Come on Burger King!

Image by Anthony Russo

From The New York Times:

Op-Ed Contributor
Penny Foolish

By ERIC SCHLOSSER
THE migrant farm workers who harvest tomatoes in South Florida have one of the nation’s most backbreaking jobs. For 10 to 12 hours a day, they pick tomatoes by hand, earning a piece-rate of about 45 cents for every 32-pound bucket. During a typical day each migrant picks, carries and unloads two tons of tomatoes. For their efforts, this holiday season many of them are about to get a 40 percent pay cut.

Florida’s tomato growers have long faced pressure to reduce operating costs; one way to do that is to keep migrant wages as low as possible. Although some of the pressure has come from increased competition with Mexican growers, most of it has been forcefully applied by the largest purchaser of Florida tomatoes: American fast food chains that want millions of pounds of cheap tomatoes as a garnish for their hamburgers, tacos and salads.

In 2005, Florida tomato pickers gained their first significant pay raise since the late 1970s when Taco Bell ended a consumer boycott by agreeing to pay an extra penny per pound for its tomatoes, with the extra cent going directly to the farm workers. Last April, McDonald’s agreed to a similar arrangement, increasing the wages of its tomato pickers to about 77 cents per bucket. But Burger King, whose headquarters are in Florida, has adamantly refused to pay the extra penny — and its refusal has encouraged tomato growers to cancel the deals already struck with Taco Bell and McDonald’s.

This month the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, representing 90 percent of the state’s growers, announced that it will not allow any of its members to collect the extra penny for farm workers. Reggie Brown, the executive vice president of the group, described the surcharge for poor migrants as “pretty much near un-American.”

Migrant farm laborers have long been among America’s most impoverished workers. Perhaps 80 percent of the migrants in Florida are illegal immigrants and thus especially vulnerable to abuse. During the past decade, the United States Justice Department has prosecuted half a dozen cases of slavery among farm workers in Florida. Migrants have been driven into debt, forced to work for nothing and kept in chained trailers at night. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers — a farm worker alliance based in Immokalee, Fla. — has done a heroic job improving the lives of migrants in the state, investigating slavery cases and negotiating the penny-per-pound surcharge with fast food chains.

Now the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange has threatened a fine of $100,000 for any grower who accepts an extra penny per pound for migrant wages. The organization claims that such a surcharge would violate “federal and state laws related to antitrust, labor and racketeering.” It has not explained how that extra penny would break those laws; nor has it explained why other surcharges routinely imposed by the growers (for things like higher fuel costs) are perfectly legal.

The prominent role that Burger King has played in rescinding the pay raise offers a spectacle of yuletide greed worthy of Charles Dickens. Burger King has justified its behavior by claiming that it has no control over the labor practices of its suppliers. “Florida growers have a right to run their businesses how they see fit,” a Burger King spokesman told The St. Petersburg Times.

Yet the company has adopted a far more activist approach when the issue is the well-being of livestock. In March, Burger King announced strict new rules on how its meatpacking suppliers should treat chickens and hogs. As for human rights abuses, Burger King has suggested that if the poor farm workers of southern Florida need more money, they should apply for jobs at its restaurants.

Three private equity firms — Bain Capital, the Texas Pacific Group and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners — control most of Burger King’s stock. Last year, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd C. Blankfein, earned the largest annual bonus in Wall Street history, and this year he stands to receive an even larger one. Goldman Sachs has served its investors well lately, avoiding the subprime mortgage meltdown and, according to Business Week, doubling the value of its Burger King investment within three years.

Telling Burger King to pay an extra penny for tomatoes and provide a decent wage to migrant workers would hardly bankrupt the company. Indeed, it would cost Burger King only $250,000 a year. At Goldman Sachs, that sort of money shouldn’t be too hard to find. In 2006, the bonuses of the top 12 Goldman Sachs executives exceeded $200 million — more than twice as much money as all of the roughly 10,000 tomato pickers in southern Florida earned that year. Now Mr. Blankfein should find a way to share some of his company’s good fortune with the workers at the bottom of the food chain.

Eric Schlosser is the author of “Fast Food Nation” and “Reefer Madness.”

Chavez threatens to destroy the bourgeoisie

http://www.marxist.com/chavez-threat-destroy-bourgeoisie261107.htm Chavez threatens to destroy the bourgeoisie

