West Michigan Policy Forum Part III: Freedom to Work means Right to Work
One of the major themes of the afternoon at the West Michigan Policy Forum was the issue of making Michigan a Right to Work state. Vedder and the West Michigan Policy Forum both framed Right to Work as Freedom to Work, which fits into their philosophical belief that freedom is equated with free market capitalism. In addition to teaching at Ohio University, Vedder is on the Board of Scholars at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Vedder also co-authored a report on the benefits of Right to Work for the state of Indiana, just months before that state adopted such a policy.
The first presenter on this theme was Richard Vedder, an economics professor at Ohio University. Vedder began by saying that his father was the head of the Michigan Democratic Party and that he grew up with great sympathy for labor unions. However, Vedder said that the data suggests that unions are no longer good for the economy and he believes that particularly “forced unionization” is bad for the economy and globalization.
Vedder then spent time talking about the growing number of Right to Work states and the reasons for that increase. Vedder states that Michigan has been suffering because of a lack of a Right to Work policy, with major flight by people due to lack of employment. However, Vedder failed to mention the amount of job loss that was due to trade policies such as NAFTA (MI lost 287,923 manufacturing jobs alone) and trends in globalization, where numerous corporations in Michigan found it more profitable to set up manufacturing operations in countries like China.
Vedder then talked about Indiana’s decision to become a Right to Work state and how there has been an increase of companies now moving to Indiana. This is in part because of the decrease in labor costs, since the lack of union jobs prevents workers from the ability to bargain collectively for things like wages.
Vedder was followed by Joseph Lehman, President and CEO, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Lehmen was introduced by John Kennedy, the CEO of Autocam. Kennedy derided unions in his introductory comments and referred to what unions do as larceny.
Lehmen talked about his own background and his first experiences with organized labor. Lehmen admitted that he was actually given a scholarship from the teachers union in order to go to college.
Lehmen then attempted to differentiate between what businesses are and what unions are. His main claim is the main difference is that the government intervenes on behalf of unions, whereas they don’t in business. This seems to dismiss the whole history of US government intervention in the economy to benefit businesses, with tax break and subsidies.
Lehmen then put up a graph that he believes represents the spectrum of government intervention in organized labor. The Mackinac Center CEO then said that the worst manifestation of government intervention into organized labor, was allowing government workers to unionize.
Lehmen showed a second graphic and referred to unions as a monopoly, which in turn makes governments a monopoly. There is some truth to this second graph, especially when it comes to labor influencing electoral politics, but Lehmen never acknowledged the vastly larger amounts of money that corporations spend to influence elections.
Lehmen tells the audience that the real challenge around organized labor is at the state level and unionized state employees. None of what Lehmen shared was new in terms of the political analysis that the Mackinac Center promotes, but it is useful information in terms of what battles working class people will be fighting in the months and years to come.
West Michigan Policy Forum Part II: Business plans and manufacturing talent
Second Morning Session
The second morning session was introduced by the editor of the editorial page of the Detroit Free Press, Stephen Henderson. He introduced a shot video produced by Business Leaders for Michigan, entitled the Michigan Turn Around Plan.
The video promoted the idea that Michigan is a transportation center, has abundant natural resources, is a hub of life sciences – pharmaceutical industry, higher education marketplace. The hip video with upbeat music makes claims about the possibility of new job creation, investment and creating a new Michigan and is narrated by Ford CEO Bill Ford.
Following the video, Henderson was joined by Michael Jandernoa and Alan Schultz, to discuss the Michigan Turnaround Plan. The plan is based on 6 principles:
- responsible management of finances
- effectively and efficiently provide public services
- create a competitive business climate
- strategically invest for future growth
- accelerate the growth of cities and metropolitan areas
- leverage assets to grow the New Michigan
The Michigan Turnaround Plan is essentially supported by all the local chapters of the Chamber of Commerce, the State Chamber of Commerce, various business associations, and leaders of large businesses and corporations throughout the state.
Jandernoa emphasized that some of the was to implement this business plan, besides what Robert Genetski addressed earlier in the day, was the need to invest in higher education. Jandernoa meant that there need to be ways to both create and keep “talent” in Michigan. The translation of this means to prepare students with the skills that are needed by Michigan based businesses, which is no surprise since Jandernoa sits on the GVSU Foundation Board, along with the likes of Scott Weirda with CWD, JC Huzienga (National Heritage Academies), Sam Cummings (CWD), Kate Pew Walters and John Kennedy (Autocam).
