Barack Obama Seeks Big Bucks
(This article is re-posted from OpenSecrets.)
President Barack Obama returned Wednesday night to a land where campaign cash has flowed for him like milk and honey: New York City.
When Obama ran for president in 2008, of every $20 he raised, $1 came from someone in New York City, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Donors living in the NYC metro area contributed more than $42 million to Obama’s massive war chest during the 2008 election cycle, according to the Center’s research — more than any other metropolitan area.
And six of the 10 most prolific zip codes that backed Obama represent parts of New York City: 10024, 10023, 10021, 10025, 10128 and 10011.
As he battles for re-election, Obama is hoping to keep his New York City supporters energized and motivated to again open their pocketbooks for him.
On Wednesday night, Obama’s fund-raising tour in the Big Apple consisted of three events: one at the Fifth Avenue home of former Goldman Sachs chief executive officer and former New Jersey Democratic Sen. Jon Corzine, one at the prestigious Waldorf Astoria hotel and one at the Town Hall theater in Manhattan, which also featured music by the Roots. The three events reportedly raised more than $2 million, split between Obama’s nascent re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
At the events, Obama lauded his successful elevation of two new women onto the U.S. Supreme Court — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “We put a couple more women on the Supreme Court — Lord knows we need them,” Obama said to applause.
During his 2008 presidential run, Obama also needed votes and financial support from women.
Female donors accounted for more than $145 million in itemized contributions, that is donations above the $200 threshold for itemized disclosure with the Federal Election Commission.
Male donors, meanwhile, gave Obama about $199 million in donations exceeding $200. That translates to about a 57-42 split between male and female donors.
Obama’s Republican challenger, John McCain, meanwhile, got about 72 of his itemized donations from men and only about 28 percent of his money from women, according to the Center’s research.
Senator Stabenow and the Future of Agribusiness Subsidies
Last week, Senator Debbie Stabenow was in Grand Rapids meeting with representatives from the agribusiness sector, according to MiBiz.
The business journal quotes the Senator as saying, “From farming and ranching to marketing and manufacturing, Michigan’s agriculture industry touches virtually every community, supporting one in four Michigan jobs and bringing more than $70 billion to the state annually.”
While it is true that agribusiness brings $70 billion to the state of Michigan, much of that profit goes into the hands of the agribusiness sector and does not provide a significant benefit to most Michigan families. In fact, Michigan taxpayers subsidize the agribusiness sector to the tune of millions each year. According to the Environmental Working Group, agribusiness subsidies have totaled $4.11 billion from 1995 – 2009.
The amount of these annual subsidies is exactly why the general manager for Country Fresh was so delighted to have a visit from Senator Stabenow. Country Fresh has also been the recipient of huge taxpayer subsidies and according to the Environmental Working Group the dairy sector (which Country Fresh is part of) received $208,146,457 from 1995 – 2009.
One of the main reasons that the agricultural sector receives such high taxpayer subsidies is because they lobby Congress to provide them with these huge cash payments. According to the Center for Responsible Politics, the Agribusiness sector has spent over $500 million dollars in the last 20 years in order to receive hundreds of billions of dollars in federal subsidies over the same period of time. Dean Foods, the parent company of Country Fresh, has contributed $665,200 alone in the past year to members of Congress.
The other reason that Country Fresh management was happy by Senator Stabenow’s visit is because she is the chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Country Fresh invited Stabenow to one of their food processing plants in order to continue a relationship with the Senator, especially now that she is the chair of the Agriculture committee.
Senator Stabenow will be chairing the first of several hearings in Michigan on the 2012 Farm Bill, which will determine the amount of future taxpayer subsidies to agribusiness. This hearing is set for Tuesday, May 31st, from 9AM til Noon in the Kellogg Center at Michigan State University in East Lansing.
Country Fresh will no doubt have it’s own representatives at such a hearing and inviting Senator Stabenow to Grand Rapids just weeks before the hearing no doubt will be beneficial for them in terms of future subsidies.
(This article by Nick Turse is re-posted from TomDispatch.)