By Euler Calzadilla , Wanderci Silva Bueno and Darrall Cozens in Caracas

Monday, 26 November 2007

If Wednesday, November 21st belonged to the students and the teaching unions, Thursday, 22nd belonged to the workers from the factories and the government departments. From 9 in the morning they had begun to gather outside the Teatro Teresa Carreno, numbering about 1500. These were representatives from workplaces who had come to plan their actions to ensure a "Yes" vote in the referendum on December 2nd. Unfortunately, like many things here in Venezuela, the theatre wasn't open, so workers stood in small groups discussing while we wandered amongst them joining in the discussions and selling the paper El Militante. Workers were interested in discussing and we sold quite a few. Many of these workers were already committed to one trade union organization or another - UBT (Union Bolivariana de Trabajadores - mainly in the building industry), FBT (Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores - mainly in government ministries), Fuerza Socialista (concentrated in health and electricity) and others. The atmosphere was friendly however and when the price of the paper was asked many turned it down. What I had not realized was the sacrifice that many workers make to buy a paper when many papers are distributed free by the government. Take the workers at LaFarge, a pre-mix cement company owned and controlled by a French multinational. A week ago 34 of them had been sacked and the workers were angry. We went with them over 2 days to the Ministry of Labour and to Miraflores. They earn 26,000 Bolivars per day, 4,000 above the minimum wage. The paper El Militante costs 1,500 or 2,000 as a solidarity price. If we take the average daily wage in the UK to be about 100 pounds, the equivalent cost of a socialist paper would be between 5 and 8 pounds! So workers buy a paper between them and share it. The morning outside the Theatre dragged on in the heat. Groups of workers drifted off for coffee and food. Then the rumour began to circulate that Chavez himself would arrive at some time in the afternoon. The rumour took on substance when workers arrived with steel fencing to control entrances and exits, followed by detachments of the palace guard and military police. By about 3pm groups of workers had begun to drift back to the Theatre. From just after 5pm they were allowed in. Remember that many of these workers had been up since 6am or before to get to the Theatre by 9am and only now were things beginning to happen. It was going to be a long day. The place began to fill up until there were about 1,500 inside. Each trade union grouping began to shout slogans to challenge other groupings. The atmosphere was getting heated as each group tried to out-shout the other. Then came the slogan from someone in the audience "El Socialismo para acabar con el imperialismo." (Socialism to put an end to imperialism). All the groups stopped shouting their own individual slogans to take up the common one. This reflected the desire for unity amongst trade unionists to ensure a massive "Yes" vote for Chavez in the referendum and reveals the potential for unity amongst organized workers. In this context it is unfortunate that one or two of the leaders of the UNT have called for a "No" vote in the referendum, going against the feelings of unity and the wishes of large sections of the working class. After the common chant, the different groups resorted once again to trying to out-shout the others and the atmosphere was becoming antagonistic and aggressive. The organisers realized this and put on music and songs to try and calm things down. Just before 6pm the place was full. At about 6.30pm Chavez entered to cries of exhaltation - Chavez! Chavez! Chavez! Amongst the trade unionists there was a very large group of taxi drivers who would benefit directly from the proposed changes to the constitution. Under Article 87 they would receive pensions through the establishment of a social fund. Photo: Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias Each section was greeted in turn by Chavez. Each section responded in turn with cheers. He recounted how he liked to be with workers as when he was younger he too had been a worker before entering the military. Wolf whistles and "knowing" chants also erupted when he revealed that he had received a present from the model Naomi Campbell. Only after much provoking did he reply that it was a watch! Then the serious message began. He had returned from France the day before to a mass rally of real students. They support the "Yes" vote. The universities will be changed to serve the majority, not the minority. The esqualidos (reactionaries) have stated that they will march on Miraflores, the Presidential palace, but they will not be allowed to. Chavez was responding to threats by John Goicochea, the chief student voice of all the reactionary groups, who studies at the Catholic University, the most expensive university, where fees alone are 5 million Bs a month! Lafarge cement workers earn 26,000 Bs per day or about 0.75 million a month. Goicochea has been threatening a march of "No Return" for November 26th, tomorrow. Chavez proclaimed that such a threatening march will be dissolved. The workers responded with cries of "Asi, Asi, Asi se gobierna" (That's the way to govern). The workers want firm action to be taken against the reactionaries and their paymasters. Chavez then made a historical comparison between 1979 and 1999. In 1979 the Shah was overthrown in Iran and the Mullahs took over. The USA supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. In 1999 the Venezuelan Revolution began and there is no chance of a US invasion. "We have a million people in arms and if necessary we will arm the whole people." The history lesson went further. In Russia the revolution was attacked and isolated. The best workers went to the front to fight off the invading imperialist armies. The revolution was isolated and the bureaucracy took power. "In Venezuela the working class has to be the vanguard of the revolutionary process for socialist power." He continued. The Cuban revolution has lasted a long time due to a deep relationship with the masses. In Nicaragua the road of reformism led to tragic results. You cannot adapt to capitalism. It doesn't work. No to reformism, No to Bureaucracy! He emphasized again and again that the working class is the vanguard but he also castigated many trade unions for not being able to rise above the arena of purely trade union demands. If this does not happen then the political level of the working class won't rise to the level needed to carry out the task of being the motor force of the revolution. This process will determine the timing and direction of the revolution. We should pass onto the offensive as under capitalism we use defensive actions to protect conditions. The only way to guarantee Popular Power is if the working class plays the leading role. Under the constitutional changes, he continues, the workers councils in the factories will establish relations with peasant, student and community councils [in effect setting up embryonic soviets - DC]. If this happens then what happened in the Soviet Union and Nicaragua won't happen. The aim of all of this is to establish Socialism in the country of Bolivar and - in response to a cry from the audience - in all of the Americas. These consejos (councils) will receive money from the state to carry out specific projects, such as distributing gas bottles for cooking from the state oil company PdVSA. The budget for next year had been set and 46% will be devoted to social projects and infrastructure. "What other country does this?" he cries. Yet the devil is in the detail. On the one hand Chavez sees the councils in different areas as alternative organs of power more closely related to the people and therefore theoretically more responsive. This is also a way to bypass the cumbersome and obstructive State bureaucracy. As he stated, "...workers councils will come into being in the factories, in the workplaces, but they should reach out to the communities and be fused into other councils of popular power: community councils, students councils, etc... What for? To shout slogans? To go around shouting long live Chavez? No!... To change the relationships in the workplace, to plan production, to take over piece by piece the functions of the government and to finish up by destroying the bourgeois state." So the aim is clear and Chavez is quite aware of this. To begin with, 5% of the budget will be passed to the councils. This should only be the beginning, as alternative centres of power cannot function unless they have sufficient funds to do so. It is obvious that the newly formed councils that are emerging and will emerge after the success of the referendum will decide themselves to a large extent what their remit will be. For example under Art.70 workers councils will enable workers to democratically manage any enterprise that is direct or indirect social property, yet Art.184 talks about the participation of workers in the running of public enterprises. Marxists realize that constitutions or agreements are pieces of paper that reflect the balance of forces between two or more parties at any given moment in time. The reality of the power of the councils will be fought out in the workplaces, the universities and the neighbourhoods, the communities. The bosses will fiercely resist any attempt to take away their right to manage. Workers councils will not be set up to decide what colour paint should be on the walls! The workers, the state bureaucracy and the bosses will all have different conceptions of the role of workers councils. For workers it will be to defend and enhance conditions and to assume an ever-increasing role in the management of the company - a step towards workers' control and management. Chavez is now beginning to come to his conclusions and as he does a new vocabulary now emerges. "We are going to destroy the bourgeoisie". Up to now he has always referred to the oligarchy. His final words are that we need to learn from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky on how people can run society as well as from Gramsci on the role of workers' councils. As workers leave, they feel certain of their role in history and in the unfolding revolutionary process. Chavez's words demonstrate that in the run up to the referendum political positions are hardening on both sides of the class divide. Subsequent to the meeting Chavez has even said that if he does not win the referendum, he will be off looking for a substitute to take over. Such words reflect the anxiety in the Chavez camp. The likelihood is that Chavez will win the "Yes" vote. There is tremendous loyalty towards him from all those who had previously been excluded from wealth and power. The reforms of the past nine years have lifted people out of misery and degradation and given them real hope for the future. Disposable incomes have risen by 50% but there is inflation and shortages of essentials like milk. There is obviously sabotage by the bosses from stockpiling or cutting production in an attempt to discredit Chavez. The bosses have stopped investing and many factories are running at only 50% of capacity, so the bosses can sell all that they produce in this expanding market, they don't invest and therefore make super profits. So a majority for Chavez is likely but the fear is abstention with only a 50% turnout. In the presidential elections of December 2006 the turnout was 75% and Chavez took 63% of the vote, a real mandate in bourgeois terms. The bureaucrats in charge of the "Yes" campaign have plenty of colour (red), plenty of music and songs, but very little explanation of what the reforms actually mean. The opposition has been producing full-page adverts in the press with a detailed analysis from their perspective. There have been outright lies such as each newborn child will belong not to the family but to the state, and freedom of religion will not be allowed. They seek to frighten people into voting "No". From a Marxist perspective the best result on December 2nd will be a resounding "Yes". This will embolden people even further and take the revolution forward. Whatever the result however there will be a period of sharpening class struggle as workers, students and people in the barrios pursue their demands for better living standards and far more control over their lives, places of work and study. In the Bolivarian revolution people have awoken to political life and won't be easily put back into the cupboard. As Engels said, "The appetite increases with the eating." The same process will also spew out those in the movement who have been consciously or unconsciously holding it back, who have no stomach for the fight to end capitalism and establish socialism in Venezuela. November 25 2007

"anti-imperialism" and third worldism

There is a very popular trend amongst first world radicals to fetishize the third world in a very dangerous way.

This is pretty problematic in many aspects. For one, there is this dominant "white guilt" that is spread throught the white activist movement. This creates a very intolerable atmosphere of political correctness, to the extent that criticizing "anti-imperialist" third world movements is seen with contempt and sometimes smeared as "western chauvinism". Class analysis and internationalism is thrown out of the window.

For example, this kind of mechanistic "anti-imperialism" has led to all kinds of support to reactionary groups posing as "freedom fighters"--from armed, sectarian nationalist gangs (PKK), to islamic extremists.

This "anti-imperialism" generally see each opressed nation as "homogenous", without taking into account that there is class division, and that the national capitalists have opposing interests to the workers. This class collaborationism is really dangerous, because it generally means the effective disarment of the working class and its subordination to the national bourgeosie. Ghandi's conservatism, and its refusal to confront indian landowners because "they were indian" is an example of how terrible this kind of thinking is.

There is also this prevailing sentiment that "imperialism" is in the economic benefit of most whites. This is far from true. The surplus coming out of the neocolonies generally end up in the wallets of capitalists--not workers. Instead, we see trillions of dollars being spent in the war machine, instead of that money going to healthcare, universities, etc. We also see how our brothers and sisters get sent to be butchered for imperialist interests.

Furthermore, the extreme hatred for the west and the fetishization of the third world sometimes renders the radical unable to criticize reactionary elements in third world culture. One example could be Islam. It is true that the reactionary right, particularly in europe, disguises racism as Islamophobia, and makes out of islam a vile caricature. However, there is also a real threat of militant islam, and it is also true that most muslims worldwide are much more militant than their christian counterparts. Covering your ears and shouting really hard doesn't makes the problem go away.

