Analysis » peoplesworld

Traveling the road away from war

Marilyn Bechtel — Tue, 22 May 2012 14:18:00 -0400

NATO's pledge, at its Chicago summit, to turn over the lead in combat operations to the Afghan National Security Forces by the middle of next year, and end the alliance's combat mission by the close of 2014, sets up a new signpost on the road to ending our country's longest war.

But NATO's stated commitment to "enduring partnership" with Afghanistan, and the new U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement which could stretch out U.S. military involvement long after 2014, should dampen any optimism that the war is really coming to an end.

What NATO's commitment does reflect is the continued and growing opposition to the war among people in the NATO countries, symbolized by new French President Francois Hollande's decision to withdraw French combat troops a year ahead of schedule.

And, the ever-growing opposition here at home, with over two-thirds of the U.S. people now saying it's time and past time to leave.

A fascinating drama took place in the U.S. House of Representatives last week, as the Republican leadership refused to allow a vote on an amendment to the 2013 Defense Authorization Act.

The bipartisan amendment, introduced by Representatives James McGovern, D-Mass. and Walter Jones, R-N.C., would require President Obama to stick to his pledge to end all military and security operations by the end of 2014, and to get Congress' okay if any troops were to stay beyond that deadline.

A similar measure nearly passed last year, and House Republican leaders reportedly worried that it might actually pass this time. Rep. Jones told CNN his colleagues said another seven or eight Republicans were prepared to vote for the amendment. He said he believed it wasn't brought up because this time it would have passed.

The vote the Republican leadership scheduled instead held its own drama. The amendment first introduced two years ago by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., to limit spending on the war to that needed for the safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops and contractors, predictably failed. But for the first time a majority of House Democrats voted for it, by a margin of 101-79.

Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters are surging through Chicago streets this week, led by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, dozens of whom have thrown away hard-earned medals in protest

As the enormous costs in money and lives continue to soar, it is more urgent than ever to end a war which is only making conditions worse for the Afghan people.

The only way forward lies in bringing all the U.S. troops and contractors home, negotiations involving all parties to the conflict and all countries in the region, and international aid to help Afghans rebuild their country and achieve a viable economy.

It's now the job of everyone among the two-thirds of the American people opposed to the Afghanistan war, to roll up our sleeves for a complete end to the conflict.

The determination and commitment to ending the war that's being shown by the demonstrators in Chicago points the way.

Photo: At a NATO protest, Chicago, May 20, 2012. Teresa Albano/PW

The euro and European disintegration: Should we care?

John Case — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:03:00 -0400

Paul Krugman has long been skeptical of the success of the euro. The Nobel Prize winning Princeton economist, New York Times columnist and longtime Keynesian (stimulus) advocate to get the economy out of depression has repeatedly expressed his doubts on the viability of a single European currency in the face of political and fiscal disunity.

The European Union's unwillingness/inability to spend money on expanding employment (in other words, fiscal policy) in managing European business cycles (recession and growth) gives them no tools with which to fight economic depression.

The EU set up a monetary union, but it needs a political union based on the empowerment of working people, not just bankers, to survive this crisis.

The main monetary tool for central banks to spur growth - lowering interest rates - is not possible once those rates approach zero. In addition, central banks without more democratic supervision, respond first to the ways in which economic cycles impact the financial system; they respond first to their most immediate clients - banks. Banks havea powerful and compelling interest to avoid anything which lowers the value of their loan and investment assets. This interest is no less powerful and compelling even if their lending and investment practices were foolish and reckless.

They will shamelessly beg for public bailouts when in trouble, but starve a whole nation before willingly inflating or taxing an additional penny of their wealth to help their fellow citizens. Those citizens, who were so kind to deposit their money in the bankers' trust, or promise to pay back loans - even though many of the contract terms and resets were concealed in misleading language and assurances from lenders - are left ruined. Then they are lectured by the rich and their flunkies that poverty is really in their best interest -- "the hungry dog hunts
harder."

When the financial crisis of 2008 hit, the central bank in Europe and the leading EU countries - France and Germany - adopted a different approach than the U.S. Federal Reserve. The Obama stimulus package, and a fairly aggressive policy of easy credit by the Federal Reserve, was motivated by the mandate to reduce unemployment, not just keep inflation low. The stimulus and the easy money policy were not enough, says Krugman, to fix the depression, but they halted the downward trajectory of jobs and GDP.

European policy has been dominated by banker interests. There is no "reduce unemployment" mandate or obligation in the authority of the European Central Bank (ECB). There is no EU entity which can stimulate growth like a government, as well as absorb bad debt and distribute the losses across the EU. Thus ECB activity has focused on cutting EU member budgets under the now refuted theory that laying off more people will somehow instill markets with "confidence."

Laying off more people in a depression has the opposite effect - it reduces GDP, reduces gross revenues for government, and debt gets worse, not better, after the cuts. This policy now has a global name: "austerity."

Elections in Greece, France and Germany have punished the austerity policy.

In Greece, the political center has collapsed under the waves of layoffs and wage cuts forced upon Greek workers, leaving it currently without any governing coalition, and another election looming. France has rejected austerity with the election of Socialist François Hollande. Angela Merkel's party in Germany suffered serious losses in parliament.

Krugman predicts the following.

1. Greek euro exit, very possibly next month, since previous commitments to pay down debt in exchange for loans were rejected at the polls. Political chaos is already stimulating a run on Greek banks as depositors try to move their money to safety.

2. Further huge withdrawals from vulnerable Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors there try to move their money to Germany, or other "safe" havens.

3. Spanish, Italian, Irish, Portuguese, Greek authorities (the PIIGS countries) may try to ban transfer deposits out of country and put limits on cash withdrawals and/or make huge draws on ECB credit to keep the banks from collapsing.

4. Germany either accepts huge indirect public claims on Italy and Spain (the largest troubled countries), or, the end of the euro.

This sequence of events seems highly likely. Krugman has been predicting it for over two years since the crisis began, and EU leaders have so far rejected the stimulus strategy which was the only hope of escaping this logic.

But it is a terrifying logic! And it is NOT the path to recovery. Disintegration in Europe is the path to aggravated conflict on every level, including peace and security. Recovery means investment, not cutbacks, in a depression. It means greater unity, not divisions, between EU nations and peoples. The working class must lead the way. But the way must be paved with internationalism. The fate of Greek workers will determine the fate of all EU workers. The election wave in Europe shows that working class and many democratic forces have awakened to the grave dangers that austerity forces have set in motion.

U.S. workers have a dramatic stake in the outcome. Another recession on top of the depression now threatens Europe. It will take the wind out of any hope we have of sustaining the anemic recovery we have here. The austerity forces here stopped the Obama recovery program two years ago. Krugman is pessimistic - but despite his brilliance as an economist - he has at times been politically numb. Let's take that as a tonic. The lessons of Europe and the courageous reversal of austerity in the face of persistent threats from bankers and the rich give hope. When working people get moving - anything is possible!

Republicans show they don’t care about Women’s Health Week

Susan Webb — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:37:00 -0400

It seems Republicans, continuing their war on women, don't realize this week is National Women's Health Week.

The theme of this year's Women's Health Week is "It's Your Time." The aim is to empower women "to make their health a top priority." It encourages women to get regular checkups and preventive screenings, and to pay attention to mental health, including getting enough sleep and managing stress.

Oblivious to all this, today, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives is expected to approve the watered-down Republican version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (HR 4970), which "not only eliminates important provisions included in the Senate-passed bipartisan bill, S1925, but contains new ones that would actually be dangerous to survivors of domestic violence while shielding abusers from accountability," the National Organization for Women warns. The Republican leadership said it would not allow any floor amendments.

The New York Times notes that VAWA, originally enacted in 1994, has been "key to efforts against domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking." Talk about managing stress!

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., removes protections for Native American women, immigrant women, LGBT individuals, college students and others.

The Times editorializes: "House members on both sides of the aisle who are serious about combating domestic violence must work to defeat this atrocious bill. If that fails, the Senate will need to insist on fixing it during the reconciliation process."

A "real" VAWA reauthorization bill, HR 4271, has been introduced by Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., but Republican leaders are not allowing this version to be offered for a vote.

Meanwhile, any day now, the Kansas state Senate is about to vote on a bill that would require doctors to give false information to patients to scare them away from having an abortion. The "Omnibus Abortion Restriction and Tax Penalty Bill," SB 313, "forces doctors to lie to their patients," says Planned Parenthood. "There is no scientific evidence that choosing to end a pregnancy increases a woman's risk of breast cancer -- but doctors will be required to tell women seeking abortion that such a link exists."

In addition, the bill provides legal protection for a doctor who withholds information about possible health risks from a pregnant patient if they think the truth might lead her to end her pregnancy.

SB 313 also includes controversial tax measures touted by Republicans and "pro-life" groups as preventing taxpayer money from funding abortions.

The bill already passed the state House on May 7, with an 88-31 vote.

Planned Parenthood is urging letters to legislators in Kansas and other states to "stop playing doctor ... stop interfering with women's most private medical decisions."

Also ignoring women's health, two other recent war-on-women actions by Republican governors.

* On April 13 , Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the most extreme abortion ban in the United States, banning all abortion after 20 weeks with very limited exceptions.

As a result of a similar although less restrictive measure passed in Nebraska in 2010, Danielle Deaver was forced to continue a pregnancy even after a health crisis meant she was going to lose the baby anyway. She was forced spend 10 excruciating days waiting to give birth to a baby that she knew would die minutes later, because her doctors feared prosecution under her state's 20-week abortion ban.

In a personal appeal to Gov. Brewer not to sign the Arizona ban, Deaver wrote:

"That my pregnancy ended, that choice was made by God. How to handle the end of my pregnancy, that should have been private. But the decision that should have remained mine and my husband's at a very difficult time was decided for us - and it was decided by politicians we'd never met."

* In March, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed a bill requiring Virginia women to undergo an ultrasound procedure prior to having an abortion. Opponents charge the aim was to intimidate women from having abortions. The women health's organization NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia told CBS News the bill was "an unprecedented invasion of privacy and government intrusion into the doctors' offices and living rooms of Virginia women."

