On the second anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, Cecile Pineda, anti-nuclear activist and critically acclaimed author, is touring the Great Lakes and will speak in Grand Rapids this Thursday.
The author of Devil’s Tango: How I learned the Fukushima Step by Step, Cecile will give her stirring insight of the nuclear industry and update us on the consequences of the tragic event that began to unfold on March 11, 2011, with the meltdown of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility. Devil’s Tango is an anguished dissection of the nuclear industry in which a crazy quilt of multiple voices, pieced together day-by-day, reflects Cecile’s attempt to come to terms with Fukushima’s catastrophic consequences to the planet.
Pineda will speak twice on Thursday, March 14th at the following times and locations:
12:15 pm
Aquinas College, Wege Ballroom
Wege Student Center
2:30 pm
Raybrook Manor (Friendship Room)
2121 Raybrook SE, Grand Rapids
Both events are free and open to the public.
Co sponsored by: Kent County Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, POLIS (Aquinas College Student group), Don’t Waste Michigan, Left Forum, Micah Center. For more info. contact smaki1@hotmail.com or (616) 897- 5107.
This Day is Resistance History: Women’s Suffrage Movement does direct action at National Gallery in London in 1914
On this day ninety-nine years ago, a group of women suffragettes in London engaged in an action at the National Gallery in London in order to push for their demand for the right to vote.
Mary Richardson, a member of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), a group which had organized and carried out numerous actions in the struggle for suffrage beginning in 1903. Members of the WSPU had been jailed for several acts, involving civil disobedience and property destruction.
In 1913, WSPU member, Emily Davison, had run out onto a horse race track, where the King’s horse was competing, to protest the English government’s failure to grant women the right to vote. Emily ended up being trampled by a horse and die.
The death of Emily Davis raised the stakes for members of the WSPU and women like Mary Richardson decided to raise the cost of the struggle against the British government.
On March 10, 1914, Richardson entered the National Gallery in London and slashed a famous painting known as the Rokeby Venus. Richardson was attacked by some tourists who were in the gallery and then by London police. Richardson was then arrested and tried for property destruction.
At her trial, Richardson stated:
I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government for destroying Mrs Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history. Justice is an element of beauty as much as colour and outline on canvas. Mrs Pankhurst seeks to procure justice for womanhood, and for this she is being slowly murdered by a Government of Iscariot politicians. If there is an outcry against my deed, let everyone remember that such an outcry is an hypocrisy so long as they allow the destruction of Mrs Pankhurst and other beautiful living women, and that until the public cease to countenance human destruction the stones cast against me for the destruction of this picture are each an evidence against them of artistic as well as moral and political humbug and hypocrisy.
Richard spent some time in jail for this action, but it did not deter her participation in future action for women’s suffrage. Richardson and other women were arrested again for more acts at the National Gallery.
Because of these actions and many more like them, the Women’s Suffrage Movement forced the British government to grant women the right to vote in 1928.
In 2003, it was discovered that the British government had engaged in espionage against the suffragettes, particularly the WSPU. You can see the archived documents, showing that the suffragettes were scene by the British government to be a threat in the early part of the 20th century.
On this day, we honor women like Mary Richardson who had the courage to take risks and put their own safety on the line for greater freedom and equality. These brave women demonstrate that justice is never a gift and must be demanded and fought for, no matter what the cost.
Vandana Shiva on Int’l Women’s Day: “Capitalist Patriarchy Has Aggravated Violence Against Women”
This interview with Vandana Shiva is re-posted from Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: We continue our conversation on this International Women’s Day with world-renowned feminist, activist, thinker from India, Dr. Vandana Shiva. India witnessed nationwide protests earlier this year following the brutal gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old student in Delhi in December. The rape brought attention to other instances of sexual violence in India, where one woman is raped every 20 minutes, according to the national crime registry there. The conviction rates in the rape cases in India have decreased from 46 percent in 1971 to 26 percent in 2012.
To talk more about the significance of International Women’s Day, we go to Los Angeles to speak with Vandana Shiva, where she’s on tour right now. She’s the author of many books, including Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. Her most recent book is Making Peace with the Earth.
Vandana, welcome to Democracy Now! As you travel in the United States from India right now—you’re an environmental leader, you’re a feminist, you’re a scientist—what is your message on this International Women’s Day?
VANDANA SHIVA: I’m here in Los Angeles to address a conference on International Women’s Day on global ecologies, on how globalization, shaped by a very patriarchal mindset, a capitalist, patriarchal mindset, has actually aggravated the violence against women, that we are living in a very violent economic order to which war has become essential—war against the earth, war against women’s bodies, war against local economies and war against democracy. And I think we need to see the connections between all these forms of violence, which impact women most. Whether it’s climate change or biodiversity erosion or seed monopolies, all of it is connected. It’s one piece.
