.
The president also understands that the economy has to be restructured if it has any possibility of rebounding in a sustained way. The stimulus bill combined elements of stimulus and restructuring, as does his budget which accents tax shifts and public sector-led investment in health care, education and energy efficiency.
His plans to institute a new set of regulations on financial markets and his commitment to green jobs, energy and technology is also meant to fuse stimulus and restructuring objectives together.
Given the depth and scope of this crisis, in my view, the administration will inevitably have to consider some more far-reaching measures.
At the top of my list are
1. Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs — something the New Deal never accomplished.
2. Democratization of all aspects of economic life. The captains of finance and industry should move aside.
3. Passage of EFCA in order to rebalance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas.
4 Managed trade and trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working-class interests.
5. Equality in conditions of life for racial minorities and women.
6. Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as other basic industries whose future is problematic if left in private hands.
7. Turning education, child care and health care into “no profit” zones.
8. Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure.
9. Changing the direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament and diplomacy.
10. A full-scale assault on global warming.
11. A serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries, which are locked in poverty and misery.
12. Global cooperation on a new level and with a new content. The era of U.S. imperialism dictating to the world is over; in fact, no state has the political, economic and ideological capital to exercise a dominant influence on world developments. The world is multi-polar and that isn’t going to change any time soon, especially as new states emerge, China, in the first place, and new configurations of regional power become new global realities.
Unlike at the end of World War II when U.S. imperialism gave stability, coherence and rules to a new global capitalist order, no state today has that capacity, resources or legitimacy. These new correlations of power on a world scale can be an opportunity or a danger. International working class unity is imperative.
Democratize our financial system
Finally, public ownership of the financial system as well as the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives is imperative. As I mentioned earlier, the banks and other financial institutions are insolvent because of their speculative activities. Simple capitalist justice would say that financial managers, stockowners and bondholders should eat their losses. Why should taxpayers pick up the tab for their high-stakes gambling in a financial casino?
Some say that financial institutions are too big to fail. But haven’t they failed and failed spectacularly already? Some will say yes to this question, but go on to insist that if banks to go belly up, the results will be catastrophic. They will remind us of the panic and credit freeze that followed the meltdown of Lehman Brothers.
The danger of panic, capital flight, and market turmoil can’t be dismissed out of hand. Financial markets are deeply and broadly, vertically and horizontally, and intensively and extensively integrated on a global scale, probably more so than any other market in the global economy. As a consequence, they are quick to meltdown steeply and suddenly and spread contagion to other countries, regions, and worldwide.
Despite this, the radical reform of the financial system — and I would include here the Federal Reserve bank — makes good sense in the short and long term. We need an efficient, flexible, and democratically controlled financial system that assists in the allocation of money to productive uses domestically and internationally.
What makes working people angry is that their tax dollars are going to bail out robbers and they get nothing in return except more debt to pay off in the future.
To allow this situation to go on can badly hurt the new administration and its recovery plans.
Our answer, as I mentioned, is democratic public ownership, but as important a measure as that is, it is neither a quick fix nor unproblematic. A lot of unknowns exist. The danger of further panic and flight is real.
It appears the president, following the advice of his Treasury secretary and main economic advisor, favors what I call a bank/hedge fund fix to revive our dysfunctional finance markets. But we shouldn’t consider the case for public ownership closed. The pressure of economic events and the performance of financial markets going forward – not to mention the public anger – could bring this issue to the surface again.