On the plus side, women's health scored a victory in Texas on April 30 when a federal judge blocked the state from implementing a rule that would have excluded Planned Parenthood from the state's Women's Health Program.

Planned Parenthood is the single largest provider of care in the Women's Health Program which serves low-income and uninsured women. Currently more than one-quarter of Texan women are uninsured, and women in Texas have the third-highest rate of cervical cancer in the U.S.

U.S. policy blamed for keeping American in Cuban jail

Emile Schepers — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:26:00 -0400

Cuba's ambassador to the U.S. has weighed in on the controversy surrounding Alan Gross, a U.S. contractor currently serving a 15-year sentence in that island nation for illegally distributing satellite communications equipment.

Following a phone interview with Gross by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Ambassador Jorge Bolaños Suárez repeated an offer to the U.S. government to sit down and discuss the Gross case as well as that of the Cuban Five.

Media coverage of the Gross case gives an opening for action on the case of the Five, a group of Cuban agents whose work involved uncovering plots hatched by terrorist groups in Miami.

They are serving extraordinarily long sentences in American maximum security prisons despite the fact that they were sent to Miami by Cuba to investigate right-wing terrorists who not only blew up a Cuban passenger plane but who continued after that incident to endanger the lives of Americans as well as Cubans.

Blitzer's interview earlier this month opened the door to an interesting and potentially productive exchange with representatives of the Cuban government, including Bolaños who heads the Cuban Interest Section in Washington D.C. and Josefina Vidal Fereira, director of the North America Bureau of the Cuban foreign ministry.

In the CNN interview Gross demanded leave to interrupt his jail sentence to travel to the U.S. to visit his dying mother. He and his supporters assert that Cuba is being ungenerous and hypocritical because René Gonzalez, one of the "Cuban Five" prisoners in the United States, was allowed to visit his critically ill brother in Cuba earlier this year.

But observers note there is no equivalency between Gross's request to be released to visit his sick mother in the U.S. and Gonzalez' visit to his brother in Cuba because it was not the U.S. government that made it possible for Gonzalez to go to Cuba to visit his brother.

The State Department, in fact, had argued that he should not be allowed to go, and only relented when directly ordered to do so by a federal judge.

Furthermore, at the time of his visit, René Gonzalez was already on supervised release, having served 12 years in prison and he is not permitted to return permanently to Cuba until his supervised status is over.

An Associated Press investigation released in February shows that Gross was employed by Development Alternatives, Inc., a private contractor frequently used by the U.S. government to carry out international acts of skullduggery. Gross lied on his visa application for travel to Cuba and, knowing that he was breaking Cuban laws, tried to conceal his activities. The types of electronic equipment Gross brought into Cuba are not just items you can pick up at Radio Shack; rather, some are sophisticated devices used in espionage work designed to send messages without being detected by authorities.

Gross and his supporters, including the U.S. State Department, claim that he went to Cuba merely to help Jewish congregations get Internet access and that he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for no reason. But those congregations themselves have countered that they have already had Internet access for quite a while without Gross' help.

Yet the desire of Gross and his family to see him freed and returned to the United States is understandable. The Gross case raises the issue of humanitarianism even though the U.S. government policy toward the Five and their families has been harsh - two of the wives have been denied visas and thus have been unable to visit their husbands for 13 years.

The Cubans have been hinting for a long time that they would be willing to discuss freeing Gross as a humanitarian gesture, if the United States would consider freeing the Cuban 5 on the same basis. The United States has quietly carried out various prisoner exchanges in the past, either as an exchange of humanitarian gestures, or as a simple prisoner swap.

The Cuban 5 have done nothing against the interests of the United States and its people. Unlike Gross in Cuba, the five men were not promoting regime change at the behest of a foreign power. Rather, their assignment was to monitor ultra-right Cuban exile groups in South Florida. For years these groups have carried out terrorist acts against Cuba and Cuban diplomats at the cost of thousands of lives. The terrorist activities the five men were trying to prevent are illegal in the United States, of course. But shockingly, when the Cuban government shared information gathered by these agents with the FBI, rather than curtail the terrorist groups, it arrested the five.

During the trial that followed the U.S. government secretly subsidized mass media in the Miami area who were covering the trial.

The U.S. State Department, headed by Hilary Clinton, claims that Gross's imprisonment is the main obstacle to improving U.S. - Cuban relations. Following that logic, simultaneous release of Gross and the remaining members of the Cuban Five could remove that obstacle.

The fact that this issue has now been covered from both sides on much-watched CNN has put it in the public eye, giving supporters of freedom for the Cuban 5 a chance to raise concerns anew.

Supporters of justice for the Five urge everyone to contact the State Department and the Justice Department to demand full freedom for all of the Cuban Five, and, by the way, for Alan Gross as part of a humanitarian arrangment. They also urge signatures on a petition.

Photo: J G Blanchard Lewis // CC 2.0

The year 2047: a postman's nightmare

John Dick — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:11:00 -0400

My weary hand grabs the first piece of mail for the day. I open the big brass box to begin stuffing the day's mail into the individual slots when the familiar sound buzzes over my gray, balding noggin. I don't need to look up to know what it is, but I do anyway. The first APD of the day - automated postal drone - zooms 30 feet overhead to observe my work ethic. I want to extend my bird to this electronic avian, but I resist. As they say in this time and place, just be happy you have a job.

I have been doing this gig for 50 years. I started at the nubile age of 28. I loved this job when I began my career as a letter carrier. In 1997 I delivered my first piece of mail to the American public. I knew right away that this profession was my calling. It was a union job with decent pay and benefits. If I gave a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, I could earn a good living and a respectable retirement. I would be able to raise a family and maybe send a kid or two off to college. This is what I signed up for. I give 30 years of my most productive working days to the Postal Service, and in return I get some catching up time in my senior years. It seemed to be a civilized and reasonable arrangement. Fifty years later, folks tell me it was a silly thing to believe in. As they say, just be happy you have a job.

Everything for we letter carriers was great for the first 10 years of my employment. Mail volume hit record levels and the Postal Service was riding the proverbial Wavy Gravy train. The folks at postal headquarters never even flinched when Congress hoisted an unprecedented $56 billion retirees' health care prefunding mandate upon our backs. Just like the stock market at the time, the only future the Postal Service saw was filled with eternal optimism and growth. Light my big, fat cigar and fill my bottomless glass with champagne, old boy! The Great Recession of 2009 popped that bubble. As the economy went into the tank, our unending piles of U.S. mail sank. It was at this time my career as a letter carrier began to unwind. My chosen profession would soon become a job. The distinction became clear over the next few years. Very clear.

A new Postmaster General was appointed; Patrick Donahoe. As the postal unions attempted to find innovative ways to survive those most trying times by expanding products and services to the American public, this guy seemed hell bent on destroying the Postal Service. His remedy was to cut and downsize every aspect of our great institution. And with the help of Congress, he got his wish.

First, half of all facilities and post offices were closed across this land. Then, Saturday delivery and door-to-door delivery were eliminated. By the time he and his minions in Congress were done, the Postal Service delivered only three days a week and hundreds of thousands of good jobs were gone. This all happened by the end of my second decade as a letter carrier, 2017. At the middle age of 48, I had just enough seniority to keep my position. That was the first time I heard a supervisor tell me: Just be happy you have a job.

The next year, the once proud United States Postal Service was privatized, and we found out what a shill this Donahoe character was. The public had enough of the shoddy and lackluster performance standards of every-other-day delivery. We were sold off to a multinational conglomerate called AmeriPost, and our Postmaster General became its CEO. All contracts with unions were abolished and all career employees were given this choice; clear your locker and never come back, or sign on as a new employee of AmeriPost. The pay was half of what we were making, and there were almost no benefits. I stayed on. It was the only job I knew. By the way, unemployment in 2018 was near 20 percent. The elections in 2012, 2014, and 2016 had not gone well for us working folks. One phrase just kept running through my head: Just be happy you have a job.

The following decades saw the end of the American Dream. Along with the Post Office being privatized so were all the public schools, libraries, prisons, Social Security, public works, and national and state parks. The economic power was being concentrated completely into the hands of what us old-timers called the One Percent.

I often wonder how this could have happened to this once great nation. Sometimes you can see things more clearly when they're not there. Most of the great books about human freedom, for instance, were written in prison. It's like the people who see a tsunami coming; by the time you see it, it's too late. Or like my old man used to say about love; by the time she talks about leaving, she's already gone. I wish I would have done more 30 years ago to fight for my job and my way of life. I wish I would have done more to fight for my neighbors' as well. If we all stood together and fought together could we have changed American history? Now, we'll never now.

Some say our democracy was stolen from us. I believe we, as a nation of working folks, gave it away. And I include myself in that equation. I firmly adhere to the notion that when you point a finger at someone, there are three more pointing back at you. I was too busy to get involved in all that activism nonsense. Hell, I had bowling on Thursdays and "Dancing with the Stars" playing on my boobtube every Tuesday. Why would I call a congressman or care about another stupid election. Between the sports channels, my motorcycle, and taking the kids to soccer practice, I didn't give a rat's ass about politics as long as my paycheck showed up every two weeks. Even when I saw my neighbors losing their homes and my friends losing their decent union jobs, I did not think it would ever happen to me. Consumerism and entertainment seduced and deluded me in a way that no Siren wailing from a sea rock ever could.

So here I stand now still stuffing mail into the boxes at the end of a street. At the age of 78, in the year 2047, I have a route with 4,000 stops. After the Second Great Depression of '39 I lost all my retirement savings in the privatized American Security System. I fear death will be my only retirement, and I no longer fear the grasp of the Grim Reaper. On many days I long for it. As the second automated postal drone of the day zooms overhead, I remind myself to pick up the pace, only 3,000 more boxes to fill. And I also remind myself: Just be happy you have a job.

Photo: Lockheed D-21 Drone for Blackbird program. CC BY-NC 2.0

"(Re)Presenting America": Are culturally specific museums a good thing?

Chris Elliott — Tue, 15 May 2012 12:37:00 -0400

Can oppressed groups resurrect their own suppressed histories through a museum?

What has been the historical role of race and ethnicity in the development of the natural history museum?

Can anthropology, which often provided intellectual cover for white supremacy, play a positive role in the "decolonization" of museum space?

