Dynamic Magazine

NATIONAL CALL IN DAY FOR HEALTH CARE

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:25:00 +0000

National Health Care Call in Day is TODAY.

The call in number is 1-877-264-4226. (You can also fax or email your representative)

TAKE 2 Minutes and do it!

For more info, visit the AFL-CIO NOW BLOG

Stitch in MKE!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:37:00 +0000

Interviewee: Milwaukee activist and artist, as well as Young Communist League leader, Jeanette Martín talks about a local open mic series that she and two other local activists put together.

Interviewer: Ursula Mlynarek is the National Membership Coordinator of the Young Communist League, U.S.A. and native Milwaukee-ian.

UM: What is Stitch?

JM: STITCH is the name that we, Alida Cardos Whaley, Tony Garcia & myself came up with. We we're thinking about what this open mic series entailed of, and what it meant to us. I yelled out STITCH! Since this open mic series is our own way of trying to stitch both sides of Milwaukee, and build community.

UM: What is the format of Stitch?

JM: This weekly open mic series travels from one venue to the other- bringing in youth from one side of town to the other. Youth share thoughts, ideas, poems, songs and other art forms. Each night has different featured artists. Features were chosen through word of mouth, connections and people that heard about this open mic series.

UM: Are a lot of the features political?

JM: I believe that many of the features have strong messages to send across to the audience, but I would not label all of them political.

UM: Why is Stitch unique?

Stitch is unique since it is being organized from the actual folks that are part of these communities, for a good cause. I've gotten tons of emails from other coffee shops and venues that were very excited about what we were doing-and wanted to help us in any way that they could. That was one thing that really showed me that we were doing something positive for our comunidades.

UM: You keep referring to Milwaukee's "two sides" of the city. Please describe what you mean by these different sides, and what the importance of connecting them.

JM: The north side of Milwaukee is disenfranchised and financially deprived, and most of its residents are African American. The eastside of Milwaukee, UW-Milwaukee campus area, known to be the "nice" side of town, and there is a diverse group of folks living there, but the majority being white. The east side of Milwaukee also hosts financially wealthy Milwaukee residents. The Southside of Milwaukee, that was a majority Polish neighborhood since the early 1900s has now transitioned into being a predominantly Mexican, Puerto Rican as well as Hmong community. In the deep Southside of Milwaukee is the home to mostly white working class. By having the open mics alternate weekly, people are exposed to a place they may have never been to before, or would even think about going to otherwise.

UM: Tell me about Son MUDANZA, one of the key performers tonight.

JM: Son Mudanza established itself 2 years ago through influence of Son del Centro, a Chican@ Son Jarocho group in Santa Ana, California. Son Mudanza uses dance, poetry and song to built community as well as use as a form of cultural resistance here in the United States. A lot of the poems are the struggle on both sides of the border, as well as personal realities about being a Chican@ here in the United States.

Son Mudanza believes in solidarity and supports other social movements that believe in the power of difference. We're all friends, organizers and activists in our communities.

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:34:00 +0000

REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
What must be demanded of the
United States
(Taken from CubaDebate)

THE meeting in Costa Rica did not lead and could not lead to peace. The people of Honduras are not at war; only the coup perpetrators are using weapons against them. They should be called on to end their war on the people. Such a meeting between Zelaya and the coup leaders would only serve to demoralize the constitutional president and wear down the energies of the Honduran people.
World public opinion knows what has taken place in that country via footage circulated by international television, fundamentally Telesur which, without losing a second, faithfully transmitted each and every one of the events that took place in Honduras, the speeches given and the unanimous agreements against the coup by international agencies.
The world was able to see the blows rained down on men and women, the thousands of teargas grenades fired on the crowds, the gross gestures with weapons of war and live rounds to intimidate, wound or kill citizens.
The idea that Hugo Llorens, the U.S. ambassador in Tegucigalpa, was unaware of or discouraged the coup is absolutely untrue. He knew about it, as did the U.S. military advisors, who didn’t stop their training of Honduran troops for one minute.
It is now known that idea of promoting a peace move initiated in Costa Rica emerged from the offices of the State Department in order to contribute to the consolidation of the military coup.
The coup was conceived of and organized by unscrupulous individuals on the extreme right, dependable officials of George W. Bush and promoted by him.
All of them, without exception, have a bulky file of anti-Cuba activities. Hugo Llorens, the ambassador in Honduras since mid-2008, is a Cuban-American. He is part of a group of aggressive U.S. ambassadors in Central America comprising Robert Blau, ambassador in El Salvador; Stephen McFarland in Guatemala; and Robert Callahan in Nicaragua, all appointed by Bush in the months of July and August of 2008.
The four are continuing the line of Otto Reich and John Negroponte who, together with Oliver North, were responsible for the dirty war in Nicaragua and the death squads in Central America, which cost the peoples of the region tens of thousands of lives.
Negroponte was Bush’s representative at the United Nations, czar of U.S. intelligence and finally assistant secretary of state. In distinct ways, both of them were behind the Honduras coup.
The Soto Cano base in that country, headquarters of the Joint Task Force Bravo belonging to the Armed Forces of the United States, is the central support point of the coup d’état in Honduras.
The United States has the sinister plan of creating five further military bases around Venezuela, on the pretext of replacing the Manta one in Ecuador.
The ridiculous adventure of the coup d’état in Honduras has created a really complicated situation in Central America, which will not be resolved by traps, deceptions and lies.
Every day, new details are emerging of the implication of the United States in that action, which will also have serious repercussions in all of Latin America.
The idea of a peace initiative based in Costa Rica was transmitted to the president of that country from the State Department, when Obama was in Moscow and when he stated, in a Russian university, that the only president of Honduras was Manuel Zelaya.
The coup perpetrators were in a difficult situation. The initiative transmitted to Costa Rica sought the objective of saving them. It is obvious that every day of delay has a cost for the constitutional president and tends to dilute the exceptional international support that he has received. The Yankee maneuver does not increment the possibilities of peace, but exactly the opposite, it reduces them and the danger of violence is growing, given that the peoples of our America will never resign themselves to the fate programmed for them. When Micheletti, the de facto president, proclaimed yesterday that he is prepared to resign from his post if Zelaya resigns, I knew that the State Department and the military coup leaders had agreed to replace him and send him back to Congress as part of the maneuver.
The only correct thing to do at this point is to demand that the government of the United States ends its intervention, stops lending military support to the coup perpetrators and withdraws its Task Force from Honduras.
What is being demanded of the Honduran people, in the name of peace, is the negation of all the principles that have been fought for by all the nations of this hemisphere.
"Respect for the right of others is peace, said [Benito] Juárez.