Venezuelan President Chávez Asks Obama to End Blockade of Cuba
click here for related stories: Cuba solidarity
| 3-23-09, 10:11 am HAVANA, Cuba, March 23 (acn) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez insisted on Sunday that Washington should end its economic blockade of Cuba and warned US President Barack Obama that he should respect everyone if he wants good relations with the Latin American and Caribbean region. "His moral obligation is to end this criminal blockade and to comply with the resolutions of the UN General Assembly," Chavez said. According to Prensa Latina news agency, during his weekly radio and television program 'Alo, Presidente', the Venezuelan leader confirmed that he will attend the upcoming Summit of the Americas that will take place next month in Trinidad and Tobago. He also criticized the exclusion of Cuba from this event and stressed that he will address the issue during the meeting. "Why is Cuba absent if it is a friend of all of us? We can't continue to accept US imperial impositions. This continent has to be free," Chavez concluded. From the Cuban News Agency |
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Afghan Quagmire: Imperialism Stays the Course
Original source: People's Voice (Canada)
After Canadian taxpayers have paid more than $11 billion for our military mission, Stephen Harper has publicly conceded that the NATO war in Afghanistan is "unwinnable." But despite his admission, Harper is now waffling on recent commitments that Canadian troops would be withdrawn by 2011. The PM seems to be hedging his bets as the so-called "surge" of 30,000 more US troops enters Afghanistan.
The death toll for Canadian soldiers in the occupation has now hit 111, after more road attacks against military vehicles. Public opinion in Canada remains solidly against extending the occupation, which will enter its second decade by 2011.
But the decisive factor in this war will be the Afghan people, who are deeply war-weary and sickened by the deaths of thousands of civilians. Opposition to the "surge" tactic is growing stronger inside Afghanistan, where support for a diplomatic and political end to the fighting is growing.
Most of this crucial story gets little coverage in Canada's mass media, which remains utterly focused on Canadian casualties and "feel good" reports on the noble endeavors of "our brave troops."
An excellent source of real news about Afghanistan is found on the website of StopWar.ca, Vancouver's broad-based anti-war coalition. A blog compiled by StopWar activist Dave Markland presents daily news that rarely makes it into the Canadian media. Here are some recent examples.
Al Jazeera reported on Feb. 26 that "secret" Taliban talks, taking place in Dubai, London and Afghanistan since the beginning of the year, have proposed the return of Gulbaldin Hekmatyar, the former Afghan prime minister, who has been in hiding for seven years. During the 1980s, Hekmatyar was a prominent leader of the US-backed feudal forces fighting the progressive government in Kabul, which had strong Soviet support. He is the leader of the Hezb-Islami forces, which fight alongside the Taliban and are now considered a terrorist organization by the United States.
James Bays, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Kabul, said: "The plan is to widen these talks and to bring in elements of the Taliban."
This is not the first time that such talks have been attempted. Last year, Ahmed Jan, an intermediary for the Taliban and tribal elders from Helmand province, was sent to Kabul for talks with the government. Al Jazeera reports that Jan was arrested after US officials discovered talks were to take place, and is now being held in US custody at Bagram military base.
What about public opinion regarding the "troop surge"? As Markland says "it seems that the majority of people in Pashtun areas (i.e. the targets of our hearts and minds campaign) oppose the surge."
A recent article by Anand Gopal in The Christian Science Monitor quotes Afghan MP Shukria Barakzai, who says she has an "innovative amendment" to Washington's planned surge: "Send us 30,000 scholars instead. Or 30,000 engineers. But don't send more troops – it will just bring more violence."
Gopal says that a growing number of Afghans, especially in the Pashtun south, oppose a troop increase.
"At least half the country is deeply suspicious of the new troops," says Kabul‑based political analyst Waheed Muzjda. "The US will have to wage an intense hearts‑and‑minds campaign to turn this situation around."
Much of the opposition comes from provinces which seen the most fighting and where the new troops will be deployed. A group of 50 mostly Pashtun MPs recently formed a working group aimed at blocking the arrival of new troops and pushing for a bilateral military agreement between Kabul and Washington, which currently does not exist.
"I can't find a single man in the entire province who is in favor of more troops," Awal Khan, a tribal leader from Logar province, told the Monitor reporter. "They don't respect our tradition, culture, or religion."