There is nothing wrong with hating class society, but we must hate it in all its manifestations: not only the western one.

Marx once said that "workers have no country", and the slogan still has relevance. We see how the bourgeosie, in the name of "national interests", both in the neocolonies and imperial countries, effectively supress the rage to live and against civilization in its present state. The war against class society and capital is a global war.







I

Free Again

11/25/07
The New York Times has an amazing interactive multimedia involving the stories of people wrongly convicted of serious crimes since 1989. Make sure to look for the comparison feature in which you can see how much time each got and their monetary compensation. Check it out -you're able to hear their own voices describing their experiences. Very moving.


check it out: here

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act Raises Fears of New Government Crackdown on Dissent

from: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/1458214

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007


Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

---

A little-noticed anti-terrorism bill quietly making its through Congress is raising fears of a new affront on activism and constitutional rights. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in an overwhelming 400 to six House vote last month. Critics say it could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity under the guise of fighting terrorism. [includes rush transcript]

---

A little-noticed anti-terrorism bill quietly making its through Congress is raising fears of a new affront on activism and constitutional rights. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was passed in an overwhelming 400 to six House vote last month. Critics say it could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity and infiltration of universities under the guise of fighting terrorism. The bill would establish two government-appointed bodies to study, monitor and propose ways of curbing what it calls homegrown terrorism and extremism in the United States. The first body, a National Commission, would convene for eighteen months. A university-based "Center for Excellence" would follow, bringing together academic specialists to recommend laws and other measures.

Critics say the bill's definition of "extremism" and "terrorism" is too vague and its mandate even more broad. Under a false veil of expertise and independence, the government-appointed commissions could be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws.

Following last month's approval in the House, the Senate version is expected to go before the Judiciary Committee this week.

read more at: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/1458214

On Zimbabwe: Get it right

On Zimbabwe:

I have to respectfully disagree with the basic premise of the last posting on Zimbabwe. The main argument seems to be this: get rid of Mugabe, allow the MDC take power, and democracy (whatever the poster means by this) in Zimbabwe will flourish, thus ending the current crisis in this embattled nation. There are several problems here:

1. The post confuses effects with causes. Zimbabwe's economic crisis is *not* the direct result of repatriating British-owned and controlled farms. Nor is it the simple product of Mugabe's position as President of Zimbabwe, since he's been in power for some time now -- including previous periods of economic prosperity. Rather, Zimbabwe's current economic crisis is the direct result of British and U.S. economic sanctions leveled at the country in retaliation for repatriating white-owned lands back to the people of Zimbabwe.

2. Relatedly, neo-colonialism in the form of white control of African land and natural resources is not "democracy." As America's imperialist mis-adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly show, "democracy" can never be achieved when a nation's resources are controlled by another. The post seems to say that, "Well, yeah, European imperialist exploitation of Zimbabwe is bad, but, hey, it's OK so long as we have democracy." Democracy as imperialism is imperialism just the same.

3. No historic context is given in the post for the land repatriation program. Nor does the post acknowledge that the power-hungry Mugabe was the key leader in Zimbabwe's successful struggle against brutal British colonial occupation and subjugation. This acknowledgement does not validate abuses of power (although it does raise the question of who determines this, and how). It would provide more historic context for understanding the complexities of resolving the current crisis.

4. The MDC has a CIA problem. It is no secret that MDC works openly with "Freedom House," a U.S.-government funded organization that serves as a major right-wing proxy for the CIA. Freedom House has already been expelled from Iran, Uzbekistan, and other countries for trying to organize right-wing coups in these countries. To dismiss the CIA's involvement in Zimbabwe as "conspiracy theory" is unfortunate and counter-productive. CIA-backed "democracy" in Africa is never a good thing. It didn't work well for South America years ago, and will not work for Zimbabwe today.

5. Finally, in this world of global imperialism and neo-colonialism in Africa, simply jumping on the opposite side of a tyrant does not necessarily mean you'll land on the side of a liberator. As socialists, we should make sure that we are not caught up in liberalist imagery of simple "tyrants" and "bad men." A fruitful analysis of Zimbabwe should begin with structural analysis, economic analysis that looks at who controls the means of production and examines the nature of the distribution of wealth. Simply cheerleading "the opposition" does little to transform the conditions responsible for producing crisis conditions in the first place.

Some things are matters of simple common sense. But other things are quite complex. Simplistic discourse on complex subjects such as Zimbabwe is unhelpful, if not counter productive and wrong. Too much is at stake to not get it right.

The article below lends some historical perspective.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/10_zimbabwe_pr.html

Zimbabwe's Mugabe and White Farmers
by Dr. A. Chika Onyeani, Guest Commentator

In Zimbabwe, white farmers are still being defiant to the order issued by the government of President Robert Mugabe that they should vacate farm lands that government has targeted for take over. Others have decided to obey the order. Unfortunately, the issue of land re-distribution, or "seizure" as the foreign media would have us believe, has been the most misunderstood, to the extent that it has been lumped together with the politics of President Mugabe. But the issue of politics in Zimbabwe, and ultimately that of Mugabe, should not be allowed to becloud the attempt by the country to the equitable re-distribution of land stolen by whites in the first instance without compensation to its rightful African owners.

While white farmers continue to shed crocodile tears, it is a matter of record that in a land of more than 11 million people, the whites who make up less than 2% of the population, control more than 60% of the arable land. It is also a matter of record that although 95% of the white farmers have received notice to quit the land, those whose land has been taken over have all received compensation, and of the 500 who have agreed to leave peacefully some have also already been paid.

It seems the height of hypocrisy that the world should be focused on the plight and non-payment of compensation to white farmers, without as much as a mention of the savagery with which the Black African owners were massacred and their lands seized without compensation. The word Bulawayo, the second largest city in Zimbabwe, is an Ndebele word for "slaughter," and it refers to the savagery of the British settlers, including the infamous Cecil Rhodes who had crushed the attempt by the indigenes to fight back, leading King Lobengula to swallow poison rather than be captured. Or should we forget the savagery of the bestial Sir Frederick Carrington, who had publicly advocated that the entire Ndebele race should be forcefully removed or be exterminated.

Or that of profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were."

As the Zimbabwe minister of industry and commerce, Nathan Shamuyarira once said, "The land we are talking about was occupied entirely by our people, the indigenous people of the country, until 1890. The [the British] reserved the best resources - land, cattle, forestation, what have you - for themselves.... What the bill simply states is that Zimbabwe belongs to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe. It does not belong to anyone else."

It should also be remembered that in the early 1900s, African agriculture competed head to head with white settler farmers for the market of the growing towns and mining centers in the country. However, in 1915, the Native Reserves Commission expropriated more of the high potential land and initiated a new form of taxation to suppress the indigenous competition. By the 1930s, the corn purchasing board had established regulation which discriminated against African corn, while the state moved more Africans to the non-fertile communal lands. The result of this was that the Africans who had wedged such competition against the white settlers were rendered idle, and forced to indenture themselves as laborers to the white farmers.

As we noted earlier, despite all the vociferous claims of injustice by the white farmers, the fact is that most of those whose land has been seized have been compensated by the Zimbabwe government. In point of fact, the new law passed by the Zimbabwe Parliament addresses the issue of some farmers having as many as 20 or more arable farms, some of which they have left fallow, while Africans are left with nothing.

Again, some of us, including this writer, have allowed our warped perception of Robert Mugabe's politics to becloud the other issue of compensating the white farmers. Britain, which has been acting like the ostrich it is, giving the impression that it wants real solution to the land issue, should be held totally accountable for what is happening today in Zimbabwe. As the Zimbabwe government has rightly contended, the responsibility for compensating the farmers lies with Britain, since the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had agreed to provide the funds as a condition of Mr. Mugabe signing the Lancaster House agreement, which finalized Zimbabwe's independence 22 years ago.