Fidel Castro Ruz
July 16, 2009
1:12 p.m.
Translated by Granma International

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:06:00 +0000

Poor Man's Stroll

http://www.vimeo.com/5530120t

The 2nd single from ((Stero))type's album Ultrasound. The song chronicles the "ills of capitalism and captures the sentiments of millions of americans, living poor and under appreciated." says half of ((Stero))type, Drematic.

Want more? Check out music collective Indi-Arts at indi-arts.org .

Unity In the Community

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:21:00 +0000

At the beginning of May students from Little Village Lawndale Highschool, North Lawndale College Prep, Farragut, and Castellanos rallied and marched against violence in the Little Village and North Lawndale communities in Chicago, IL. Gangs in Chicago are a part of everyday life of students, whether they join or not. Neighborhoods are divided up into often small turfs that are dangerous, even for non affiliated students to cross in and out of. In Little Village the struggle is to create designated safe passages that can get students safely to school, jobs or events across opposing gang turf.

Read more after the jump!

Gang conflict within the school is also a common problem and these gang conflicts can quickly become racial conflicts. Chicago is highly racially segregated and then further segregated by gangs. Schools are a meeting point crossing neighborhoods, racial and gang lines. LVLHS is majority Latino, but also has a growing African American student body. African American students come from neighboring communities that have different gang affiliatioins. When gang conflict between Latino and African American gangs or gang members happen on or around school, larger conflict ensues. These larger conflicts turn into racially targeted violence that create huge racial tensions in the school and community.

The Unity March was called to address these issues, and bring youth in the community together against violence.

The rally was led by students who talked about the need to end violence, read the names of the 36 Chicago Public School students murdered this year and sang the Black National Anthem. The March went through the center of the community and through the neighborhood dividing line between the Latino community of Little Village and the African American community of North Lawndale.

This is the first of many actions neighborhood members and youth will take to curb the violence Little Village and North Lawndale students live with everyday. One of the many demands: Jobs for Youth!

The Argentine

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:45:00 +0000

By Kaity Chiocca

Steven Soderbergh's “The Argentine,” the first of two films comprising the “Che” epic is just as much a story of the Cuban Revolution as it is a story of the revolutionary.

Che (Benicio Del Toro) is the vehicle through which the audience experiences the 1959 revolution, and while his uncompromising search for social ideals, passionate rhetoric, and unapologetic politics hold the viewer's attention for the film's duration, his commanding character does not overshadow the importance of the Revolution as a people's movement, an organic outgrowth of popular discontent. Neither Che nor Fidel could claim sole responsibility for the outcome of the Cuban Revolution and the film is careful not to make this claim. “Che” does not idol worship, but it can not help but paint Che as a hero. In the process, however, it creates heroes of the guerrillas who fought along with him, of the Cuban people.

This portion of the film begins with Che's 1964 journey to New York and his address before the United Nations. Shot in grainy black and white reminiscent of an old news reel, Soderbergh delves deeper into Che's revolutionary politics through an interview with journalist Lisa Howard (Julia Ormond). While dominated by a primarily chronological account of the two year journey toward Havana, Soderbergh also weaves in a meeting between Che and Castro (Demian Bichir) and ends “The Argentine” on the Granma as it crosses the Gulf of Mexico.

Soderbergh's cinematography is stunning, immersing the viewer in the Sierra Maestra, sewing together images of lush jungle with the grittiness of guerrilla warfare. Rather than epic battle sequences, Soderbergh focuses on the training of fighters, both in combat and in literacy, on hunger, on the treatment of the wounded, on Che's worsening asthma. There is nothing romantic about the film, though the imagery and music itself is beautiful. The soundtrack is subtle, mesmerizing, but it is perhaps the absence of music which characterizes the most powerful scenes. The sound of chirping birds blend with intermittent gunfire and the whisper of the hidden guerrillas to create a soundtrack secondary to that composed by Alberto Iglesias, one which completely envelopes the listener, inviting him to experience a revolutionary movement unadulterated by the bells and whistles of contemporary Hollywood.

It is this minimalism which characterizes the entirety of the film and guides the psychological development of the characters. The relationships between Che and his comrades, namely Castro and Camilo Cienfuegos, become clear to the viewer not primarily through dialogue, but rather through words unspoken, a handshake or nod, silent gestures of respect.

Yet all the respect that Soderbergh and Del Toro generate for Che begins to fade as the second film, “Guerrilla” chronicles Che's downfall in the jungles of Bolivia. Less exciting than its predecessor, “Guerrilla” paints a deeply psychological portrait of the man committed to bringing revolution to all of Latin America. Unlike in Cuba, the Bolivian fighters whom Che recruited had little faith or interest in the cause and the revolution was a failure. Yet Che held strong in the face of American intervention in the region despite mounting casualties on his side. Here, Soderbergh explores the space between determination and foolish stubbornness.

Soderbergh has created a Che who is neither martyr nor murderer. Keeping a firm grip on historical accuracy, his film is brilliantly acted and beautifully shot. The jungles of Latin America serve as actors in their own right, breathing life into a film which sees the death of many, including Che. Ultimately, however, the film, or more specifically the struggles and triumphs, as well as the failures, is an inspiration and well worth the nearly 4 and a half hour runtime.

Block Movement- People's Transportation Program

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:46:00 +0000

Obama and the El Salvador Elections

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:30:00 +0000

Many people wondered in the lead up to the presidential election in El Salvador how the Obama Administration would respond. In the past, Bush and the right wing in the US openly intervened in the election process by issue threats against a FMLN government and cutting off the flow of money that Salvadorians in the US send back home.

Jake Blumgart over at Campus Progress has written an excellent piece on the Obama Administration's policies on the election and what Obama can do to further support the people of El Salvador.

Whole Foods: Respect Our Food, Not Our Workers

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:43:00 +0000

Wannabe progressive businesses Whole Foods, Costcos and Starbucks are leading a dirty, underhanded campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), is a bill that will allow workers to decide how they want to form unions, create stiffer penalties for anti-union activities by employers and mandate binding arbitration after 120 days if the union and company can not agree on a first contract.

The CEO's of Starbucks, Costcos and Whole Foods have put forward a bill that would strip employees of the right to decide how they want to form a union and do away with the binding arbitration. They are hoping to get support from Republicans and conservative Democrats to derail the passage of EFCA.

The CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, says his employees don't need a union because they get paid high wages and have good benefits. Funny, because a NYC employee of Whole Foods making $11.50/hour (that's a yearly salary of $23,920 before taxes) was fired for eating a tuna sandwhich. I wonder if the employee agrees with Mackey.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the only Republican to co-sponsor the bill in 2003 and vote for it 2007, announced today that he would not support EFCA because we are in a recession. Which is exactly why we need it passed!

CNBC: Madmen with Money

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:10:00 +0000

John Stewart has been taking CNBC, the self-proclaimed "financial experts", to task for their failure to report on the economic crisis and providing faulty financial advice. Such as Cramer advising people to invest in Bear Stearns weeks before the firm went under.

CNBC and others, most notably right-wing Republicans, have been firing back at Stewart saying that he was "unfair" and to "suggest that the business media or CNBC was responsible for what is going on now is absurd."

Get more info and full videos of the interview after the jump!!!

As usual, the right wing misses the point. What Stewart is saying is how could the media outlets who cover, investigate and report on financial institutions have missed this crisis? Well, the answer, simply is that they were in bed together.

He points out, like all media outlets, the journalists at CNBC can't trash the people they get their sources from. If they want insider info from a CEO and financial people, they wouldn't be able to blow the whistle about what was going to happen. Instead, they keep cheerleading, like Cramer did. So, they lead people to invest in corporations that were about to go belly-up by using information given to them by the bankrupt corporations... and they aren't to partly to blame for what happened????

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

comedycentral.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

comedycentral.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor

FMLN Wins Election in El Salvador

noreply@blogger.com (Dynamic Magazine) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:32:00 +0000

Mauricio Funes of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) won the presidential election held in El Salvador March 15th. This brings an end to 20 years of right wing by the ARENA party. Check out the information on Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) for information on this amazing victory! We will also be getting analysis and pictures from YCLers who were observers in this historic elections soon.

The End of an Era: Neoliberalism and the Roots of Capitalism's Latest Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:17:00 +0000

by C.J. Atkins

As the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain raced toward the Election Day finish line, the country and the world seemed to sink into a panic as the economy was collapsing all around us. Banks were going belly up, stock prices went on a roller-coaster ride, companies announced major layoffs, and Washington politicians were scrambling to point fingers and shift the blame.

How did this crisis sneak up on us? How was everyone caught off guard?

The truth is that millions of families across the country were not surprised in the least. For them, the economy was already in trouble a long time ago. What was really going on was that the economic hard-times that many working people had been feeling for years were finally starting to trickle up to those at the top. But to really understand how we got to this point, it is necessary to look back several years (even decades) to some of the trends that have come to characterize the capitalist economy. The current crisis is not something that just popped up. It is the result of more than thirty years of pursuing an economic model that has ultimately failed.

The Golden Age
In the years following World War II, capitalism in the West seemed to gain a new lease on life after the near total collapse of the Great Depression. The economy recorded higher growth each year and both big business and the working class seemed to be benefitting. Profits for capitalists were soaring higher as productivity notched upward. In the U.S., McCarthyism had stripped organized labor of some of its best leaders and tamed the unions, guaranteeing relative stability for the big corporations that dominated the economy. But even those attacks on the left could not totally destroy the victories that workers and their unions had achieved in the New Deal years. So the working class (or at least a certain sector of it) was enjoying some of the gains of this period that came to be known as capitalism’s “Golden Age”. Incomes were rising and the increasing inequality between the richest and poorest groups in society was actually reversing for the first time. The state was playing a very active role in the economy with several countries having substantial parts of their industry under public ownership. Some were starting to say that the boom-and-bust cycle of capitalism that Karl Marx had analyzed was now a thing of the past.

For some groups, of course, this Golden Age had never really been so “Golden”. In the U.S., African Americans continued to suffer from the economic and political oppression of segregation and second-class citizenship. Most immigrants, too, were excluded. Outside the advanced capitalist countries, many of the nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America were struggling for independence, but they remained mired in the poverty resulting from centuries of imperialism.

But by the 1970s this mythical period of a new crisis-free capitalism started to unravel. The economic growth that had been the necessary glue holding together the stable class relations of the post-war period stalled and stagnation set in. The mass output of consumer and industrial goods in the 1950s and 60s was finally starting to outstrip effective demand. Markets were flooded with products as the old problem of overproduction reappeared. Inflation and unemployment shot up at the same time that productivity started to decline. The capitalist class searched for a solution as they watched profit rates trend steadily downward. On an international scale, the dominant position of the U.S. in the capitalist world economy seemed to be under strain as well. Europe and Japan were becoming major capitalist powers and the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s currency was under increasing pressure.

Neoliberalism: The Return of Market Fundamentalism
Part of the solution they discovered was a process that has become known as financialization. Over time, more and more capital investment was gradually moved out of the “real” economy – those industries where people actually make and sell material goods and services – to the financial sector of the economy, or what is sometimes known as the “paper” economy. Activities in sectors such as banking, insurance, and investment started to vastly expand.

Occurring simultaneously with this structural shift in the economy was an ideological attack by the ultra-right. Free market fundamentalists like Milton Friedman declared that government had no place in the economy. Privatization of public companies and services was urged. The removal of government oversight of banks and corporations was said to be the best way to restore profitability and economic growth. Taxes were too high and valuable money was being wasted on social programs. Labor unions were strangling companies into bankruptcy. The free market would solve all of these problems if only the state would get out of the way. It was all a rehash of the same ideology of liberal capitalism that Marx had critiqued more than a century earlier.

Of course, the free market crowd did not truly want the government to completely get out of economic matters. They had some big tasks that only the power of the state could carry out. With the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980, they got just the man for the job. Unions came under fierce attack, the budgets for social programs were gutted, and financial regulations were stripped away. Interest rates were sent upward to squeeze out inflation and restore the power of the U.S. dollar in the world economy. This also had the effect of shuttering plants across the nation, sending millions to the unemployment lines. Combined with this neoliberal approach in the economy was a heightening of Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union. Money was poured into the arms race. This sent government deficits and debt soaring higher than any social program ever had. It seemed the dominance of the U.S. in the world capitalist system was being restored.

The trend of decreasing inequality that had characterized the “Golden Age” was also in full reverse. Corporate CEO salaries went through the roof as working class incomes failed to keep up with inflation. Millions of families started to rely more and more on credit and debt to maintain their living standards.