The Markland blog gives regular examples of civilian casualties, a major grievance among the Afghan people. A recent NATO press release tells of one such tragedy: "On the morning of 1 March an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) vehicle rolled over resulting in the death of an Afghan citizen. The accident occurred in Jalalabad City, Nangarhar province at approximately 10:30 am, when the ISAF vehicle swerved to prevent a collision with a local vehicle that had pulled out in front of the convoy. The Afghan male killed in the accident was riding a bicycle in the vicinity..."
But far more often, civilian casualties are the direct product of police and military action.
Here is the February death toll compiled by Markland:
* Feb. 5‑6: US‑led coalition forces in Zabul kill 6 civilians in an attack which targeted insurgents, say Afghan officials.
* Feb. 6: US‑led coalition forces shoot and kill one man and wound a woman and child at a checkpoint in Khost province.
* Feb. 11: A provincial spokesman says NATO airstrikes kill four civilians in Logar province.
* Feb. 12: Five children are killed as Australian special forces battle militants while searching a house in Uruzgan province.
* Feb. 15: Unverified reports say three civilians are injured (one fatally) when NATO troops and insurgents clash in Sangin district, Helmand.
* Feb. 16: In Herat US forces kill 12‑16 civilians in air attacks. An American investigation claims that 13 civilians and three militants were killed.
* Feb. 17: Two civilians in a vehicle are killed by NATO‑led troops on patrol in the Maywand district of Kandahar.
* Feb. 22: A motorcyclist is shot and injured by NATO troops in Sangin district of Helmand.
* Feb. 23: Villagers report that Canadian weaponry killed three children in Panjwai district.
* Feb. 23: A number of civilians are injured in a clash between NATO forces and insurgents in Sangin district, Helmand. Reuters later reports that more than one of them died.
Late last year, the top Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, Lt.‑Gen. Michel Gauthier, said "The insurgents are on their back foot, have been, and that's in part why we went almost three months without casualties. They did get a couple of ‑ I would say lucky – attacks on us..."
Since then, about a dozen more Canadian soldiers have died. But Gauthier is not the first over-confident imperialist in Afghanistan. Here are a few more quotes:
"I'm not making a prediction, but I think temporarily they're on their back foot, and we need to keep them there." ‑ Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Sept. 29, 2004.
"[The Taliban] have been set on their back foot recently." ‑ Canadian General Rick Hillier, Sept. 29, 2006.
"[Canadian soldiers] believe they need to keep the Taliban on their back foot until they can help the Afghans build their own army". ‑ Rick Hillier, Dec. 26, 2007.
"[T]he Taliban are on their back foot with the recent arrival of aggressively on‑the‑offence U.S. Marines". ‑ Rosie DiManno, Toronto Star, May 19, 2008.
"It's become apparent that the Taliban are very much on the backfoot." - British Brigadier Gordon Messenger, June 1, 2008.
History will tell who is on the "back foot." In the meantime, as the Canadian Peace Alliance and Echec a la Guerre say in their call for April 4 protests against NATO, after more than seven years of occupation, there is still no end in sight to the killing in Afghanistan, and the war is expanding into Pakistan, threatening to create massive social and political instability.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Coping in a world of "peak water"
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 19 (IPS) - As more than 20,000 people meet in Istanbul for a major week-long conference on future management of the world's water supplies, women's groups are working to ensure that policy decisions about this critical natural resource take their concerns into account.
About a billion people currently lack safe drinking water, and another two and a half billion have no access to sanitation.
Experts note that women and girls carry the burden of the water crisis since they bear more household responsibilities, such as hygiene, cooking, gathering water, and taking care of children and the sick.
Those tasks expose them to many risks, like contamination by water-related diseases and violence in conflict zones, and often prevent them from going to school or having a job.
According to the U.N. children's agency UNICEF, in developing countries women and girls walk an average of six kilometres a day carrying 20 litres of water.
"When we use water faster than it is naturally recharged, it is not sustainable," said Peter Gleick, director of the Pacific Institute, a nonpartisan research organisation based in California.
Unlike oil, water is not a non-renewable resource. However, it is limited by its location and flow. Many experts say the world has now reached "peak water" - meaning that available resources are eclipsed by massive, and growing, demand.