In recent weeks, Yemeni protesters calling for an immediate end to the 32-year reign of U.S.-backed President Ali Abdullah Saleh have been met with increasing violence at the hands of state security forces. A recent pledge by Saleh to step down, one of many that haven’t met demonstrators’ demands, has yet to halt the protests or violence by the troops backing his regime. During a demonstration earlier this month in the city of Taiz, protesters marching down a central street were confronted by security forces and Saleh supporters, while government helicopters flew overhead. “The thugs and the security forces fired on us with live gunfire,” Mahmud al-Shaobi, one of the protesters told the New York Times. “Many people were shot.”
In the days since, more demonstrators have been attacked by government forces — with the death toll now estimated to exceed 130. Witnesses have also been reporting the increased use of military helicopters in the crackdown. Some of those aircraft may be recent additions to Saleh’s arsenal, provided courtesy of the Obama administration as part of an $83-million military aviation aid package.
Since the beginning of 2011, under a program run by the U.S. Department of Defense, the United States has overseen the delivery of several new Bell UH-1Hs, or “Huey II” helicopters, current models of the iconic Huey that served as America’s primary gunship and troop transport during the Vietnam War. Although these helicopters are only the latest additions to a sizeable arsenal that the Pentagon has provided to Yemen in recent years, they call attention to how U.S. weapons and assistance support regimes actively suppressing democratic uprisings across the Middle East.
How to Arm a Dictator
Last December, 26-year-old Tunisian fruit-seller Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire in front of a local municipal office, touching off popular protests that continue to sweep across the Middle East and North Africa. By the end of January 2011, the country’s U.S.-backed dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had fled and demonstrations, which would eventually also topple corrupt autocrat and long-time U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, had broken out in Egypt. In Yemen, as is the case elsewhere in the region, anger at government corruption, rampant poverty (40% of all Yemenis live on less than $2 a day), high unemployment (also running at 40%), and decades of harsh rule by an authoritarian strongman brought tens of thousands into the streets.
In January, as freedom struggles were spreading across the region, President Barack Obama publicly avowed support for “certain core values that we believe in as Americans[,] that we believe are universal: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns.” Just days earlier, however, his government had transferred military equipment to the security forces of Yemen’s so-called president for life.
Under the terms of a $27 million contract between the Pentagon and Bell Helicopter, Yemen received four Huey IIs. Prior to this, 12 Yemeni Air Force pilots and 20 maintenance personnel were trained to fly and service the aircraft at Bell’s flight instruction facility in Alliance, Texas. “The swift execution of the Yemen Huey II program demonstrates that the military departments — in this case the U.S. Army — can quickly deliver defense articles and services to U.S. partners with the cooperation of U.S. industry,” said Brandon Denecke of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the branch of the Pentagon that coordinates sales and transfers of military equipment to allies.
The recent helicopter deal is just the latest example of Pentagon support for the forces of the Yemeni dictator through its so-called “1206 program,” a Congressionally-authorized arrangement that “allows the executive branch to rapidly provide foreign partners with military equipment and training…” Named for section 1206 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, the program allows the Pentagon to enhance the capabilities of foreign military forces for “counterterrorism and stability operations.”
Since 2006, more than $1.3 billion worth of equipment has been allocated under the 1206 program and Yemen has been the largest recipient worldwide, benefitting from about one-fifth of the funding or approximately $253 million through 2010. This assistance, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, has provided Yemeni security forces with light airplanes, helicopters, small arms, ammunition, light tactical vehicles, trucks, radios, surveillance cameras, computers, body armor, patrol boats, and helicopter parts, among other materiel.
Since 2000, the Pentagon has also transferred weapons and equipment directly from U.S. stockpiles to Yemen’s security forces. These items include armored personnel carriers, M-60 machine guns, 2.5-ton military trucks, radios, and motorboats, according to an analysis of Defense Department documents by TomDispatch. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency did not respond to repeated requests for further information.
All told, over the past five years, the U.S. has provided more than $300 million in aid to Yemen’s security forces, with the dollars escalating precipitously under the Obama administration. In 2008, under President George W. Bush, Yemen received $17.2 million in baseline military assistance (which does not include counterterrorism or humanitarian funding). In 2010, that number had risen to $72.3 million while, overall, Yemen received $155.3 million in U.S. aid that year, including a “$34.5 million special operations force counterterrorism enhancement package.” These funds have provided Yemen’s security forces with helicopters, Humvees, weapons, ammunition, radio systems, and night-vision goggles.