"That agreement," according to Shamuyarira, "was abruptly abandoned when the Blair government came to power. The British Minister, Mr. Cook, has now indicated that the British government would contribute to a resettlement program. That is a good change of position." The agreement had further made it clear that if Britain failed to pay the compensation, then Zimbabwe had no obligation to pay for the land taken back for resettlement of landless Africans.

That agreement had barred the new Zimbabwe government of 1980 from grabbing privately-owned farmland for the first 10 years. For that guarantee, Britain had agreed that it would match a dollar for every dollar that this new independent Zimbabwean government would put as compensation to buy back the farms.

The British government of Tony Blair is now arguing that Zimbabwe had not put in place the mechanism for distributing land to the poor of Zimbabwe. "We agree," said the British government, "that there is a very strong case for land redistribution in Zimbabwe....Unfortunately, the government of Zimbabwe has not put in place a program of land reform that would provide land to the poor of Zimbabwe."

Now, Britain is looking out for the poor in Zimbabwe rather than fulfilling its obligation under the Lancaster agreement of 1979.

Those of us who have pointed accusing fingers at the politics of President Mugabe, should do our homework. Robbers and murderers should not be allowed to keep the fruits of their ill-gotten gains. Zimbabwe belongs to Africans, even the whites who consider themselves Africans, but the land does not belong to murderers who savagely exterminated Black Africans and seized the land without compensation. That would be a great misapplication of justice.

Dr. Chika A. Onyeani can be contacted at afrstime@aol.com.

Report Puts Hidden War Costs at $1.6T

By JEANNINE AVERSA – Nov 13, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

The report, from the committee's Democratic majority, was not vetted with Republican members. Democratic leaders in Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., seized on the report to criticize Bush's war strategy. The White House countered that the report was politically motivated.

"This report was put out by Democrats on Capitol Hill. This committee is known for being partisan and political. They did not consult or cooperate with the Republicans on the committee. And so I think it is an attempt to muddy the waters on what has been some positive developments being reported out of Iraq," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "I haven't seen the report, but it's obvious the motivations behind it."

The report comes as the House and Senate planned to vote this week on another effort by Democrats to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq as a condition for providing another $50 billion for the war.

Reid said the report "is another reminder of how President Bush's stubborn refusal to change course in Iraq and congressional Republicans' willingness to rubber stamp his failed strategy — has real consequences at home for all Americans."

Perino, while acknowledging the dangers in Iraq, defended Bush's stance.

"Obviously it remains a dangerous situation in Iraq. But the reduction in violence, the increased economic capacity of the country, as well as, hopefully, some continued political reconciliation that is moving from the bottom up, is a positive trend and one that we — well, it's positive and we hope it is a trend that will take hold," Perino said.

Israel Klein, spokesman for the Joint Economic Committee, took issue with the White House's characterization of the panel's report.

"Instead of dealing with the substance of this report, the White House is once again trying to deflect attention away from the blistering costs of this war in Iraq," Klein said. "This report uses the nonpartisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) budget estimates and was prepared by the JEC's professional economists using the same process this committee has always used, regardless of which party is in the majority."

However, the committee's top-ranking Republican members — Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Jim Saxton of New Jersey — called on the Democratic leadership to "withdraw this defective report." A joint statement from the two Republican lawmakers said the report is a "thinly veiled exercise in political hyperbole masquerading as academic research."

White House Budget Director Jim Nussle accused Democrats of "trying to distort reality for political gain."

Oil prices have surged since the start of the war, from about $37 a barrel to well over $90 a barrel in recent weeks, the report said. "Consistent disruptions from the war have affected oil prices," although the Iraq war is not responsible for all of the increase in oil prices, the report said.

Still, the report estimated that high oil prices have hit U.S. consumers in the pocket, transferring "approximately $124 billion from U.S. oil consumers to foreign (oil) producers" from 2003 to 2008, the report said.

High oil prices can slow overall economic growth if that chills spending and investment by consumers and businesses. At the same time, high oil prices can spread inflation throughout the economy if companies decide to boost the prices of many other goods and services.

Meanwhile, "the sum of interest paid on Iraq-related debt from 2003 to 2017 will total over $550 billion," the report said. The government has to make interest payments on the money it borrows to finance the national debt, which recently hit $9 trillion for the first time.

The report was obtained by The Associated Press before its release. An earlier draft of the report, which also had been obtained by The AP, had put the economic cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars slightly lower, at $1.5 trillion.

"What this report makes crystal clear," said Joint Economic Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., "is that the cost to our country in lives lost and dollars spent is tragically unacceptable." Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the panel's vice chair, said of the Iraq war: "By every measure, this war has cost Americans far too much."

Success!!

YDS's first event, featuring racial justice staff attorney Mark Fancher of the Michigan ACLU was nothing short of SUCCESS!

Mr. Fancher's topic of the night was Racial Justice in the 21st Century: What social implications the Jena 6 holds for the future of the United States.

Throughout the course of the night over thirty YDS members and guests attended the event.

Following the lecture, attendees engaged in a Q & A session that lasted over an hour.

Mr. Fancher answered questions pertaining to how the Jena 6 case is progressing, white activism and it's place in the Black Liberation Struggle, structural/institutionalized racism, specifically the high incarceration rate for people of color in the US, and his views on Pan-Africanism and the possibility of a "United States of Socialist Africa." He also spoke about what the ACLU of Michigan is doing along with other states to combat MCRI, or Proposal 2 at the federal level.

Overall, the course of the night went smoothly. We are very proud to have brought in such an active and engaged crowd, one that was truly excited about learning about racial justice and progressing Democratic Socialist values. YDS looks forward to brining more speakers to campus, and soon! Thank you to all that attended. To all those who didn't-- you truly missed out on an awesome talk.

A special thanks goes out to Mitch Goldsmith, the Speaker's Committee, and the Ministry of Information for contacting Mark Fancher, making room reservations, and creating fliers for the event! YDS couldn't have done this without your combined efforts!

democratic movements as terrorism

The Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) is the Zimbabwean political party focused on promoting democracy in a country where it has become very dangerous to associate with politics. Formed as an opposition party to the Zimbabwean African National Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), which is led by current President Robert Mugabe, the MDC brings together a number of civil society groups. The MDC is now labeled as a terrorist organization by Mugabe's government, political activists are regularly beaten and arrested, and known members of the MDC disappear. The MDC front webpage tells of three recent deaths of people closely affiliated with the MDC. The site notes that this is becoming an all too common.

In a 2000 parlimentary election MDC candidates won overwhelming majorities, but there were calls of unfair elections and the issue remains caught up in Zimbabwe's Supreme Court. The South African Development Community (SADC) and the South African Ministerial Observer team both maintain their positions that the election was free and fair. MDC members say there was harassment and force used by the ZANU-PF government at the polls. In 2004 the MDC split over the decision to take part in the 2005 parlimentary elections because of the "illegitimate outcome" of the last election. The MDC voted to take part in the elections (33-31), but Morgan Tsvangirai voted the decision down saying it was a waste of time. The MDC then split into Tsvangirai's decision supporters and pro-senate members, led by the former MDC deputy. Some say that the split was ethnic based.

There are two main ethnic groups in Zimbabwe, the Shona (75%) and Ndebele (19%). Ndebele was an ethnic category that grew out of the military state created by the British in 1830. The ethnic term of Ndebele encompassed people of many different origins and in fact Shona people lived in this conquered area, but were placed under the Ndebele label. However, the ethnic identifications of and between these two groups were very low and there was no historical enmity between them. In 1896-7 these ethnic groups actually joined in the Ndebele-Shona Chimurenga resistance to the British. Guerilla forces grew and became political parties, but neither was purely ethnic based and recruited across the board. Needless to say the 'ethnic conflict' in Zimbabwe was the least serious of all African ethnic conflicts. The greatest conflict was between Black and White in Zimbabwe. There have been recent talks to reunite the split political parties.