AMY GOODMAN: Vandana Shiva, talk about the activism in India right now against violence against women and how that fits into your overall issue, especially as you deal with issues like the environment.
VANDANA SHIVA: You know, my recognition that there was a very deep connection between the women’s movement in India and the protection of the environment started in the early ’70s with the very inspiring movement called Chipko, where I became a volunteer as a young student. “Chipko” means to hug. And women of my region came out and said, “You can’t cut these forests. These forests protect our soil, our water. They’re not timber mines.” Ten years of protest it took to eventually have the government recognize that the first function of the forests of the Himalaya is to provide stable water supply to avoid floods and drought, not the value of the square foot of timber after a tree is cut.
Today, the protests that are taking place are a result of a number of things. First, the young, rising middle class woke up to the fact that the new India was not safe for women and young men. After all, that young woman who was raped brutally had a friend who was attacked brutally. And therefore, for the first time, the demand for safety for women was joined by a large number of young men.
I think the second thing that became so clear through those protests in December and January is that the government, which should be protecting people, the state which should be protecting people, is afraid of people, and so there were attacks—water cannons, tear gas—and young people who were living innocently in India realized we are living in a militarized police system. That wake-up call to larger democracy, larger issues of freedom, I think, is a big shift in the consciousness of the Indian public.
Of course, in the coastal Orissa, where three people have just been killed about four days ago, because Wall Street, which now owns this Korean steel plant, which is investing in India to create one of the biggest steel plants of the world, wants 4,500 acres. That’s a war against the land and against the earth and against women. Soni Sori, a young tribal woman, arrested, raped, tortured, just because she was telling the world how there is a war going on in the heart of India, which has created a Naxalite movement. Thirty percent of India is not controlled by the government.
This violent economic order can only function as a war against people and against the earth, and in that war, the rape against women is a very, very large instrument of war. We see that everywhere. And therefore, we have to have an end to the violence against women. If we have to have the dignity of women protected, then the multiple wars against the earth, through the economy, through greed, through capitalist, patriarchal domination, must end, and we have to recognize we are part of the earth. The liberation of the earth, the liberation of women, the liberation of all humanity is the next step of freedom we need to work for, and it’s the next step of peace that we need to create.
AMY GOODMAN: Vandana Shiva, I was wondering if you can comment on this David-versus-Goliath case that the Supreme Court heard, the 75-year-old farmer from Indiana against Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company. The dispute began when the soybean farmer Vernon Bowman bought and planted a mix of unmarked grain typically used for animal feed. Monsanto said their patented seed was there. He planted it. He violated their patents. They own something like 90 percent of soybeans in Indiana, containing the gene which allows it to survive when sprayed with the company’s Roundup pesticide. Can you talk about the significance of this case, as you take on Monsanto in India and around the world, as well?
VANDANA SHIVA: I think this case is not just about Bowman, the Indiana farmer. It’s about every farmer, every person and every seed in the world. First, the idea that Monsanto can patent a seed by putting a toxic gene for Roundup resistance into a plant, that that is a creation of seed, that has evolved over millennia, been bred over thousands of years in East Asia, not by Monsanto—how can we be governed by an illusion that introducing a toxic gene is creation of life? It’s an error. And it is this error that compelled me 26 years ago to start Navdanya, the movement for seed saving in India, because I do not think seed is invented, and therefore, a patent on seed is wrong from the first step.
Secondly, actually, Roundup-resistant seeds are not controlling weeds. They have created superweeds. Fifty percent of the farmland of the U.S. is now overtaken by superweeds. Monsanto actually should be paying two compensations to farmers: one, for putting so toxic genes into the plant and contaminating others’ crops; second, for creating an unreliable, failed technology that is leading to more lethal herbicides like 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange, from being used.
In India, this kind of false claim to creation, false claim to invention, the collection of royalties from seed, has led to Monsanto controlling 95 percent of the cottonseed supply, 95 percent through a monopoly, not through the choice of the farmers, as it’s often made out to be. Farmers are getting indebted because the price of seed jumped 8,000 percent, and there’s no option, except the little options we are creating through Navdanya by saving open-pollinated seed.
Two hundred and seventy thousand Indian farmers have committed suicide since Monsanto entered the Indian seed market. That’s more than a quarter-million. It’s a genocide. And every farmer who commits suicide leaves behind a widow. For me, this is a prime example of violence against women through violent economic means.