The “Victory” of Capitalism
By the early 1990s, the economic and political problems of the socialist states in Eastern Europe had resulted in the collapse of the governments there and the discrediting of communist parties around the world. The neoliberal ideologists and the mass media declared that the battle between capitalism and socialism was over. According to them, Marxist ideas had been proven wrong and the “invisible hand” of the free market had triumphed. It seemed governments everywhere were starting to agree that there was no alternative to unrestricted and unregulated capitalism. Even centrist and left politicians, such as Tony Blair in the U.K. and Bill Clinton in the U.S., could be accused of abandoning any pretense of egalitarianism and continuing the pursuit of neoliberal policies. People were told that the good times were here again.

Profit rates did increase once more and consumerism was back. But much of the celebration rang hollow for millions of poor and working people. Expenditures on social welfare continued to decline over the decade and good-paying full-time union jobs disappeared. The reliance on credit that had started to appear earlier increased even more as people ran up their credit cards and took out second and third mortgages on their homes.

At a superficial level, things looked good. GDP was indeed growing and everyone was talking about the “new economy” of service and high-tech jobs. Many jobs were actually being created. These “good” times though, were only sustained by repeatedly delaying the downturns that were a basic part of the capitalist economic cycle. Financial speculation and outright gambling inflated one investment bubble after another. In the U.S., the federal government used its fiscal and monetary policies to encourage such activity in order to avoid recession. In the late 1990s, there was the so-called dot.com bubble, which saw massive amounts of capital flood into the internet and high technology industries. As that hype died down, money began pouring back into other stocks.

The deregulation and financialization madness reached new heights under the administration of George W. Bush. Since the 1970s, Wall Street had been inventing all kinds of new ways to funnel money through financial channels in order to generate huge profits. There were various kinds of derivatives, credit default swaps (CDSs), collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and a myriad other forms of ever-more complicated financial instruments created. Put more simply, much of this was simply the cutting up and endless buying and re-selling of what in essence were just very complicated IOUs. Nothing real was being produced in this sector, yet billions of dollars were being made. Finance, which had in the past accounted for a small percentage of U.S. economic activity accounted for nearly a quarter of the country’s entire economy by the first decade of the twenty-first century.

The Bottom Falls Out
As the stock bubble began to burst and the “real” economy started showing signs of trouble with mass layoffs in manufacturing, the short-lived recession of 2001 was softened with the inflation of a new bubble. This one, which had actually gotten its start in the late 1990s, was in the real estate and housing sector. Home prices had begun to rise rapidly for several years, but they really started to take off by the early 2000s. . Millions of families who already had homes took out new mortgages to cash in on their increasing equity. Some who could afford it started purchasing two or three homes expecting to sell at a profit.

Suddenly, even families who in the past had been turned down for a mortgage because of their poor credit or low incomes were told they too could become part of Bush’s “ownership society”. A new kind of home loan, the sub-prime mortgage, was made available to millions of poor families – a large number of them African American or Latino. They were told there was no danger in taking out a mortgage that far exceeded their ability to pay or one that had adjustable rates. They could always just sell the house and make a profit if there was ever a problem. It was all presented as a safe investment. And so with all these new customers, the home construction craze continued.

But after a few years, problems started to appear. Home sales began to slump. In the suburbs, entire newly-built neighborhoods were sitting empty. In the cities, expensive condos waited for residents who weren’t coming. More and more homes were piling up. Of course, this didn’t mean that everyone now had a home and too many had been built. The fact is that by 2007 there were approximately 12 million empty unsold homes in the U.S. while at the same time about the same number of people were homeless.

Home prices, which everyone had been told could only go up, mysteriously started to fall – and fast. But there really was no mystery at all. It soon became quite clear that there was once more a situation of overproduction. The housing bubble had burst. People very quickly discovered that they now owed more on their mortgage than their house was worth. And as those adjustable interest rates kicked in, many found themselves facing mortgage payments they simply could not afford. Hundreds of thousands started to lose their homes. The fuse was now lit for a major economic crisis.

As these families started to default on their mortgages, the effects spread throughout the economy. Like all of those very complicated IOUs discussed above, these mortgages had been split up, packaged with other loans and debts, and resold. They were sold to other banks, to mutual funds, to pension funds, to other companies, to international banks, to foreign governments. When the mortgage doesn’t get paid by the homeowner at the bottom, the effect goes right up the chain to every bank, company, or investor that holds a piece of it. Everyone is left with a little sliver of a loan that will never be paid back.

It took several months to fully develop, but by the fall of 2008 the effects were clear. Banks and firms that had invested heavily in the subprime mortgage mess were in big trouble. Lehman Brothers went under as the invisible hand did its job. Other banks panicked. They refused to make loans to one another, businesses, or consumers out of fear they would never be paid back. Credit markets rapidly froze as lenders held tight to their cash. The world’s biggest insurance company, AIG, teetered on the brink and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac looked ready to collapse.

Free market mythology had brought capitalism to the edge of an abyss. It became obvious to almost everyone that if the government did not act, the economy could crash. And so the bailouts began. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money poured into the banks to “recapitalize” them. Many were effectively nationalized. In some countries, they actually were. State intervention in the economy was seen by all, even Bush, as unavoidable. In the election, McCain was left without an economic leg to stand on as his message of deregulation and tax cuts seemed out of touch with reality.

Bush and Paulson offered what has been called “socialism for the rich” but did not bother to throw any kind of lifeline to working people. Their half-hearted actions in the fall did little to resuscitate the sinking economy in any meaningful way. The Obama campaign, already riding a wave of popular dissatisfaction with eight years of war and mismanagement, was pushed over the top by an economy that was spiraling downward more every day. As December and January rolled on, little was done by the lame-duck Republican administration. Companies that had already been in trouble were now in even more dire straits. They were hemorrhaging jobs, with over 100,000 lost in a single week in January.

As Obama takes office, he inherits a capitalist economy in ruins. The veil over the thirty year myth has been lifted for all to see – neoliberalism has failed. No matter what Republican politicians or Fox News may claim, socialism is not on our immediate horizon to be sure, but a major overhaul of capitalism is. The period of neoliberal dominance coincides almost exactly with that of the ultra-right in our country. Now the political and economic dynamics have shifted dramatically. It falls to those of us on the left to assert ourselves into that reform process and help shape the next step for our country and the world.

C.J. Atkins is from Arkansas. He is currently a graduate student in political economy at York University in Toronto, Canada.

Forward and Upward: Youth and the Employee Free Choice Act

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:45:00 +0000

Young people need unions, plain and simple. And we intend to get them with the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The last 2 years have more than demonstrated the role of young people in strengthening social and political movements, culminating in the presidential and congressional elections on November 4th. Youth, typically defined between 18 and 29 years old, were not simply looking to the future, but trying to improve on the situation right now. Whether it was access to education or an end to the Iraq war, youth—now 18% of the electorate—are a political force.