This is the real historical problem that has led to Zimbabwe's current problems. The problem in Zimbabwe can be summed up to a battle between Pan-Africanism and Neo-colonialism. Mugabe has called for White people to leave and so it makes the situation difficult when British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has said that he is working closely with the MDC to create a regime change. Well there may be a high degree of internal pressure, the external powers cannot be dismissed. In order for the Western powers to achieve the goal of regime change they will use their secret services, CIA, network os military bases, and economic tactics. There is this other side of the argument that says maybe the MDC is not promoting democracy at all and is really a facade for Westerners to experiment in African politics yet again (Zaire's Lumumba?).

Back to democracy, regardless of conspiracies the basics for democarcy do not exist in Zimbabwe. Recently six MDC members were arrested under the "Law and Order Act" for holding illegal political meetings. The 2008 Presidential election is close and the MDC and ZANU-PF are in negotiations. Tsvangirai has said that the MDC wants to participate, but they want to ensure that it is a free and fair election. The MDC wants to participate to create democratic change and not to give legitimacy to a system favoring one side. The MDC is demanding that there be international control of the elections and that millions of Zimbabweans abroad be allowed to vote, a new voters' roll and the appointment of an independent Zimbabwe Election Commission to supervise the polls. South African president, Thabo Mbeki has been chosen by the SADC to mediate the negotiations between the two political parties. There is worry that Mugabe will not comply with demands.

Zimbabwe Timeline from: 1200-2007

From the When not in Africa. . . blog.

situationist revolution

"The same people who are murdered slowly in the mechanized slaughterhouses of work are also arguing, singing, drinking, dancing, making love, holding the streets, picking up weapons and inventing a new poetry."

-Raoul Vaneigem.

The situationists, like Vaneigem--although ultimately failing politically--made us remind that the struggle for socialism, is essentially, a struggle for life, control, and freedom. The stalinist counterrevolution, both in the realm of ideas and praxis, detourned the socialist struggle into a boring, ascetic endeavour for self-mortification.

The quest for "generalized self-management", as the situationists would call it, is not only a quest for empty declarations of "justice" and "equality", it is a quest for the qualitative change of our everyday lives. Technology in the first world has made it possible for the possibility of a world based on abundance, were boring labor could be reduced considerably.

Am I an utopian? If being "utopian" is embracing the tradition of "trying to reach the stars", even if being confronted by the abyss, then yes I am an utopian. People who submit willingly to death and stop trying to reach the stars, are already dead in their hearts and imaginations.

I will quote Ricardo Flores Magón, early 20th century Mexican anarchist:

"¡El abismo no nos detendrá; el agua es más bella despeñandose!"

Which roughly translates to:

"The abyss shall not stop us! Water is the most beautiful when falling."

What’s behind the price of a soldier’s gear?

Author: Bud Deraps

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 11/01/07 14:36

As our wars drag on with no end in sight, new technology is enabling more of our wounded troops to survive, and naturally, survival comes with added cost.

From World War II to the present, the cost of outfitting a soldier went from $170 to $17,000. It’s expected to reach $28,000-$60,000 in this decade. Every life is indeed precious, regardless of the price, but let us look at what’s behind the price.

Ever since President Eisenhower coined the term “military industrial complex,” most of us are aware of the huge profits war can provide for the weapon makers. How many of you are aware of the “prison industrial complex” (PIC)? Do you know the two complexes have now joined together to share in the rich profit bonanza?

The PIC, one of the fastest growing industries in the nation, is a network of public and private prisons, military personnel, politicians, business contacts, prison guard unions, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers, all making huge profits. And what makes all this profit possible?

First is the huge increase in private prisons. In the mid-1990s there were only five in the country. There are now over 100, with 62,000 inmates. In the next 10 years, they expect to hold up to 360,000. Once they build them, they cannot make good profit unless they fill them, so laws are being passed to imprison more people on lesser charges. Over 70 percent of inmates are there for minor, nonviolent drug-related offenses and the most minor infractions can result in long sentences.

Our 2 million-plus prisoners represent one-fourth of all prisoners in the world, a half million more than in China which has five times our population.

According to the Left Business Observer, the federal PIC produces 100 percent of our military helmets, ammunition belts, bulletproof vests, shirts, pants, tents, bags and canteens.

Thirty-seven states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations, allowing them to operate in state prisons. Just a few on a large list are IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Dell, Compaq, Intel and Target. Between 1980 and 1994, PIC profits went from $392 million to $1.31 billion.

In privately run prisons, workers receive a little as 17 cents an hour for a maximum of 6 hours a day ($20 a month). The highest paid are in Tennessee, where they are paid 50 cents an hour in the most skilled positions. In federal prisons, they can earn $1.25 an hour for an 8-hour day.

They are told they are being paid to learn skills for if and when they are released.

It is reported that some sweatshops in Mexico have closed down and moved across the border into prisons where they can benefit from not only slave wages, but no health or unemployment insurance, vacation time, sick leave, overtime pay, or strikes to settle. Some companies are even returning from China and Southeast Asia to prisons here where they can save not only on labor, but transportation costs as well. A deal they cannot refuse!

Organized labor is starting to get very upset and vocal as prison labor becomes more welcomed by industry and more oppressive to all workers.

I am convinced our European competitors would never stoop to this level.

Bud Deraps is a retiree in St. Louis, Mo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fantastic! A marriage of the Prison Industrial Complex and the Military Industrial Complex. This is the beginning of a utopia for the ultra right. Private military companies and private prisons can lobby to get higher sentences for minor offenses, so they'll have more cheap labor (read: slave labor) in their prisons. Military equipment becomes cheaper, so the cost of war is cheaper, and we'll just keep on invading countries based on the endless "War On Terror" so the transnationals can steal more resources for more massive profit.

I fear that someday the only options for a job will be: prison guard, soldier, or inmate. To stop that from becoming a reality, we must fight against the ultra right and the transnationals that are destroying our planet. The only way to defeat these thieves is to end capitalism and bring power back into the hands of the people through socialism.

Israel to release 450 prisoners

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7101355.stm

Palestinians said Mr Olmert's settlement freeze pledge was "nonsense"

The government of Israel has approved the release of 450 Palestinian detainees in a move announced just before talks with Palestinian leaders.

A senior Israeli official said it was a goodwill gesture ahead of a Middle East peace conference in the US next week.

Israeli premier Ehud Olmert reiterated a pledge to freeze new settlements in the occupied West Bank and dismantle unauthorised "wildcat" settlements.

His office added he would meet Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday.

There will be no new settlements and no land confiscations Israeli PM Ehud Olmert

Mr Olmert's talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are the latest in a series leading up to the expected conference in Annapolis, Maryland.

Speaking to reporters in Ramallah, Mr Abbas said that "we want to reach satisfactory progress so that we can go to Annapolis with a solid base".

Mr Abbas had been asking for at least 2,000 Palestinians to be freed from Israeli prisons.

New settlement

Correspondents said the statement on new settlements stopped short of US and Palestinian demands to freeze construction in existing settlements.

Israel has about 11,000 detainees from the occupied territories

"We committed ourselves... not to build new settlements," Mr Olmert was quoted by his spokeswoman as saying.

"There will be no new settlements and no land confiscations."

Settlements in the land occupied by Israel in the 1967 war are deemed illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.

A senior Palestinian negotiator quoted by Reuters called Mr Olmert's comments "nonsense" without a pledge on expanding existing settlements, currently housing more than 400,000 Israelis in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem.

Israel holds about 11,000 Palestinians in detention for a variety of security reasons, including many without trial or charge.

An Israeli official said the justice ministry had drawn up a list of about 450 prisoners who fitted the criteria for release set by Mr Olmert.

Existing criteria exclude members of the militant Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip and is branded a terrorist group by Israel, and people responsible for deadly attacks against Israelis.

Low expectations

The Bush administration called the Annapolis meeting hoping to kick-start Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations after seven years without substantive talks.