And I do hope that the Supreme Court will act for the larger public good. And if it fails to do so, because we, too, get affected, let us call globally for a seed satyagraha. A satyagraha is the fight for truth. When the British tried to monopolize salt, Gandhi walked to the beach and said, “Nature gives it for free; we will continue to make our salt.” We need to tell Monsanto and the governments of the world, they’ve received these seeds from nature, from our ancestors, from communities across the world. We have a duty to protect them. A law that says saving seed, growing seed and our seed freedom is a crime is a law that must be made illegal. We have to act for higher law, the law of the earth, the law of social justice and, most importantly, the law of women’s knowledge and women’s skills in seed saving. As long as seed was in woman’s hand, no crop failed, no farmer committed suicide. As soon as seed moved into Monsanto’s hands, we have illegitimate laws, we have genocide, we have ecocide, we have butterflies and bees being killed, we have soil organisms being killed. This is no future for humanity or the earth.
AMY GOODMAN: Vandana Shiva, I want to thank you so much for being with us, environmental leader, feminist thinker from India. She’s in Los Angeles now speaking on International Women’s Day and will be at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden on Saturday speaking, as well. Among her many books,Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace, as well as Making Peace with the Earth.
MLive writer and the death of Hugo Chavez: More unsubstantiated claims and false information
Earlier today, MLive ran a column from a regular guest writer, Ken Braun, on what’s wrong with the mainstream media coverage of the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
Braun makes his case that the mainstream media is wrong on Venezuela, based on one story he cites on NPR, which is hardly a case at all. Not surprising, since Braun works for the Job Creators Network, which is a pro-capitalist entity founded by businessmen Bernie Marcus and Herman Cain, with the intent of providing a voice for CEOs and corporate America to talk about how they create jobs and business solutions. Like CEOs and corporation don’t already have enough representation, particularly in the media, to state their case.
The Job Creators Network is actually part of a consortium, which also includes Job Creators Solutions and Job Creators Alliance. All three of these entities are nothing more than a front group for corporate America, which is exactly why Braun is so anti-Chavez.
Since Chavez came to power in 1999, Venezuela has re-directed much of the national wealth to eliminating poverty, providing health care, education, paying off the IMF/World Bank debt and assisting other Latin American nations to be debt free as well. The Chavez government and many of the other South American countries have not been receptive to foreign investors, wanting instead to create a more independent trade block in the south, particularly independent of the US.
Braun might know these facts if he bothered to learn something about Venezuela that wasn’t the dominant narrative from the US government or commercial media. People would do well to read books like Changing Venezuela by Taking Power, Venezuela Speaks: Voices from the Grassroots, Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution or The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela.
There are also several really good independent documentaries on the Chavez years, beginning with the US-backed coup in 2002 The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Other good films are No Volverán: The Venezuelan Revolution Now and Venezuela: Revolution From the Inside Out.
On top of the films and books there are also several good online sources that provide solid analysis of politics and social movements in Venezuela, such as Venezuela Analysis, Upside Down World and the Washington Office on Latin America.
Again, Braun makes the claim that the mainstream US media is wrong on Chavez, even though one cannot use a single example on NPR as a credible assessment. The national US media watchdog group, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, has been monitoring major US news sources over the past 14 years since Chavez became President of Venezuela and their conclusion is that the US media as been antagonistic towards Venezuela, often mimicking US diplomats.
In addition to making a false claim about US media coverage of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, Braun pins his whole case on a recent report from Human Rights Watch that claims that Venezuela is one of the worst human rights violators in the world. Such a claim is so absurd and flies in the face of evidence, even previous evidence that Human Rights Watch has provided.
In response to Ken Braun’s use of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) claim, we are going to reprint an article by Joe Emersberger, which does the best job we have seen of dissecting the HRW claim.
The death of Hugo Chavez provoked HRW to immediately (within hours) smear the Chavez government’s legacy.
“Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy: Dramatic Concentration of Power and Open Disregard for Basic Human Rights” said the Washington DC based NGO.
If that isn’t harsh enough, in a tweet sent out in June of 2012, Ken Roth, executive director of HRW, described Venezuela as being one of the “most abusive” in Latin America. Ecuador and Bolivia were the other two states that Roth singled out.
In November of 2012, HRW also rushed out a letter demanding that Venezuela be excluded from the UN’s Human Rights Council on the grounds that the Chavez government “fell far short of acceptable standards”
It is staggeringly obvious that HRW did not simply regard the Chavez government as one which could be validly criticized, like any other in the world, on human rights grounds. HRW regarded Venezuela under Chavez as one of the “most abusive” countries in the world. Make no mistake, if Venezuela is more abusive than Colombia, as Roth alleged, then that would easily place Venezuela among the worst human rights abusers on earth.