The discussion then led to more condemnation of the Protect Our Jobs ballot initiative and the other two ballot proposals that will be on the November 6 ballot.
The forum then shifted to focus talent retention and creation. This section was facilitated by another journalist, Micki Maynard, with Michigan Radio. She introduced the topic by emphasizing that talent creation/retention was more important than trade. Maynard cited talent creation guru Richard Florida and made it clear that this issue if paramount for the Michigan Turnaround Plan.
Maynard then introduced two speakers who will address talent creation/talent retention, Cascade Engineering CEO Fred Keller and Brian Harris, CEO of H & H Metal Source. Keller spoke first and basically presented the platform put forward by the group Talent 2025. Talent 2025 is made up of 70 local CEOs, names that appear on the boards of the local GR Chamber, Right Place Inc. and other business associations. Keller postulated that an increase in college graduates would translate into economic growth. Forget about developing students with critical thinking skills or providing students with greater capacity for self-discovery or pursuing humanitarian principles………this is all about manufacturing students to make money for the business class.
Brian Harris then continued to present on the work of Talent 2025, by providing details of how this effort works. Harris also read from a teleprompter and basically provided an overview of the information on the Talent 2025 website. Harris made it clear that this group of CEOs is interested in manufacturing talent that even begins with influences early childhood development, all the way up to the university level, including adult workforce development programs.
It was clear that the business class is interested in influencing education policy and investing in education in such a way that it will translate into greater profits through a future workforce that has been developed in an education system that is primarily geared towards talent creation.
West MI Policy Forum Day 2012 – An Exercise in Class Warfare
This will be the first in several postings about the 2012 West Michigan Policy Forum in Grand Rapids.
First Morning Session
The West MI Policy Forum (WMPF) kicked off today at St. Cecelia in downtown Grand Rapids, where the area business class has once again come together to set an agenda of where they want the State of Michigan to go.
Like we reported in 2010, today’s forum is made up mostly of the elite sector of West Michigan society, people in their power suits listening to Chamber music as they gather to hear the comments of today’s speakers. Chair of the WMPF, Jared Rodriguez, welcomed those in attendance, although he was really reading a script on a teleprompter. Rodriguez walked the participants through the use of an ipad, which all of the conference attendees received. Rodriguez also noted that the MLive Media Group helped to creat the ipad app for the WMPF conference.
WMPF member Doug DeVos followed Rodriguez and provided the audience with a framework for the two – day event. DeVos stated that since 2008 the group has made progress, but wanted to make it clear that he wants everyone to re-commit to continue making progress. “This isn’t about business, this isn’t about money, this is about people,” DeVos said. “When we make progress everyone benefits. This is about people realizing who they are and improving their quality of life.” Such comments reflected from the get go that the leadership of the WMPF were going to use clear talking points to downplay their own personal and corporate interests and make everyone think that this is all about the public good.
DeVos said that there were really three themes that the two – day event would deal with. The first was that personal freedom is linked to economic freedom. DeVos went on to say, “we are the enabler of personal freedom.” The second theme was that they were interested in policy solutions and not politics. The Amway President noted that there were several ballot proposals that, “were put forth by powerful groups that have slick marketing campaigns.” While DeVos wanted to frame this about policy and not politics, any discussion about the ballot initiatives is clearly about politics. The last theme he wanted people to think about was to implore those in attendance to “be courageous.” This writer has no idea what the hell that meant.
The first guest speaker to address the audience was Robert Genetski. Genetski promotes what he refers to as classical economic principles and is an expert with the conservative think tank and leading climate denier, the Heartland Institute. Genetski began by talking about where Michigan has been. Genetski believes that 4 years ago Michigan was at the bottom of the list in terms of where states rank economically. Genetski believes there have been some improvements since 2009, but that “living standards have gone down and the situation is bad.”
Genetski did state that the state budget is now solid and that the Michigan Business tax was replaced by a more “reasonable tax.”