However, correspondents say expectations of the conference have sunk amid continuing disputes over a joint document addressing the negotiating terms on the major issues.

These are the future of Jerusalem, the future borders of Israel and the Palestinian state. and the fate of millions of Palestinian refugees from what is now Israel.

Foreign ministers from the Arab League, many of whose members have no diplomatic ties with Israel, will decide on Friday whether to attend the meeting due to take place in Annapolis, Maryland.

The US has not yet announced the date of the conference or the list of participants, although it is expected to happen before the end of November.

YDS 10 point program: a work in progress

TEN POINT PROGRAM

AS DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS…

1. We want a more democratically organized and governed society; one not dictated by the corporate owner-class from above, but rather by the people from below;

2. We demand an end of monopoly capitalism at home and U.S.-style imperialism abroad, and therefore oppose preemptive wars of aggression, military occupation, and economic strangulation and exploitation of natural resource-rich Third World nations;

THIS MEANS THAT…

3. We want the great economy of the United States to benefit all those with citizenship, not the rich and wealthy alone. We advocate a tax system that does not favor the rich and their sources of wealth but instead those who constitute the majority in the United States; i.e. those who work for a living and use the public resources tax dollars provide;

4. We work to eradicate hierarchies of power responsible for the stratification of U.S. society by race, class, and gender, and we support public and community programs that will assist those who are currently oppressed and therefore denied their rights to full social equality;

5. We demand universal quality education for all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socio-economic background. We want an education system that enhances knowledge and provides skills that improve life chances -- not one that ignores the multicultural and diverse heritages that have made this country what it is today;

6. We want an immediate end to the U.S. prison industrial complex and the mass incarceration of over 2 million human beings (most of them Black and Latino) each year; we demand an immediate abolition of for-profit corporate prison "industries" that profit from the forced labor of incarcerated individuals;

7. We want a universal healthcare system in the United States, one that provides both preventive and medical care free for all citizens, and places the needs of people above the medical and drug industry's insatiable desire for unlimited profits;

8. We demand the so-called "minimum wage" be replaced by a "living wage," eliminating an unjust system that requires workers to accept disproportionately low wages in exchange for their labor;

9. We want large corporations and businesses governed not by CEOs but by the workers themselves, those whose very lives depend on the success of the enterprise;

10. We absolutely respect the importance of the wellbeing of our planet as inhabitants and therefore demand that government policies strive for the preservation, as opposed to the exploitation of the natural resources central to the survival of all people everywhere

Dalai Lama-"half-Marxist, half-Buddhist"‏

From: http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html#marxism

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also quoted here the Dalai Lama is said to have told an audience :



'I am humanitarian Marxist, I am Buddhist Marxist, I am not nationalistic Marxist, I am also a socialist. Marxist economic theory is for all,' the Dalai Lama said. 'It propagates for equal distribution and Marxism and Buddhism are working in a similar line. I am totally against totalitarian system and using force,' the Buddhist leader added.

I wonder if this recent revelation by the Dalai Lama (half-Marxist, half-Buddist) will cost him U.S. support, as Tibet is cause de celebrete amongst the bougeois American Left.

Where your income tax money really goes

see the full chart and story here: http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51% of our income taxes goes to the military....sounds like we have our priorities straight.

YDS Supports RACIAL JUSTICE and the JENA 6 - Speakers Event!

from facebook: http://msu.facebook.com/event.php?eid=5847028886

**Racial Justice Staff Attorney, Mark Fancher, is coming to speak to YDS members and guests about social/racial issues surrounding the Jena 6 case. We, as socially conscious human beings CANNOT let the Jena 6 case die down!**

**THIS IS YDS'S FIRST EVENT OF THE YEAR! PLEASE HELP US WELCOME MARK FANCHER FOR WHAT LOOKS LIKE A PROMISING DIALOG ABOUT THE JENA 6 CASE!!**

Before joining the ACLU staff, Fancher served as the Senior Staff Attorney for the NLG/Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice in Detroit. He has also held positions as: a visiting clinical law professor at the University of Michigan Law School; Director of Special Projects in the Access to Justice Department of the State Bar of Michigan; and Co-Director of Legal Policies for Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson. Before moving to Michigan, Fancher litigated civil rights cases for six years in private practice in New Jersey and served for five years as Director of Litigation for Camden Regional Legal Services.

Fancher has played a leadership role in the National Conference of Black Lawyers for numerous years and served as its national co-chair from 1995-1998. He is chairman of the Policy Board of the Legal Aid and Defender Association in Detroit and he is a member of the Peace Neighborhood Center board of directors in Ann Arbor. He is also an active volunteer for the National Lawyers Guild and the State Bar of Michigan Pro Bono Initiative.

Fancher has lectured across the country and written extensively on issues ranging from race, poverty and Pan-Africanism to attacks on civil liberties after 9/11 and strategies for progressive movements.

Fancher is a 1983 graduate of Rutgers University School of Law and he received a B.S. from the University of Tennessee in 1979.

Spectacular times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18DF94-qiGo


Our everyday life has been superseded by an homogenous stream of images meant to be contemplated. No play, no action, no love--just a stream of images coming from the television, spectacular politics meant to be contemplated, premanufactured ideology that stifles our creativity, and a world we build but are unable to own.

"Real" choices are superseded by premanufactured "choiceless" choices--support the democrats or the republicans, support america or islamic extremists, buy a commodity over the other, support a nation over the other....

A society that reproduces generalized alienation and misery deserves nothing more than a total destruction beyond what memory can recollect. The real politics, the politics of "rage and dreams", have no mercy, accept no reform.

Taking control of our lives means taking control of the same world we built. The day we smash countries, gods, and masters will be the day when man becomes complete.

water is a human right, why is it so elusive?

Privatizing water has taken the world by storm. How many people would rather pay for cases of bottled water than take it from their tap? How many communities are deprived of water because a corporation moves in to contain and sell their water? The situations are similar to what happens here in the US and what is happening across Africa. The greatest new commodity essential to life in the world is a bottle of water. This is no more evident in the US where we are so caught up in the corporate farce that we prefer the tastes of different waters - or so we think. Here is also comes with the idea that it is safer, cleaner, and healthier to drink bottled water as opposed to tap water. ABC news presented a special on the myths of bottled water. The leading expert, used by the bottled water companies, said that there was no reason to say either tap or bottled water was better than the other. The also conducted a taste test with NYC tap water and five other bottled waters, including the top selling, french Evian. Tap water ranked fairly high at #3 with a bottled water and Evian ranked at the very bottom as the least good tasting water sample.

What is wrong with this picture? In the US we would rather pay five dollars for a gallon of water than drink the great tap water that is virtually free? How can this happen when there is such a huge scarcity of water in the world. Over 1.1 billion people in the world do not have access to clean, safe water to drink. We are talking about any drinkable water at all - but we would rather complain about taste and healthiness. In 2002, the Copenhagen Consensus determined that it was a government's responsibility to ensure the right to water for all citizens. Sadly this has not been the case in far too many developing countries. So if the public sector fails to ensure the right to water, can the private sector fill the gap?

From Reason Magazine: "Contractors often drive tankers to poor districts, selling water by the can, in which case the very poorest of the world's inhabitants are already exposed to market forces but on very unfair terms, because water obtained like this is on average twelve times more expensive than water from regular water mains, and often still more expensive than that." Many times whole water supply and treatment systems are sold to private corporations. However, well many times privatization creates a price increase for a minority of people already connected to an ineffective government water system, a greater number of people without access to water are served. There are plenty of examples to argue both for and against water privatization. In the long-term, as with most development policies, when privatization is implemented correctly with the majority of people in focus then it works as a positive. Many activists de-cry water privatization as an evil and it can be. The new fear is the great "corporate water grab." Just as with oil, policies need to be created to make sure the needs of people are met, not just business interests. In many African countries it is too late and privatization has taken a negative toll on the poor's ability to access water.