Additionally, U.S. special operations troops (along with British and Saudi military personnel) have been supporting, advising, and conducting training missions with some of Yemen’s elite forces — including the Republican Guard, Special Operations Forces, and the National Security Bureau — which are commanded and staffed by Saleh’s sons and other close relatives.
As his part of the bargain, Saleh allowed the U.S. to launch missile strikes against suspected al-Qaeda camps in Yemen while instructing his government to take credit for the attacks (for fear that if their American origins were made clear, there might be an anti-American backlash in Yemen and the larger Arab world), according to classified State Department documents released last year by the whistleblower group Wikileaks. “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Saleh told then-CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus following strikes in December 2009.
The Yemeni government also came up with a cover story for, and even excused, the deaths of civilians in those strikes. Rashad al-Alimi, a deputy prime minister, claimed that the Yemeni citizens killed in an attack were “acting in collusion with the terrorists and benefiting financially” when, in reality, they were likely Bedouin families involved in little more than peddling food.
Not So Tough Talk
As Yemen’s security forces have escalated their violence against demonstrators this spring, the Obama administration has offered mixed signals regarding Saleh, but has yet to issue an outright condemnation of the dictator, no less sever ties with a leader seen as crucial to the fight against al-Qaeda. “We have had a good working relationship with President Saleh. He’s been an important ally in the counterterrorism arena,” said U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on March 23rd. “But clearly, there’s a lot of unhappiness inside Yemen. And I think we will basically just continue to watch the situation. We haven’t done any post-Saleh planning, if you will.”
On April 5th, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney came out more forcefully. “The United States strongly condemns the use of violence by Yemeni government forces against demonstrators in Sanaa, Taiz, and Hodeida in the past several days,” he said. “The Yemeni people have a right to demonstrate peacefully, and we remind President Ali Abdullah Saleh of his responsibility to ensure the safety and security of Yemenis who are exercising their universal right to engage in political expression. “
That same day, however, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was more equivocal, justifying enduring U.S. support for Yemen’s strongman as a “prudent course of action,” while including the protestors as the equals of the security forces in his condemnation of the use of force: “The protests, the demonstrations need to be nonviolent. Obviously, the government needs to respond to them in a nonviolent manner. So we are — we condemn the violence all around.”
Morrell also sought to distance the Pentagon’s aid for the country’s security forces from the violence being meted out in Yemen’s streets. He told reporters, “To suggest that the aid to Yemen has somehow been used against protesters I think is a leap of faith for which there is no evidence to support.” Recent reports, however, suggest that Yemen’s elite U.S.-trained counterterrorism troops have now been deployed in the capital, Sanaa, to deal with the massive ongoing protests.
Late last year, the Pentagon floated a new proposal to pump up to $1.2 billion more into Yemen’s security forces over the next five years. However, with protesters in the streets week after week in vast numbers and significant elements of the military defecting from the regime, the Obama administration failed to write Saleh a check and began quietly urging him, through back-channel communications, to hand over power — assumedly to a successor likely to favor U.S. interests.
Finally, on April 23rd, after Saleh seemingly agreed to an arrangement brokered by Arab mediators that would grant immunity from prosecution to his family and him, and eventually shift power to his deputy for an interim period, the Obama administration threw its support behind the plan. A spokesman characterized it as “responsive to the aspirations of the Yemeni people.” Not only have many opposition protesters rejected the deal, while Saleh’s troops continue to attack them, but the dictator has slowly backed away from it as well.
And yet, despite weeks of violence that have left hundreds dead or wounded, President Obama has yet to publicly and unequivocally call for Saleh to step down as he did, albeit belatedly, with former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and, more recently, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
Sending a Message
Earlier this month, Tawakul Karman, a Yemeni human rights activist and antigovernment protest leader, told the New York Times of her anger at Obama for his failure to issue such a call. ”We feel that we have been betrayed,” she said. Hamza Alkamaly, another prominent youth leader, echoed the same sentiments: ”We students lost our trust in the United States.”
After watching two allied autocrats fall in Tunisia and Egypt, the United States has focused on its periodic enemy, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, in Libya and has done little of substance to advocate for, let alone facilitate, demands for democracy and social change by protesters in allied states that are more integral to its military plans in the region, including Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Instead, Washington has continued to support repressive governments to which it has provided training, weapons, and other military equipment that has already been used or could be used to suppress grassroots democratic movements.