These questions and more were dealt with at "(Re)Presenting America: the Evolution of Culturally Specific Museums," a symposium at the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, April 25.

A year ago, the National Museum of the American Latino Commission issued a report entitled "To Illuminate the American Story for All," recommending the establishment of a Smithsonian National Museum of the American Latino. A campaign was immediately launched by the Friends of the National Museum of the American Latino to "create a museum in our nation's capital to educate, inspire and encourage respect and understanding of the richness and diversity of the American Latino experience within the U.S. and its territories by highlighting the contributions made by Latino leaders, pioneers and communities to the American way of life."

The American Latino Museum has strong advocates in Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who in turn gathered support from 22 other members of Congress and sent a letter calling for inclusion of language in support of the museum in the upcoming appropriations bill.

The "(Re)Presenting America" event was organized by the Smithsonian Institution to provide a forum to address the issues surrounding "ethnic" or "culturally specific" museums - whether they have the potential to provide genuine cultural resources to the represented peoples, and the ability to enrich and enlighten the broader, diverse population, fostering greater understanding.

Speakers addressed the idea that the mushrooming of ethnically diverse museums could lead to cultural "Balkanization" that contributes to isolation of racial and ethnic groups. They observed that traditional museums have not represented the diverse histories of our multicultural population.

The symposium, moderated by PBS' Ray Suarez, began with an interview with an actor portraying the first secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, Joseph Henry. While this format may be considered corny (think Steve Allen's "Meeting of Minds") the interview was fascinating.

"Joseph Henry" spoke about Smithsonian-sponsored anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan's breakthrough 19^th century study on the development of human culture, "Ancient Society." Morgan, highly influenced by Darwin, expounded a theory of successive stages in social evolution: "savagery," "barbarism," and "civilization." Karl Marx's collaborator, Frederick Engels, elaborated on Morgan's theories in his book, "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State." Although the names of the stages have been dropped (due to their pejorative nature), Morgan's and Engels' ideas about social development still serve as the basis of anthropological investigation today.

The interview also confronted some of the racial issues surrounding the beginnings of anthropology and the natural history museum.

For example, the author of the Dred Scott decision, the 1857 Supreme Court ruling that slaves or their descendants were not protected by the Constitution, was a chancellor of the Smithsonian. During the Civil War, the Smithsonian didn't take sides, but the Southern states withdrew financial support during the war, nearly bankrupting the Smithsonian. Frederick Douglass was prevented from speaking at the Smithsonian because he was black.

Rutgers University professor Clement Price spoke about the evolution of the natural history museum, and its potential to inform social change. Price took issue with the idea that museums are essentially part of the establishment - "You can't take down the master's house using the master's tools" - and therefore cannot play a liberatory role for oppressed minorities. He said museums could, in fact, counter the "master narrative," with its depoliticized past, by providing a space for "remembering" the experiences of forgotten or marginalized peoples.

Just such a space was realized recently in the opening of the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris State University, in Big Rapids, Mich. The museum serves to "remember" America's white supremacist history: an ongoing, sometimes overt, sometimes covert racism that oppresses all peoples of color. The collection consists of objects, signs, images, and other material that demean African Americans, from slavery days to the present (including racist representations of President Obama).

The Jim Crow Museum could serve as an example of the "anti-museum" suggested by another speaker, David Hurst Thomas, curator of the American Museum of Natural History. It takes "the master's tools" (racist propaganda) and re-contextualizes them to question the white supremacist order. Thomas pointed out that in the past, the natural history museum served as the "ugly edge of Manifest Destiny." For example, relics and remains of Native Americans were displayed next to dinosaur fossils, suggesting that indigenous cultures are vestigial, falling off the map of history.

As racial and ethnic groups organized to fight for equality, many social institutions, including museums, have been forced to change. Native Americans pushed for a civic institution that expressed their living history, instead of a repository for fossils and relics, and the National Museum of the American Indian was born. Thomas advocated, with the affirmation of the symposium's other participants, the concept of a "museum different," not a temple to the solitary voice of the anthropologist, but a forum for an open conversation about the multiplicity of experiences of our diverse people.

Image: National Museum of the American Indian

Jungleland? New Orleans community activist rejects NY Times depiction of Ninth Ward

Jenga Mwendo — Mon, 14 May 2012 14:21:00 -0400

NEW ORLEANS -- The New York Times Magazine recently ran a story on my home, the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, a place one of the most powerful newspapers in the world insensitively dubbed a "Jungleland." Contrary to the article, residents of this community are not reconciled to life in the wilderness and we don't live in an untamed mess of overgrowth or in a forgotten wasteland. We are not resigned to anything; we are fighting to revive our community.

While the article cites the city government's futile attempts to improve the neighborhood, it barely mentions the overall lack of government support before and after Hurricane Katrina and the hard work by committed citizens to improve the community. Yes, many parts of the Lower Ninth are overgrown and neglected, but what the article missed is that many are not. Moreover, the untold story is how city, state and federal government abandoned this community.

The Times probably had good intentions - document the bad situation so our community can get help. But while writing about broken people, vacant lots and weeds may be sexy journalism, the community needs the outside world to understand how implicit and unconscious bias caused by a history of racism pummeled us.

After Katrina, millions of dollars flowed into New Orleans, and the Lower Ninth was declared the glaring example of what needed rehabilitation. Yet, nearly seven years later, the French Quarter and other areas of tourism and affluence are sparkling, while few improvements have been made in the Lower Ninth. In fact, most of the decaying properties cited in the article are owned by the City of New Orleans, not the residents.

Each day, a tour bus cruises the neighborhood showing visitors hurricane damage and poor living conditions. So tour companies are making money off our tragedy and lack of support. The people? We have become mere spectacles dehumanized in the process.

We need the media to shine a spotlight on the fact that the city, state and federal governments turned their backs on this community.

We haven't given up. Many local organizations and churches are working hard to revitalize the Lower Ninth. Unfortunately, the Times article mentions only Brad Pitt's Make It Right organization as the silver lining in the dark cloud that is the Lower Ninth. Churches and other groups may not offer the glitter, clout and financial resources of Brad Pitt, but they labor daily to improve the quality of life here. The Times article included more about the varieties of plant and animal life that have moved in than about the people and organizations fighting to rescue this community.

Before the Lower Ninth is judged, consider why it has become a vast wasteland. Before Katrina, nearly 15,000 people lived in this community, which had the highest homeownership rate in the city. The overwhelming majority of these owners were African American. After the destruction, 75 percent of the residents didn't return because staying where they had fled was easier than the struggle and expense of returning to rebuild.

Those who did return discovered very little government support. Without nonprofits and thousands of volunteers, more of the Lower Ninth might actually be "Jungleland."

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to restoration is that this community had fewer resources before Katrina. Like other poor, African-American communities nationwide, it had suffered the results of structural racism. The color of our skin had an impact on our schools, access to health care, employment opportunities, and housing and basic human rights. When resources are scarce to begin with, it's hard to recover after tragedy.

For instance, many Lower Ninth residents had no homeowners and flood insurance. The Road Home program, designed to help people rebuild, provided payments to homeowners based on pre-Katrina property values, not actual repair costs. So whites who owned homes in affluent neighborhoods received payments that allowed them to rebuild, even though many of their homes incurred less damage than those of people in neighborhoods like the Lower Ninth.

A 2008 lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleged such discriminatory practices and was settled last year. HUD was to pay $62 million to Louisiana homeowners, but disposition of that money is unclear. In another setback, the city didn't allow Lower Ninth residents to come home and start rebuilding until nine months after other New Orleans citizens returned. Faced with increased uncertainty, chaos and financial burdens, people were forced to find work and resettle in their evacuation locations.

What few services were available also caused concern. The social safety net already had gaps but was completely shattered by Katrina. Elderly residents worried about where they could receive health care, parents didn't know where they would send their children to school and seven years later, the community has no grocery store. Clearly the government didn't want us back because the original master-rebuilding plan had the Lower Ninth slated to become green space.

Rebuilding our community may not be profitable, but it's right. African-American lives in the Lower Ninth are just as valuable as those of whites in the French Quarter or Garden District.

Often overlooked is the role that structural racism played in destruction of our community. If the French Quarter had been in the same area as the Lower Ninth, the government wouldn't have allowed anything as potentially destructive as a barge to remain untethered with a storm coming. Levees would have been built to withstand a Category 4 hurricane so major tourist attractions wouldn't be jeopardized.

The French Quarter wasn't saved because it sits nine feet higher than the back section of the Lower Ninth but because of racism and classism. Black residents of the Lower Ninth were deemed expendable long before Katrina.

With a new mayor in office, there is at least hope for the future. We've had more street repairs in the Lower Ninth, but that's where it ends for now. I've heard promises and seen plans, but the community is naturally skeptical. We have become accustomed to broken promises. So we don't hold our breath. We don't get excited. We wait and see.

Jenga Mwendo is an urban-agriculture, community organizer in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans and founder of the Backyard Gardeners Network, whose mission is to sustain and strengthen the community.

This article is republished from America's Wire, which is an independent, nonprofit news service run by the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education and funded by a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The views expressed by the America's Wire Writers Group authors are those of the writers and not the Maynard Institute or W .K. Kellogg Foundation. For more information, visit www.americaswire.org or contact Michael K. Frisby at mike@frisbyassociates.com.

Photo: From New Orleans Lower Ninth Ward. (Musicasalingus/CC)

Obama advances new civil rights revolution

PW Editorial Board — Fri, 11 May 2012 16:03:00 -0400

"I think same-sex couples should be able to get married." That simple statement by President Obama on Wednesday is a historic turning point for our nation. It is both a culmination and a launching point of a new American civil rights revolution.

The movement for gay and lesbian equality in all spheres of life, emerging in the 1970s, has become a mainstream movement, as more and more gays and lesbians have courageously "come out of the closet," often with great personal sacrifice. Same-sex couples too have gone public and, with their compelling stories of long-term loving relationships, moved the nation.

A growing number of states have recognized same-sex relationships, whether through civil unions or marriage itself. And there has been an evolving shift in overall public opinion, with a majority favoring marriage equality.