The day Hugo Chavez died, HRW rehashed the accusations it has been making for years:
1) “Assault on Judicial Independence”
2) “Assault on Press Freedoms”
3) “Rejection of Human Rights Scrutiny”
4) “Embracing Abusive Governments”
Without exploring any details at all about these criticisms something should stand out right away. Putting aside HRW’s remarkably shoddy attempts to substantiate them, how could these criticisms place the Chavez government among the most abusive countries in the world? How could HRW’s assessment, even taken at face value, make Venezuela unworthy to sit on the UN’s Human Rights Council next to the USA?
Daniel Kovalik pointed out the following amazing facts last year in a Counterpunch article:
…in a November 19, 2009 U.S. Embassy Cable, entitled, ” International Narcotics Control Strategy Report,” the U.S. Embassy in Bogota acknowledges, as a mere aside, the horrific truth:257,089 registered victimsof the right-wing paramilitaries. And, as Human Rights Watch just reported in its 2012 annual report on Colombia, these paramilitaries continue to work hand-in-glove with the U.S.-supported Colombian military….
….the U.S. has been quite aware of this death toll for over two years, though this knowledge has done nothing to change U.S. policy toward Colombia — which is slated to receive over $500 million in military and police aid from the U.S. in the next two years
….Indeed, as the U.S. Embassy acknowledges in a February 26, 2010 Embassy Cable entitled, ” Against Indigenous Shows Upward Trend,” such violence is pushing 34 indigenous groups to the point of extinction. This violence, therefore, can only be described as genocidal.
Either Ken Roth is unfamiliar with his own organization’s reports, or something very rotten drives his groups’ ludicrously disproportionate criticism of Venezuela.
I’ll borrow from HRW’s playbook and do some rehash of my own. I’ll rehash some of the questions I’ve been asking them for years. HRW has never attempted to answer.
1) When a coup deposed Chavez for 2 days in 2002, why did HRW’ public statements fail to do obvious things like denounce the coup, call on other countries not to recognize the regime, invoke the OAS charter, and (especially since HRW is based in Washington) call for an investigation of US involvement?
2) Very similarly, when a coup deposed Haiti’ democratically elected government in 2004, why didn’t HRW condemn the coup, call on other countries not to recognize the regime, invoke the OAS charter, and call for an investigation of the US role? Many of these things were done by the community of Caribbean nations (CARICOM). A third of the UN General Assembly called for an investigation into the overthrow of Aristide. Why didn’ HRW back them up?
3) Since 2004, why has HRW written about 20 times more about Venezuela than about Haiti despite the fact that the coup in Haiti created a human rights catastrophe in which thousands of political murders were perpetrated and the jails filled with political prisoners? Haiti’ judiciary remains stacked with holdovers from the coup installed regime.
In honour of Chavez and of the Venezuelan movements which will hopefully expand on the progress made towards making Venezuela a more democratic and humane country, lets recall some achievements of his government on the international stage that HRW would never applaud. Let’s remember Hugo Chavez strongly opposing the US bombing of Afghanistan in 2001; the war in Iraq, the 2004 coup in Haiti, the 2009 coup in Honduras, NATO’s bombing of Libya, the lethal militarization of the conflict in Syria, the attempted coups against Morales in Bolivia and against Correa in Ecuador, Israel’s aggression in Lebanon and in the Occupied Territories.
None of that impressed HRW in the least. It may even have aggravated HRW’s hatred of the Chavez government, but it should impress people who really care about human rights.
The Life and Legacy of Hugo Chavez
This video is re-posted from The Real News Network.
Gregory Wilpert, who lived in Venezuela between 2000 and 2008, taught at the Central University of Venezuela and worked as a freelance journalist — looks at the achievements, failures and life of the leader of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution.
Wilpert, who also wrote the book Changing Venezuela by Taking Power, edits the highly informative blob Venezuela Analysis, which provides regular updates and some of the best analysis of what is happening on the ground in Venezuela, along with ongoing analysis of US antagonism of that South American country.
Earlier this week, MLive ran a guest column from the Sierra Club’s State Director for Michigan, Anne Woiwode.
The article focused on the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline and why is would be bad for Michigan, the country and our collective environmental future.
Woiwode made solid points about how the Keystone Tar Sands Project is the dirtiest form of fossil fuel being proceed anywhere in the world. She also made it clear that the realities of Climate Change are becoming too apparent to ignore and the urgency of Climate Change requires “drastic changes.”
The Michigan Director for the Sierra Club states in the first paragraph, “Our country needs a solid economic boost, but not one that comes with the risk of poisoned drinking water and a massive contribution to climate disruption.” This is sound commentary, but beyond the obvious of why the Keystone Tar Sands Project is a disastrous idea, the Sierra Club spokesperson is just plain naïve and even wrong on some critical aspects of this issue.