In the case of Bahrain, the U.S. has provided millions of rounds of live ammunition, helicopters, and tanks. For Saudi Arabia, it was a weapons deal worth tens of billions of dollars that will have Saudi pilots training in the U.S. In Iraq, the U.S. is aiding the very units of the security forces implicated in crackdowns on the free press. And these are only a few examples of recent U.S. efforts in the Middle East.
A survey of Yemeni adults conducted in January and February by the U.S.-based polling firm Glevum Associates found exceptional hostility to the United States. Ninety-nine percent of those surveyed viewed the U.S. government’s relations with the Islamic world unfavorably, 82% considered U.S. military influence in the world “somewhat bad” or “bad,” 66% believed that the U.S. hardly ever or never took into account the interests of countries like Yemen, and just 4% “somewhat” or “strongly approved” of President Saleh’s cooperation with the United States.
The numbers could hardly get more dismal, but anger and resentment can deepen and become even more entrenched. When protesters look to the skies over Sanaa in the days and weeks ahead, they may notice new American-made, U.S. taxpayer-financed helicopters hovering above them. Unless the Hueys are seen ferrying the dictator away in a scene reminiscent of Saigon in 1975, Yemenis — more than two-thirds under the age of 24 — are likely to remember for a very long time which side the United States took in their freedom struggle.
Circus Protest Planned for this Friday in Grand Rapids
A group of local animal rights activists have organized a protest against the Circus when it is in town this weekend.
Too often we think of that the animals used in a circus are treated well and willingly do whatever “tricks” they do for the audience. According to PETA, “For animals in circuses, there is no such thing as “positive reinforcement”—only varying degrees of punishment and deprivation. To force them to perform these meaningless and physically uncomfortable tricks, trainers use whips, tight collars, muzzles, electric prods, bullhooks, and other painful tools of the trade.”
Those who have organized the Grand Rapids protest also make a statement about how animals are treated in the circus.
“Help us stop the cruelty. These animals have horrible lives and are trained with whips and chains. They live in small trailers and do not even have room to turn around. They submit to this cruelty because they are completely broken down.”
Anyone who opposes the animal cruelty in circuses is invited to come with signs and send a message to those who paid to see animals mistreated.
Friday, April 29
4 – 7:00 PM
DeltaPlex Arena & Conference Center
2500 Turner Ave NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49544
Jesse Jackson calls for uprising in Benton Harbor
(This article from Eartha Jane Melzer is re-posted from The Michigan Messenger.)
Residents of Benton Harbor should not lose their democratic rights or their city parks just because the city is poor, Rev. Jesse Jackson said yesterday, and he called for people to speak out against Michigan’s Emergency Manager law.
In an op-ed to the Chicago Sun Times Jackson wrote:
Benton Harbor’s finances are a mess. How could they not be in a town stripped of jobs and hope? So, the state has stripped its residents of their democracy. In what is accurately termed “fiscal martial law,” the state has named a czar to run the city. That appointee, Joseph Harris, has issued an order essentially stripping the elected city council of all powers. No money can be spent, no taxes raised or lowered, no bonds issued, no regulations changed without his approval. Benton Harbor’s residents now live in a dictatorship imposed by a Republican governor famous for his belief that the poor should be punished and the rich rewarded.
This appointed dictator claims breathtaking powers. He can sell public assets, dismiss pension boards and take control of public pension funds and revoke labor contracts. What triggers this takeover? The law is remarkably vague. The governor may act if a payroll is missed, if there are complaints of late bill payment, if pensions are underfunded, if there is a significant budget deficit, a term that goes undefined.
This takeover is a recipe for the worst abuses of oppression, cronyism and corruption. And here, too, Benton Harbor is the example. One of the few citizen treasures in Benton Harbor is the Jean Klock Park, a half-mile of sandy dunes on the edge of Lake Michigan. It was bequeathed to the children of Benton Harbor by the Klock family in 1917 in memory of their daughter.
But developers backed by Whirlpool now want to appropriate a large portion of the park to turn it into a Harbor Shores golf resort with a 350-room hotel, two marinas, a 60,000-foot indoor water park (for members only), and a fancy golf course open to all who can afford a $5,000 entry fee and be approved by the club. The town’s citizens have resisted this development, which is under litigation.