As far as bottled water, just stop buying it. This drives up the cost of water and its increased privatization as well as created more pollution. Re-use a water container and drink the beautiful water from your tap.

From the When not in Africa. . . blog.

Gulf workers confront ‘race to bottom’

Author: John Wojcik

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 11/01/07 12:23

NEW ORLEANS — Renaissance Park in Baker, La., has a name that does it no justice.

Home to Catherine Pitt, 31, an African American mother and her two children, it is row after row of cramped FEMA trailers sitting on a flat field encircled by barbed wire and patrolled by armed Blackwater USA security guards.

At 5 a.m. every morning, hundreds awaken and travel from there to a job somewhere in the post-Katrina Gulf Coast region.

At 5 a.m., Oct. 18, however, Catherine and hundreds of others stayed behind in Renaissance Park. I visited her in the afternoon. She is no longer able to get to the job she landed a year ago at the downtown Westin Hotel because the bus she rode is on a discontinued line.

“The cheapest alternate route, the cost of day care and the rent add up to more than I was making there,” she said.

While, at 5 a.m. every morning, African Americans remain behind the barbed wire at the camp, locked out of work in the city they toiled in all their lives, Latino immigrants gather in downtown New Orleans beneath a 60 foot tall statue of Robert E. Lee, the Confederate general. I was there at 5 a.m., too.

The granite image of the general, facing north, was constructed right after the Civil War by plantation owners memorializing their “hero” in the “War against Northern Aggression.”

At 5:30 a.m., a school bus carrying contractors pulled up at Lee Circle, where they got out to inspect the immigrants gathered there. When they weeded out ones who didn’t look young, strong or healthy enough, they began the bidding.

“Who will work for $5?” No one stepped forward.

“Who will work for $5.50?” A big group stepped up.

“Who will work for $6?” Still more came forward.

“What about $7?” The rest stepped up.

There were enough in the $5 and $5.50 groups. Those were taken. The others were left behind.

“Only half of those picked up will get paid anything at all,” said Saket Soni, lead organizer of the New Orleans Worker Center for Racial Justice. “The rest are deported before payday.”

On Oct. 18, Soni met with 70 labor journalists, including myself, at a convention here of the International Labor Communications Association.

Among other topics, he discussed the situation at Renaissance Park and the buying of immigrant labor by the low bidders at Lee Circle. “The pattern of this reconstruction,” he said, “is to systematically lock out hundreds of thousands of African Americans and to systematically lock in and exploit hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers.”

Soni said, “The problem was not that the government was inept or that it didn’t do enough. The problem is that the government acted quickly to implement a right-wing plan to create an expendable work force and a race to the bottom. They took advantage of the storm to carry out a social experiment they never would have dreamed possible otherwise.”

He explained that the first step in the plan was to suspend the Davis-Bacon law, a law requiring payment of prevailing wages.

The second step was the suspension of affirmative action guidelines for federally funded projects — telling employers that it was OK to discriminate against Blacks and replace them with cheaper immigrant labor.

The third step, Soni said, was the establishment of a “no-bid contracting regime” to destroy the rights of workers and their unions.

The fourth step, he said, was the creation of an “immigration enforcement saturation zone,” enabling contractors to exploit immigrant labor and hook up with the government to have workers deported before payday.

I walked along the riverfront, Oct. 19, looking for one of the restaurants that Soni, in his talk at the convention, said were experts in running the “race to the bottom.” I passed the Riverside, a well-known seafood restaurant.

There was a long line. They take your name and you can wait at the bar. The bartender who is white said all 25 on the kitchen staff were Brazilians here on H-2 visas and that they earned $6 an hour. “They got rid of the Central Americans a year ago,” he said, “they were too much trouble. They paid them $8, but a lot of them were illegal.”

“Who worked in the kitchen before the Central Americans?” I asked. “The Blacks,” he said, “They were making $10, but, naturally, they got rid of them because it was cheaper to hire the Central Americans.”

“The Blacks had already taken a cut before they were fired,” the bartender explained. “Before the hurricane they got $14 an hour. They were cut back to $10 after the storm.” I left the place before they called my name. The bartender will soon be in the line of fire, too, I thought.

I phoned Soni and told him I had found a New Orleans restaurant that had taken advantage of the right-wing social experiment he had talked about and that it had, in two years, reduced its kitchen staff wages from $14 to $6 an hour. “What will they do next?” I asked.

“They can get prison labor for $5.25,” he said.

jwojcik @pww.org

Is GOP scheming to steal another election?

Author: Marilyn Bechtel

People's Weekly World Newspaper, 11/08/07 12:03

Just weeks ago, a proposed ballot initiative by far-right Republicans with links to presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani seemed dead, after efforts to put it on California’s June primary ballot imploded amid secretive financial maneuvering by its supporters.

Now, like Freddy Krueger in “Nightmare on Elm Street,” it’s back!

The ballot initiative, if it were to become law, would apportion all but two of the state’s electoral votes according to the top vote getter in each congressional district, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Had these provisions been law in 2004, President Bush would have won 22 electoral votes in California, though John Kerry won the state by 54 percent.

Supporters of Electoral College reform emphasize that, to be fair, any change in the system must apply equally to all 50 states.

California has 55 of the Electoral College’s 538 votes, the most of any state. California’s winner-take-all system is currently used by every state except Maine and Nebraska, who only have nine electoral votes between them.

Late last month, just before Halloween, a new group of campaigners — also with ties to Giuliani — picked up the muddied flag of the so-called Presidential Election Reform Act.

On Oct. 22, political strategist David Gilliard announced he would revive the signature-gathering campaign, now called “California Counts.” Working with him are strategist Ed Rollins and fundraiser Anne Dunsmore. Resuming his earlier role overseeing the signature gathering is Mike Arno of Arno Political Consultants, one of the nation’s leading signature-gathering companies.

Dunsmore was Giuliani’s national deputy campaign manager until she resigned Sept. 26. She also raised substantial funds for President Bush in 2000 and 2004. Rollins formerly worked for Bill Simon, who now chairs Giuliani’s California campaign. Both also worked on campaigns for Katherine Harris, who as Florida secretary of state in 2000 played a key role in securing the presidency for George Bush.

Giuliani has denied any connection with the initiative. But in late September, just as the first effort was collapsing, he told a Santa Barbara, Calif., television station he liked the idea.

In a telephone interview, top state Democratic Party spokesperson Bob Mulholland called the renewed effort “a fraud on the voters, a waste of voters’ time, and a sign the Republican Party is in disarray.” Mulholland said he believes the measure has no chance to make it to the ballot, and in any case would be crushed in the election.

The California Labor Federation’s political director, Bryan Blum, emphasized the revival “is not out of genuine public interest. Right-wing zealots desperate to hold onto the presidency will go to any length with any crazy idea, no matter how undemocratic.”

Blum said the labor federation is working to alert the public “to be very careful before signing any initiative,” and especially the electoral reform measure.

“Once the public hears the facts, support drops,” Blum said. He said even some prominent Republicans, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock, have expressed skepticism.

During the initiative’s first incarnation, the Democratic Party put together a team of over 1,000 “fraudbusters” to spread the word about the real nature of the measure and monitor signature-gathering efforts.

At a Nov. 1 news conference in Sacramento, Art Torres, state Democratic Party chair, detailed some of their observations. One petition was circulated at an Oct. 27 antiwar demonstration under the guise of a call to end all war funding, he said, while at another late October event it was camouflaged as a call for hospital care for children.

Torres and Kristina Wilfore, head of the Washington-based Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC), said they had called on Attorney General Jerry Brown to “rapidly police” signature gathering to make sure no fraudulent initiatives make it to the California ballot next year.

Wilfore also warned that Arno Political Consultants has a reputation for misleading voters.

Torres told the press conference that after a concerted information campaign by the Democratic Party, labor and others, public support for the measure now stands at just 22 percent.