The first naïve notion is that President Obama made the right decision last year by not approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obama was working an election year and didn’t want to unnecessarily alienate environmentally minded voters, so he backed off from the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is different than denying it, as Woiwode suggests.
Secondly, the Obama administrations, like all administrations since fossil fuels have become the primary energy source, is beholden to the fossil fuel industry. Woiwode mentions people going from Michigan to DC to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline, but where was the President that weekend? Obama was out of town playing golf with oil executives.
Third, the Sierra Club Director for Michigan seems to think that Sen. Carl Levin would be an advocate against the Keystone XL Pipeline. I’m not sure how she draws this conclusion, since Levin is the Chair of the Armed Services Committee and a staunch defender of US militarism, which is one of the most fossil fuel dependent and environmentally destructive forces on the planet. (see Barry Sander’s book, The Green Zone)
Most importantly, it is naïve to think that the President is going to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline from happening, especially since it is already being built around the country and in Michigan. The excellent work of the folks at LineB6 Citizen’s Blog, has been tracking the construction of the Enbridge tar sands pipeline in Michigan for over a year, with regular postings and pictures of the new pipe that is being laid.
What this really means is that the Keystone Pipeline is a done deal, unless people decide otherwise and engage in direct action to stop it from becoming a reality. This is not really a choice, since as Dr. James Hansen has said over and over again, if the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is completed it will be a death sentence for climate. When groups like the Sierra Club to continue to put stock in the safe and ineffective strategy of lobbying for change, they send a message that the political system in the US still works. More importantly, they send the message that there is no real urgency on this issue, since they are not calling on people to put their bodies and their lives on the line to stop this madness.
Bad Romance: Labor, Obama and the Democrats
This article by Samus Cooke is re-posted from Counter Punch.
The Democratic Party’s participation in the recent national “sequester” cuts is yet another big dent in their love affair with organized labor. But break-ups are often a protracted process. Before a relationship ends there is usually a gradual deterioration based on irreconcilable differences, until the split becomes inevitable. The decades-long marriage of labor unions and the Democratic Party is nearing such a divorce. Labor unions are becoming frustrated as the Democrats flaunt their affair with corporate America and Wall Street.
What are some of the issues driving towards separation? It just seems that no matter how much labor leaders shower the politicians with money and affection, the Democrats just aren’t returning the love.
Although the Democrats were always a fickle partner, their coldness evolved into aggression under Bill Clinton, who oversaw a slew of anti-worker legislation, most notably NAFTA and welfare “reform.”
Obama has continued this rightwards trajectory, while portraying himself brilliantly as the “lesser evil” compared with the more honest anti-union rhetoric of the Republicans. He fulfilled none of his promises to labor in 2008, and essentially ignored all labor issues in his 2012 campaign. Labor leaders misinterpreted Obama as playing “hard to get,” when in fact the Democratic Party had already moved on.
To prove his fidelity to his new crush, Wall Street, Obama has made it a pet project to target the most powerful union in the country — the teachers’ union — for destruction. Obama’s innocent-sounding Race to the Top education reform is in actuality an anti-union dismembering of public education, with its promotion of charter schools and its mass closings of public high schools that Obama labels as “failing.” Bush, Jr.’s anti-union No Child Left Behind looks innocent compared to Obama’s education “reform.”
In fact, Obama has overseen the worst environment for organized labor since Ronald Reagan. But the problem is bigger than Obama. It’s the entire Democratic Party. For example, Democratic governors across the United States continue to work in tandem with Republicans in weakening public employee unions — the last bastion of real strength in the labor movement.
The Democrats have chosen to blame labor unions for the economic crisis and the consequent budget deficits affecting the states. These deficits have been used to attack the wages, health care, and pensions of public employees on a state-by-state basis, fundamentally weakening these unions while skewing the labor market in favor of the employers.
What some labor leaders fail to understand is that political parties like the Democrats are centralized organizations that share certain beliefs, and execute these ideas in a united fashion. It isn’t merely a coincidence that every Democratic governor in the United States has chosen a similar anti-labor path, its policy. There has been a fundamental shift in the Democratic Party’s relation to labor unions, and it is on display for everyone to see.
Not all labor leaders are feigning blindness to these facts. The president of the nation’s largest teachers’ union, Dennis Van Roekel, summarized teachers’ experience with the Obama Administration: “Today our members face the most anti-educator, anti-union, anti-student environment I have ever experienced.” He was referring largely to Obama’s above-mentioned Race to the Top education program.
Van Roekel’s union, the National Education Association (NEA), also passed an excellent resolution at their national convention blasting Obama’s Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, for his anti-public education and anti-union policies.