But the new czar’s first act was to take over the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, most likely as a way to proceed with the development and sidestep the lawsuits. Why be suspicious? Because the law that the new czar is operating under was introduced by Republican state Rep. Al Pscholka, former staff aide to U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, an heir to the Whirlpool fortune.
They’ve shut down the jobs, and taken over the schools. Now they want to shut down the democracy and turn the public parks into a rich man’s playground. But in Benton Harbor, as in Selma and Montgomery, they forget even the poorest people have a sense of dignity. Dr. King wrote, “the ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” In Benton Harbor, it is time for the good people to make themselves heard.
People from throughout the region are expected to converge on Benton Harbor today for a noon march and rally in response to the suspension of local government.
This Date in Resistance History: The Trial of Emile Henry
On this day in 1894, Emile Henry was brought to court on charges of murder and insurrection. Henry, born in 1872 in Spain, was the son of a Communard who had been exiled after the collapse of the Paris Commune.
As an adult, Henry traveled to France and studied the history of social justice and the oppression of workers. He had arrived at a point where class warfare was reaching a fever pitch. The gap between the rich and the poor was widening, just as it is today. The wealthy flocked to the grand cafés to be seen and to mingle; to the wedding-cake Parisian opera house for entertainment; and to restaurants for meals of eight courses. Meanwhile, the poor were suffering and invisible. They had no representation in parliament; they were underpaid or living in poverty; and many died young from diseases which spread in the Parisian slums. Child labor was widespread (and is still, amazingly, a serious problem in France today).
As he witnessed this social injustice, Emile Henry’s views became increasingly radical. On hearing of a strike of mine workers in Carmaux, he traveled there to stand in solidarity with the miners. What he found there appalled him.
The mining company was notorious for union-busting, and on August 15 of 1892, the workers took over the offices of the mine and declared themselves on strike. Supposed union sympathizers had arrived on the scene, offering to set up a strike fund and appeal for contributions. The miners allowed these men to collect funds for their ongoing fight against the owners of the mine. But the workers saw only a fraction of the money collected in their names, while the organizers advised the miners to resist peacefully.
Meanwhile, Henry saw clearly that the miners had lost the initiative to attack the financial underpinnings of the mining operation. They could have destroyed already-mined coal, sabotaged machines, and created other damage that would have given them the leverage to negotiate. Instead, the miners held out passively for two months while the company simply sold its reserves of coal. Finally broken, their families starving, the workers returned to their jobs.
The mining company, owned by the wealthy capitalist Baron Reille, continued its punitive work practices, while having suffered no financial loss from the thwarted attempt of the miners to improve their condition.
Enraged, Henry, whose father had also been a miner, decided to bomb the mining company’s offices. The bomb was discovered before it detonated, and inept police officers brought the bomb back to the police station without defusing it first. It exploded, killing several officers.
Henry returned to Paris directly after his bombing attempt, and discovered that a fellow anarchist had bombed the Palais-Bourbon (the French parliament of the time). In the wake of this action, students and other radicals were being indiscriminately rounded up for arrest, often without charges. “Nobody was concerned about what happened to the wives and children of these comrades while they remained in jail,” Henry wrote. Meanwhile, he observed the wealthy enjoying their luxurious “café society” lifestyle, supported by their oppression of workers and the suppression of unions in France.
The Café Terminus was, at the time, the leading café of the elite. Located on the ground floor of a luxurious hotel, the café featured gilded chairs, marble-topped tables, mirrored and gilded walls, and its own orchestra. A meal there cost the equivalent of several days’ wages for a worker. It was located near the Paris Opera House, and so was busy during the day and also before and after opera performances.
Henry packed a metal lunchbox, the type that the miners had carried into the mine shafts, with dynamite and a tube of zinc filled with buckshot. He entered the café, drank two beers, and then threw the activated bomb toward the orchestra stage. It flew up in the air, exploding on contact with one of the café’s huge crystal chandeliers. The force of the explosion shattered the marble tables, punched a crater into the floor, and shattered the mirrored walls.