"In a few years, [the problem] will be exacerbated by climate change," Tracy Rackez, an expert on environmental issues at the U.N. Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), told IPS. "We need to find ways to make women and men have equal access to clean water."
She added that women also tend to be more responsible for growing food for household consumption and local markets - in some areas they are 70 percent of small farmers - and play a critical role in improving water-use efficiency, especially with drip irrigation and rain catches.
"There are a lot of innovations and numerous tools that have to be in the hands of women to help them to be more efficient," she said.
In addition to the waste and inefficiency of current water use models - particularly in the agricultural sector, where 40 percent of production comes from non-renewable resources - they also have dramatic environmental impacts.
For example, rapid population growth and industrialisation in China has caused 80 percent of wetland plants to dry up and driven species to extinction. Chinese water quality has severely decreased because of industrial waste and untreated contaminated sewage aquifers.
This excessive use of water also has economic repercussions - companies and industries have had to cancel projects and close ventures because they could not find the water quality that they needed.
"For developing countries, it is extremely important that they look forward in their economic and social development to the recognition of what level of renewable water resources they have available within the national boundaries and that they seek to optimise their use in all sectors - and in particular in agriculture," Andrew Hudson, head of the Water Governance Programme at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), told IPS.
Expanding on existing solutions like drip irrigation and recycling water requires advanced technology, smart economics and better governance in water management. "There is no doubt we can grow more food with less water," Gleick said.
In fact, water efficiency programmes could also cut greenhouse gas emissions by saving energy, as 80 percent of the world's water is used to produce food and industrial products.
However, few governments prioritise water and even less sanitation, so these issues get neglected, Hudson said.
At the same time, access to clean water is internationally recognised as a human right, implying a responsibility for governments to provide it to the one out of six people lacking access.
The water industry rakes in an average of 400 billion dollars a year in services, equipment and selling water itself.
Meanwhile, an additional 11.3 billion dollars each year could help to meet the Millennium Development Goal target of reducing by half the estimated 2.6 billion people living without adequate water and sanitation, according to UNICEF.
"Most countries have to recognise that provision of water supplies and sanitation services to people is the most important driver for long-term economic growth," said Hudson.
In Istanbul, groups like the Gender and Water Alliance (GWA), Turkish Women’s Water Platform and Women for Water Partnership (WfWP) have been organising sessions to enhance the participation and visibility of female community leaders, experts and policy makers.
Anta Seck, a water engineer and director of water resource management and planning in Senegal, noted that "it is important for men to open up this world to women."
"Women are responsible for the usage of water, therefore, it is important to develop the capacity of women in the management of water - and that includes getting advanced degrees," she said at the conference.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Quote of the Week
From the same message:
The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them."
- 32nd US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Contracts can’t be broken—unless they involve union workers
Original source: AFL-CIO Now
Contracts can’t be broken. We learned that lesson well over the past few days when AIG honchos swore that despite being bailed out by $173 billion in taxpayer funds, they couldn’t break the sacrosanct contractual bond that guaranteed billions in bonuses to the same top executives who brought the insurance giant to its knees.
But we also were taught another lesson in these months of financial chaos: Contacts can’t be broken—unless they involve unionized autoworkers.
Tim Rutten at the Los Angeles Times really hits the mark today when he writes:
What we’re essentially being asked to believe is that employment contracts involving hardworking men and women on Detroit’s assembly lines are somehow less legally binding—less “sacred” in the current rhetorical argot—than those protecting a bunch of cowboy securities traders living in Connecticut. [snip]
For years, the smart guys on Wall Street have convinced a growing number of Americans that organized labor is an impediment to economic progress, an unacceptable “cost” in a globalized system of production, a quaint social fossil from the era of mills and smokestacks. If there’s a lesson to be gleaned from the current crisis, however, it’s that when the chips are down, organized labor is a far more responsible social actor than the snatch-and-run characters who fancy themselves financiers.