But of course Arne Duncan is simply implementing the policies of his boss, President Obama. And Obama is simply implementing the policies of his boss, corporate America, which is insisting that market relations are imposed on public education. After passing the above resolution, the NEA leadership shamefully pressured its membership to campaign for the Obama Administration, akin to a survivor of domestic violence going to bat for the batterer.
The president of the large national public employee union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Lee Saunders, also lashed out against the Democrats recently:
I am sick and tired of the fair-weather Democrats. They date us, take us to the prom, marry us, and then divorce us right after the honeymoon. I am sick and tired of the so-called friends who commend us when they’re running for election, but condemn us after they’ve won. I am sick and tired of the politicians who stand with us behind closed doors, but kick us to the curb in front of the cameras. I’m here to tell you that’s bullshit and we’re not gonna take it anymore.
Accurate remarks, but they were limited to a couple of select Democratic mayors and governors. Again, there is more than a “few bad apple” Democrats who are anti-labor; the whole party is sick with this cancer.
In private, all labor leaders acknowledge this fact. Politico reports:
Top labor leaders excoriated President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a closed session of the AFL-CIO’s executive board meeting…Furious union presidents complained about budget cuts, a new [free] trade agreement and what some view as their abandonment, even by their typically reliable allies among Senate Democrats.
Presidents of several unions and an AFL-CIO spokesman declined to repeat their private criticism to a reporter Tuesday, a sign that labor feels it must still try to maintain a relationship with the Democratic Party, even if it’s deeply troubled.
So while the presidents of these unions speak honestly amongst themselves, they feel obligated to mis-educate their membership about the above facts. Labor leaders consistently minimize the Democrats’ role in anti-union policies, while exaggerating any morsel that can be construed to be pro-union. A mis-educated union membership makes for a weakened union movement.
When President Obama gave a largely right-wing state of the union address that included more corporate free trade agreements, more education “reform,” cuts to Medicare, and no plan to address the ongoing jobs crisis, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka responded shamefully by saying:
Tonight, President Obama sent a clear message to the world that he will stand and fight for working America’s values and priorities.
Again, Trumka knows better. He should tell union members the truth. The AFL-CIO and other unions have lied about President Obama’s role in the national “sequester” cuts, blaming the whole thing on the Republicans. The truth, however, is that Obama formed the “the deficit reduction committee” that gave birth to the sequester. He failed to take any significant action to prevent the cuts, because he agrees with them.
Rank-and-file union members aren’t stupid. They realize it when their paychecks shrink, when their health care costs skyrocket, when their pensions are destroyed, when they’re laid off, or when they campaign for Democrats who betray them post-election. Union leaders are creating distrust within their membership as they continue down a political road that has left labor weakened and politically tied to a “partner” that’s abusing it.
The Democrats have gone “all in” with Wall Street and the corporations. The big banks now feel as comfortable throwing campaign donations towards the Democrats as the Republicans. Labor unions can’t compete with Wall Street’s cash.
Breaking with the Democrats is long overdue. And once this is done union members will likely choose the path taken by labor unions in nearly every developed country: the creation of a labor party, with its own platform, funding, and member activists.
Such a party could appeal directly to all working people by demanding that a federal jobs program be immediately implemented to put those unemployed to work as well as fighting to save and expand Social Security and Medicare, while taxing the rich and corporations to fully fund public education and other social services. Such a platform would create a massive contrast to the mainstream corporate-bought parties that exist today, and thus attract millions of members and millions more voters.
The Environmental Movement at the Crossroads
This article by Kevin Zeese and Dr. Margaret Flowers is re-posted from CounterPunch.
The old environmental movement,‘Gang Green,’ works inside the existing power structure, takes funding directly from polluting corporations and foundations funded by polluters, sometimes gets a seat at the table which ends up helping to pass inadequate regulation that becomes a license to pollute, while giving the law legitimacy. Some ‘Gang Green’ members show signs of realizing they are on the wrong path and need to re-make themselves to face the urgent ecological crisis of widespread toxins, species extinction, water and air pollution, soil depletion and climate change.
The ‘New Green’, often groups led by a new generation that realizes the extraction economy that allows us to continue the American way of life (AWOL) cannot continue. They see the ecological crisis caused by the carbon-nuclear based economy worsening with the “all of the above” strategy of President Obama and the corporate duopoly parties. The dangerous approaches to energy extraction including off shore drilling, mountain top removal, tar sands, hydraulic fracking and uranium mining (as well as the dangers and waste products these produce) are evidence that the human species needs to move quickly to a carbon-free nuclear free energy economy.