Young voters are doing our part, and we will need a little help from Congress and the new president to maintain still higher levels of participation by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

You see the problem is that young people are the least likely to be organized into a union of all the age groups. And this is important because working people in the same age group that are in a union make more money and have more benefits than their counterparts without a union. A recently published report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) entitled “Unions and Upward Mobility for Young Workers” noted that in the past 3 years, the median income for young workers in a union was $4.57 more per hour than those without a union. It went on to note that “Unionized young workers were also much more likely to have health insurance (65.6&) than younger workers who weren’t in unions (38.4%), and also much more likely than younger non-union workers to have a pension plan (58.4%, compared to 25.6%).”

Youth, the labor movement, and the entire country would benefit if more young workers were in unions. And the Employee Free Choice Act would get us started. Sometimes called the Wagner Act of our time, this bill would strengthen labor laws on the side of working people—making it easier to form and join a union. EFCA would give us license to get organized and ready to struggle for access to healthcare, better wages, and strong pensions both for ourselves and for generations before and after us.

In an era where access to healthcare, retirement income, and over all economic security are common concerns at the dinner table, the status of young people as a part of the country’s workforce must be more strongly addressed. Consider the role 2.2 million newly registered young voters were able to play in the 2008 elections. Now, imagine the role 2.2 million newly unionized young workers could play in strengthening the labor movement and the economy over all.

The outcome of these elections is a huge turning point in American history, and could possibly open the doors to the most productive and fruitful period any of us have ever experienced. We call on Congress to take up and pass the Employee Free Choice Act in the first 100 days. Help us to help you move the country forward.

Obama and the New Progressive Patriotism

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:39:00 +0000

by Adam Tenney

I’m not ashamed to admit that attending Obama’s inauguration will probably be one of the big moments in my life. Being there with millions of other Americans to celebrate our victory over the forces of reaction and racism is a moment to remember. This was a particularly momentous occasion for those us who have grown up under the Bush Administration. Finally, we are moving out of era defined by defensive struggle to one in which we can work with a president who holds many of the same ideals that we do.

This was not simply a celebration of our election of an African American president. I doubt that there would have been such a public celebration if Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice had been elected. What makes this such a defining moment is that we have elected an African American president who holds progressive and democratic values.

This election has proven to be a difficult one for some progressives and Leftists. On Nov. 5th there was a lot of questioning about what to do now. Bush is gone, but now what? There are questions around how to approach the Obama Administration. Is he a progressive or centrist? How do we “go beyond the Obama election”? Frankly, I don’t really know what the latter question means even though I’ve seen it quite a bit. However, these aren’t the questions we need to be asking. It doesn’t matter if Obama is progressive or a centrist now nor does it matter if you can “go beyond” his election. The question to be answered is whether or not we understand this moment and the peoples response to it’s historic call for change.

In his inaugural speech, Obama highlights two main themes that point in the direction we need to take: understanding change and the development of a new progressive patriotism.

In his speech Obama stated, “what the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them—that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply”. How true this is for some on the Left. There were those of us progressives and Lefties who came to DC to fully rejoice with others in the culmination of an election that we poured our hearts and souls into. Others begrudgingly came to DC with a thinly veiled line of wanting to support Obama but also wanting to make sure people understood he was still a tool of capitalism. In truth, they simply did not want to look like racist jerks for protesting the first African-American president and behind closed doors believe that Obama is just like George Bush. While others still were blatant in their stupidity and proclaimed with tinges of racism that Obama was simply capitalism with a "black face".

It can be hard to go from a movement of protest and being on the defensive to one of celebration and going on the offensive. A new political moment requires a re-examination of tactics and new outlook on what is possible. There will be some who aren’t able to change. Groups will still be hung up on Bush. They will continue to apply the same tactics of protest and will continue to be hung up on what Bush did while in office. Yes, it is important to continue to highlight what happened during the last eight years. The disasters created during the Bush Administration will continue for years to come. However, he is not in power anymore.

There will be those who from the sidelines, because they refuse to change their tactics, angrily denounce Obama for not ending the Iraq War fast enough or doing enough to help revive our economy. On the sidelines they will stay and continue to be politically irrelevant.

To understand the new possibility of change is to understand the idea of progressive patriotism. This new moment represents the possibility to reclaim our progressive heritage; to redefine what means to be an American. In these times of hardship and crisis people want to believe we can be better. That our country is not about greed and profit but puts value in “hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity”. The parts of Obama’s speech that got the most applause and response were the parts that invoked these feelings.

In his speech Obama said, “The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”
Obama made it clear that it was the masses of working people that built our country. “It has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things—some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor—who have carried us up the long rugged path toward prosperity and freedom… For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.”

In speaking these words he is calling forth the best and the most progressive in our nation’s history with a touch of materialism in understanding that is labor that creates wealth. These statements are not cliché soundbytes that overlook our darker moments such as slavery and our struggle with racism. Obama bluntly points out that the struggle for equality and freedom is “the meaning of our liberty and our creed—why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most a sacred oath.”

Obama is redefining what it means to be patriotic and what we are being patriots about. Patriotism doesn’t have to be the reactionary patriotism touted by the right wing. Many of the great leaders who have lead struggles for social change have done so out of love for their country. It is these struggles for justice, equality and freedom that define us as Americans.

This struggle over patriotism is something the Left will have to come to grips with if it wants to be part of the movement for change. People have rightly been disgusted with the actions of our elected officials and have felt ashamed at what our government has done in our name. The consequences of these actions will linger on for years to come. However, it will be impossible to mobilize broad masses of people for change under a banner of shame about being an American.

Slogans being pander about on the Left like “Stop Thinking Like An American And Start Thinking About Humanity” are based on a gross misunderstanding of the current situation. Their anti-Americanism is an expression of their disconnection from the struggles of working people and their disbelief that people can make change. They refuse to recognize that the people have spoken and view this election cycle to be repudiation of the anti-people policies of that the ultra-right as pursued for the past 30 years. The working class has always been thinking about humanity and did a great service by kicking George Bush and the Republicans out of the White House and Congress.

It is no coincidence that those from the Left who are the loudest critics of Obama are also those that spew such an anti-working class perspective. It’s a classic case of the ultra-left meeting the ultra-right. The ultra-left ends up doing the dirty work of the right wing by helping to tear down the coalition that elected Obama. Instead of working to build the movement to support Obama, the ultra-left wants working class people to critique and bash Obama in order to somehow create change.