Genettski then spoke to where Michigan is going. He focused on the upcoming National Election and emphasized that we need to embrace classical economic principles. The speaker said “prosperity depends on giving each individual maximum freedom over their lives.” This notion was supported with four fundamental principles. Genetski believes that if there are low tax rates, a free market, protection of property rights and a stable value for currency, then freedom can truly exist. He juxtaposed such ideas with current government spending, regulations and mandates, which Genetski believes are destroying the country.
For Michigan’s economy to thrive, Genetski believes that the state needs to lower the tax rate, reduce government spending and give workers the “freedom” to decide to join unions or not, which means he support Michigan being a Right to Work state. He spent most of the time addressing Right to Work and said it is key for Michigan to truly thrive.
Genetski ended his comments by focusing on 3 ballot initiative that will be voted on in November in Michigan. Genetski says the Protect Our Jobs ballot initiative, should be renamed the give unions more power initiative. He said that the Home Health Care initiative should be renamed the Unionize Home Health Care and the Renewable Energy initiative should be labeled the, “Lets make our electric rates the highest in the country” initiative.
Genetski clear set the tone and made it clear that the West Michigan Policy Forum was committed to policies that will benefit the capitalist class and that electoral politics were central to their mission, despite Doug DeVos’ claim of policy, not politics.
Film on history of US policy towards Cuba subject of September Left Forum Movie Night – September 19
This month the Left Forum will be showing the film “Will the Real Terrorist Please Stand Up” by Saul Landau with guest Danny Glover.
“Will the real terrorist please stand up” chronicles half a century of hostile US-Cuba relations. By telling the story of the case of the Cuban five, intelligence agents sent to penetrate Cuban exile terrorist groups in Miami and now serving long prison sentences, the film highlights decades of assassinations and sabotage at first backed by Washington and then ignored by the very government that launched a “war against terrorism.” In the film, viewers see leading terrorists, now in their 80s, recounting their deeds, and Cuban state security officials explaining why they infiltrated agents into violent Miami exile groups.
The film, featuring Danny Glover and 84 year old Fidel Castro in key scenes, raises and tries to answer the question: what did Cuba do to deserve such hostile treatment? It traces key events from the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, through multiple assassination attempts on Fidel Castro’s life. This documentary reveals a story of violence that also echoed on the streets of Washington DC, New York and especially Miami where Cuban American critics of the bombers and shooters also wound up dead.
The film is open to the public and free. A discussion will follow. The film will be shown on a TV set.
Will the Real Terrorists Please Stand Up
7:00PM
Wednesday, September 19
At the IGE (Institute for Global Education) office.
1118 Wealthy St.
Grand Rapids, Mi. 49606
This article by Julie Hollar is re-posted from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. Editor’s Note: The conclusions from this report are similar to previous studies that GRIID has conducted on race representation in local media.
Since 1990, the Latino population in the United States has more than doubled to 16 percent, but English-language U.S. news media outlets are simply not keeping up. While people of color and women have always been underrepresented in U.S. media, Latinos consistently stand out—in the coverage as well as inside the newsroom—for their exceptionally paltry numbers relative to their population size.
In coverage
In Extra!’s recent study of the opinion pages of the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal (4/12), Latinos were granted less than half a percent of the op-ed bylines over the two-month study period—writing two columns in the Times, one in the Wall Street Journal, and none in the Post. None of these papers has a Latino among their staff columnists.
In more than a year of political book interviews on C-SPAN After Words and reviews in the New York Times Book Review (Extra!, 8/10), not a single U.S. Latino appeared among the 432 authors, reviewers and interviewers.
Among U.S. sources on the PBS NewsHour in 2006 (Extra!, 9–10/06), Latinos, who were 14 percent of the U.S. public at the time, represented a strikingly small 2 percent; George W. Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales accounted for 30 percent of those Latino sources. An earlier study (Extra!, 5–6/02) found commercial networks doing even worse, with Latinos representing a stunningly low 0.6 percent of sources on the nightly news programs of ABC, CBS and NBC.
At NPR, only one of the outlet’s 46 regular commentators in 2003 was Latino—making them the most underrepresented group we looked at among NPR commentators next to Native Americans, who were not represented at all (Extra!, 5–6/04).
Even when the coverage directly involves and impacts Latinos, their voices are scarce. In a year’s worth of cable coverage of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio—who was recently sued by the Justice Department for unlawful discrimination against Latinos—those actually targeted by his policies were included in the conversation only two out of 21 times (Extra!, 6/09).