New Greens Rising
There is a growing culture of resistance in the environment movement as Rising Tide of North America reports. Last week the Guardian published an amazing video of the group “No Dash for Gas” in the UK occupying a gas power plant. The video showed the preparation they went through: training, intelligence gathering, practice; and then the meticulous execution of a very difficult occupation of two 300 foot chimneys of a massive gas plant. They occupied the plant for 8 days.
In a few days the video was removed from the Guardian website “pending an investigation.” At about the same time the power company, EDF, sued the activists for £5 ($7.53) million in damages. No Dash for Gas is reporting a backlash against the company and support for their cause. They point out the damages amount to .3% of the company’s profits and that within 48 hours 10,000 people signed their petition. The group makes a strong case for “disaster gas” which will bring the world closer to the climate tipping point.
In fact, we found in researching an article on hydraulic fracking, that one of the things the oil and gas companies do not want us to know is that methane, a key part of gas, leaks into the atmosphere in the fracking process. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by a factor of 30 to hundreds.
The anti-fracking movement in the US is growing and combative. Hundreds of thousands wrote to stop Governor Cuomo’s march toward widespread fracking and successfully stopped fracking pending research. And, More than 6,000 New Yorkers have already signed a pledge to commit acts of nonviolent civil resistance if Cuomo permits fracking. Americans Against Fracking reports more than 250 communities are taking action against fracking. Three were arrested last week in Pennsylvania blocking trees from being cut.
We have been consistently reporting on the direct action against the Tar Sands pipeline, the Keystone XL, since last August. The actions of the Tar Sands Blockade inspired people from Occupy Washington, DC at Freedom Plaza who have joined their actions. We urge you to support their upcoming national days of action March 16 to the 23. Now the blockaders are moving north to Oklahoma where they will have a training March 17 to 22rd.
We were pleased to see the Tar Sands Blockade link with Appalachia Rising to stop the operation of a hydro-fracking storage facility in Ohio. This is an important part of the ‘New Greens’ thinking – all issues are connected as we have a common enemy in corporate power that dominates government in the big finance capitalism of the United States.
Groups like Mountain Justice and RAMPS which focus on mountain top removal for coal, are now taking on fracking as well. Of course, both destroy the environment they live in. Mountain Justice is currently holding a spring break training until the 10th. Other groups like RAMPS (Radical Action for Mountain Peoples Surival) have escalated tactics against coal companies and worked with native Indians, vets, community residents and others against big coal..
We’ve also reported on the inspiring Idle No More movement since its inception and continue to do so. Last week native US Indians were occupying an area in Minnesota to block a pipeline going over their land.
A lot of these groups have fun with their protests like many of the spectacle actions of the Backbone Campaign. We enjoyed this one from the UK, protesting at a pro-fracking politicians office, putting up signs labeling him a fracking company and putting up a fracking site on the Green in front of his office. And this one from Flush The TPP, blocking their global corporate coup negotiation in Virginia.
The Uninspiring ‘Gang Green’
As inspiring as the ‘New Greens’ are the old ‘Gang Green’ is truly uninspiring. Many local environmental groups see them as selling out the environment for money and access. Some call them corporate environmentalists because they take money from polluting corporations, sometimes directly, sometimes through foundations. Of course, there are many good people in these organizations we hope they will turn these organizations around or get involved with the ‘New Greens.’
We wrote about this in our recent fracking article. There is a natural conflict between local groups that want fracking banned in their communities and ‘Gang Green’ that wants to work in the system and develop regulations that allow ‘safe’ fraking (something many think is impossible). Money undermines the credibility of ‘Gang Green’ as we wrote about regarding on group: “The Sierra Club learned a painful lesson after taking $26 million from Chesapeake Energy, a gas company involved in fracking, while using the rhetoric of gas as a clean fuel. Their new executive director, Michael Brune, refused a $30 million donation from the corporation because it undermined Sierra Club’s credibility. After the donation was made public, Brune wrote, ‘we need to leapfrog over gas whenever possible in favor of truly clean energy.’”
We hope Michael Brune brings a new direction to the Sierra Club, more aggressive challenges to the power structure, participation in direct action and no more corporate money.
These groups ally with the Democratic Party, a party that is deep in the pockets of the carbon and nuclear industries. Last week coal giant Duke Energy turned a $10 million loan for the Democratic Convention into a donation – for a convention Obama promised would take no corporate money. Then there is the nuclear industry, Sunlight Foundation reported on an Atlanta utility that hopes to get $8.3 billion in nuclear loan guarantee which miraculously is coming closer to reality after a $100,000 donation to Obama’s inauguration.
The refusal to break from the Democratic Party has been noticed with Bill McKibben’s 350.org. While they deserve credit for educating and organizing people (although there is criticism that 350 is too high a number, especially for small Island countries), they have been criticized for their ties to the Democrats. Their protests have included people wearing Obama buttons and signage that mimicks the Obama campaign. From the stage at the DC rally, Van Jones expressed his pride in working for Obama while Rev. Lennox Yearwood said, “we’re not here to protest Obama.”