Who re-negotiated their contracts in the face of a taxpayer bailout? Not AIG CEOs. It was the autoworkers who agreed to put their middle-class wages on the line to help out the struggling industry. So far, not one AIG CEO has stepped up to the plate to return that $1 million or so bonus. (AIG bigwigs aren’t alone in soaking up taxpayer money for personal fun—a video clip here by Brave New Films lists more CEOs on the taxpayer dole and urges people to take action on March 19.)
When General Motors (GM) and Chrysler asked for government support in December, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) pushed a pay cut amendment in the Senate that called for slicing the autoworkers’ wages to those paid to nonunionized workers. So, Bob, your fans are waiting breathlessly to hear you call for AIG billionaires to give back their bonuses. Or, as a columnist in Corker’s home state puts it:
Paging Bob Corker! Explanation please! [snip]
So, to make sure I have this right, we can give $185 billion to AIG and we have to uphold their employment contracts with 80 people, but we can’t give 1/5th that amount to General Motors unless they abrogate their employment contracts with 100,000 workers.
Yes, taxpayers own 80 percent of AIG. But we can’t seem to stop AIG execs from getting bonuses. After all, AIG CEO Edward Liddy and the company’s apologists argue, AIG knew it needed to keep its people. The implication here is that financial wizards who run a global company into the ground are more valuable than the blue-collar men and women who aren’t paid seven-figure salaries and whose jobs involve creating tangible products like, say, automobiles. Meanwhile, AIG bonus information so far includes:
* $200 million in bonuses.
* 73 AIG employees receiving bonuses of $1 million each, almost all of the employees…responsible for creating the exotic derivatives that caused AIG’s near collapse.
* Some of those receiving the bonuses are not U.S. citizens.
A CNN poll released today shows the American public increasingly fearful that the nation’s economic downturn will mirror the Depression. Asked whether Depression-era circumstances could reign in the next 12 months, 45 percent of those polled reported that was likely. That’s an increase from 38 percent who responded in the same fashion in December.
As AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says, “These outrageous bonuses are yet another example of an economy that has become fundamentally imbalanced.”
All of the power is concentrated in the hands of the very few at the very top and the gap between CEOs’ and workers’ pay continues to grow. That is why we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.
Passing the Employee Free Choice Act will allow workers to have a voice at work, lift their standard of living and build stronger communities as well as stronger families.
A Gallup poll released in recent days found 53 percent of the U.S. public supports the Employee Free Choice Act, which was reintroduced in the U.S. Congress last week. Why? Because we need a stronger middle class. One with contracts that are sacrosanct.
The Pope is wrong on condoms
"As the pope traveled to Africa, he chose this moment to make what appears to be his first unequivocal statement opposing condom use. In an interview on the papal plane to Cameroon, the pope acknowledged the HIV/AIDS crisis but claimed that the distribution of condoms would not resolve the problem. In fact, he said, condom use "increases the problem."
"The pope will find that few Catholics and even fewer medical personnel agree with his stance. Several bishops in Africa, including especially Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg in South Africa, have been outspoken in their support of the use of condoms. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that many people who work with Catholic relief agencies distribute condoms to those at risk of infection.
"While condoms are not a panacea for the problem, they are a critical part of the campaign to reduce the impact of the virus. Medical experts agree that the condom is a life-saving device: it is highly effective in preventing HIV transmission if used correctly and consistently, and is the best current method of HIV prevention for those who are sexually active and at risk.
"For the Catholic hierarchy to deny the role that condoms play in preventing the further spread of HIV is irresponsible and dangerous. Not only that, the Catholic hierarchy has lobbied governments in the global north against the inclusion of funding for condoms in development aid programs. The result is to deny the poorest of the poor in the global south the chance of protecting themselves by using condoms.
"According to a recent poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice, which interviewed Catholics in Ghana, Ireland, Mexico, the Philippines and the United States, support for condom use among Catholics is overwhelming. When asked if "using condoms is prolife because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of AIDS," 90% of Catholics in Mexico, 86% in Ireland, 79% in the US, 77% in the Philippines and 59% in Ghana agreed. Unfortunately, the Catholic hierarchy's position holds the most sway in the countries least able to deal economically and medically with the disease.