Latinos are rarely turned to as “experts,” the researchers, academics and analysts who add insight to a story. In FAIR’s 2007 study of poverty coverage (Extra!, 9–10/07), for example, Latinos were 5 percent of all sources, but all were people in poverty; none of the 114 non-poor sources identified in the study period were Latino.
Often the only time Latinos are included in stories is when newsmakers themselves are Latino. In stories on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, for example, 28 percent of New York Times sources whose ethnicity could be identified were Latino, while no sources identifiable as Latino were quoted when Robert Bork was nominated (Extra!, 8/09). (More than half of those Latino sources in Sotomayor stories were the nominee herself and her family and friends.)
In a study of six months of content in major print, broadcast and online media outlets in 2009, the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Hispanic Center (12/7/09) found that only 3 percent of the news content contained substantial reference to Hispanics (using a broad definition that included non-U.S. Latinos like Vene-zuelan President Hugo Chávez), and 39 percent of that coverage was of Sotomayor.
That report concluded that “most of what the public learns about Hispanics comes not through focused coverage of the life and times of this population group but through event-driven news stories in which Hispanics are one of many elements.”
Inside the newsroom
The lack of Latinos in coverage is undoubtedly related to the scarcity of Latinos working in English-language journalism. Latinos are disproportionately underrepresented in the newsrooms of major newspapers, according to the latest ASNE newsroom survey (4/4/12), accounting for only 4 percent of newspaper employees.
The skew is worse at some of the country’s biggest urban dailies. In New York City, 22 percent of the metropolitan population is Latino, but at the city’s largest paper, the New York Times, Latinos account for 4 percent of all newsroom employees. In the Chicago area, which is 21 percent Latino, 5 percent of Chicago Tribune employees are Latino, and in the Los Angeles area, 45 percent Latino, the L.A. Times staff is only 8 percent Latino. In other words, Latinos are underrepresented in these newsroom by a factor of roughly five—a much worse rate than blacks or Asian-Americans, whose numbers would otherwise hardly seem enviable.
The only papers in the ASNE survey that manage to hire substantial numbers of Latinos—even if their numbers are still very subpar—are in cities with majority Latino populations. The Miami Herald, for example, in a city that’s 70 percent Latino, has a 27 percent Latino newsroom staff. The El Paso Times, at 57 percent in an 82 percent Latino county, does the best of the large English-language papers surveyed.
And as newspapers lay off more employees every year, minorities and women are often the first to be cut. Ruben Navarrette, the most widely syndicated Latino columnist in the country (and the only one to crack the top 30 in Media Matters’ 2007 study of nationally syndicated columnists), told Richard Prince (Journal-isms, 6/18/10) that when he joined the San Diego Union-Tribune’s editorial board in 2005, its 10 members also included an African-American man and a white woman—but as of his 2010 layoff, “everybody left on the editorial board is a white male.”
A similar trend holds on local TV and radio news outlets. At non-Hispanic TV stations, the 2011 news workforce was only 6 percent Latino, and news directors were only 2 percent Latino. (Eighty-four percent of the workforce at Hispanic stations are of Latin American descent.) Latino men outnumber Latina women by 35 percent (RTNDA, 7–8/11).
A 2002 Extra! survey (9–10/02) on the leading public radio stations in seven urban U.S. markets found only one Latino out of 83 daytime hosts and news anchors. (Six were African-American, two Asian-American and two Arab-American.) Times don’t seem to be changing: In RTNDA’s more recent 2011 survey, Latinos were less than 3 percent of the nation’s local radio news workforce.
Besides presenting all of us with an incomplete picture of U.S. life, the lack of Latino voices, as both journalists and sources, means a large and growing segment of the public is being left out of the public debate on issues of critical importance—issues that impact Latinos in particular, like coverage of anti-immigrant politicians like Arpaio, and issues that impact them in different or more severe ways than others, like public education. (See “Misrepresenting the Latino Education Crisis,” Extra!, 9/12)
The deficiencies are not lost on Latinos: Among those who got their news in both languages, Spanish-language media was rated (Pew Hispanic Center, 4/19/04) much better than English-language at “covering news that is specifically relevant to [Hispanics/Latinos] in the United States”: 79 percent called it “excellent” or “good,” vs. 20 percent “only fair” or “poor,” while English-language news was seen by 51 percent as “only fair/poor.”