The first campaign collapsed in late September, when its leaders abruptly resigned after controversy erupted over efforts to conceal the identity of a mystery donor. The donor was then revealed to be billionaire hedge fund executive Paul Singer, a policy adviser and major fundraiser for Giuliani.

The new effort has inherited over 100,000 signatures gathered during the earlier campaign. Almost 434,000 signatures are required to get an initiative on the California ballot, and campaigns generally aim for about 700,000 to ensure that enough are valid.

Supporters are aiming for the June primary, when turnout is expected to be low. But they also claim that even if the measure is delayed until November, it could still affect the 2008 presidential election because the Electoral College does not meet until December.

Some observers have noted that the new signature-gathering effort lagged after the first few days, and speculate that the campaign may be short of funds. But other reports indicate that wealthy San Diego-area Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, a major funder of the state’s 2003 recall election, has now joined the campaign.

mbechtel @pww.org

Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure9nov09,0,4409342.story?coll=la-home-center

By Lisa Girion, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
November 9, 2007

One of the state's largest health insurers set goals and paid bonuses based in part on how many individual policyholders were dropped and how much money was saved.

Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed.

The revelation that the health plan had cancellation goals and bonuses comes amid a storm of controversy over the industry-wide but long-hidden practice of rescinding coverage after expensive medical treatments have been authorized.

These cancellations have been the recent focus of intense scrutiny by lawmakers, state regulators and consumer advocates. Although these "rescissions" are only a small portion of the companies' overall business, they typically leave sick patients with crushing medical bills and no way to obtain needed treatment.

Most of the state's major insurers have cancellation departments or individuals assigned to review coverage applications. They typically pull a policyholder's records after major medical claims are made to ensure that the client qualified for coverage at the outset.

The companies' internal procedures for reviewing and canceling coverage have not been publicly disclosed. Health Net's disclosures Thursday provided an unprecedented peek at a company's internal operations and marked the first time an insurer had revealed how it linked cancellations to employee performance goals and to its bottom line.

The bonuses were disclosed at an arbitration hearing in a lawsuit brought by Patsy Bates, a Gardena hairdresser whose coverage was rescinded by Health Net in the middle of chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer. She is seeking $6 million in compensation, plus damages.

Insurers maintain that cancellations are necessary to root out fraud and keep premiums affordable. Individual coverage is issued to only the healthiest applicants, who must disclose preexisting conditions.

Other suits have been settled out of court or through arbitration, out of public view. Until now, none had gone to a public trial.

Health Net had sought to keep the documents secret even after it was forced to produce them for the hearing, arguing that they contained proprietary information and could embarrass the company. But the arbitrator in the case, former Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sam Cianchetti, granted a motion by lawyers for The Times, opening the hearing to reporters and making public all documents produced for it.

At a hearing on the motion, the judge said, "This clearly involves very significant public interest, and my view is the arbitration proceedings should not be confidential."

The documents show that in 2002, the company's goal for Barbara Fowler, Health Net's senior analyst in charge of rescission reviews, was 15 cancellations a month. She exceeded that, rescinding 275 policies that year -- a monthly average of 22.9.

More recently, her goals were expressed in financial terms. Her supervisor described 2003 as a "banner year" for Fowler because the company avoided about "$6 million in unnecessary health care expenses" through her rescission of 301 policies -- one more than her performance goal.

In 2005, her goal was to save Health Net at least $6.5 million. Through nearly 300 rescissions, Fowler ended up saving an estimated $7 million, prompting her supervisor to write: "Barbara's successful execution of her job responsibilities have been vital to the profitability" of individual and family policies.

State law forbids insurance companies from tying any compensation for claims reviewers to their claims decisions.

But Health Net's lawyer, William Helvestine, told the arbitrator in his opening argument Thursday that the law did not apply to the insurer in the case because Fowler was an underwriter -- not a claims reviewer.

Helvestine acknowledged that the company tied some of Fowler's compensation to policy cancellations, including Bates'. But he maintained that the bonuses were based on the overall performance of Fowler and the company. He also said that meeting the cancellation target was only a small factor.

The documents showed that Fowler's annual bonuses ranged from $1,654 to $6,310. But Helvestine said that no more than $276 in any year was connected to cancellations.

He said Fowler's supervisor, Mark Ludwig, set goals that were reasonable based on the prior year's experience.

"I think it is insulting to those individuals to make this the focal point of this case," Helvestine said.

Bates' lawyer, William Shernoff, said Health Net's behavior was "reprehensible."

He said the cancellation goals and financial rewards showed that the company canceled policies in bad faith and just to save money. After all, he told the arbitrator, canceling policies was Fowler's primary job.

"For management to set goals in advance to achieve a certain number of rescissions and target savings in the millions of dollars at the expense of seriously ill patients is cruel and reprehensible by any standards of law or decency," Shernoff said.

The company declined requests to make Fowler available to discuss the reviews.

Cianchetti, the arbitrator, earlier ruled the rescission invalid because Health Net had mishandled the way it sent Bates the policy when it issued coverage. At the end of the hearing, it will be up to Cianchetti to determine whether Health Net acted in bad faith and owes Bates any damages.

The disclosures surprised regulators. A spokesman said state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner was troubled by the allegations.

"Commissioner Poizner has made it clear he will not tolerate illegal rescissions," spokesman Byron Tucker said. "We are going to take a hard and close look at this case."

In recent months, the state's health and insurance regulators have teamed to develop rules aimed at curbing rescissions and to more closely monitor the industry's cancellation policies.

Other insurers that have rescission operations, including Blue Cross of California and Blue Shield of California, said they had no similar policies linking employee performance reviews to rescission levels. Blue Cross said it conducted audits to ensure that claims reviewers were not given any "carrots" for canceling coverage.

Bates, who filed the suit against Health Net, owns a hair salon in a Gardena mini-mall between a liquor store and a doughnut shop. She said she was left with nearly $200,000 in medical bills and stranded in the midst of chemotherapy when Health Net canceled her coverage in January 2004.

Bates, 51, said the first notice she had that something was awry with her coverage came while she was in the hospital preparing for lump-removal surgery.

She said an administrator came to her room and told her the surgery, scheduled for early the next day, had been canceled because the hospital learned she had insurance problems. Health Net allowed the surgery to go forward only after Bates' daughter authorized the insurance company to charge three months of premiums in advance to her debit card, Bates alleged. Her coverage was canceled after she began post-surgical chemotherapy threatments.

"I've got cancer, and I could die," she said in a recent interview. Health Net "walked away from the agreement. They don't care."

Health Net contended that Bates failed to disclose a heart problem and shaved about 35 pounds off her weight on her application. Had it known her true weight or that she had been screened for a heart condition related to her use of the diet drug combination known as fen-phen, it would not have covered her in the first place, the company said.

"The case was rescinded based on inaccurate information on the individual's application," Health Net spokesman Brad Kieffer said.

Bates said she already had insurance when a broker came by her shop in the summer of 2003, and said she now regretted letting him in the door. She agreed to apply to Health Net when the broker told her he could save her money, Bates said.

She added that she never intended to mislead the company. Bates said the broker filled out the application, asking questions about her medical history as she styled a client's hair in her busy shop and he talked to another client waiting for an appointment at the counter. She maintained that she answered his questions as best she could and did not know whether he asked every question on the application.

Bates' chemotherapy was delayed for four months until it was funded through a program for charity cases. Three years later, she can't afford the tests she needs to determine whether the cancer is gone.

So she is left to worry. She is also left with a catheter embedded in her chest where the chemotherapy drugs were injected into her bloodstream. Bates said she found a physician willing to remove it without charge, but he won't do it without a clear prognosis. That remains uncertain.

Shernoff, Bates' lawyer, claimed that the performance goals for Fowler showed that Health Net was bent on finding any excuse to cancel the coverage of people like Bates to save money.

"I haven't seen this kind of thing for years," Shernoff said. "It doesn't get much worse."

lisa.girion@latimes.com