Yes, there will be times when there is healthy disagreement between the Left and progressive forces and Obama. Yet, when these arise, the real question is how we deal with them. Do we use this as an opportunity to strengthen the movement for progressive change or work to tear down the movement around Obama and strengthen the hand of the ultra-right? Joining in the chorus of people on the Left who want to see Obama fail will only help the right.

The lunacy and folly of this tactic is already being clearly highlighted in the battle over Obama’s economic stimulus package. The Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to either defeat this bill or water it down with tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations to the point of making it meaningless. They don’t want $13 billion to increase Pell Grants, $40 billion in aides to states, and want to slim down the money going to build infrastructure projects that they feel won’t instantly create jobs. Bashing Obama for not going far enough in this bill and labeling it as bad because it does not fulfill every revolutionary fantasy will only help ensure that working people will not receive the much needed relief we need.

In the coming months we will see more battles and fights. The Republicans may have lost the election but they are refusing to acknowledge that their time is up. It’s going to take a broad, united movement in order to ensure that Obama’s agenda for helping working class people is carried out. For there to be a broad movement, the Left and progressives can’t sit on the sidelines bashing Obama and yelling anti-American slogans. It will be a hard process, but this might just be the change the Left and progressive movements have needed.

From Our Friends in Israel

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:34:00 +0000

When one thinks of Israel and Palestine, our thoughts almost immediately turn towards the cruel campaign against the Gaza Strip, carried out recently by the Israeli military, or the horrific launching of Qassam rockets by Hamas into densely populated civilian residential areas. However, in both nations there are people working for peace and equality, working in election campaigns like we just did in 2008. We received this message from Uri Weltmann, an activist in the Young Communist League of Israel. In his letter, he describes briefly describes the current electoral struggles within Israel itself.

--The Editors

Comrades,

We've been following closely the US elections, and how the CPUSA and YCL intervened successfully in that campaign, helped to build it, and joined ranks with many working people, social activists and progressive organizations in driving out the Bush clique. I personally think that this is Communist politics at it best: not standing in a sectarian way, outside the living movement of our class, but submerging yourself into it, letting people to become aware of your positions and your struggles, and eventually perhaps joining your organization.

The past few weeks have been very hectic. Undergoing an election campaign, as you know very well, is very excruciating. Let alone having to undergo two of them in three months, plus a bloody war...

In November the municipal elections were held country-wide, with our candidates running to city council and mayor's office in dozens of cities and towns. It was extremely successful for the Party, especially in Tel Aviv, where a broad social-environmental coalition called “A City for All of Us” was formed. This Coalition's mayoral candidate was Dr. Dov Khenin, a member of the Political Bureau of Communist Party of Israel and a member of Knesset. He won 35 percent of the vote, after a very low-budget yet intensive campaign, in which his opponent (the incumbent mayor, who was supported by all three big parties) used Mccarthyte rhetoric against him (“He's an Anti-Zionist”, “He's a Communist”, “He won't stand up when the national anthem is sung”, “He supports the refuseniks,” etc.).

The coalition actually got more votes to the city council than the mayor’s party! This was a historic achievement for us, as our Party was the initiator and the driving force behind this coalition, which was successful in bringing together hundreds of young, politicized activists, most of whom never took part in politics before. Many of them are now supporters and activists in our election campaign to the Knesset.

The elections to the Knesset will be held in two weeks time (on February 10th), and we are running under the slogan of “Building a New Left,” saying that a vote for us is a vote for forging a new and effective left alternative in Israeli politics. According to the polls, we will increase our representation in the Knesset from 3 seats (out of 120) to 4, and perhaps even 5. We are running, as you probably know, along with non-Communist partners in a list called “The Democratic Front for Peace and Equality” (DFPE), as we did in the last 32 years. The DFPE has been the only electoral list that openly opposed the War on Gaza.

In Solidarity,
Uri Weltmann
Haifa, Israel

When Did We All Become Middle Class?

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:15:00 +0000

by Brother Jack

It must be a good thing to be middle class, everybody seems to have their back. Wait I take that back, because everybody also seems to also be oppressing them. If you're middle class you're both the friend and foe of both the Republican and Democratic parties, because the other one apparently wants to eat your children. Uh, what doe middle class mean again?

Lets look it up in Jack's Compendium of American Politicalisms and Assorted Patriotic Prognostications (in state of publishing limbo). Middle Class – Noun – The middle class is everybody that is not poor or rich. Since class does not exist in America, unlike in the barbarian wastes of Canada/Mexico (see rest of world), everybody is middle class. The middle class own small businesses or at least have a “really good idea” about setting up one. The middle class lives in apartments, houses, or are in a state of “extended camping” (see foreclosures). Terrorists want to kill the American middle class because they love freedom. You are middle class (see you – put down the dictionary retard, find a mirror).

So roughly 95% of the country, from a conservative estimate, is “middle class”. Virtually everyone in the US that doesn't live under a bridge or in a mansion, when asked about economic standing will almost unfailingly respond with middle class. To our political ruling class this is an incredible advantage. It gives them the coveted ability to speak to all of us, without speaking to anyone at all.

It also allows a way for Americans, not just politicians, to deny that economic class plays a major role in our society. Americans have since the time of Tocqueville's critic of our early democracy, have wanted to believe that we are the coveted classless society. That if you work hard and persevere you too can grab the American dream. The vast majority of Americans seem to believe that they are entrepreneurs destined to commercial success. We all are small businessmen/women, the other great abstraction of modern American politics, is likewise used to deny anything resembling class conflict.

The sanctification of the middle class is a compromise we make with politicians. We let them use an obviously meaningless word to obscure their political agendas and personal ambitions. In return, they kiss our collective asses and we don't have to admit that not everyone is cut out to own a fortune 500 company by virtue of enough elbow grease. More importantly we don't have to admit to anyone that maybe we aren't destined for success and glory.

This is where our pride shows itself to be a fatal weakness. Our inability to admit that we are more than likely not going to set the world on fire with our brilliance leads to policies that hurt most of us. We have to admit to ourselves not that we are failures, but that statistically and logically, most of us have to be just normal. Some of us, by the cruelty of indifferent fate, are literally born to fail. When we assume that we are a meritocracy born of a majority class of winners, we spawn polices that ignore the normal and punish those unlucky to be born with deformity or poverty.