Yes there has been a backlash by the far-right. Thirty states - with North Carolina the latest - have passed amendments to their constitutions barring same-sex marriage. But the tide is turning toward equality.

This movement, like the women's equality movement, stands on the shoulders of the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s.

Actress Tyne Daley said a few years ago, "When I got married [in 1986 to African American actor Georg Stanford Brown], my marriage was illegal in seven states in this country. ... Government can't dictate hearts and minds. But it can decide law, and when laws change, other things change."

Racist Jim Crow laws seemed enshrined forever, but they were overcome - by a mass movement, courageous individuals, and leaders who were able to galvanize the nation and transform public sentiment.

Obama's statement this week was bold, gutsy and the right thing to do. And that's what the American people want. Whether or not they personally support gay marriage or regardless of what they think about homosexuality, most Americans favor fairness and rights. And they will admire a president who stands up for these things.

Photo: (AP)

Supreme Court “rogues’ gallery”: another reason why 2012 matters

Sam Webb — Wed, 09 May 2012 17:15:00 -0400

For millions of Americans who are suffocating under the weight of a protracted economic crisis, the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court may not register as a priority, or even as a passing concern.

A job, a living wage, mortgage assistance, or relief from racial harassment probably rank much higher. And that is perfectly understandable.

Jobs are scarce; wages are stagnant; homes are being lost; and racial profiling is commonplace.

Nevertheless, who sits on the U.S. Supreme Court does matter and not only to legal scholars, but to ordinary Americans.

Indeed, the court, through its rulings, can impact either very positively or very negatively on people's struggles and lives.

The present Supreme Court, according to one study, is the most conservative since at least the 1930s. Of the 10 most conservative members of the court from 1937 to 2006, five are serving today: Clarence Thomas (1 on the most conservative list), Antonin Scalia (3), John Roberts (4), Samuel Alito (5), and Anthony Kennedy (10).

Talk about a "rogues' gallery."

Ironically (and ominously), Kennedy is considered a moderate swing vote on today's High Court, which not only indicates how far the court has shifted to the right, but also how far to the right Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito (the "gang of four") are. In fact, to characterize them as "right-wing extremists" may not adequately capture how far out they sit on the political and judicial spectrum.

Worse still, in the coming years the Supreme Court will be ruling on cases that could either considerably enhance or seriously hollow out democracy and the quality of life for tens of millions.

First up is the constitutionality of President Obama's main legislative achievement - health care reform. According to court observers who monitored the hearings, the likelihood of an adverse ruling is high.

Then - not necessarily in this order - the court will turn its attention to the affirmative action program at the University of Texas that allows for race to be considered as one factor among many others in the university's admission's process. It will also reach a judgment on the legality of Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in California, and on the Defense of Marriage Act. It will render as well a decision on section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which compels states that are enacting new voting rights laws to clear them with the federal government to ensure that they aren't discriminatory in their impact.

The court will also listen to a legal challenge to Montana's ban on corporate campaign contributions in election campaigns, and to a case involving the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants."

Finally, the court may well hear challenges to Roe v. Wade as well as other broadly accepted precedents in American jurisprudence and democratic rights law.

Any Mitt Romney additions to the Supreme Court would almost certainly guarantee a series of adverse decisions on these and other legal matters over the next four years and beyond.

More fundamentally, with the likelihood of the retirement of some justices - the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg being the first, a Romney presidency would be the vehicle to consolidate and make impenetrable the power of the extreme right in the judicial branch of government.

If you have any doubts about this, if you entertain the hope that Romney would nominate someone who occupies the judicial center, bear in mind two things.

First, the pressure on Romney from social conservatives - not to mention sections of corporate capital - to appoint "one of their own" to the court would be enormous. Both see the judiciary as an essential instrumentality for imposing a right-wing, socially conservative agenda.

Second, the chairman of Romney's Justice Advisory Committee is none other than Robert Bork.

Some readers may be too young to have heard of Bork. So a little political biography might be helpful. Bork was solicitor general in 1973 and, at the command of then-President Richard Nixon, fired Archibald Cox as special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal, hoping to aid the Watergate coverup.

Later Ronald Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court, but the Senate, in a bitter fight, rejected him by a vote of 58-42, the largest margin in history.

While the vote reflected a partisan divide, the grounds for rejecting Bork were substantive. He was on the wrong side of many settled judicial issues. He opposed broad protection for free speech; he questioned the constitutional right to privacy; he vigorously opposed integration of public accommodations, calling it "unsurpassed ugliness" - to name but a few of his more noxious views.

Since leaving the federal bench he has been a champion of ultra-conservative causes.

Here we have another compelling reason why the 2012 elections matter. While we don't know who President Obama would nominate to the court if he is re-elected in November, we do know from his earlier appointments that they would in all probability fall on the democratic side of the political and judicial equation.

Photo: "The Guardian" or "Authority of Law" statue by James Earle Frasier in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington. Mark Fischer // CC 2.0

Justice for black farmers has May 11 deadline

Ralph Paige — Wed, 09 May 2012 14:12:00 -0400

The 180-day period for monetary claims by Black farmers against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) expires this week. May 11, 2012 is the last day for Black farmers claimants for file their claim form.

When these farmers filed their class-action lawsuit in the mid-1990s (Pigford vs. Glickman), they were but acting on what had been known for decades. Namely, that Blacks had always been systematically discriminated against by the USDA.

The history has been bleak. When Congress created the USDA's Farmers Home Administration in 1942, it was supposed to be the "lending institution of last resort" for farmers. It was created to save America's family farmers as they struggled after the devastating 1930's depression. But Black farmers then and up to now have never been able to access the loans and other program services at the USDA in an equitable fashion. In fact, in 1982 the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported that the primary reason Blacks had lost land was because of the USDA itself and lack of services.

In the USDA regulations, in fact, it states that the USDA offices are supposed provide loan applications and assistance to farmers in filling out the applications. The USDA is supposed to offer loan servicing advice and opportunities for farmers who are having trouble making their payments. If approved for a loan, the payments are supposed to be provided in a timely fashion. These are just some examples.

For Black farmers, however, in most instances the USDA office would not even provide a loan application. And if the farmer did receive an application and was approved for a loan, in many instances the loan came too late to plant that year's crop. Black farmers were also in many instances given a "supervised account" where they did not receive the money outright but were required to go to the USDA for the loan officer or supervisor to write the check for supplies, etc.

The consequences of all of this has been costly for Black farmers because invariably they would have to get loans from supply houses or banks at exceptionally high interest rates or they went without and sought other jobs to make a living. Often land was lost and marriages destroyed.

A settlement agreement for the class action lawsuit was approved on April 14, 1999, and the deadline for submitting a claim as a class member was October 12, 1999.

Because it became clear that many Blacks where not aware of the settlement, on July 14, 2000 Judge Paul Friedman in the U.S. District Court ruled that individuals could file a petition explaining why they missed the 1999 deadline. Close to 90,000 individuals filed a late petition up until June 18, 2008.

Further, thanks to the Congressional Black Caucus a provision was inserted in the 2008 Farm Bill permitting individuals who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford to submit a claim form. This portion of lawsuit for the "late" claimants became known as Pigford II.

Thankfully, in November 2010, Congress appropriated $1.25 billion for those Pigford II claims.

Like the original Pigford case, the Pigford II settlement provides both a fast-track settlement process and higher payments to potential claimants who go through a more rigorous review and documentation process. A moratorium on foreclosures of most claimants' farms will remain in place until after claimants have gone through the claims process.

In some states, there are meetings being held suggesting, unfortunately, that it's still possible to get into this lawsuit. This has led to considerable misinformation circulating around the South about who is entitled to seek an award. One thing's for sure: No one should have to pay money to be part of the Pigford lawsuit. Class counsel lawyers will help fill out claims at no cost. There is also assistance from community advocates, like the staff of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund and other farmers' groups in the Network of Black Farm Groups and Advocates.

Many original claimants are now deceased. There are provisions in the settlement for their next of kin or heirs to file a claim on their behalf. Persons filing on behalf of a deceased relative must furnish a death certificate for the claimant and must know the details and circumstances of their farming operation and USDA loan or non-loan program denial.

As there is a finite sum of money for the settlement, which has to be used to pay all legal, notice and administrative expenses, as well as pay the farmers, the judge has ruled that no funds for successful claims will be distributed until after the claims period and the evaluation of all claims. This means that funds won't be distributed until late 2010 or early 2013.

If you're an African-American farmer and have questions about whether you're in the lawsuit, call EPIQ, the lawsuit administrator, at 877-810-8110.

For years African-American farmers were denied access to USDA funds and services. Now we have an opportunity to correct this wrong.

This article was distributed by American Forum Photo: Tim Wheeler/PW

New book about Alger Hiss revives Cold War mythology

Frederick Barr — Wed, 09 May 2012 12:05:00 -0400

As Rep. Allen West proved with his channeling of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy recently, the Red Scare echoes endure within American culture.

"Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason," a new look at the Alger Hiss case, attempts to both examine Hiss through his actions and motivations and explore their relevance to contemporary politics. These ambitions are never realized and the reader who is sufficiently interested would perhaps be rewarded by seeking out previous, more substantial books on the subject. There are many.

For those not familiar: in 1948 the former government official Alger Hiss was accused by self-proclaimed former Soviet spy Whittaker Chambers of secretly being a Communist while in federal service. The accusation led to congressional hearings, a defamation lawsuit brought against Chambers, and the eventual conviction of Hiss for perjury, resulting in three and a half years of imprisonment. Hiss maintained his innocence to his death. The whole drama was complicated and divisive, a perfect example of how harmful the Cold War could be to reputations and character. The facts continue to foster conflicting conclusions, and all these years later the interpersonal relationships that lie beneath all this remain puzzling.

There are problems with any attempt to see the Hiss-Chambers affair through the prism of "treason." This is sadly familiar Cold War territory http://www.peoplesworld.org/june-19-1953-the-murder-of-the-rosenbergs/. Author Christina Shelton is a veteran of the intelligence community, and she proves ill-suited to the task she sets for herself: repeatedly the narrative is brought down to the mechanics of espionage. From the perspective of many decades later, the Cold War period that emerged during and after the Second World War seems, above all else, an era contorted into odd shapes by the pressures of paranoia and subterfuge. It was a dark era that can't be sufficiently appraised from within the shadowy crevices of Intelligence work.