"Catholics the world over unequivocally state that using condoms is prolife and disagree with the Vatican's ban on condoms. Now is not the time for the pope to be dismissing the importance of condom use. As he travels to Africa, he will face the realities of the epidemic. Let us hope and pray that he reconsiders and reverses his position, and in doing so, adopts the truly prolife position that ordinary Catholics have already embraced: using condoms saves lives."
Catholics for Choice shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women's well-being and respect and affirm the capacity of women and men to make moral decisions about their lives.
www.catholicsforchoice.org
Marijuana legalisation creates buzz
WASHINGTON, Mar 18 (IPS) - Due perhaps in part to the country's economic woes, but also a major shift in political culture, discussion of marijuana legalisation has risen to a level of openness and prominence previously unseen in the United States.
When the Kellogg Corporation cancelled the publicity contract for Olympic superstar swimmer Michael Phelps over a photograph of Phelps appearing to be smoking from a "bong," or water pipe, over 14,000 people joined a Facebook group vowing to boycott Kellogg.
Breaking from the policies of the George W. Bush administration, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have both promised that the new administration would not use federal resources to prosecute individuals for possessing marijuana consistent with their state laws.
Some states allow for possession of marijuana with a medical prescription, while in others, marijuana users are subject to only a fine.
"What the president said during the campaign, you’ll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we’ll be doing here in law enforcement… What he said during the campaign is now American policy," Holder said in a recent press conference.
Previously, the federal government had been raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in California and prosecuting even sick patients who wanted to use marijuana for medical benefits.
"We’re still waiting to see how this will translate into policy and practice," Dan Bernath, a spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalisation group, told IPS.
During Obama’s transition to the presidency prior to the inauguration, he solicited online comments from citizens about what they thought was the most important issue he should address. In a demonstration of Internet organising, supporting decriminalising marijuana legalisation received the most votes - more than reviving the economy.
California state legislator Tom Ammaniano has proposed that California completely decriminalise marijuana. Currently, medical marijuana is legal in the state and in most cases, non-medical users are only subject to a fine. Ammaniano's law would end fines and replace them with taxes.
California’s Board of Education chair, Betty Yee, supports the measure, according to the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. Legalisation would generate an estimated 1.3 billion dollars in annual state revenues, including a 50-dollar retail tax which would be levied for each ounce legally purchased. And when taken out of the underground economy, the street price of marijuana would drop in half.
Meanwhile, 11 states are considering liberalising their laws towards marijuana in one way or another. Massachusetts last year reduced penalties for marijuana possession to a fine.
Marijuana legalisation advocates have been appearing on major network talk shows, and financial news channel CNBC ran a documentary on the marijuana industry in the U.S.
Marijuana is the nation’s largest cash crop, greater than corn and wheat combined, Bernath said.
"It's kind of amazing. Most people who have been doing this [advocacy work] over the last 20 years agree this is a very unique time and exciting time for reforming our marijuana laws and looking at the possibility of instituting some policies that will do a lot more good for our country," he told IPS.
"There's been a slow realisation over the last couple decades that marijuana prohibition doesn't work. Arresting 872,000 Americans every year outweighs costs of marijuana itself," he said.
Bernath believes that the struggling economy could be a motivating factor in policy decisions to decriminalise the plant. "You're talking about a 36-billion-dollar per year cash crop," he said, "potential revenue we're giving to the drug cartels."
"We have a real war over drugs south of our border, in Mexico, Latin America, and South America," Bernath noted. "With Mexico, 60 percent of that illegal business and violence that comes from it is because of marijuana. In that light, we're seeing growing frustration from our partners in Latin America and South America with our failure to reduce the demand in our country."
Indeed, three former Latin American presidents - Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia, and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico - wrote an editorial this month in the Wall Street Journal, stating that, "The war on drugs has failed. And it’s high time to replace an ineffective strategy with more humane and efficient drug policies."