We also have to admit that economic class is not representative of self worth. Some very rich people are special in “oh my, isn't he special” kind of way. Remember that our last president was somehow floated from failed oil company to failed oil company to the White House and was almost assassinated by a salted pretzel. On the other side of the coin, some very brilliant people toil away with the rest of us. There is a good chance you know not only someone that was a better president than our previous example, but someone who could probably be rich if they wanted to be. They just don't apply themselves because they're lazy or don't care for fame and fortune or just plain unlucky, or some combination thereof.

Furthermore, worth is measured not simply in ability, but in intention. Yeah, its an obvious point, but it seems lost in the discussion on American economics. Free market capitalism doesn't serve the inept, no matter how noble they may be. Under the “free market” ideology peddled in our country these people are dirt, provided they weren't lucky enough to be born to a wealthy enough to support them for their entire lives. The myth of the middle class would have you believe that even though some people are untalented, unskilled and poor, they too will succeed if they try hard enough. It ignores the fact that this doesn't happen, and we ignore this because we want it to be true. In the end, our lies about our own status fuel a system that if we were more conscious of, we would detest.

Part of being a good person, either in terms of morality or mental health, is one who is willing to challenge unconscious assumptions by bringing them to their conscious mind. The biggest moral failures of our political system are laid bare by the light of conscious criticism. All that is necessary is that we face these failures and test our political theories by not allowing them to be abstractions.

The middle class doesn't exist. What we often mean is the term we used to use, before it became politically untouchable by those opposed by what it started to represent. That term my friends is working class. If you work for a living, whether its pushing a broom or a pencil, whether your pay is by the hour or year, you are part of this class. If anything this shows not the divisiveness that those who raise middle class banner claim it does, it shows unity. If you work for a living, you deserve a wage that can be lived upon. Yeah, people should be rewarded for accomplishment, but not at the expense of the rest of us.

So when someone asks you where you are on the economic ladder, tell them that you are part of the working class. That is if you work for a living!

*Brother Jack is the creator of the local Orlando, FL publication The Populist Press.

November 4th: Now or Never?

noreply@blogger.com (santi) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 04:06:00 +0000

Here is the latest commentary on the elections from the upcoming issue of Dynamic:

With the breakneck pace of today's "horse race"-style elections coverage this summer’s Democratic and Republican National Conventions may as well have taken place years ago. Yet, there are many Americans who watched or attended Barack Obama’s acceptance speech in Denver that can still recall the lines wrapped around the stadium for miles, and the over 80,000 people who were in attendance that day.

At the time, some commentators attempted to portray this closing night of the DNC as a “rock concert” for a narcissistic and shallow “celebrity” candidate.

Some of Obama’s closing remarks addressing these criticisms at Invesco are important to remember now: "What they don't understand is that this election isn’t about me, it's about you...Change doesn't come from Washington. It comes to Washington."

Today, it seems that the only thing that has been predictable or conventional about this election is that it has been unpredictable and unconventional.

Who would have thought that even John McCain would choose a tenth-rate, first-time governor and long-time religious fundamentalist as his running mate? Or that notable Republicans such as Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell would decide to endorse Obama? And as the twists and turns continue, we remain embroiled in one of the worst economic crises in our nation’s history.

So it is not an exaggeration to say that the stakes have grown higher everyday–while the days left until November 4th are fewer and fewer.

There are those who say that this election is “Obama’s to lose” but as history has shown, nothing is ever in the bag.

This is politics and the going will get rough. We have already witnessed this in the increasingly hysterical and demagogic McCain and Palin rallies.

But it would also be unfortunate—and self-defeating—to become too cynical or discouraged under these circumstances.

One of the most trite ways of expressing this has to be the many times you may have heard someone utter the following mantra: “If (insert applicable candidate) wins, I will move to (insert applicable country).”

Of course, these individuals usually do not wind up moving. In fact, they usually revert back to not doing much of anything. This election’s equivalent of this pitiful phenomenon is maybe even worse and more nihilistic: “Obama will never win because Americans are too racist.”

These people should speak for themselves.

Apparently the real sacrifices and accomplishments of the civil rights movement mean nothing to them. Nor, apparently, do the ongoing shows of support for Obama, by tens of thousands of white, working class people in campaign rallies all over the country.

Yes, there have been some disappointments and many difficulties this year. This is part of reality and will always be the case—in any country, in any time, even with the greatest of leaders.

On the other hand, this election continues to exceed—and defy all expectations.

Regarding the most urgent issue of the day, the economy, polls and figures indicate that more Americans have confidence in Obama’s handling of the situation over McCain’s.

Anyone who has watched the presidential and vice-presidential debates cannot honestly say with a straight face that they do not see the increasingly stark contrasts between the candidates.

The “youth upsurge” is one of the most hyped-up aspects of the Obama campaign. Sometimes this notion verges on the condescending and at worst, right-wing pundits attempt to write it off as a mere trend for naïve and overly idealistic young people.

They are wrong. Let's prove it on Election Day—and beyond.

Joe Who?

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:11:00 +0000

"Joe the Plumber", "Joe Six Pack" and all the rest of redonkulously false and mystifying classifications of the American public in this election, is catching on. With so much help from the media, of course. While I didn't see the debates last night, everyone I know was asking "Who the hell is Joe the Plumber?" Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber who drinks a Six Pack) has been a busy bee floating from one conservative news outlet to the next talking about Obama's tax plan. Which, by the way, would give him a tax cut with this $250k plumbing business. As a small business, your taxable income is much smaller than your gross income.

In the middle of the this celebrity in the making (he considers himself akin to Britney Spears.. any hopes that we will see pictures of his crotch while exiting a car?), the NYTimes decided to actually look into who this new representative of the American "middle class" is. Well according to them, he is an unregistered plumber who owes back taxes.

Here is Joe Biden talking about the Joe Plumbers in his 'hood.

Ohio Republicans want a repeat of 2004

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:42:00 +0000

Scared of what looks to be an Obama landslide, desperate Republicans in Ohio are trying to deny the voting rights of 200,000 newly registered voters because of no-matches. Meaning that the identification they gave on the voter registration forms (Driver's License Number or Social Security Number) did not match their name on government databases. Most of the time this is because of typos when a person's information is entered in to the databases.

Republicans are harping on the case of voter fraud because of recent findings showing that ACORN, who have people get paid by the signature to register voters, has been a big source of no matches in different states. The same type of thing is happening in FL, but it has been proven that many of the people found no matches were because of typos when their information was entered by government employees.

I have no doubt there are probably a many new Jimmy Johns and Ronald McDonald registered near college campuses when you have people getting paid by the signature. Yet, does it really matter? The 1,000 new Jimmy Johns won't be coming out to vote because they don't exist!