There's also a problem of scale: the acts of a few individuals who may have transgressed (often through an act of principle) seem barely significant compared to the horrifying deeds of those in power, in the East and West, but especially the harm done by our own Cold Warriors, that are now common knowledge. Like most nightmares, the Cold War proves elastic and surreal. Were the years of suspicion and distortion the price the world might be expected to pay for ridding itself of the greater peril of fascism? Shelton's book is burdened with conclusions and opinions that, if shaken off, might have allowed her the freedom to appraise the people and deeds with more novelty and curiosity.

The book is allegedly about human beings, but there is no real feel for revealing hearts and minds. Aside from the many notations about who joined what and when and so on that is so familiar within the body of McCarthy era literature, there's only a thin layer of regard for motivation or conviction. These stories always seem to conform to a conflict between patrician and respectable men of virtue who are really heels, or worse and a rumpled, humble, less attractive fellow who has a heart of gold or a superior intellect. It's a Cold War fable probably best dramatized in the 1994 film "Quiz Show." This dynamic is often the template fitted to the Hiss-Chambers affair, and it is again employed with much devotion here. Alger Hiss is treated to repeated assumptions that he wasn't really all that much, and Whittaker Chambers is dealt with as a flawed figure of immense intellect. Both men and much else elude Shelton's reach. Hiss and Chambers are a compellingly odd couple, and one can't help but suspect that the whole drama originates from their differences. You'll gain no insights into this from this superficial tome. Even significant characters in this tale get little attention, such as Richard Nixon.

It is possible to do this sort of thing well. Norman Mailer's book on Lee Harvey Oswald ("Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery") is the best example that I personally have encountered. Certainly far more talent and rigor was employed in Mailer's book. The opportunity in attempting to revisit an event or period so well-examined is that there may yet be a revelation uncovered. But halfway through this dreary book the reader hits a wall of shrill but shallow political rhetoric that renders the whole work largely irrelevant. Important distinctions and chronology are blurred. There's a sad attempt to recast fascism as a leftist philosophy. Once we have seen the agenda laid bare the book never recovers. This isn't deep stuff, it's more Beck than Buckley. Much like Rep. West's recent declarations, this is merely a case of a conservative ideologue climbing upon a block of history to gain notice.

Book information:

Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason
Published by Threshold Editions. 352 pages
ISBN-10: 1451655428
ISBN-13: 978-1451655421

The ruling class "nullification" attack on democracy

Pat Barile — Wed, 09 May 2012 12:00:00 -0400

In 30 years (2042) demographers forecast that the population of the U.S. will no longer be majority white. The ruling class has recognized this for some time and has been working feverishly to blunt the potential change in the balance of forces that this portends.

In 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled against segregated education and in favor of integrated education, the ruling class launched an all-out battle on all fronts, including violence, to block enforcement of the court's decision. As they put it then, they had a policy of "interdiction and nullification." Their policy was finally defeated when President Dwight Eisenhower ordered National Guard troops to enforce federal court orders to integrate schools in Arkansas. The troops defied the racist governor, Orville Faubus, to stand aside of the school entrance and thus the schools were integrated.

A new turn has taken place in the ongoing racist offensive. We are faced today with another profound crisis in the struggle for equality and democracy against the onslaught of the U.S. ruling class. The offensive began with the announcement by Barack Obama in 2007 that he would be a candidate for president of the U.S.

Obama was subjected to but endured a racist primary campaign and presidential campaign. He was elected president despite this protracted racist attack

Failing to block Obama's election, the ruling class launched its modern day version of "interdiction and nullification." The keystone of the policy was put in place by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He said his most important job was to make Barack Obama "a one-term president." On inauguration night a secret conclave of Republican leaders and members of Congress met to discuss the strategy of "interdiction and nullification." They decided on a plan of creating total gridlock in Congress so that no Obama plans to overcome the recession and rebuild the country could be passed. Their aim was to place the blame for the resulting quagmire in government on Barack Obama as being unfit to govern as president. That is exactly the campaign being waged by Mitt Romney today - i.e. "Barack Obama is a good guy but not a good president." In fact, every idea or legislative or programmatic proposal President Obama puts forth is belittled as being useless.

During the whole Republican primary process, the racist offensive against Barack Obama was accompanied by a withering racist offensive against African Americans and Latinos as being the cause of the economic recession.

Desperate to maintain control of the reins of economic, cultural and political life, the ruling class nullification policy is being used against the working class and middle strata who are coming together in broad coalitions to fight for people's needs programs. The expression "We are the 99%" is a frightening idea to the ruling class. They understand the demographic developments and they are determined to smash the people's resistance movement. Three main components are the trade unions, the women's equality movement and the growing and "rebellious" youth.

In a number of states, tea party candidates were elected as governors and state legislators on a program of jobs, jobs, jobs. Every single one of them double-crossed the people, including those who voted for them. Instead they passed union-busting, job-killing, pension-stealing, wage-cutting laws against public workers. They effectively nullified public education in their states and are in the process of privatizing education and building an educated elite. They attacked, curtailed and eliminated women's rights to health care. They cut health care for children. They reduced and eliminated welfare. They made college education too expensive to achieve. They repealed or ignored environmental laws. They have refused federal job monies for reconstruction and transportation. In Michigan, they have seized control of the cities by diktat of the governor. Elected mayors and city councils are removed arbitrarily by the governor and replaced by the governor's henchmen.

Other significant attacks on the people's movement are the hate campaigns against undocumented workers and immigrants in general, shoot-to-kill gun laws in 25 states and growing numbers of voter suppression laws to thwart the electoral process.

A key divide and conquer tactic is to continue shipping jobs abroad, keeping high unemployment rates, pitting the unemployed against those still working and blaming the whole mess on the president. In the past 10 years, 50,000 manufacturing plants were shipped abroad with a loss of 3 million jobs; Apple alone has 800,000 jobs overseas and growing.

All of these efforts aimed at pauperizing the people economically, culturally and politically are being spiced with the poison of anti-communism. The latest gambit to divert and divide the people is the spurious charge by Florida Congressman Allen West that there are 78-81 communists in Congress. He knows that's a lie; but it's a lie with a purpose. Indeed, I believe if there were that many communists in Congress, there would be no quagmire in Congress; we would have real recovery programs.

The most important tactic at this moment to defeat ruling class efforts to nullify the historical process is the re-election of Barack Obama and defeating the ultra-right Republican cabal in Congress. Additionally, the process of electing working people, African Americans, Latinos, women, trade unionists and other members of the people's coalition to office, from City Hall to Congress will be expanded and speeded up. The continuing process of changing the balance of forces to pass control of society from the capitalist ruling class to the people starts now and continues until the majority is effectuated. In that process, people will be elected to public office based on service to society and not to corporate profits.

Death of Maurice Sendak brings out a flood of commentary

Barbara Russum — Tue, 08 May 2012 15:48:00 -0400

In a 1993 interview in The New York Times, children's book author and illustrator Maurice Sendak presented his take on writing for children: "Grown-ups desperately need to feel safe, and then they project onto the kids. But what none of us seem to realize is how smart kids are. They don't like what we write for them, what we dish up for them, because it's vapid, so they'll go for the hard words, they'll go for the hard concepts, they'll go for the stuff where they can learn something, not didactic things, but passionate things."

Sendak died May 8 at the age of 83. As soon as the news of Sendak's death was announced, social media was flooded with comments from generations of readers, parents, and librarians:

A popular post showed a video of President Obama, (who said Where The Wild Things Are is "an all time classic") during a reading of the book to a group of children in Washington last month.

One parent, whose children are now in high school and college, commented: "What a loss, but what a life he had and what a treasure he left us. He was such a part of our growing up and our children, I think of him as part of the family. Thanks for enriching our lives!"

Another parent wrote of her renewed interest in children's books: "I think his books are so wonderful! Now that I'm looking at kids' books from the library to read with my granddaughter -- so many are about cute pigs and rabbits, etc. (some of these are good of course) but Sendak really brought in the realm of imagination and wonder."

The Chicago Public Library said simply: "Thank you. You will be missed."

On the School Library Journal page: "His passing is a tremendous loss, but his impact on the children's book industry, and on children themselves, will live on and on," Trev Jones, book review editor.

The American Library Association [quoting from The New York Times Arts Beat blog]: "You may not be Tolstoy," Ms. Nordstrom [his legendary editor at Harper & Row, Ursula Nordstrom] once wrote to Mr. Sendak after he expressed self-doubt, "but Tolstoy wasn't Sendak, either. You have a vast and beautiful genius."

Guitarist Slash tweeted: "RIP Maurice Sendak. A couple of your books were huge to me when I was a kid. Lot of great memories thinking about them. Actually, Where the wild things are was the catalyst for many a parent/teacher conference. IiiI; )'"

Sendak was born in 1928 to working class Jewish parents in Brooklyn's Bensonhurst neighborhood. They came from Poland and many of his relatives died in the Holocaust. He was a sickly child growing up during the Depression. The horrifying news coverage of the hugely publicized 1932 kidnapping of the Lindberg toddler tormented him.

From childhood on he loved to draw, was a largely self taught illustrator and artist.

He was also a mentor to a generation of younger writers and illustrators for children,

Mr. Sendak's companion of a half-century, Eugene Glynn, a psychiatrist who specialized in the treatment of young people, died in 2007

Sendak's publisher listed his many awards: The Caldecott Medal for his 1963 book Where the Wild Things Are (about a boy named Max who is banished to his room and takes a fantasy journey to a mysterious land whose grotesque inhabitants crown him king), a 1970 Hans Christian Andersen Award for children's illustration, a 1982 National Book Award for Outside Over There (the story of a girl who is left to care for her younger sister and goes to her rescue when the child is abducted by goblins), a 1983 Laura Ingalls Wilder Medal, the National Medal of Arts, and a 2003 Astrid Lingren Memorial Award.

In January, Sendak was a guest on the Stephen Colbert's show (videos below). One of Sendak's more memorable quotes: "But Newt Gingrich is an idiot," he said, to the surprised laughter of Colbert's audience. "There is something so hopelessly gross and vile about him."