As companies like Fox and NBC begin to target Latino audiences with special channels and websites (see “Latinos in New Media,” Extra!, 9/12), will those audiences feel better served, or just ghettoized and exploited? And will that provide just one more excuse for those outlets to continue to marginalize Latino sources and reporters in their other news? Whatever decisions big media make, Latino journalists like those featured in this issue will continue their struggle to make a place for themselves and their growing communities in the country’s media landscape.
A Grand Rapids Power Analysis
This information was presented at an event hosted by the Bloom Collective on September 8 and is re-posted here with the help of several Bloom Collective members.
The presentation began with the premise that in order for institutional or systemic change to take place in any community, people must have a clear understanding of who has power, both economic and political power.
The first slide shared was on understanding the Hierarchy of Power, which is included here.
The hierarchy of power believes that private economic power is the strongest form of power and that this sector of power uses political power to control state power. What is meant by political power is the idea to influence state policy through money and political leverage, which is often manifested in the relationships that private power has, the amount of assets and the associations and boards that it occupies.
Once the idea of a hierarchy of power was established, there was a discussion of who represented private power in Grand Rapids. There certainly are large, global corporations that have a presence in Grand Rapids, such as JP Morgan Chase Bank, AT&T, Coca Cola, Veolia and General Motors. These companies have power in that they can demand tax breaks and subsidies for setting up shop in the area, but they rarely influence local policy on a more regular basis.
The families, individuals and associations that were identified as having the real power in this community includes (but is not limited to) the following: DeVos, Meijer, Van Andel, Cook, Seechia, Michael Jandernoa, John Kennedy, David Frey, Sam Cummings, Huntington, the GR Chamber of Commerce, The Right Place Inc., The Econ Club of Grand Rapids, the West Michigan Policy Forum, Grand Action and the Downtown Development Authority (DDA).
These are the families and entities that through individual wealth or collaboration too often dictate the outcome of policies, economic development and major cultural dynamics that impact the entire community.
The easiest example is the DeVos Family. Their collective wealth and assets is astounding. You can see here how much they own and can get a more detailed listing at this link.
In addition to the wealth & assets that the DeVos Family holds, they influence policy through direct contributions to political parties/candidates or campaigns. According to data provided by the Center for Responsible Politics, we determined that the DeVos family had collective given over half a million dollars in the 2012 election cycle by July.
Other examples of members of the DeVos family influencing policy are the recent donation of $250,000 by Richard DeVos to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in his bid to defeat a recall campaign and a $500,000 donation by Doug DeVos to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a lead organization that fights marriage equality across the country. On a more local level, the DeVos family has given money to influence the politics of local universities and colleges, religious institutions, hospitals and non-profits.
In addition to the power that individual families have because of their vast amount of wealth, they also have power through formal associations. If one were to look at who sits on the boards of entities like the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, Grand Action, the Econ Club of Grand Rapids, the West Michigan Policy Forum and the Right Place Inc., one can see the wealthiest and most powerful people occupying those boards. One can also begin to see that certain names appear over and over again, thus creating what could be called interlocking systems of power. Here is a graph to illustrate these interlocking systems in Grand Rapids.
These are the organizations and associations that the wealthiest families use to dictate policy in this community. We have seen this historically with the development of downtown Grand Rapids over the past 20 years, whether it was the construction of the arena, the convention center and now the so-called “urban market.”
Understanding that private economic and political power is greater than state power, we can then see how the state more often than not operates to maintain the social stratification created by the local elites. Through police, the courts and the jail, the state will deal with disproportionately poor and minority communities by putting them in the Prison Industrial Complex. This is not to say that the state does no “good,” such as libraries and public transportation, but the good/bad binary that has been created by the power structure doesn’t allow us to see how power functions. Of course, the state does some “good,” but the point here is that its primary function is to act on behalf of private power and not allow the masses to really have a say in social and economic policies.
The media also plays the same role, since the media is part of the power structure, based on who owns them. However, even most reporters will not question the power structure, since they have either internalized the values of the system or engage in self-censorship in order to protect their job. Very little local media is owned locally and when they do report on those with power, the news is often bias, framed in the good/bad binary and sometimes the news media acts as sort of a PR outlet for power.