This is just another ploy by the Republicans to continue to suppress and deny people their right to vote. They want to create another 2004 where thousands of people in Ohio were denied the right to vote and lead to the state going for Bush. All the more reason for everyone who is able to vote to get out and vote on Nov. 4th so that this election won't be stolen!

Slow Down! Capitalism is not Dead

noreply@blogger.com (Smiley) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:47:00 +0000

I am amazed by the number of frenzied, pre-mature "revelations" that global capitalism is dying. An article from the Independent Media Center headlines "US Capitalism is Dying: Beware the Ruling Class Attempts to Save It". {http://www.indymedia.org/en/2008/09/913653.shtml}. The UK Guardian asks "Is this the death of global capitalism?" {http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/sep/15/wallstreet.globalrecession}

Not exactly.

It is true that capitalism is in an incredibly advanced stage, and thus its contradictions seem to become more exposed and more extreme. But the latest financial crisis on Wall Street, and the follow up rejection of Bush's $700 billion bail out plan are by no means an overthrow of capitalism. The Treasury Department will still establish supplemental funds to help corporations, while the Fed has similar resources they can use to bail out others under laws established during the Great Depression. {http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30plan.html?ref=business "Treasury and Fed Looking at Options; Sept 30th NY Times}

i.e. Wall Street will be okay.

The current question isn't about how to finish the deal on capitalism this week. It's more about how we are going to guarantee the economic security of working people that have been impacted by this long before Wall Street noticed it. And young people will feel it for years to come. There is still a lack of discussion when it comes to bailing out those of us who have lost our homes, or those of us seeking credit to purchase our first home or car or a loan go to school.

This is the discussion the Left and the Center must continue to push.

If you are having a hard time wrapping your brain around all of the information circulating, check out the People's Weekly World's "Guide to the Financial Crisis" at http://www.pww.org/article/view/13771.

Palin on the Spot

noreply@blogger.com (santi) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:19:00 +0000

Katie Couric's latest interview with Sarah Palin was almost sad to watch. I wont bore you with my comments, as this clip here on the economy says enough by itself.

Palin's line at the end, for example, is destined to become a campaign classic. Trust me. It's a real doozy. And it certainly wont help to make anyone feel confident about Republican solutions for the current economic crisis.

Fractions and Distractions

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:42:00 +0000

This Presidential season has been all about categories from the groundbreaking candidates themselves to the segments of the population that seemed to matter the most. Which, I guess, is not really something new. Going back to 2000, we had the Soccer Moms that Gore and Bush fought over, in 2004 it was the NASCAR Dads and in the primaries it was the mythical blue-collar worker (IE. white, industrial/post-industrial male workers..as if African Americans workers aren't blue collar) that Obama and Clinton were chugging back beers with.

Now, we have the rise of the Wal-Mart Mom- white mothers who shop at Wal-Mart. Could we be looking at anymore of a narrow segment of the population? This fracturing of the electoral by political pundits and cable news channels in need of a story is a distraction. As a matter of fact, white women are already heading back to Obama after the bump McCain received from his picking of Gov. Palin as his VP. With the Wall Street meltdown in full swing, can we get back to talking about real issues and real stories?

More from Moore

noreply@blogger.com (santi) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:09:00 +0000

Michael Moore says that he has a "gift" for all of us. He was referring to his latest film Slacker Uprising, which was officially released today and is available online--for free a la Radiohead's In Rainbows. Slacker documents Moore's experiences on his 62-city tour of swing states during the 2004 elections.

The movie's press release states that neither Moore nor distributor Brave New Films will make any money from the film, which is said to have cost over $2 million to make. "The only return any of us are hoping for is the largest turnout of young voters ever at the polls in November," commented Moore. He believes that "Slacker Uprising will inspire million to get off the couch and give voting a chance."

Well, it sure sounds interesting enough doesn't it?

You can watch it now at slackeruprising.com, or blip.tv. I'm curious to hear everyone's opinion...

Remember the Veto!

noreply@blogger.com (Smiley) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:34:00 +0000

After reading a letter-to-the-editor in "Solidarity", the internal newsletter of the United Autoworkers (UAW), I realized that the Republicans have done a great job at...well...lying. People are actually believing it! I won't go into all of those lies in this blog, though you can get a good idea from this AlterNet article: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/98761/. Here, the many lies are actually cross-checked with real facts. A great read.

Anyway, what got me about this particular letter was that the writer blamed the Democrats of not doing anything in the past 2 years given their leadership in Congress--an all-to-familiar criticism we here from the Left and the Right. Dale Vollmers of Michigan wrote "The Democrats have been in charge for two years and have done nothing to stop the job losses or the corruption and government waste."

Now, Dale--have they really been "in charge"?

In fact, the Democratic Congress has passed a whole bag of legislation that would benefit working people, including the Employee Free Choice Act which would strengthen our ability to form and join unions. That is, they would have benefit us had it not been for a Bush veto.

And, there you have who's really been "in charge".

In order to solidify our 2006 defeat of the Ultra-Right from Congress, we have to clean house at 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue in 2008. Obama is an exceptional candidate to do this.

I certainly hope Dale and other union members, youth and everyone else who's found themselves influenced by these types of myths will re-consider.

It Ain't Over Until We've Won!

noreply@blogger.com (Smiley) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:43:00 +0000

Sitting in the airport this morning, I was unpleasantly distracted by a conversation between 2 middle-aged women about Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Pailin. Both were raving about how charasmatic she is, her speaking abilities, and how she's revitalized the Republican Party in this Election. The only mention of her positions on various issues occurred when one acknowledged that she certainly didn't agree with Pailin on everything, but that it was very important to get a woman in there. They later commented that Pailin is exactly what they need to bring young people around because young people, in fact, vote based on charisma.

Really?

I was still thinking about this conversation when I landed in Greensboro, North Carolina, and passed all-so-many McCain signs on the drive to my family's house--including some of their neighbors. And, my friends, let me tell you... I realized how important it really is that we go all out to defeat the Ultra-Right every single day until we've won.

There are less than 60 days left, and so many people that still need convincing. Moreover, we need to ensure that those who are supporting Obama vote and have their vote counted. Republicans in Michigan have already been accused of trying to suppress the vote of those who have foreclosed on their homes. And in Virginia, students have had their financial aid and in-state status threatened.

The extreme right-wingers know they're in trouble, and they are desperate to retain to power. But we cannot afford to let them win. We all must step up and do our part to tell our neighbors and friends how important this election is.

Today's contribution?

Get my folks in North Carolina some Obama yard signs.