Author and illustrator Maurice Sendak contemplates the complexity of children and the simplicity of Newt Gingrich with Stephen Colbert.

Part 1

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Grim Colberty Tales with Maurice Sendak Pt. 1

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

Part 2

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Grim Colberty Tales with Maurice Sendak Pt. 2

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

Photo: Maurice Sendak interviewed at his home in Ridgefield, Conn., Sept. 6, 2011. Mary Altaffer/AP

“Arab Spring, Libyan Winter” has timely lessons for NATO summit

Susan Webb — Tue, 08 May 2012 15:44:00 -0400

U.S. and European military leaders will meet in Chicago May 20-21 for their NATO summit. A Counter-Summit for Peace and Economic Justice will convene May 18-19. A timely new book, "Arab Spring, Libyan WInter," provides a short, information-rich guide to what the NATO controversy is all about. Its focus is the upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa over the past year, but the insights are relevant far beyond.

Author Vijay Prashad, professor and director of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., will be a speaker at the Counter-Summit.

In "Arab Spring, Libyan Winter," Prashad draws on his extensive contacts in the region and the diplomatic community, as well as sources such as the Wikileaks State Department cables, to provide unique information about how the "Arab Spring" emerged in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya, who and what has driven it, and the damaging role of the U.S., other Western powers, and Saudi Arabia. In all these cases Prashad gives a balanced overview of the history of imperialism and of national liberation efforts and missteps.

Prashad closes his book with a story. In the 1970s Chinese Prime Minister Zhou en-Lai was reportedly asked his assessment of the French Revolution of 1789. Zhou's reply: "It's too soon to tell." Prashad's point: It's too soon to tell what the impact of these Middle East/North Africa revolutions will be, but some things are sure:

* The time of the "neoliberal security state," exemplified by Mubarak's repressive U.S.-propped regime (and Qaddafi's in its later incarnation), is over.

* A key failure of the "national liberation" states that emerged in the 1950s-1970s, such as Nasser's Egypt (and Qaddafi's regime in its earlier years, and Syria's Assad regime), was their dismissal of popular democratic aspirations, their anti-communism, and their reliance on military and police repression. The time of such states, too, is over.

The heart of the book is the overthrow of Libya's Qaddafi regime. It's a cautionary tale, he says, for other potential U.S.-NATO "humanitarian interventions," such as in Syria.

"By early March [2011], the Libyan rebellion began to be hijacked by forces close to the Atlantic powers, whose interest in Libya is governed by oil and by power," Prashad writes.

"[T]he Libyan rebellion gave the Atlantic powers and Saudi Arabia an opportunity to attempt to seize control over an escalating dynamic that had spread across the Middle East and North Africa." Why? Because the democratic and economic and social justice uprisings "threatened the U.S. pillars of stability and the foundation of Saudi rule."

The United Nations resolution backing intervention in Libya was based on the UN's earlier statement of a "collective international responsibility to protect" civilians "in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing ... or serious violations of international humanitarian law."

But even countries who voted for that resolution, or abstained, became outraged that the military intervention far exceeded the "responsibility to protect" mandate. Prashad emphasizes that while the Qaddafi regime committed serious crimes against its people in violation of international law, their extent was exaggerated by foreign intervention advocates. Moreover, NATO's actions also included such violations but it is strenuously fighting efforts to investigate this.

In a recent article, Prashad writes that NATO "operates as a rogue military entity" outside the bounds of democratic control. "It is precisely because NATO refuses an evaluation that the UN Security Council will not allow another NATO-like military intervention," he says. "Libya is the shadow that hangs over Syria."

After reading this thought-provoking book, we are left with the question of how to view the Obama administration's foreign policy, particularly in this election year.

What we are seeing now within this administration, it seems, is liberal defenders of capitalism seeking how to project and protect what they call "U.S. interests" globally in the post-Iraq era.

Clearly some within the administration define U.S. interests as the interests of U.S. transnational capital, and others may think in terms of economic or social justice as being in the U.S. interest.

Obama has so far resisted the far-right push for military attacks on Iran, and has continued to press for global nuclear disarmament, including signing the NEW START treaty with Russia.

However it seems that his administration is opting for projecting U.S. military power in key areas but through means that do not involve "boots on the ground" but rather what Prashad calls "boots in the air" - drones, air strikes and the like. The "humanitarian intervention" appeal, as in Libya, easily morphs into political-military projects that are destructive of the interests of the people of the country in question as well as our own. To steer clear of the discredited Bush unilateralism, NATO is being used as a cover.

On domestic issues, this administration is one of the most progressive since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But on foreign affairs, which way will Obama go in a second term? The American peace movement is not yet big and broad enough to compel a turn away from dangerous military policies that drain our tax dollars. But the potential is there. "Arab Spring, Libyan Winter" is a thoughtful, informative contribution to this project.

Book information:
"Arab Spring, Libyan Winter"
by Vijay Prashad
2012, AK Press, paperback, 168 pages, $14.95

Photo: Protesters fill Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo on Sunday, Jan. 30, 2011. (AP/Lefteris Pitarakis)

"Avengers" assembles best elements of its genre

Blake Deppe — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:43:00 -0400

This film was a big deal to comic fans everywhere. Many people waited years to see these characters on the big screen, and the effort had high expectations to meet. It could easily have fallen victim to camp, plot overload, and cliches, but it didn't. Instead, it thrilled viewers and made a definitive statement: The superhero genre is here to stay.

The story saw iconic characters Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), and lesser-known allies Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) brought together by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), in order to stop evil god Loki (Tom Hiddleston) from unleashing an alien invasion upon the world. It's a fairly run-of-the-mill plot; the development and execution of it are anything but.

Characters

While I originally thought, in a review of Captain America: The First Avenger, that the lack of character depth in that film was a symptom of poor writing/directing, I now realize that it was partially due to a lackluster performance by Evans, which can be seen again in Avengers. Evans' portrayal sufficed, but was not at the level it could have been for such a beloved character. In fact, one of the little tragedies of this film was how Captain America was pushed to the background, both in terms of complexity and backstory.

But director Whedon worked magic with what he was given, and knew what he was doing: Given the shortcomings of that portrayal, Iron Man seemed to be made the de facto leader of the group rather than the Captain - and, hell, Downey's stellar performance practically demanded such.

Clearly the film's best actor, Downey delivered great one-liners, his quips and sarcasm carrying viewers through the story with unavoidable grins. The actor's character served as the glue that held this dream team together. And it was plain to see that Downey, wearing a Black Sabbath shirt (obvious shout-out to their song "Iron Man"), was really having fun.

As for Hemsworth, I found his portrayal of Thor extremely satisfactory. He captured a combination of naivety and nobility that really defined his character. Plus, Thor seems to be the most likable of the bunch.

Black Widow didn't add much to the story, aside from being the pretty face with a punch. I preferred the brainy role of Jane Foster (supporting character in Thor).

Hawkeye seemed to be a particularly bland character, easily bent to the will of the antagonist early on in the film, and overall little more than a walking plot device.

Hulk - who, honestly, I've never been a fan of - was the pleasant surprise of the movie; Ruffalo's portrayal of him as a simultaneously charismatic and troubled individual was subtle and effective.

Finally, Hiddleston's Loki returned from Thor to wreak havoc as the main villain, which I found a puzzling choice, mostly because he seemed a lot less menacing this time around, and more like an embittered child. The acting here was sharp nonetheless - it's just that the character is starting to seem repetitive.

Story

The tone and setting of Avengers was so colorful and straightforward that it almost became its own paradigm. Even the sharpest criticisms of those elements seem to be moot points, because Whedon didn't bother trying to get the audience to suspend their disbelief; he knew better, and he wasn't going to insult their intelligence.

With a vortex opening up in the sky over New York City, an alien invasion led by a Norse god, and - oh look! - a giant, intergalactic metal snake tearing apart Manhattan, things got so outrageous that you had to laugh; you just couldn't dislike it. The inner comic fan awakened and realized this all adds up to a fist-pumping good time.

Avengers took the humor-tinged mech-action of Iron Man, the Shakespearean epicness of Thor, and threw in a little political correctness for good measure (see Captain America's comparison of Loki to a fascist). The result was a whole new animal that pretty much roared, "This is how you do a superhero film."

Action scenes and explosion upon explosion eventually began to overtake the story, a flaw that these kinds of films often suffer from. But then, even the big showdowns, at least, actually led up to the beginnings of another plot.

In conclusion

Normally, films with tons of sequels are a ploy to bring in the big bucks for the film industry. And I'm not saying that in this case, the circumstances are any different (in fact, comic movies are one of the biggest cash cows now).

But in having a good, dedicated cast and director, something surprising - and yes, risky - happens: the opportunity arises to really make this an ongoing tale with yearly installments. As long as the quality of this film is maintained in its sequels, I see no reason why fans won't flock to see Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and Avengers 2 (all coming within the next two years, and leading up to another cosmic battle royale).

If the big brains at Marvel are going to move forward with this, they had better take this movie's stylistic framework and use it as a template for future endeavors. Certain qualitative formulas need to be retained (like the capturing of emotional elements people can relate to), to prevent further stories from becoming convoluted.

The cynics can say what they will; the stories have come very far. This film could have easily been done the wrong way. It wasn't. And that alone speaks volumes about the work that went into making The Avengers a satisfying and rewarding experience.

Here's hoping Part Two does the same.

The Avengers
Directed by Joss Whedon
Starring Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Samuel L. Jackson, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johannson, Mark Ruffalo, Tom Hiddleston, Gwyneth Paltrow
2012, 143 minutes, PG-13

Photo: A scene from The Avengers. Zade Rosenthal/AP

Difficult days ahead for Afghanistan and U.S.

Judith Le Blanc — Thu, 03 May 2012 16:08:00 -0400

On May 1, in a televised address from Afghanistan, President Barack Obama said, "There will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over."

That's an understatement.

In fact the current U.S. policy in the region demands of the Afghan people a massive sacrifice as well.

Without a new strategy - not the slow downsizing of the Afghanistan war over the next decade - there will indeed be difficult days ahead.

Instead of helping, the continued U.S. presence jeopardizes the Afghan people's future, as it does our future here at home.