"The revision of U.S.-inspired drug policies is urgent," the former presidents wrote. "In this spirit, we propose a paradigm shift in drug policies based on three guiding principles: reduce the harm caused by drugs, decrease drug consumption through education, and aggressively combat organized crime."
"We also propose the careful evaluation, from the public-health standpoint, of the possibility of decriminalizing the possession of cannabis for personal use," they added.
Latin and South America may not wait for the U.S. to take the lead, but a federal policy change may also be on the horizon in the U.S. as well.
Last year, Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts and chair of the House Committee on Finance, proposed legislation that would decriminalise marijuana for personal use in the U.S.
"I don’t think that it is the government’s business to tell you how to spend your leisure time. Now there are other things that people do that I don’t do, and I think they should be free to do those things," Frank said at a press conference last July.
"The notion that we somehow have to either approve or criminalise all human activity is a great misunderstanding of what is needed for a liberal - liberal in a broad sense -government, where people are free to do as they wish," he said.
Frank’s bill was referred to subcommittee, but did not receive a hearing. It will likely be reintroduced this session where it will have an uphill battle but an improved chance of success.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Windsor auto workers seize shuttered plant
(CBC) - A group of workers at a recently closed auto parts supply company in Windsor, Ontario, Canada have taken over the plant.
In the latest twist in a saga that has been brewing since two auto plants in the area shut down early last week, about a dozen workers occupied the Aradco plant Tuesday night, March 17. They have welded the doors shut from the inside and say they will not leave until they get what they are owed.
Work at the Aradco plant stopped last week because of a dispute between the plant owners and Chrysler, which has mused publicly about pulling out of its Canadian operations unless unionized workers make substantial concessions.
The Canadian Auto Workers Union that represents the Aradco workers say that in the wake of the shutdown, the workers are owed money for severance pay, vacation pay, and termination pay totalling $1.7 million.
The plant's owner, Catalina Precision Products Ltd. has offered the workers four weeks of severance pay or about $200,000 in total for all 80 workers.
The plant builds parts for Chrysler. Since last week, Chrysler has been trying to go in and collect parts and tools it says are its, but the workers are not allowing it. They have been blocking trucks from coming on to the property. Union representatives say the workers fear that if the tools and parts are removed, they will have no negotiating power.
"Some of the workers here have decided to take over the plant. That's the only thing they have in order to try to get the monies that are owing to them," said Gerry Farnham, president of the CAW local representing the workers.
Kucinich wants House to investigate assassination claims
Posted by Sabrina Eaton March 16, 2009 11:18AM
LinkCleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich wants the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to investigate allegations by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh that the White House operated an 'executive assassination ring' during the presidency of George W. Bush.
In a letter to Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns of New York, Kucinich explained that Hersh made the allegations on Tuesday, March 10, 2009 before an audience at the University of Minnesota.
According to Kucinich's letter: Hersh "stated, 'Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving... It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. . .Congress has no oversight of it.'"
Such a practice would violate longstanding U.S. policy regarding covert actions and illegally bypass Congressional oversight, Kucinich said.
"If substantiated, the allegation would have far reaching implications for the United States," Kucinich said in the letter dated March 13. "Such an assertion from someone of Hersh's credibility that has a long and proven track record of dependability on these issues merits attention. Mr. Hersh is within a year or more of releasing a book that is said to include evidence of this allegation. However, we cannot wait a year or more to establish the truth. As such, I request that the Full Committee immediately begin an investigation to determine the facts in this matter."
The CIA has since issued a denial of Hersh's claims.
"Mr. Kucinich raised a serious issue and I will work with him to look into it," Towns said in a statement emailed to The Plain Dealer.
US to sign UN gay rights declaration
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.
U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.
The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.
"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official.
"As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.
The official added that the United States was concerned about "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" and was also "troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries."
"In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom'," the official said.
Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.
According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.
It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.
When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination.
But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.
Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.