Later, Henry never attempted to defend himself. He did not declare himself to be innocent. He accepted responsibility for the bombing, which killed one patron of the café and injured twenty. In an explanation of his actions, he wrote in part:
But why, you ask, attack those peaceful café guests, who sat listening to music and who, no doubt, were neither judges nor deputies nor bureaucrats? Why? It is very simple. The bourgeoisie did not distinguish among the anarchists….Those good bourgeois who hold no office but who reap their dividends and live idly on the profits of the workers’ toil, they also must take their share in the reprisals.
Both at his trial and in his written statement, Emile Henry maintained that nobody who enjoyed a luxurious life at the expense of inadequate pay, inhuman working hours, and unsafe working conditions was “innocent.” He stated:
We will not spare the women and children of the bourgeois, for the women and children of those we love have not been spared. Must we not count among the innocent victims those children who die slowly of anaemia in the slums because bread is scarce in their houses; those women who grow pale in your workshops, working to earn forty sous a day and fortunate when poverty does not force them into prostitution; those old men whom you have made production machines all their lives and whom you cast on to the waste heap or into the workhouse when their strength has worn away? At least have the courage of your crimes, gentlemen of the bourgeoisie, and grant that our reprisals are completely legitimate.
Emile Henry was executed by guillotine on May 24, 1894. He was 21 years old. In his short life, Henry chose the most extreme of political actions, with which many might disagree. Even so, it is striking to look at the social justice/economic situation to which he responded and see so many parallels to worker struggles today.
Today Detroit – tomorrow, every city in America
(This article by Rania Khalek is re-posted from Missing Pieces.)
If Milton Friedman, father of the free market, were alive today, I imagine he would be jumping with joy at the prospect of the abandonment of public education for private, for-profit charter schools.
Back in 2005, following the devastation of hurricane Katrina, Friedman wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal where he said “This is a tragedy. It is also an opportunity to radically reform the educational system.” Soon after, Friedmonites rushed into New Orleans for the chance to implement what Friedman had long envisioned. With the help of the Bush administration, they dissolved the public school system and in its place built a network of publicly funded charters run, not by educators, but by private entities that made their own rules.
At the time, New Orleans residents alerted the rest of the country, that what was happening to their city was only the beginning and it wouldn’t be long before it spread to our neighborhoods. In 2006, Bill Quigley, a local lawyer and activist warned:
“We know that what is happening in New Orleans is just a more concentrated, more graphic version of what is going on all over our country. Every city in our country has some serious similarities to New Orleans. Every city has some abandoned neighborhoods. Every city in our country has abandoned some public education, public housing, public healthcare, and criminal justice. Those who do not support public education, healthcare, and housing will continue to turn all of our country into the Lower Ninth Ward unless we stop them. Why do we allow this?
If only we had listened. Soon after New Orleans came the drastic transformation of the Chicago school system by Obama’s Labor Secretary Arne Duncan, New York City schools by Mayor Bloomberg, and Washington DC schools by Michelle Rhee. Which brings us to Detroit.”
Following the passage of Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s “Financial Martial Law,” Emergency Financial Manager (EFM) of Detroit Public Schools (DPS) Robert Bobb is closing 8 schools and selling 45 to charter companies. DPS is currently preparing a charter school board through training sessions provided by the National Charter Schools Institute, which had more than 70 charter operators and entrepreneurs in attendance just this month. In addition, DPS has hired the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) to review applications. NACSA’s president, Greg Richmond, worked with charter schools set up in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and claims “The system opened up to the people of New Orleans in a way it hadn’t before…Now there are dozens of opportunities to get involved.”
In sharp contrast to the lingering unemployment that plagues Detroit, the auctioning off of Detroit’s schools is taking place with breathtaking speed. Gov. Snyder is on a mission to reinvent public education. He is calling for more measurements of student and teacher performance, while at the same time proposing deregulation and more teacher autonomy. He says “We have to put much more emphasis on proficiency, on growth, on measurements and results than we have had in the past” and “Michigan’s public schools need to more rigorously measure students’ academic growth, but with fewer state rules to make that happen.”
Detroit residents have already started protesting. Just last week, eight students, along with their children and some faculty members of the Catherine Ferguson Academy of Detroit, began a sit-in at the end of the school day in protest of EFM Robert Bobb’s announcement to close the school. About a dozen or so were arrested by Detroit police for refusing to leave. The school is specifically designed for pregnant and teen parents and their children, and has a 90% graduation rate and 100% college and higher education acceptance upon graduation.