The future of the Afghan economy and its people's aspirations is stalled by the unwillingness to leave sooner rather than later. Corruption and graft are bred by U.S. funding and the occupation.

Furthermore, the U.S. has no clear strategy for a negotiated peace or a framework for sustainable economic development in Afghanistan.

Today, two-thirds of the U.S. people across the political spectrum want the war to end now. In poll after poll they readily connect the government's ability to deal with the economic crisis in our communities to ending the war.

The longer the troops stay in Afghanistan, the more desperately needed resources will be withheld from our cities, schools, libraries and hospitals.

The projected 2013 price tag for the war will be $88 billion dollars, while unemployment hovers at 10 percent and triple that among young people of color. The current Pentagon budget is $800 billion a year without a real cut in sight.

As long as the troops stay in Afghanistan, and the U.S. pursues a militarized foreign policy, the possibility of U.S. sustainable economic development and a stronger democracy is as impossible here as it is in Afghanistan.

The White House fact sheet issued along with Obama's speech emphasized that the Strategic Partnership Agreement itself "does not commit the United States to any specific troop levels or levels of funding in the future, as those are decisions will be made in consultation with the U.S. Congress." And funding from Congress will be requested on an annual basis to support the training, equipping, advising and sustaining of Afghan National Security Forces."

The agreement just signed leaves us with the yearly congressional fight over funding the war. A full-throated, massive pressure campaign is needed.

That's where we have to draw the line and make the fight in the next few weeks to cut the Pentagon budget and for a negotiated peace, not a prolonged downsized war.

The congressional elections will be the battleground for exerting the popular opinion of ending a war that is not only unwinnable but in fact is a roadblock to both the US and Afghan people from achieving a decent life, schools, healthcare and jobs.

President Obama said in his speech to the nation, "Others will ask why we don't leave immediately. The answer is also clear: we must give Afghanistan the opportunity to stabilize."

But the underlying problems in Afghanistan are little served by foreign armies and military "solutions." The reality is that until the U.S. and NATO forces leave Afghanistan both the Afghan and U.S. peoples will have more than a few difficult days ahead. We'll have difficult years ahead.

This article is reprinted from CounterPunch with permission from the author. Judith LeBlanc is the field director for Peace Action, the largest peace group in the U.S. She can be reached at: jleblanc@peace-action.org.

Photo: President Barack Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai sign a strategic partnership agreement at the presidential palace in Kabul, May 2. (AP/Charles Dharapak)

It’s thumbs down on “austerity” in Europe

John Wojcik — Thu, 03 May 2012 13:37:00 -0400

May Day 2012 made it clear once again that huge majorities around the world believe that the deep economic crisis enveloping the planet is actually a problem with a simple solution: put more money in the hands of the people.

The European solution of austerity has been totally discredited not just on that continent but by workers and their allies around the world.

"All you need do is look at what austerity has done to Europe," said Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, when she addressed the May Day rally in Chicago's Haymarket Square.

She was talking about the 11 percent official unemployment rate in the 17 European Union countries, which is almost a full percentage point higher than it was only a month ago.

"There is not enough demand in this economy," Pulitzer prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said in a talk at the Economic Policy Institute yesterday. "We've conducted what is pretty damn close to a controlled experiment in what happens to an economy when conservative austerity policies are imposed during a recession. The experiment is in the euro zone, and the results are in. Austerity has been contractionary with a vengeance."

Krugman said increasing the spending power of the majority is the only solution for what he now calls the "depression."

"Never mind the arguments about structural economic problems that have disadvantaged the middle class and have put America at a global disadvantage.

"There is not enough demand in this economy.

"This is a problem that is not hard to fix, if it were not for the politics and the intellectual confusion," Krugman said.

With unemployment raging out of control now all over a European continent that instead embraced austerity, eyes are on France and Greece which will hold national elections this weekend.

The polls now show that majorities in both those countries are ready to register their anger about the declining living standards and cuts in public services that have resulted from austerity.

Even before the weekend, however, voters are flocking to the polls in local elections today in the UK. Indications are they will massively reject the national austerity program of the Conservative government with Labor expected to gain 700 or more local council seats. There are 5,000 seats up for election.

Ed Milibrand, leader of the UK's Labor Party, has been able to paint the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and his party as bedmates of the rich and powerful. They have been able to take advantage of the unpopularity of Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Minister, for his ties to the right-wing media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. Hunt had functioned as a lobbyist for Murdoch's News Corporation.

May Day 2012 and the elections in Europe this week testify to the fact that workers will resist being made the scapegoat for economic crisis they did not create.

Photo: Anti-austerity protests in Brussel in 2010. Stuart Lozowick // CC 2.0

Summer films: The good, the bad, the wild cards

Blake Deppe — Thu, 03 May 2012 10:24:00 -0400

This summer will offer the usual assortment of comic book blockbusters, sci-fi, obscene comedies, reboots, remakes, sequels, and prequels. But within that assortment, there are some real potential gems, some of which will breathe new life into movies, which, many critics have admitted, have been lacking in originality these past few years. Some of the big upcomers include:

The Avengers

Every comic fan's dream, it includes hero icons Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk, and will build on the success of each of those character's own movies. As to how much story this will offer, we don't yet know. But there will be plenty of action, making it an ideal summer crowd-pleaser. And the fact that Joss Whedon is behind this makes it even more promising.

Directed by Joss Whedon
Starring Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johannson, Samuel L. Jackson

Release Date: May 4, 2012

Dark Shadows

This vampire/horror/comedy film will be a fun ride for some, and fall flat for others. Star Johnny Depp will be sure to do something wonderful with this - however, as proven before, Depp can't always save a Tim Burton movie from being lackluster. However, if one enjoys 90s-heyday gothic overtones and a fair bit of camp, this may prove interesting.

Directed by Tim Burton
Starring Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Chloe Moretz
Release Date: May 11, 2012

Battleship

Sure to fit the "all form and no content" category to a 't,' "Battleship" is an adaptation of the classic board game by Milton Bradley. Though originally a naval strategy game dating back to the World War II era, it has been inexplicably adapted into a science fiction film involving an alien invasion and lots of explosions. Whether it's more of an insult to games or films is anyone's guess. H.G. Wells must be turning over in his grave.

Directed by Peter Berg
Starring Taylor Kitsch, Liam Neeson, Rihanna
Release Date: May 18, 2012

The Dictator

A mockumentary in the same vein as star Cohen's previous films (Borat and Bruno), it will follow the (comedic) story of a dictator who comes to America. It has been compared to Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator in that it reportedly pokes fun at Saddam Hussein in the same way that Chaplin's film parodied Hitler. This one should entertain anyone willing to watch deliberately offensive humor, but also should make us take a closer look at how modern films are increasingly blurring moral lines.

Directed by Larry Charles
Starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Bobby Lee, Megan Fox
Release Date: May 16, 2012

Snow White & the Huntsman

A modern, action oriented adaptation of the classic. Around its name, many products will surely be marketed in the interest of capitalism, filling up stores as this film brings in the same crowd that saw Twilight - young teenagers looking for a pseudo-edgy, vapid fantasy flick. Last year's Red Riding Hood was a critical flop; this film, though, may be saved by Theron's already-praised portrayal of the evil Queen. Unfortunately, this probably means the new trend of fairy tale films will continue. Great for the Hot Topic crowd; bad for the rest of us.

Directed by Rupert Sanders
Starring Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth
Release Date: June 1, 2012

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

It sounds so bizarre. But those who read the book will look forward to this story of Abe as a, well, vampire hunter. It may be just the splash of refreshment this genre needed, doing for it what Daybreakers did back in 2009. Likely to be a fun film.

Directed by Timur Bekmambetov
Starring Benjamin Walker, Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Release Date: June 22, 2012

Rock of Ages

Anyone into classic/glam rock should look forward to this. Featuring an ensemble cast and the music of Guns 'n' Roses, Def Leppard, and others, this Broadway musical adaptation tells the tale of two people who fall in love during the 80's rock period. Sure to be cheesy, but also a little different - probably in a good way.

Directed by Adam Shankman
Starring Tom Cruise, Julianne Hough, Alec Baldwin
Release Date: June 15, 2012

The Amazing Spider-man

Comic fans will flock to this in droves, but that doesn't automatically make it a shoe-in for the year's best hero film. This grittier reboot of the series looks like it has promise, especially in its fantastic actors, who are all near perfect for their roles. However, it looks somewhat predictable and - dare I say it - a boring rehash of 'same old, same old.' The bottom line is, with contenders like Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, this iconic superhero just can't pull the same numbers he might have ten years ago. Still, it may ultimately prove to be the wild card of the year's superhero film roster.

Directed by Marc Webb
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone
Release Date: July 3, 2012

The Dark Knight Rises

Sure to be the action movie of the year, Nolan's final installment in this Batman trilogy will see the crusader facing off against Catwoman and lesser-known villain Bane. What Nolan did with this series was revolutionary, and like its predecessor, this one will not only offer edge-of-your-seat action, but immense social commentary and deep artistry. Sure to be a riveting, emotional, unforgettable experience - something that, ten years ago, no one could ever have thought possible for a movie about a masked vigilante.

Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman,
Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman
Release Date: July 20, 2012

Photo: A promotional ad for The Amazing Spider-man. Wikipedia

Chris Hedges strays from the facts

Sam Webb — Wed, 02 May 2012 14:41:00 -0400

"Capitalism, as (Walter) Benjamin observed, called on human societies to embark on a ceaseless and futile quest for money and goods ... It enslaves nearly all its adherents ... The suffering visited on Native Americans, once Western expansion was complete, was soon endured by others, in Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The final chapter of this sad experiment in human history will see us sacrificed as those on the outer reaches of empire were sacrificed. There is a kind of justice to this. We profited as a nation from this demented vision, we remained passive and silent when we should have denounced the crimes committed in our name, and now that the game is up we all go down together."

The above is the final paragraph of an article by Chris Hedges that appeared in Truthdig and other online publications. At first glance it has a radical ring to it, but on closer inspection it omits some salient facts and thus leads to an erroneous conclusion.