Jill Stein the Green Party presidential candidate, marching in the crowd, many of who were from the ‘New Green” movement, said “Why should we have Obama’s back when he always stabs us in ours?”
Hopefully, the recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement will wake up ‘Gang Green’ to the truth that Obama and the Democrats are the other Wall Street party and not allies of the movement for a carbon-free, nuclear-free energy economy; and that we have to confront pollution profiteers not work with them.
No Time for Compromise
One of the characteristics of the ‘New Greens’ is they are welcoming. They look for the best, even in members of ‘Gang Green.’ We hope their instincts are right and the traditional environmental movement will re-make itself into the combative advocates the country needs.
This is not the time for compromise. It is not a time to be restricted by foundations or for partnerships with corporate polluters and the Democratic Party. The stakes are too high. The health of the planet is at serious risk from extreme corporate capitalism’s voracious appetite. It is time to cut off the gang green and start new.
“American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war,” says the ACLU.
This is nothing new for communities of color, immigrants and people who have been engaged in resisting state repression and global capitalism, but it is becoming more apparent to more and more people as local police departments are now using or signing up for drones.
Federal funding in the billions of dollars has allowed state and local police departments to gain access to weapons and tactics created for overseas combat theaters – and yet very little is known about exactly how many police departments have military weapons and training, how militarized the police have become, and how extensively federal money is incentivizing this trend. It’s time to understand the true scope of the militarization of policing in America and the impact it is having in our neighborhoods. On March 6th, ACLU affiliates in 23 states filed over 255 public records requests with law enforcement agencies and National Guard offices to determine the extent to which federal funding and support has fueled the militarization of state and local police departments. Stay tuned as this project develops.
Yesterday, the Michigan branch of the ACLU announced that Michigan and affiliates in 22 other states simultaneously filed 255 public records requests today to determine the extent to which local police departments are using federally subsidized military technology and tactics that are traditionally used overseas.
“Through federal grant programs, state and local police departments have virtually unlimited access to military equipment and training at no cost,” said Sarah Mehta, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. “Although these wartime tools and tactics are free for cops, they come at great cost to communities.”
ACLU of Michigan filed five public records requests with police departments in Flint, Dearborn, Detroit and with the Michigan State Police to seek information on:
1) The use of SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) Teams, including:
Number and purpose of deployments
Types of weapons used during deployments
Injuries sustained by civilians during deployments
Training materials
Funding sources
2) The use of cutting edge weapons and technologies, including:
GPS tracking devices
Unmanned aerial vehicles (“drones”)
Augmented detainee restraint (“shock-cuffs”)
Military weaponry, equipment, and vehicles obtained from or funded by federal agencies such as the Departments of Defense and/or Homeland Security
A separate request, filed with the Michigan National Guard, seeks information regarding:
- Cooperative agreements between local police departments and the National Guard counter-drug program
- Incidents of National Guard contact with civilians
“Equipping state and local law enforcement with military weapons and vehicles, military tactical training, and actual military assistance to conduct traditional law enforcement erodes civil liberties and encourages increasingly aggressive policing, particularly in poor neighborhoods and communities of color,” said Kara Dansky, senior counsel for ACLU’s Center for Justice. “We’ve seen examples of this in several localities, but we don’t know the dimensions of the problem.”
In addition to the ACLU of Michigan, ACLU affiliates from Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin also filed the public records requests.
Once the information has been collected and analyzed, if needed, the ACLU will use the results to recommend changes in law and policy governing the use of military tactics and technology in local law enforcement.
Palestinian Priest to Speak in Grand Rapids on March 18
Healing Children of Conflict (HCC) is hosting two presentations by Naim Ateek in Grand Rapids on March 18. Naim is the author of several books on Israel/Palestine and on the topic of Liberation Theology.
The first lecture will take place on the Allendale Campus of GVSU, in Lake Michigan Hall, Room 114 at 3:00 PM. This talk is also co-sponsored by the Arab Culture Club, Middle East Studies Program, Peace MEans and the Religious Studies Program.
The second lecture will take place at St. Nicholas Church, located at 2250 East Paris Ave. SE in Grand Rapids at 7:00 PM.
Both talks are free and open to the public. For more information about Healing Children of Conflict, go to www.healingchildrenofconflict.org.
A Vision for Peace in Palestine/Israel
Monday, March 18
3:00PM lecture GVSU Allendale – Lake MI Hall Room 114
7:00PM lecture – St. Nicholas Church, 2250 East Paris Ave. SE
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 