Gov. Snyder recently said his focus is a holistic approach to education from pre-natal to life-long learning. He says early childhood education is important and should involve “a public and private partnership.” If shutting down an award-winning school and arresting, rather than listening to the students he claims to care so much about, is his idea of a holistic approach, then Detroit is in for a treat.
Shanta Driver, National Chairperson of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), in an interview with Voice of Detroit at the sit-in, said it best:
“The massive school closures that have been carried out in DPS since 2004 have led to the depopulation of Detroit and to the deepening financial crisis of the district. Public schools are being closed to make way for charters and are part of the national attack on public education. Today Detroit – tomorrow, every city in America. The parents and students of Catherine Ferguson are fighting to maintain the right of every student in our nation to a free, quality public education. Every supporter of public education should do everything possible to support their fight and make sure they succeed.”
Driver is warning us, as did the people of New Orleans in 2006. This corporately funded education reform movement that praises standardized tests, non-union teachers, and private management as the solution to the budget woes of Detroit’s education system is a threat to us all.
Surprised by Solidarity in Wisconsin: Media erred in assuming public shared their distaste for unions
(This article is re-posted from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting.)
One of the early assumptions in media coverage of the Wisconsin protests against Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed anti-labor legislation was that the public wouldn’t sympathize with “overpaid” public-sector workers. But soon enough, reality intervened.
The New York Times’ Matt Bai (2/27/11) recommended that “taking the fight to the unions is a good way to bolster your credentials as a gutsy reformer with voters who have been losing faith for years in public schools and government bureaucracies.”
In the March 7 Time, Amanda Ripley wrote that hating public workers is a historical fact: “Since the beginning, Americans have resented government workers’ asking for money. The distrust ebbs and flows, but the less financial security we have, the angrier we get.”
And CBS’s Jim Axelrod (2/18/11) declared, “Unions don’t have any sort of upper hand when it comes to public opinion these days.”
But those assumptions took a hit when a Gallup Poll, reported on the front page of USA Today (2/23/11), found a surprising tilt in public opinion:
Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61 percent would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33 percent who would favor such a law.
That wasn’t all. When Gallup asked about “reducing pay or benefits the state provides for government workers,” 53 percent opposed such cuts. A New York Times poll (3/1/11) further undermined the media narrative on public workers: 60 percent of those polled opposed stripping public workers of collective bargaining rights; 56 percent opposed cutting pay or benefits of those workers in the name of deficit reduction.
So what to make of this disconnect between pundits and polls? Self-professed “union guy” Bill O’Reilly at Fox News Channel offered one solution: Union households shouldn’t be polled. As he explained (3/1/11):
The New York Times headlines today reads, “Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector.” But the poll is misleading because 20 percent of the responds say they are from union households. If you subtract them, those who favor cutting benefits win the poll. Wow, New York Times.
In case it wasn’t clear, by “subtract them” he means exactly that—union households shouldn’t count in polls of the American public. Or, as he put it, “I’m just taking it out of the mix.” The logic here is hard to parse: Should the elderly be excluded from polls on Social Security? Or people of color left out of surveys on civil rights laws?
Most corporate media reporters and pundits presumably wouldn’t agree with O’Reilly’s novel idea about how to “fix” the “problem” with public opinion. But they act as if they do: Media discussion about workers’ rights rarely includes much input from workers and their advocates. On ABC’s This Week (1/20/11), a roundtable debate about Wisconsin and budgets featured a right-wing Republican politician, right-wing pundit George Will and the right-leaning ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl—with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile on the other side. The ABC website headline on the panel was actually “Unions vs. Tea Party.”
In the heat of the Wisconsin debate, labor leaders sent out word that none of the Sunday morning talk shows had booked a guest from a labor union; shortly thereafter, NBC’s Meet the Press added Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO to its February 27 panel discussion (Huffington Post, 2/24/11).
In Madison, a Numbers Game
The Wisconsin story, we were often told, comes down to numbers: a giant multi-billion dollar budget deficit and a Republican governor trying to fix it. But does it add up?