First fact: The Western expansion of U.S. capitalism rested not only on the genocidal practices directed at Native Americans, but also on the enslavement of 4 million people of African descent, the unbridled exploitation of immigrant labor from Europe and Asia, and the theft of land and labor of peoples of Mexican and Amerindian origin. My point isn't to diminish the horrific atrocities visited on Native American peoples, but to underline the exploitative, criminal, and racist sweep of capitalism in its infancy.

Second fact: People didn't simply "endure" imperial expansion on the edges of empire. They resisted it in a thousand ways and continue to do so to this day. What is notable about the present moment is the difficulty that U.S. imperialism encounters at every turn.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not successes, but counter-insurgency failures. Latin America is no longer the "backyard" of the United States, but the site of powerful left-leaning movements that were elected to power. And not least, new competing powers - to U.S. global hegemony - China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa - are emerging worldwide.

In other words, there is little room for American triumphalism in this century. If anything, the balance of forces on a global scale is turning against U.S. imperialism.

Third fact: To say that the American people remained passive and silent in the face of capitalism's exploitation, oppression and expansion is, at best, a one-sided reading of history as well as present-day developments. Indeed, resistance to imperial expansion occurred in the heart of the empire as well as on its edges.

In recent decades, for example, millions of Americans opposed the war in Vietnam; masses of people spoke out and demonstrated against the buildup of nuclear weapons in the Reagan years; and Americans took to the streets in opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One can argue that the movements were neither big enough nor durable enough, but that is quite different than suggesting that the American people were uniformly and consistently passive in the face of U.S. imperial aggression and atrocities. The historical record doesn't support it. And we should bear in mind that it is much easier to be an opponent of U.S. imperialism outside of the "belly of the beast" than inside of it. In this sense the American people can take pride in their opposition to U.S. expansionism.

Fourth fact: The lion's share of the riches from westward expansion and imperial reach have gone to the ruling classes, not to the exploited and oppressed. Thus to say that "we profited as a nation from this demented vision" obscures an important class reality: Working people and especially the racially oppressed fight and pay for wars of aggression and empire.

The truth is that many of the crisis conditions facing the American people remain insoluble as long as the government spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on military weapons, personnel and bases and our foreign policy is driven by the insatiable needs and profit maximizing logic of capitalism.

Final fact: The game isn't up, as Hedges claims. There is world to win. Hedges surely knows that as well as anybody. This week's May Day rally and march on Wall Street at which Hedges spoke is emblematic of a country and movement in transition to a better future, to a world in which people come before profits.

Photo: Exhibit at the Museum of Westward Expansion. St. Louis. Lucas Count Choppers // CC 2.0

Latin America delivers a swift kick

Conn Hallinan — Wed, 02 May 2012 14:31:00 -0400

On one level, April's hemispheric summit meeting was an old fashioned butt kicking for Washington's policies in the region. The White House found itself virtually alone-Dudley Do Right Canada its sole ally-on everything from Cuba to the war on drugs. But the differences go deeper than the exclusion of Havana and the growing body count in Washington's failed anti-narcotics strategy. They reflect profound disagreements on how to build economies, confront inequity, and reflect a new balance of power in world affairs.

Anger in Latin America

The backdrop for the summit is anger in Latin America over the failure of the U.S. and Europe to stimulate their economies, all the while pursuing policies that have flooded the region with money-a " monetary tsunami" in the words of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff-driving up the value of southern hemisphere currencies and strangling local industries.

After meeting last month with President Obama, Rousseff said she told him of Brazil's "concern with the expansionary monetary policies of the rich countries...leading to the depreciation of developed countries While Latin American economies are in better shape than those in Europe and the U.S., the recession dogging the latter areas-plus the cooling of the Chinese economy-has slowed growth throughout much of Latin America. Brazil's most recent figures indicate a stalled economy, which could have an impact on efforts by the Rousseff government to raise living standards and narrow what was once the world's biggest gap between rich and poor.

According to the Getulio Vargas Foundation Brazil has lifted 33 million out of extreme poverty since 2003 and, out of a population of 190 million, has created a relatively well-paid workforce of some 105.5 million. In contrast to the U.S. and Europe, where the wealth gap is accelerating, income for the poorest 50 percent of Brazilians has risen 68 percent, while for the top 10 percent, it has grown only 10 percent.

This growth has come about because most countries in Latin America reject the economic model pushed by Washington and the European Union: free trade, financial deregulation, and deep austerity.

Argentina is the poster child for the region's rejection of the so-called "Washington consensus." Throughout much of the '90s, a deeply indebted Argentina followed the strictures of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), slashing government spending and instituting a suffocating austerity. The result was a "debt trap": cutbacks increased unemployment, which dampened tax revenues, which required yet more cutbacks, and more unemployment. In the end, debts went up. From 1998 to 2002, Argentina's economy shrank 20 percent. By the time Buenos Aires finally said "enough" and defaulted on its $100 billion sovereign debt, half of its 35 million people were below the poverty line.

Argentina reversed course and primed the economy with government spending on housing, highways and education. It also subsidized 1.9 million low-income families, which cut poverty in half. Since 2002, the economy has grown at an average rate of 6 percent a year, and joblessness has fallen from 20 percent to 8 percent.

Brazil has followed a similar strategy that is now threatened by the fiscal and monetary policies of the U.S. and Europe. Those policies have caused the value of Brazil's currency, the real, to grow, which prices Brazilian manufactured goods out of the international market.

"There is concern in South America about deindustrialization," says Alicia Barcena of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America. "Therefore some countries are taking measures to support their productive sectors." While the Obama Administration calls this support "protectionism," Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega says, "The measures we are using are to defend ourselves."

The UN Security Council

There are other issues Latin Americans are unhappy about that never made it into U.S. media accounts on the summit, in particular the make-up of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council that Brazil-along with India and South Africa-would like to join.

As former Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva told the African Union summit last July, "It isn't possible that the African continent, with 53 countries, has no permanent representation in the Security Council. It isn't possible that Latin America with its 400 million inhabitants does not have permanent representation. Five countries decide what to do, and how to do it."

The five permanent members of the Security Council are the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China.

While the U.S. has endorsed India's bid-in large part because it is wooing New Delhi to join its anti-China coalition-Washington has been consciously silent on Brazil's bid. Indeed, United Nations U.S. representative Susan Rice has been sharply critical of Brazil, India and South Africa for not supporting intervention in Syria. "We have learned a lot [about these three countries] and frankly, not all of it encouraging." The message is clear: back us and we will think about it.

Cuba

The summit was particularly critical of the Obama administration around the exclusion of Cuba, causing the President to turn positively peevish. "Sometimes I feel...we're caught in a time warp, going back to the 1950s and gunboat diplomacy and Yankees and the Cold War."

But from Latin America's point of view, by maintaining a half-century-old blockade, it is the U.S. who seems locked into the world of the Cold War. And there are, indeed, some worries about "gun boats," specifically those that make up the newly re-constituted U.S. Fourth Fleet, mothballed in 1950 and revived by the Bush Administration. The U.S. has also recently established military bases in Colombia and Central America.

Diplomacy?

The Brazilians are particularly nervous about the security of their newly found offshore oil deposits, and the head of the Brazilian Navy, Admiral Luiz Umberto de Mendonca, is pressing Brasilia for surface ships and submarines.

Testifying before the Brazilian House of Representatives, Simon Rosental of the prestigious Escuela Superior de Guerra (ESG) institute warned that "The world has known oil reserves that will only last 25 years and in the United States, only for the next ten years."

It may be a bit of a stretch to imagine the U.S. actually threatening Brazil's offshore oil deposits, but Latin Americans can hardly be blamed if they are a tad paranoid about the Colossus of the North. For the past 100 years the U.S. has overthrown governments from Guatemala to Chile, and supported military juntas throughout the region. Brazil only recently emerged from its own U.S.-backed dictatorship.

"South America," says Moniz Banderia of the ESG, "is really trying to define its own identity, to differentiate itself from the United States, in opposition to its domination, which is evident in the creation of UNASUR [Union of South American Nations] and the South American Defense Council."

UNASUR was established in 2008 and includes all 12 South American nations, plus observers from Panama and Mexico.

The Defense Council's Action Plan 2012 aims to integrate the militaries of the region, establish a "peace zone" on the continent, and create a space agency, an essential step for launching satellites.

Certainly issues like Cuba, the war on drugs, and the tensions over Britain's claim on the Malvinas/Falkland Islands are areas of friction between the U.S., Europe and South America. But it is in the realm of economics, poverty alleviation, and independent foreign policy that the differences are sharp.

South Americans tried the austerity model and found it wanting. They have also seen the U.S. and NATO spark wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and they are deeply suspicious of policy of "humanitarian intervention" in places like Syria because they don't trust the motives behind it. Members of the BRIC countries, made up of Brazil, South Africa, India, Russia, and China, share those suspicions.

"There's almost a third-world sense, a post-colonial sense," says Mark Quarterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "that they were meddled in, in ways that didn't rebound to their benefit, and now the same countries are claiming humanitarian reasons for meddling."

Thus in Libya, the UN enforced an arms boycott and an oil embargo on the Qaddafi regime, while the French supplied arms to the rebels and Qatar handled rebel oil sales. Brazil and other BRIC nations see a similar pattern in Syria. In the meantime, the U.S. and Europe are conspicuously silent on oil-rich Bahrain's suppression of its Shiite majority and the lack of democracy in the monarchy-dominated Persian Gulf states.

So far the Obama Administration has responded to South America's growing independence by increasing the U.S. military footprint in the region and acting churlish. While the leaders of India and South Korea got formal state affairs, the U.S. President gave Rousseff a two-hour meeting. "Obama could have taken her to dinner," one Brazilian official complained to The Guardian (UK) "or to the Kennedy Center."

But Latin Americans no longer pay as much mind to the atmosphere in Washington as they used to. They are too busy confronting poverty and underdevelopment, forging a multi-polar world in which the U.S. is looking increasingly out of touch.

This article originally appeared in Dispatches from the Edge.

Photo: Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff talks with workers during a ceremony to deliver a ship for Transpetro, a subsidiary of the state-run oil company Petrobras in Niteroi, Brazil, Nov. 25, 2011. It is the first ship to be built by a Brazilian shipyard for Petrobras since 1997. Felipe Dana/AP