This brings us to the last level in the hierarchy of power, the NGO, Social Services sector. More often than not what one sees with non-profit organizations and social services, entities that are dealing with the consequences of private power’s quest for more power – poverty, various forms of discrimination, poor health, destruction of the environment – is that these NGOs will not question the reasons why people are poor, are suffering from bad health or are the victims of discrimination and oppression.
One of the reasons for this failure to get to the root of problems within the NGO sector is because most often non-profits think that the current system is more or less fine and only needs some minor reforms. This is why many people will say that in Grand Rapids, “we do charity real well, but not justice.” There are social service agencies and charitable services all over this community, but they are not a threat to the existing power structure. This is exactly why the wealthy elites in this community often donate large sums of money to these non-profits, because they not only will not have their power threatened, it actually creates the illusion that they are doing “good.”
Radical sociologists identify the social service and non-profit sector as the first line of defense against social uprisings. If your organization or agency can provide charitable assistance to people, then they are less likely to direct their rage towards systems of power. In a sense, much of the social service and non-profit world acts as a buffer between the disenfranchised masses and the power elite or as the Occupy Movement would call them, the 1%.
This is exactly why virtually all those individuals and families who make up the 1% in Grand Rapids have their own foundations. Foundations are first and foremost a way to put one’s wealth into a non-taxable status, but it also serves as a way to create an illusion of concern, redirect attention away from social inequality and to engage in population management.
The power structure often gives money to programs that serve the “needy” as a way to guarantee that those most disenfranchised not only will not rise up against the power structure, but will actually come to see them as people they admire. We can see this all throughout West Michigan, where the DeVos, Prince, Meijer and Van Andel families are viewed with great admiration. The fact that working class people will speak highly of the local power structure is an amazing feat of propaganda that would make Joseph Goebbels blush.
The discussion at the Bloom Collective ended with looking at the function of ArtPrize within a local power analysis. People were able to deconstruct the role this art event played within that hierarchy of power and who the real beneficiaries were of the annual event.
Asking the Chileans for Forgiveness on September 11
Critiquing the news is not just about what they report on, but what they don’t report on.
It is eleven years since planes were flown into the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, in what has become known as 9/11. There will be memorial services today, Patriot Day parades and the news media might even provide some kind of retrospective on what happened on September 11, 2001.
We always need to say 2001, because September 11 is not just a day for Americans to stop and reflect, it is a day that continues to haunt the people of Chile.
On September 11, 1973, the CIA led a coup against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and put in power one of the worst dictators in Latin American history, Augusto Pinochet.
Pinochet rounded up thousands of people who were identified as dissidents, had thousands of them tortured and murdered. These atrocities happened with US government support. In fact, according to declassified documents, we know how high ranking US government official responded to the first reports of Chilean army massacres.
According to the first transcript dated October 1, 1973, when Kissinger was informed by his assistant secretary of inter-American affairs of initial reports of massacres following the coup he told his staff that the U.S. should not defend what the regime was doing. However, he emphasized: “But I think we should understand our policy–that however unpleasant they act, the [military] government is better for us than Allende was.”
The US government could not tolerate an independent government operating in the Western hemisphere and had been working for years to undermine the Allende government. The effort to rid the Western hemisphere of Allende was motivated in part because of his Socialist leanings, but also because the Chilean government dared to nationalize some of the industries, which resulted in US-based corporations losing profits. The ITT Corporation became the lead private entity to assist the Nixon administration in anti-Allende activities.
The US economic interest in Chile did not end with he September 11, 1973 coup. It continued for years with Chile being somewhat of a laboratory for Milton Friedman’s economic shock doctrine, as is well documented in Naomi Klein’s book, The Shock Doctrine. Friedman himself made visits to Chile after the 1973 coup and then sent a team of his best young economists, known as the Chicago Boys, to ply their trade on the South American country.
The application of an economic shock doctrine in Chile was great for US corporations and the wealthy residents, but would mean poverty for many. Pinochet was eventually removed from power and a campaign began to try him for war crimes in a European court. The US government intervened as they knew that any legal proceedings against Pinochet would ultimately result of charges being brought against Kissinger and other high ranking US officials. Pinochet died in 2006, without ever being punished for the human rights abuses he oversaw.
On this September 11, we ask forgiveness from the Chilean people.
We ask forgiveness for the thousands of murders and tortured bodies.
We ask forgiveness for the families that were destroyed through the violence of the coup and the Pinochet dictatorship.
We ask forgiveness for the economic devastation brought about because of the US intervention and the implementation of the Shock Doctrine.
We ask for forgiveness on September 11, for the torture and death of some many young people, like the great musician Victor Jara, who was tortured and murder in the soccer stadium. We honor those that were murdered on September 11, the other September 11, with this music video by Victor Jara.
Group Calls for Fracking Ban in Europe
This article is re-posted from EcoWatch.
Commission studies, released last Friday, find the risks associated with large-scale shale gas development and fracking to be high and in some cases very high. The studies draw special attention to the cumulative environmental impacts of multiple shale gas wells. Eight key pieces of the European Union (EU) environmental acquis are identified as being ill-equipped to deal with the water, waste, liability, air quality and other issues of large-scale use of hydraulic fracturing.
The findings in these studies roundly debunk European Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger’s view that current EU law adequately deals with the risks of fracking. Given the manifold risks identified in this report, Food & Water Europe calls on the Environment Commissioner Potočnik to ban fracking or—at the very least—address these shortcomings by adapting the EU’s environmental regulatory framework to the ugly reality of large-scale shale gas extraction.
“These studies reviewed a lot of the evidence about the negative environmental impacts of large-scale shale gas extraction and acknowledge the water, air and land-related risks associated with shale gas to be high,” said Wenonah Hauter. “We particularly welcome the studies’ focus on the cumulative environmental impacts of hundreds of wells in Europe’s shale plays.”
This focus is particularly valued, as the draft report about the environmental impacts of shale gas, drafted by MEP Boguslaw Sonik, does not even mention this key fact: Shale gas development requires a lot of wells to be drilled. For example, a mature shale play like the Barnett shale in Texas has 15,000 wells. In other words, unconventional gas is profoundly different from previous European experiences with onshore, conventional gas exploitation.
In sharp contrast to Commissioner Oettinger’s earlier claim that existing European environmental regulation for shale gas activities would be adequate, the report clearly identifies gaps in eight cornerstones of the EU’s environmental acquis, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, Water Framework Directive, Environmental Liability Directive, Industrial Emissions Directive, Mining Waste Directive, etc. For example, the DG Environment study (pp. 108-109) finds that the Groundwater Directive, particularly Article 6 requiring Member States to develop measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater, “could in principle involve the prevention of hydraulic fracturing operations, should the latter involve the injection underground of pollutants”. Given this obligation, Member States open themselves to major liabilities in case of environmental damage linked to less than adequate regulation of this risky industry.
Major gaps were also identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. “The upcoming review of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive during the fall of 2012 must include fracking in its list of activities, which require a mandatory impact assessment,” said Hauter. Impact assessments are crucial, as they help to establish sound baseline data about e.g. groundwater and air quality, identify seismic risks and help secure a meaningful involvement of local communities before drilling commences.
To avoid a situation, as occurred in the U.S., where policy-makers are engaged in a regulatory catch-up exercise with the shale gas industry, European Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik must now start leading the EU’s effort to—in the absence of unanimous support among EU Member States for a ban on fracking—demand the highest environmental standards of fracking operations to avoid that EU Member States treat environmental and human health impacts differently.
As Chicago teachers strike, solidarity rally planned in Grand Rapids this Thursday
The battles lines have been drawn in Chicago, with the teachers union going on strike against the punitive measures being imposed on the public education system by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel.
One writer on the strike reports:
Some 26,000 members of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU)–educators as well as aides, clerical personnel and clinical professionals–are walking the picket lines in their first strike in 25 years. The CTU has been without a contract since June. At the end of the last school year, 98 percent of teachers who cast a ballot authorized the union to call a strike if the city didn’t come up with a fair contract.
Final confirmation of the strike came at a dramatic live press conference for the 10 p.m. local television news, where CTU President Karen Lewis announced that negotiations had failed to bridge the gap between the city and the teachers’ union. “We have failed to reach an agreement that will prevent a labor strike,” she said. “No CTU members will be inside of our schools Monday.”
Although state laws prohibit the union from striking over issues other than pay, benefits and certain workplace procedures, Lewis made it clear that the CTU is also fighting for fully funded public education with smaller class sizes, decent facilities and improved educational options.
Lewis spoke of the CTU’s alliances with parents and community groups to demand improvements in schools–for example, the installation of air conditioning in schools that begin classes in mid-August. She pointed out that CPS has only 350 social workers for about 400,000 children. The fight for improved social services in the schools, she said, is “critical to all of us.”
Thus, while the specific issues of the Chicago teachers’ strike are limited by law, everyone knows that this fight is about, as one local news anchor put it, how the schools are run. “We ask all of you to join us in this education fight for justice,” Lewis said at the press conference, flanked by rank-and-file union members on the bargaining team.
Asked why the union was resisting implementation of a new evaluation system, CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey pointed out that the city’s punitive proposal could put as many as one-third of Chicago teachers on track for termination. By tying teacher evaluations to student test scores, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) would only put more pressure on children who already have the burden of high-stakes tests that “distort” their education, Sharkey said.
In Grand Rapids, activists have organized a Solidarity Rally for the Chicago Teachers Union. The facebook invite states:
This is a rally in support of the Chicago Teacher’s Union for a fair contract and to defend public education. On August 29th,the Chicago Teacher’s Union filed it’s ten-day strike notice. If contract negotiations are not settled, they are planning to strike Monday, September 10th. Let us gather to show our solidarity with teachers and to discuss amongst each other the significance of this struggle.
Solidarity with Chicago Teachers
Thursday, September 13
3:00 – 5:00 PM
Monument Park – corner of Division & Fulton in downtown Grand Rapids
MLive falsely pits Gov. Snyder and the West Michigan Policy Forum organizers as in opposition on Right to Work
Yesterday, MLive posted an article by business reporter Rick Haglund with the following headline, Right to Work still a thorn in Gov. Synder’s side.
The context of Haglund’s article is Gov. Rick Snyder’s visit to Grand Rapids this Thursday, where he will address members of the West MI Policy Forum at their bi-annual conference.
Haglund states in the second paragraph, “Snyder repeatedly has said right to work is a divisive issue and that he doesn’t want the Legislature to pass a bill on the measure.” It is true that Snyder has said on numerous occasions that he would prefer to not push for Right to Work legislation in Michigan, but that doesn’t mean he will oppose it.
The rest of Haglund’s article tries to further the idea that Snyder is in opposition to groups like the West Michigan Policy Forum (WMPF). The MLive business reporter cites the President of the WMPF, Jared Rodriguez who says, “Freedom to work puts trust in individual workers and allows them to make a personal choice about whether they want to join a labor union.”
Despite framing the article in such a way as to present Gov. Snyder as in conflict with the West Michigan Policy Forum, Haglund offers no real substance to such a claim, nor does he present any information on the WMPF’s perspective on Right to Work.
The West MI Policy Forum has made Right to Work legislation for Michigan one of their main goals since the founding conference in 2008. At the 2010 conference, the group brought to town anti-union propagandist Rick Berman, who presented on tactical approaches to making Right to Work a reality in Michigan.
What I think Gov. Snyder is doing by not taking a strong pro Right to Work stance is buying time. The unions in Michigan have countered the Right to Work possibility by pushing forward a November Ballot Initiative, the Project Our Jobs campaign. If that initiative passes in November, there will be a serious legal battle to overturn it. If it doesn’t pass, Michigan legislators who have aggressively advocated for Michigan to adopt Right to Work legislation will no doubt move forward with proposing such legislation, which means it will then come to Snyder to be signed into law. If Snyder was really against such legislation he would make it clear by stating publicly that he would veto such legislation if it passed in the legislature. He has not done so to date.
In addition to Synder having never said he would veto Right to Work legislation, his commitment to anti-union policies and positions has been pretty clear. In fact, one could argue that Snyder has been following the game plan of the West MI Policy Forum and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy ever since he took office nearly two years ago.
Snyder signed onto the elimination of the Michigan Business Tax, implemented the Emergency Financial Manager Law, has tied revenue sharing for municipalities by their ability to downsize their workforce and privatize public services and has supported greater movement to privatize public education by attacking public education.
GRIID plans to be at the West Michigan Policy Forum conference this week to report on the two-day event, an event that Snyder will fit right in with, despite MLive’s attempt to present him as a dissident to conservative policies.
By the way, MLive is a sponsor of the West Michigan Policy Forum, so don’t expect them to provide any critical analysis of the conference.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 