Careful readers may have been confused by much of the reporting on the scale of the problem in Wisconsin. The current deficit was $30 million, though a “far greater shortfall of $1.5 billion is expected next year,” according to the Washington Post (2/19/11). The two-year projected deficit was even larger: $3.6 billion. But as Laura Dresser of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy told CounterSpin (2/25/11–3/3/11), those figures, which came from Gov. Scott Walker’s office, represented funding requests from various state agencies—wish lists that were never likely to be granted unaltered.
Yet media coverage stressed that Walker’s plan to curtail collective bargaining was purely a fiscal move. It was “a key piece of his budget-cutting strategy” (Washington Post, 2/19/11), or “essential to help balance the budget” (New York Times, 2/19/11). On NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams announced (2/17/11) that “the state is broke,” so the governor “is proposing drastic cuts he says will save billions of dollars.” NBC reporter Kerry Sanders chimed in: “Walker says he will cut up to $3.6 billion from the budget, in large part by eliminating unions’ collective bargaining powers to negotiate wages and benefits.”
But would these cuts really reduce a “large part” of Wisconsin’s supposed $3 billion budget deficit? Not really—according to some estimates from Walker’s office, the health/pension cuts might save $300 million (USA Today, 2/23/11).
Some coverage suggested that anti-Walker protests really opposed fiscal responsibility, as when NBC reporter John Yang (2/18/11) claimed demonstrators were “denouncing Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to attack a projected $3.6 billion budget deficit.” On ABC World News (2/17/11), Chris Bury explained that protesters were “raging at the governor’s plan to rein in a $3.6 billion budget deficit.”
Of course, the problem wasn’t that Walker was fixing the deficit. As many were pointing out, Wisconsin had faced a larger projected deficit in 2009 without resorting to such drastic measures (PRWatch.org, 2/22/11). If anything, the protests were trying to argue that Walker’s plan wasn’t really about deficit-cutting at all—an argument made all the clearer with the late-night March 9 Republican ramming through of a bill containing only the non-fiscal changes Walker was pushing, like the attack on collective bargaining.
IWW hosts Annual May Day event this Saturday in Grand Rapids
The Grand Rapids branch of the IWW is hosting its second annual May Day celebration. Like last year, the event will be held at Martin Luther King Park on Fuller SE, just off of Franklin.
May Day is an international worker’s holiday and an opportunity for the community to come together to obtain resources and enjoy local entertainment. Last year the celebration brought out 200 members of the community of all ages and affiliations.
In a Media Release sent out by the IWW they state:
“May 1st marks the 125th anniversary of International Workers Day. The origins of International Workers’ Day go back to 1886, when hundreds of thousands of workers across the United States went on strike. In Grand Rapids, 7,000 furniture workers of the Knights of Labor left their workplaces for an impromptu march. Workers demanded that their 10- and 12-hour work days be shortened to an 8-hour day with no reduction in pay. Over the next few years, thousands of workers won the 8-hour workday that many of us still enjoy today.
MayDay 2011 will be an attempt to revive that most effective weapon, the General Strike, in the 21st century class war being waged. A national network of labor unions and advocacy groups are planning actions across the country (http://maydayunited.org/about/organizations/) under the banner “Legalization and Jobs for All.”
Like last year there will be children’s activities organized by the group Stop Targeting Our Kids (STOK), information tables by a variety of local organizations and a Really, Really Free Market to 2 – 4pm. The Really, Really Free Market is an opportunity for people to give away things they no longer need and get items they can use.
At 1pm there will be a community potluck where people are encouraged to bring some food to share, but the group Food Not Bombs will also provide food as well.
Live musical acts will be performing throughout the day, with the follows acts already committed to playing:
Capoeira Mandinga
Vito & the Vegitable Bros.
Radiator Hospital
Eric Glatz
Winter Break
Royal Space
Xtra Vomit
Ostradamas
Props
Focus Ferocious
Bottom Line Band
NorthStarrr / GangGreen
DJ Iceman
grrRoPoLis
The event is this Saturday, April 30th from 11am – 8pm and everyone from the community is invited to celebrate workers and workers struggles in Grand Rapids and around the world.
Noam Chomsky on the US Electoral System
(This video is re-posted from ZNet.)
At a recent forum someone asked Chomsky what he thought about the US Electoral System and if he thought there was much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Here is his response:















