NYC Transit Settlement

The New York City transit workers have ended their strike and announced what is by most accounts a very good contract deal. Despite being villified in the press--and on their blog comments--the union looked pretty good in the end, and the transit authority had to withdraw proposal to create a two-tiered pension system. Obviously, what is most remarkable is that in this political moment when the labor movement is flat on its back, we have more than 30,000 workers (majority black and latino) going out on strike against a belligerent employer backed up by city and state authorities. And they won! So this is very good.

There is a load of commentary on the strike and settlement: two good examples are Jonathan Tasini's blog, Joshua Freeman in the Nation. It's worth reading Steven Greenhouse's analysis in the New York Times. Greenhouse is one of the few "labor reporters" left in the major newspapers. But I was struck by how heavily he relied on commentary by anti-union types. We get to hear from the Manhattan Institute (twice), the Citizens Budget Commission, and Columbia Business School. From the workers' side? A quote from the union's president, no doubt from a press release, a reference to a comment (not a quote) by the head of the teachers' union, and one quote from a rank-and-file striker. So much for the liberal media.

NYC Transit Strike

New York City's Transit Workers Union Local 100 called a strike last night on the city's subway and bus lines. As the NY Times reports, this has thrown the city into disarray with thousands of workers walking to work in the frigid December cold. To put a fine point on the matter, millionaire mayor Bloomberg himself walked across the Brooklyn Bridge so he could feel the people's pain.

The reporting on this is classic for public worker strikes. The emphasis is on the how the strikers are betraying the public trust, inconveniencing regular people (while themselves making good salaries), and breaking the law that prevents them from striking. The union's president Roger Toussaint said of the strike, "this is a fight over whether hard work will be rewarded with a decent retirement. This is a fight over the erosion, or the eventual elimination, of health-benefits coverage for working people in New York. This is a fight over dignity and respect on the job, a concept that is very alien to the M.T.A." The reporting doesn't seem to take that concept very seriously.

The most interesting reading on this so far, however, is in the comment section of the TWU Local 100 blog: twulocal100.blogspot.com. This is where you can read a very visceral dialogue on the strike, including lots of profanity, wide open anti-workerism and racisim, and eloquent defenses of the strike from the workers themselves. As of Tuesday noon there were nearly 700 comments. Typically, the pissed-off communter comments on the fact that transit workers make $50,000 a year--allegedly more than police, firefighters, and teachers--AND that they don't have as much education as other public employees.

At least one worker has replied:

when you self righteous people have to go to your jobs and endure people spitting at you, assaulting you, cursing at you and simply hating you for having enough sense to take the test to get our jobs than you have aright to your misguided opinions. oh yeah how about when you go to work, is there anybody taking a piss a few feet from you or maybe some pervert playing with himself. how about your bosses do they write you up for wearing scarves in the winter time or maybe take you off the job because your top button on your shirt is not buttoned? you opinion filled people have no idea what we go through on a daily basis. at least firemen,teachers, cops and even sanitation are respected for what they do.

Another writes:

Working for the public does not mean inequality. No decent person can argue that the MTA workers are wealthy enough to be considered greedy. If you can't see this, you ought to work in the tunnels that are carelessly loitered by riders and infested with rats first perhaps.

For better of for worse, we get this kind of dialogue as an unintended consequence of Blogger. It's funny to think that Internet comments will be to future historians what workers' letters to FDR are to historians of the Great Depression.

Addendum: As of 4:15 PM central time, the TWU blog has deleted all comments. So much for history!

Rendition and Torture News

This week has seen a veritable landslide of stories on US torture and the practice of "rendition." Condi Rice was dogged by the topic all over Europe, and her answers--while apparently appeasing some European governments--sounded twisted and lame. On Wednesday, she announced that the UN treaty on torture does apply to the US after all--an apparent policy shift for the Bush admin.

The sad fact is that the US has used, and apparently continues to use torture. Sometimes we do it ourselves, and sometimes we send prisoners off to countries who will do the job--that's called "rendition." As I read it, Rice can go ahead and say we don't "torture" only because she doesn't consider sleep deprivation and holding a prisoner's head under water to simulate drowning to be torture.

Well worth reading are the following:

The BBC reported last night that a US official admited that we are holding some prisoners incommunicado with no access by the Red Cross. Basically, this is admitting that we have secret prisons.

ACLU.org on the lawsuit of a German national mistakenly arrested by the CIA and flown to Afganistan--and tortured. Guess what, he didn't know anything.

Guardian story on the role of "planespotters" had in exposing the movements of secret prisoners on CIA planes.

BBC story on UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour's criticism of US and other countries "advocating an erosion of the total ban on torture."

And finally to wrap things up: the NYT reports that, oops, the government based pre-war intel on the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq on "evidence" extracted under torture or threat of torture. Cruel and inept: the Bush Administration.

Labor Blogger Launches NY Senate Race

I've been reading Jonathan Tasini's Working Life blog for about 6 months. It's a great place for news and commentary on labor issues. Now Tasini has announced that he is running for U.S. Senate in New York--against Hilary Clinton--as an anti-war candidate. My, my, how a few months change the political landscape!

Check out Tasini's platform on his campaign blog.

Here's Jonathan's platform on Democracy at Work:

For at least half our waking hours, New Yorkers and the rest of the American people live in a dictatorship. At home or in public places, we enjoy freedoms and liberties envied by most people around the world: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association.

But, the moment we walk through the doors of our workplace, we enter into a world that strips away all our basic rights. Within the walls of the workplace, the whim of the corporation is more powerful than the U.S. Constitution.

Right now, workers cannot say what they believe lest they risk being shown the door. They are fired if they try to exercise their right to freedom of association. They can be secretly monitored via telephone, computer or camera. When we can’t band together at work, if that’s our choice, we leave our economic future in the hands of companies that break the law every day, with no consequences, because they make money every day they don’t have to bargain with a union chosen by workers.

Companies fire workers, threaten to close plants and they hire trained union-busters to strike fear into the hearts of workers. Millions more of our neighbors, friends and relatives would happily join a union if they weren’t faced with an antiquated legal system, which long ago ceased to become relevant because it is simply a tool used to brutalize Americans at work.

In states where unions are strong, people earn more money and have better health care, their children go to better schools, and they experience less crime and poverty than states where unions are invisible. Check it out—why does Canada have national health insurance? Over 40 percent of its workers have unions.

As Senator, Jonathan would lead the fight for democracy in the workplace, not just make rhetorical statements that talk about the good works unions do. Over the last two decades, he has worked every day to try to empower workers by building new organizations, marching with striking workers and walking picket lines, and chronicling the daily lives of workers and how the economy effects them.

Vote For What You Believe In!

Right On!!

Heads Up, Chicago ... and other political news

Here's a surprise for all of my Chicago readers (i.e., Jeff and the Church Secretary). A column in the Sun-Times informs that SEIU, the Laborers, and the CFL are preparing a political assault on the Chicago City Council. Mayor Daley may even be in the crosshairs. The reasons? Well, you live it so I don't have to go into details. How long were the Firefighters working without a contract? But, hey, this could be a lot of fun. When was the last time Chicago city politics was truly contested?

In other good news, the California special election has turned out to be a victory for the labor movement. Schism, apparently, has not doomed us. At least not so far.

And another thing: there was a recent poll claiming that a majority of Americans favored impeaching the Prez if he lied about going into Iraq. Can't find the link, but it was done by some reputable agency, Zogby I think.

Solidarity Charters Gain Solid Footing

From the Workers Indepenent News:

AFL-CIO and Change to Win find solidarity in grassroots
The AFL-CIO says an agreement in principle with the Change to Win Federation will keep the state and local labor movements united.
Read the complete story: http://www.laborradio.org/node/1706
Listen: www.laborradio.org/files/lo/winsheadlines.ram

And from Change to Win:

We’ve had positive discussions with the AFL-CIO during the past week and believe that that both organizations are interested in reaching an agreement that allows all locals to work together in partnership in their communities. We are hopeful that an agreement will happen soon, especially now that the AFL-CIO recognizes the right of Change to Win members to run for and hold office in state and local bodies. We look forward to further productive discussions in the weeks ahead to resolve financial issues.

To emphasize, the crucial point is that the AFL-CIO apparently has agreed to let CtW members hold office in state and local labor bodies. Good news for the state feds and central labor councils, as they were facing the prospect of losing some good leaders.

Might this be a model whereby state and local labor bodies welcome other organizations (not just unions) that share their goals? If so, these local bodies would be much more powerful at mobilizing community and voter pressure in support of pro-worker legislation.

From Bargaining to Warfare ... to Nobel Prize?

I thought this post from History News Network was worth pointing out to my massive readership:

Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling's little-known role in the Vietnam War.

Thomas C. Schelling won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences this week. Today's papers note his ingenious applications of "game theory" to labor negotiations, business transactions, and arms-control agreements. But what they don't note what is little-known in general is the crucial role he played in formulating the strategies of "controlled escalation" and "punitive bombing" that plunged our country into the war in Vietnam.

Where Have All the Per Caps Gone?

Gone to contests, everyone...

SEIU is sponsoring a contest called "Since Sliced Bread." They're putting up $200,000 in prize money for the best idea for improving the lives of ordinary Americans. The author of the best idea, as determined by an illustrious panel of judges (including former senator Bill Bradley, the head of the IAF, various ex-Clintonites, and of course Andy Stern), will take home $100,000.

I can see where this is headed. The next step is a union-oriented reality TV show: union apprentice. The first task of the hopeful apprentices will to be organize Donald Trumps office workers.

A new labor federation. Good luck to 'em

The Change to Win unions are meeting today in what is billed as the founding convention of a new union federation. There's a rousing speech on their web site. I know there are lots of doubts about this. But for today we'll wish them well.

There are reports and good commentary from the St. Louis meeting from Eric Lee and Jonathan Tasini.

In related news, the California Nurses Association (an independent union) actually voted to join the AFL-CIO. Why not join Change to Win? As quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle, CNA says "Change to Win will be very short-lived, and they're going to rejoin in short order. We want to join the house of labor."

Meanwhile the feuding cools off: SEIU and AFSCME have signed a two-year no-raid agreement. Now that is good news.

So Much Can Happen in a Month

Too many things to comment on. Katrina. Wow, that seems to have blown the lid off American complacency. I had to check my hearing after listening to Bush's speech. Which Texan was that ? G.W. Bush or L.B. Johnson? Ah, but don't get ahead of yourself, Toby. We'll erase poverty and racism and still eliminate the estate tax. We'll even do it by waiving federal prevailing wage rules in reconstruction work. I guess this follows Barbara Bush's logic: the hurricane is the best thing that ever happened to those lazy New Orleanian evacuees, so they should be happy with substandard wages. And there are plenty of service jobs available in Texas with the likes of Babara and King George I. "Another mint julip, darling, and make 'em just like they used to in the Big Easy."

A few suggested readings/listening:

On the waiving of Davis-Bacon for the Gulf Coast recovery zone, use of evacuees as striker-replacement workers in San Francisco and other outrages, see the House of Labor.

On a gas prices, listen to Barak Obama's September 14 podcast. Solve the energy crisis and the pension crisis all at once. Make a deal with the US automakers: the government will take over retiree pension obligations if the automakers agree to stringent benchmarks for building fuel efficient/flexible fuel/hybrid cars. (By the way, this podcast--and Al Franken's--is also distributed via Apple's iTunes Store, suggesting an interesting opening for progressives).

AFL-CIO Update: UNITE-HERE finally announced they are leaving the AFL-CIO on September 13th. A few days later (on Sept 21st), the Change to Win Coalition announced a September 27th convention in St. Louis to found a new labor federation. Not much advanced notice, so don't expect the rank and file to show up.

Obama's talk reminded me of the tears of Boeing executives over their machinist strike. According to an NPR report (that I cannot find) the company cannot give in to its workers because that would undermine competitiveness against Airbus (the European Union aircraft manufacturing consortium). I'm thinking, wake up corporate America! The reason you can't compete with the Europeans is because their governments pay for health insurance and pensions. This is not an unfair trade practice. This is smart capitalist policy. Having grown up among the US managerial class, I am comfortable declaring that America's so-called "better types" are too prejudiced against ordinary people to know a good deal when they see it.

Meanwhile, my own family relocation is complete and I hope to be a more active blogger.

Solidarity Charters Still Hanging Fire

Hard to say exactly what's happening with the AFL-CIO split this week. After the Fed offered to let the dearly departed unions participate in state and local labor bodies through "Solidarity Charters," the Change to Win folks issued an official rejection.

Now the AFL-CIO is circulating an open letter from state and local leaders supporting the Charters. The Fed seems to think this is an unambiguous plug for the new program. But the carefully crafted intervention into a three-sided negotiation offers something to chew on for both the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win coalition.

We applaud the proposal of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to the Executive Council to provide for the continued participation of local unions of the Change to Win unions in our central labor councils and state federations through Solidarity Charters. Although we have heard objections to some of the details of that proposal which may deserve further consideration, we view this offer as a good faith effort to allow for the continued participation of the Change to Win unions with full voice and vote in our local central bodies.

No word from Change to Win yet, but the use of the term "good faith effort" is definitely a signal that they need to come to the table. Will the AFL-CIO give further consideration to the Change to Win's objections? No doubt there are some behind-scenes-negotiations going on. So we'll just have to wait and see.

Solidarity or Prelude to Raiding War?

The AFL-CIO is taking a new approach to the recent defection of several large unions. One of the big worries has been that the split up would make it difficult or impossible for unions to cooperate on a local level. The Fed came out swinging with a hardline statement banning locals from the split off unions from participating in central labor bodies and ordering that officers of central labor bodies from the disafilliated unions must resign. Now they have created "Solidarity Charters," which they will grant directly to local unions, by-passing their international leadership (there is also a report in the Cleveland Plain Dealer). To quote the AFL-CIO press release:

“It’s not these locals’ fault that their national unions left the AFL-CIO, and it’s not working people’s fault. They shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of a decision by their leadership,” said Sweeney. “Solidarity Charters will allow unions to work together and let working people still benefit from a united grassroots movement that works for good jobs, health care, and a voice in issues that matter to them.”

I'm sure you'll be shocked to know that the Change to Win unions don't see it that way. Their press release says "faced with a revolt at the local level, the AFL-CIO has taken a position that uses the rhetoric of unity but is designed to provoke unnecessary division." Specifically, they object to the detailed provisions of the Solidarity Charters, which place some heavy demands on individuals and locals from the disaffiliated unions.

My read is that some of the provisions of the Solidarity Charters are just about the money that makes these organizations work. That's fine. After all, the central labor bodies and the AFL-CIO have budgets to meet, people to pay, goals to reach, etc. And the central labor bodies are part of the AFL-CIO structure that the Change to Win unions rejected. So sure, the AFL-CIO has every right to demand that unions pay up their dues if they want to be part of the central labor bodies.

But--and I'm really trying to be objective here--the overall thrust of the deal feels punitive once you get into the fine print. It seems aimed at turning local unions against their internationals, and enforcing a political loyalty test on returning individuals and locals. Let me point out one provision--one very convoluted provision. According to the Solidarity Charters description, local unions granted these charters must:

Recognize that no individual who is a member of a union not affiliated with the national AFL-CIO, even if that local union has obtained a Solidarity Charter, may run for or hold executive office in the central labor body in that capacity; provided, however, that such local unions shall otherwise have the same participation and voting rights applicable to affiliated unions in the central labor body. This restriction on holding office shall not apply to incumbent officers from a disaffiliated union under the following conditions: (a) the officer commits to supporting within his or her union the reaffiliation of their national union with the national AFL-CIO; (b) the officer’s local union applies for and receives a Solidarity Charter no later than September 30, 2005; and (c) the Executive Board or delegate body of the central labor body concurs with the officer remaining in office for the remainder of his or her unexpired term;

Is anyone else confused? I thought solidarity was supposed to be easy. If I'm not mistaken, this provision says 1) even if your local union get a Solidarity Charter you can't be an officer of a central labor body unless you're already an incumbent officer, and 2) if you're an incumbent, you have to take a stand against the leadership of your international (both as an individual and your local has to vote the same by Sept. 30!), then you can keep you office through the end of your current term, after which you're out for good. I certainly hope I'm reading this the wrong way, because it doesn't seem like much of a deal. And what would happen if local unions of the SEIU or Teamsters started coming out against the international? They'd get hammered by their own international leadership. Maybe even expelled. And then where would they go? Ex-SEIU locals into AFSCME. Ex-Teamster locals into the Steelworkers.

Meanwhile, as Workday Minnesota points out, the deal is not open to independent unions or unions that have been disaffiliated for a long time. So this is not about opening up central labor bodies to community wide organizing. It's only aimed at those unions who are part of the latest conflict.

I'm uneasy about this. Very uneasy.

Intra-union Battle Lines Shaping Up

Over the past week, while I madly dashed to finish off the tasks of my old job, there have been many developments in the AFL-CIO split up story. And my feelings toward the split have ranged from cautious hope to outright fear. I'm back in the middle now, but it doesn't look good for the forces of solidarity. Watching from afar, informed by the press and by press releases, the whole thing seemed tawdry and disappointing. The final e-mail reporting the accomplishments of the AFL-CIO Convention and the "re-election" of current leadership by acclamation certainly rang hollow.

After the SEIU and Teamsters disaffiliated on Monday, there was some news that the split wouldn't disrupt local efforts too much. The LA Times reported that that city's central labor body had already reached an agreement to continue work with the SEIU and Teamsters on fighting Governor Terminator. And a friend who works for SEIU in San Jose said the same thing for that region. For a good sense of the problems this creates at the local and state level, check out Workday Minnesota's quotes from local leaders. On the one hand, these quotes suggest a real split between the mentality of local leaders on the one hand, and leaders of the fed and the internationals on the other hand. But they also suggest how disruptive the split is going to be for local bodies.

The latest is that the AFL-CIO will take a hard line, is declaring the disaffiliates "free riders," and is forbidding local unions and central labor bodies from receiving financial contributions from them. Workday Minnesota quoted Sweeney as saying "we cannot allow these organizations to pick and choose which parts of the federation they want to belong to." However, locals and central labor bodies can work in "coalition" with the disaffiliated unions. Meanwhile, the Fed is asking for impact statements from central labor bodies in order to assess the disruption caused by this policy, and is urging still-affiliated internationals to pony up their dues money (i.e., not to pick and choose which parts of the fed they belong to...hmm that sounds familiar).

Yesterday, the UFCW disaffiliated saying "For our union to succeed on behalf of our members, we must be part of a revitalized and dynamic labor movement that connects with a new generation of workers struggling in the 21st century's global economy." Responding to the AFL-CIO line that the split is purely Stern vs. Sweeney, the head of the UFCW emphasized the need for industry-wide organizing drives: "The dynamics of the new economy demand industry-wide organizing and coordinated bargaining to improve living standards, ensure affordable health care and renew respect for work and workers. Solidarity means workers in an industry standing together in their union, and supporting all other workers in their industry." Local and international unions--rather than the federation itself--are best suited to carrying out this kind of organizing, according to the UFCW. This sounds good coming from a union that has among its ranks the remnants of the Packinghouse Workers, one of the most militant, pro-civil rights unions of the 1940-1970s, with a glorious past of industry-wide pattern contracts. Can they make it happen in the new economy?

What happens next? Probably more internationals leaving the AFL-CIO. UNITE-HERE, the Laborers, and the United Farm Workers are next in line since the Carpenters bolted long ago. At the local level? Lots of bitter words about one side being scabs and the other side being dinosaurs and reactionaries. The best we can hope for is the nightmare of the business community, namely that two rival union federations will organize like crazy to claim the title of champion of the working people.

Meanwhile, if "Change to Win" is to become a new union federation let's hope they Change Their Name.

"Change to Win" Exits AFL-CIO

It's worth reading this as a historical document:

Taken from the Change to Win Coalition web site:

Statement of Anna Burger
Chair, Change to Win Coalition
July 24, 2005

This is an exciting day, and a proud moment in the history of the labor movement.

Today, we say that workers are going to take their country back. Today, we say, the time has come for big ideas and bold thinking. Today will be remembered as the rebirth of union strength in America.

Unfortunately, workers desperately need that rebirth. The American Dream is out of reach for an increasing number of families.

The exciting news is that, the Change to Win Coalition is about one thing: new hope for millions of workers in economic crisis.

All of organized labor sees this crisis. Our Coalition, however, believes that we can do something about it – and has a bold plan of action to make real change.

We will provide the focus, the strategy, and the resources to help workers achieve the economic security they so richly deserve.

This debate began with a desire to reform the AFL-CIO. It has evolved into an exciting new movement to organize and unite workers across America…and, in fact, around the world.

Over the past 9 months, every corner of the labor movement has debated reform. The AFL-CIO, to its credit, has listened to us. But in the end, they have not really heard us.

The language of our reforms has been adopted, but not the substance. Our principles have been watered down and papered over. Our vision has become the object of tactical haggling.

And today, we have reached a point, where our differences have become unresolvable.

Workers cannot afford half-measures.

Workers wake up every day and they don’t think about living in a red state or a blue state. They think about the difficult choices they face. Housing or health care. Bus fare or breakfast.

These should not be American choices. America is better than that. Our workers deserve better than that. The Coalition’s only mission is to make sure they get it.

Workers need the kind of reform that is based on courage and new thinking. A shared belief – a belief in this fundamental reform – is what unites our unions.

We wish the AFL-CIO well. We want them to achieve their goals. We agree with them on what we all want for working families. We disagree with them on how to achieve that goal.

It is clear that this convention will not adopt the strategy that we believe will win for working people. Therefore, four of the Change To Win Unions – the Teamsters,
United Food and Commercial Workers, UNITE HERE, and SEIU – will not be participating in the AFL-CIO convention that begins tomorrow.

In addition, none of the leadership of the Change to Win Unions will serve in any elected capacity in the AFL-CIO.

Instead, tomorrow, leaders and organizing directors will begin implementing the Change to Win vision: industry-wide organizing, coordinated bargaining, and political action aligned with aggressive organizing campaigns.

We are going to walk our talk. We are going to get into the streets, together. Hotel maids and Wal-Mart clerks. Child care providers and waste haulers. Farm workers and carpenters. The workers who build the buildings and the workers who clean them.

Our vision is one of hope. We are more excited today than when we arrived here in Chicago. We now see an expanded, growing, vibrant labor movement within our reach.

And I want to personally applaud the seven union Presidents:
James P. Hoffa, President, Teamsters
Joe Hansen, President, UFCW
Bruce Raynor, General President, UNITE HERE
John Wilhelm, President of Hospitality Division, UNITE HERE
Terry O’Sullivan, President, Laborers International
Andy Stern, President, SEIU,
And our newest partner,
Arturo Rodriguez, President, United Farm Workers,

And, Doug McCarron, President, Carpenters Union, who is not with us today.

These leaders refused to accept the status quo and had the courage to unite behind a simple, burning goal: better lives for American workers.

Folks, the debate it over. It is time to go to work. That’s what we’re going to do. Thank you.

AFL-CIO Convention Watch

The big AFL-CIO Convention begins tomorrow here in Chicago. It's been billed as the showdown between a set of dissident unions (the Change to Win Coalition) seeking more energetic organizing and the everyone else who wants to hold the movement together and preserve its strength. The dissidents want to oust the current head of the federation, John Sweeny, who has been in the job too long and, despite coming in at the head of a 1995 reform slate, was never terribly charismatic. The months and years to come will test the propaganda of both sides, but news tonight from CNN is that the dissident unions will boycott the convention. That means they will make good on their threat to leave the federation and form a rival organization.

Labor Radio

The Church Secretary's comment about the lack of pro-labor voices in the mass media reminded me that there is an interesting experiment in labor radio available online. Check out the LabourStart labor news website (with the tag line, "Where trade unionists start their day on the net"). They have worldwide and multilingual news, and a link to Radio LabourStart.

Radio LabourStart has a mix of music, news and commentary. At the moment I'm listening to the "Summer Reading" program from the Kansas City Heartland Labor Forum. They're interviewing historian Leon Fink, author of The Maya of Morgantown. Before that there was an AFL-CIO screed against CAFTA. Next is an interview with LaborNotes editor Jane Slaughter talking about the new Troublemakers Handbook. Good stuff!

House Passes Patriot Act Revision

If you have not heard about this yet, it seems like good news.

Reprinted from the National Coalition for History Washington Update:

HOUSE HANDS BUSH A DEFEAT -- VOTES TO CURB PATRIOT ACT LIBRARY PROVISIONS
On 15 June 2005, in a stunning 238 to 187 victory for the library community, the House approved an amendment to the Patriot Act that bars the Department of Justice from using any appropriated federal funds to search library and bookstore records under provisions of the Patriot Act.

The amendment, remarkably similar to the "Freedom to Read Protection Act" that was attached to the House Science-State-Justice Subcommittee appropriations bill, was advanced by Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and endorsed by a curious coalition of some 38 House conservatives worried about government intrusion and about 200 Democrats concerned about personal privacy. One House aide referred to the victorious coalition as "the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right, meeting in the middle."

Far from being "crazies," the library community has long argued that certain provisions in Section 215 of the Patriot Act are draconian. When the Patriot Act was enacted in 2001 it granted broad new powers to the FBI to access what the law merely defined as "tangible things" from libraries, bookstores, and other records. All that was needed was a warrant issued by
the government's secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or "FISA" court. The effect of the provision was to make permissible what Patriot Act critics characterized as "fishing expeditions" by FBI agents who could investigate, among other things, what library patrons were reading.

The House passed measure mandates that security officials would need to obtain a standard court-ordered search warrant issued by a judge or a subpoena from a grand jury in order to seize records relating to a suspect's reading habits. In other words, the Sanders amendment restores legal standards and warrant procedures for investigations of library and
bookstore records that were in place prior to enactment of the Patriot Act.

Administration officials claim that national security officials have never invoked the provision against a library or bookstore; nevertheless, one administration official did not hesitate to declare that "bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators." The House Republican leadership hopes to have the provision removed when a conference committee meets to work out differences between the House and Senate passed versions of the bill.

A new job. A new blog?

As some of my three hardcore readers know, I will soon be taking a new job. Yes we're leaving Chicago for the mild, smalltown charms of Champaign-Urbana. And I'm leaving behind the Newberry Library for the University of Illinois Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations where I will be a professor of Labor Education. I'll be teaching labor history, labor law, and other things to union members and other interested working people.

So what to do with Bughouse Square the blog? The distractions of negotiating the job offer, selling our apartment, and looking for a new home have been taking me away from my blogging duties, and Bughouse Square has been pretty lame since April. Also the name, concept, etc., are connected to Chicago, the Newberry and our free speech exhibit "Outspoken." Maybe the concept won't transfer to the new situation.

So the question is, should I retire Bughouse Square and start a new, more explicitly labor-themed blog? Or should I just keep going with "Bughouse Square" as the title and shift the content? Maybe fill out the blog description so readers with no Chicago connection will get the point of the title? Maybe invite some of you to guest post (on labor issues, no naughty nurses, Jeff) so as to recreate virtually a bit of the Bughouse Square of yore?

SEIU et al. form "Change to Win" coalition

In the run up to this July's AFLCIO conference in Chicago, five dissident unions (SEIU, Unite Here, UFCW, Teamsters, and Laborers) have formed the "Change to Win" coalition and formally threatened to split from the federation if their ideas are not accepted. This is a very interesting moment for Labor.

Read for yourself, commentary later:

"Skirting AFLCIO, unions form new federation," LA Times

SEIU Press Release

Change to Win coalition web site

An earlier statement on the SEIU's blog Unite to Win announced that the union's exec. board had authorized disaffiliation from the AFLCIO.

Academic Unfreedom--Indiana Style

Don't you just love the Hoosier State? First their newly-elected governor (yes, he's a Republican) abolished all union contracts with public sector employees. Now word comes that the Indiana University Labor Studies program is under the budget axe. According to an appeal from labor studies professor Ruth Needleman, several tenure-track professors have been laid off along with clerical and instructional staff.

Of course, budgets are tight everywhere. But this is just the latest installment in a nation-wide campaign by state-level Republican politicians to do away with academic programs that provide services to labor unions and working class communities. They may not be quite as openly involved in the Indiana case as governor-Terminator has been in California, but they get the same benefit.

Maybe it's not such a good time to take a job as a labor educator...oops. Too late!

Bughouse Editor Returns from Hibernation

Wow, it's really been a long time since I posted. Regrets to my audience of three commited readers. A lot has happened since my last visit to blogville, and I'll be posting about most of it in the future. But for now I just want to link to the Axis of Evel Knievel, who is linking to a new report by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on employee sabotage of information infrastructure. Disgruntled workers--the next terror threat. The gears of reaction sometimes move slowly, but they eventually get down to business.

Conservatives Rush to the Cause of Liberalism

You know something is up when conservative op-ed commentators and politicians begin to sound, well, liberal.

In an earlier post, I quoted John Danforth's denounciation of "Terri-gate" as proto-theocracy. Then there was the recent (and lame) op-ed by David Brooks lightly criticizing the extremist tendencies of Tom DeLay. Lucky for us, Brooks says, the "American People" are actually too conservative to support the revenge-mongering of DeLay and other right-wingers when it comes to the judiciary. Whew! That's a relief. For a minute I thought all those polls on Terri-gate meant that the "American People" had been doing some thinking of late and figured something out. Luckily they're just "dispositionally conservative." In other words, they're not really thinking about it too much, just reacting from "the gut." Brooks meekly looks forward to the day when Dennis Hasstert recovers from surgery and can return a more boring face of leadership to the party (although the policies will of course remain the same).

But today we get none other than William Safire bringing us the alarm-bell-ringing lead review in the NYT Book Review. "Goodbye to Privacy" reviews two new books computer security and personal information privacy in the post 9-11 era. Of the two books review, Safire recommends Robert O'Harrow's No Place to Hide: Behind the Scenes of our Emerging Surveillance Society (link to Powell's Books), which details the frightening relationships between the hugely profitable private "data mining" industry and the post 9-11 U.S. National Security State. Although I knew most of this before reading the review, it was a little striking to read quotes from corporate types saying "We have created a unique identifier on everybody in the United States. Data that belongs together is already linked together."

Of course, plenty of so-called liberals have made their money on this data mining business (and it is the basis of modern marketing), it has been the Bush administration that has aggressively pursued the relationship between ultra-secret "intelligence" agencies and private industry. Message to Mr. Safire: in case you missed the last 35 years or so, you are partly responsible for creating this monster through your partisan hackery.

Anyway as I started saying: something is definitely up when conservatives run to the rescue of small-"l" liberalism. When you see the first star at night, make this wish: please may the Republican party coalition collapse upon its own internal contradictions. Given that the Democrats are M.I.A., wishing upon a star is probably our most effective course of action.

Remember MLK, Jr.

April 4, 1968

Imagined Conspiracies, Part 2

Do yourself a favor and surf over to the web site that reveals the evil matrix of leftists that is threatening our freedom. (They've actually updated it since I began composing this post last week). Begining on the far left and moving rightward (or is it toward the "center"?) we have Totalitarian Radicals (e.g. 9-11 terrorist Mohammed Atta), Anti-American Radicals (Noam Chomsky, Amiri Baraka, and Jane Fonda), Leftists (Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg), Moderate Leftists (Tom Brokaw, Bill Clinton), and Affective Leftists (George Clooney, Springsteen, Donahue, and Katie Couric).

The wonderful thing about this web page is that it allows the authors to produce the effect of guilt by proximity, if not actual guilt-by-association. Venerable leftists like Bernardine Dohrn, Angela Davis, and Alexander Cochburn (and Louis Farrakhan) are all in the same category with several of the 9-11 terrorists and Iraq terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That's right they're all "Totalitarian Radicals." Sure, Dohrn did declare war on the US government back in 1970, but it's kind of a stretch.

But this kind of nit-picking is beside the point. As you take in the entire matrix, you see the real point. Voila! Harmless cultural liberals like Katie Couric (debatable that she's liberal), Garrison Keillor, and Barbara Streisand are all part of this same twisted plot as the 9-11 perps.

It doesn't really matter that these relationships are built on no evidence, or that the categories are incoherent. It's the overall image: rows of mug shots. African American poet Amiri Baraka separated from Mohammed Atta only by Mumia Abu Jamal. How about Katrina vanden Huevel, editor of The Nation--she's practically right next to al-Zarqawi. Granted, this is the result of the alphabetical ordering of mug shots within each category. But the impact is the same, and I'm sure the authors are perfectly happy to let the inference stand.

Read some of the nutty indiviual profiles for yourself. Here are some highlights:

• Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney "voted to legalize the killing of babies after they are born." Hmm, I'm thinking that might be an exaggeration.
  
• Congressmen Jim McDermott: "The only certified psychiatrist in Congress, and representative from a cloudy city with America's highest incidence of winter depression, McDermott advocates Canadian-style socialized medicine." How are these things related?
  
• Film critic Roger Ebert makes the list for the following statement: "I think a lot of working-class people don't understand," said Ebert, "their money is being stolen. . . . [W]e've had a concerted policy of taking money away from the poor and giving it to the rich wholesale, and at the same time, we have the runaway corporations and the greed. I feel ordinary people really should be angry." I think I've heard Pat Buchanan say something like this, too.
  

One of the recurrent themes is a bitterness toward alleged leftists who make too much money, or, coming from wealthy families have sided with working people. More on that later.

Imagined Conspiracies at DiscoverTheNetwork.org

If you've spent the months since November 2004 lamenting the sorry state of the forces of liberalism and progressivism in the U.S., fear not! According to the handy web site DiscoverTheNetwork.org (A Guide to the Political Left), the radical left is going strong in American life, exerting it's influence on the levers of power and marginalizing opposing viewpoints. All the while the leftists have cleverly erased their own political identity in order to further their insidious policy goals:

Since the early 1970s, radical activists began referring to themselves as "liberals" (in part to distance themselves from their failures as a socialist left. A sympathetic media culture went along with this deception, with the result that the word "left" has all but disappeared from the political lexicon. The spectrum of views is now regularly described in the media culture as extending from "liberal" to "moderate" to "conservative" or right, as though a left did not exist or was so marginal as not to matter.

Of course, this is the very dynamic that progressives complain about--the shift of the political spectrum right-ward. But now we know that this is just part of the left's own plan for power. Darn those crafty leftists!

One thing I will say for this site, and for most of David Horowitz's propaganda, is that it is deeply informed by an historical analysis. It is an incorrect analysis, in my mind, but still these people are obsessed with history in a way that left/progressives rarely are. No doubt this is because Horowitz's parents were communists, and he himself is a "reformed" leftist. Only someone raised on the arcana of left sectarianism could cultivate this vision of American society.

Red State Troublemakers

After reading Frank Rich's piece on the "God Racket," which pointed out that many of the Ten Commandment monuments in the U.S. were created as part of a publicity stunt for the 1950s film "The Ten Commandments," I took a swing through the news stories on the topic and found that yes indeed, this story has been out there for some time. Same on me as a historian for not knowing anything about it.

My favorite google hit in this has to be the Minnesota Public Radio story on the "Red River Freethinkers" an organization that has the temerity to "advocate using logic and facts - not faith or religion - to answer life's problems." That's the kind of thing that can get you into trouble in Fargo (and a lot of other places). One of the more disturbing quotes--and mind you this report is from August 2001--goes like this: "There is a real concern on the part of many young free-thinking people not to be identified because they fear economic retribution or possibly other retribution. It certainly is a realistic fear."

Who said that?

"When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another."

--former REPUBLICAN senator John Danforth in today's NYT.

Leave it to an economist...

Well, I have a few days on my own so I may be able to post a few things and revive this blog from its vegitative state (sorry couldn't resist). I hope to get back to analyzing the rhetoric of various Horowitz-inspired sites regarding the present and past of American liberal-leftism.

For now: Leave it to an economist to be the voice of NYT Op-Ed warning regarding the religio-media circus that has usurped the fading life of Terri Shiavo (I think of this episode as the ultimate example of how modern conservatism is about controlling women's bodies). Paul Krugman's commentary today goes beyond the tut-tutting of most mainstream journalism (and the complete scandal mongering of the TV "news" programs) to point out the dangerous dynamic pushed by Randall Terry and other heroic "Defenders of Terri."

"America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here."

And by moderates, I'm afraid he doesn't mean me and the five other people who read this blog. It's time to dust off our copies of Sinclair Lewis's 1930s play about domestic fascism, "It Can't Happen Here."

Also, if you haven't read it yet: Frank Rich's "The God Racket" is great. This guy is on fire with righteous, witty, liberal indignation. I enjoy his atypical lack of reluctance to attack sacred cows. And unlike so many other liberals who like to attack liberal sacred cows and thereby score points with some imaginary political centrism, Frank Rich seems most a home and most engaging when pointing out the hypocricy of the Right. Keep it up!

Back Online--and a disclaimer

Bughouse Square is back after a two week hiatus. Basically, I had too much paying work to do, and too much tending to our freely-screeching babies. So the blog fell by the wayside.

In the interim, I'm happy to see that a few people have found me and kindly posted comments. Hello to the Church Secretary at the Church of the Bad News and Jeff at The Dude Minds. Anyone reading this should check out their blogs as well as the ever-popular Gone Feral. And hello to Theresa F. out there in blogville. What a blast from the past! Hope you are well.

Yesterday I read a disturbing article in the NY Times, "Nonprofit Groups Question Motive for Federal Actions," which describes allegations that the IRS is harrassing non-profit groups like the NAACP that have been critical of the Bush administration (the IRS denies it). Since I work for a non-profit organization (albiet not an advocacy group), and because a few years ago we were the target of attack by the pro-gun-totin' lobby (it's a long story), I really ought to issue the following disclaimer, which has not been approved by anyone's lawyers:

The opinions expressed on Bughouse Square are those of the author and the commenters, and are in no way connected to the Newberry Library, its officers, trustees, or its funders. Links to the Newberry Library and Newberry projects are soley for the interest of readers and do not suggest or indicate that the Library knows about this blog, or heavan forbid, approves of my blogging activities.

More "Fair and Balanced" Education

Britain's Guardian newspaper reports that a Nicaraguan historian has been denied entry into the United States. Dora Maria Tellez was a leader of the Sandinista revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed Samoza dictatorship in 1979. Later she became a historian and was due to take up a post at Harvard until she was denied a visa on the grounds that she once engaged in "terroist acts."

No one disputes the fact that Telllez was a guerilla who led a major hostage incident, and later led troops in the military phase of the revolution. The Guardian quotes another former Sandinista as saying "Dora Maria is an outstanding woman who fought against a dictatorship. If fighting against tyranny is 'terrorism' how does the United States justify the invasion of Iraq? It is an insult."

Some observers have pointed out the irony of this happening at the same time that John Negroponte is becoming intellegence chief since Negroponte was closely involved in the secret (and at the time illegal) support of the Contras fighting the Sandinista government.

This is the second high-profile foreign academic (that I know of, maybe there are others?) that our fair government has prevented from taking a job in the U.S. based on alleged ties to terroists. Previously Tariq Ramadan was denied a visa and had to give up his position in classics and peace studies at Notre Dame University. The government would not reveal publicly its evidence against Ramadan.

Commies of Lake Wobegon

I'm really enjoying the Discover the Network database of subversives thoughtfully produced by David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

The entry for NPR radio host Garrison Keillor is particularly amusing. It's Keillor's folksy, old-fashtioned platitudes that seem to most bother the DiscovertheNetwork cadre (I have at least this one thing in common with them). But it's not the drippy sentimentality of Prairie Home Companion they hate, it's the fact that this drippy sentimentality is used in the service of the Democratic party! They give so many great quotes from Keillor's book Homegrown Democrat that I want to rush out and buy it. They can't handle anyone who challenges the central pillar of current Republicans party rhetoric, that is to say the idea that Republicans are regular folk and Democrats are elitists who live on the coasts.

Are there any liberal, pro-choice Republicans on this site? Or ex-Republicans like Jim Jeffords? I haven't found any yet.

More Anti-left Monitoring

Via blogger Nathan Newman I found another site claiming to monitor the subversive and supposedly hidden connections between social justice foundations, individual donors, and activist organizations. ActivistCash.com claims to monitor "anti-consumer organizations." It identifies itself as a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is basically a lobbying organization for large food producers.

Both ActivistCash.com and the CCF are very slick, and obviously well-funded. They claim to represent grass-roots anger at the those nasty folks who would deprive freedom loving Americans of their hot dogs, hamburgers, beer, and fur coats. The CCF in particular is using rhetoric about the threat of neo-prohibitionism (by which they mean the likes of Mothers Against Drunk Driving). Needless to say, the fact that they are funded by an industry lobbying organization tends to cast doubt on their grass rootedness.

Do these folks and Discoverthenetwork.org represent a response to the success of internet organizing by Howard Dean, MoveOn.org, and other progressive organizations during the last election cycle?

More later on these sites. More also on tolerance, antiradicalism, public relations, academic freedom, and the murky nature of populist political rhetoric and action.

The New "Red Network"

Via the blog Wonkette, I discovered the latest creation of David Horowitz, et al.: Discover the Network: A Guide to the Political Left. This site promises to reveal all the hidden connections between subversive organizations like the Ford Foundation, ACORN, SEIU, and trouble makers like Garrison Keilor.

The site is essentially an updated, post Cold War version of Elizabeth Dilling's The Red Network: a "Who's Who" and Handbook of Radicalism for Patriots which was once required reading for conservatives in general and conservative Republicans in particular.

It's fun to play around on the site. Especially cool are "visual maps" that render the relationships between organizations as a floating spider-web. It's all very sinister-looking. Why doesn't the left have one of these for the right wingers?

Kansas Matters, What the?

There is an interesting article in the NY Times today about the Topeka, Kansas, city council election that pits a gay rights activist against the granddaughter of Rev. Fred Phelps. Phelps is infamous for protesting at the funeral of Matthew Shepard and using the slogan "God Hates Fags." The good reverend is so hated in Topeka that his granddaughter, Jael Phelps, tries not to use her last name during campaigning. Ms. Phelps says, "The main reason why I got into the race is so the people of District 9 would know who the incumbent is. We have someone whose goal in life is to make it so the governmental stamp of approval is put on sin, and an abomination at that."

Apparently, the mainstream religious right (if there is such a thing) is distancing itself from Phelps and his hate-spewing congregation. Voters are also deciding on a referendum barring the city from passing gay rights laws for 10 years. Guess where the "mainstreamers" stand on that one.

So the good people of Topeka will have a pretty clear choice at the ballot box, and we should be able to watch a test of Tom Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. Maybe, just maybe, sanity will prevail?

"Fair and Balanced" Education?

Ohio is the latest state to consider an "Academic Bill of Rights" according to an Associated Press report today. A bill pending in the Republican-controlled legislature "would prohibit public and private college professors from presenting opinions as fact or penalizing students for expressing their views. Professors would not be allowed to introduce controversial material unrelated to the course," according to the AP.

All well and good in theory, I suppose. But how is something like this going to be enforced? Given that it is binding on private schools, that potentially puts the Ohio government in the business of regulating the contents of theology classes in church-sponsored schools. Something tells me this isn't what the sponsors have in mind. Here's what the AP tells us about the thinking of the bill's sponsor:

``I see students coming out [of college] having gone in without any ideological leanings one way or another, coming out with an indoctrination of a lot of left-wing issues,'' said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Mumper, a former high school teacher whose Republican party controls the Legislature.

Mumper said he is concerned universities are not teaching the values held by taxpaying parents and students.

He questioned why lawmakers should approve funding for universities with ``professors who would send some students out in the world to vote against the very public policy that their parents have elected us for.''

Conservative supporter of the legislation David Horowitz claims this isn't ideological at all. AP quotes Horowitz: ``They can be a good professor, liberal or conservative, provided they pursue an educational mission and not a political agenda.''

Okay, so if this isn't narrowly ideological, Larry Mumper's quote suggests that it's narrowly partisan. Republicans don't want state universities producing Democrats. Hard to tell which is worse.

Bills like these are pushed by an organization called "Students for Academic Freedom." Let's see what they're all about...

FOIA Report: Pre 9/11 Memos Released

The National Security Archive has come through again. This week they released a set of 9/11 Commission staff reports and a previously classified January 2001 memo from Richard Clarke to Condoleeza Rice making specific suggestions for confronting Al Qaeda.

The 9/11 Commission staff reports that as early as April 2000 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) warned airlines that highjackers might blow up planes. Discussing the hijacking of foreign vs. domestic flights the agency briefing noted: "If, however, the intent of the hijacker is not to exhange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable." There was a good article on this in the Feb. 10, 2005 New York Times. As the National Security Archive notes, the Transportation Security Administration has gone to great lengths to keep these documents secret, against the wishes of the 9/11 Commission.

The Richard Clarke memo basically confirms everything he said during the 9/11 Commission hearings and contradicts the position of the Bush administration. The memo's first attachment is the final Clinton administration report on Al Qaeda. The second attachment remains classified.

Owners(hip) Society

Allow me a rant. What exactly is this "ownership society" the Republicans are selling, and why is anyone buying it? As I like to point out, slavery was an "ownership society" so there is reason good reason to be suspicious.

Like most political tag lines, the proponents of "ownership society" talk hope/expect that the term will be self-evident (which in political context means uninspected). But the idea is evidently not self-evident as demonstrated by the growing number of position papers, op-eds, and other efforts to sort it out. (see the offerings reprinted in the Republican party Social Security playbook referenced in an earlier post).

Here's one of those op-ed's the Republicans are trumpeting:

Albert B. Crenshaw, Op-Ed, “Risk-Reward Gamble,” The Washington Post, 1/16/05
"This shift -- from the New Deal to the Ownership Society -- is a sea change in the way Americans view the relationship between themselves and the government, and between themselves and the rest of society. Whereas government, unions and other collective organizations were widely seen in the 1930s as placing a safety net under workers and their families, today they are regarded by many people, especially in the "red states," as stifling enterprise and protecting the lazy.

"In contrast to the New Deal, the Ownership Society will have optional elements, with greater rewards but also far greater risk. While the administration's Social Security plan taps into taxes that workers are already paying, a key element of the Ownership Society is that to take full advantage of it, you must put up a great deal more of your own money -- pay to play, if you will. And that principle of pay to play applies in fields ranging from retirement to education to health care."

Let me repeat Mr. Crenshaw's key point: "to take full advantage of [the Ownership Society] you must put up a great deal more of your own money."

How is this different from our current system? Also, lots of people back in the 1930s argued that unions and social security were "stifling enterprise and protecting the lazy." They were called "capitalists."

Folks, this isn't about an Ownership Society. It's just the same old "Owners' Society."

Don't Like "Privatization"? How about "Personalization"?

Facing opposition to their plans to divert Social Security money into private accounts, Republicans are now defining their plan as "personalization." According to reports on Salon.com and the Washington Post a Republican Party retreat provided the faithful wiht a "playbook" that noted that the term privatization should be avoided because it "connotes the total corporate takeover of Social Security."

Some quotes from the Republican party playbook, which you can find on the blog Talking Points Memo:

"For example, to most Americans building wealth sounds unattainable—especially in the context of Social Security. But on the other hand, putting aside a nest egg sounds like common sense. Another example: Calling the trust fund meaningless will raise hackles. Taxpayers believe it is the source of the monthly checks paid out by Social Security. But, everyone agrees that it is an empty promise."

"Offer an alternate reality: Talk about how much more money they’d have for retirement if they themselves had been investing in a personal account all these years. Add that personal accounts would enable young, minimum-wage workers to enjoy dignity in retirement."

And by the way, when is someone in the press going to challenge the totally insane idea that these private accounts will grow to the point that they'll consititute an "nest egg" for our children? So it's going to be American social policy to underwrite a reasonable inheritance for every future generation? Why aren't conservatives protesting this vast new "entitlement" plan?

How to Lie with Statistics: Social Security and Race

Fans of the Daily Show might remember the show's "Moment of Zen" a few weeks back. It was a clip from Bush's forum on Social Security "reform" in which Bush tried to sell the idea that Social Security is unfair to African Americans because, statistically speaking, they die earlier than whites. The exchange featured Bush and an African American man named McFadden.

THE PRESIDENT: Secondly, the interesting -- there's a -- African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people. [although it isn't indicated on the transcript, at this point Bush paused and McFadden drew a breath as if to respond, "damn straight it's unfair", but the Pres. continued] And that needs to be fixed. It's not a -- (applause.)

That was it for the Daily Show's send-up of the event. I'm sure it doesn't come across in print, but it was very funny on video--the facial expressions were priceless. But on inspection of the transcript it turns out that McFadden was right there to help Bush along with a few statistics.

MR. McFADDEN: I agree, Mr. President, because from the minimal research that I've done, the average African American male right now is -- the life expectancy is 69, and I may be off a little bit. But if you're telling me that it's 69, and the age is going to go to 67, you do the math. (Laughter.)

It does sound unfair. Somehow private accounts will respond to this?

If you were thinking there is something obscene about using this statistic to privatize social security rather than deal with the injustice of racial disparities in quality/length of life, then check out Paul Krugman's latest salvo against privatization in the New York Times. "Little Black Lies" takes on the life span issue. I quote at length:

First, Mr. Bush's remarks on African-Americans perpetuate a crude misunderstanding about what life expectancy means. It's true that the current life expectancy for black males at birth is only 68.8 years - but that doesn't mean that a black man who has worked all his life can expect to die after collecting only a few years' worth of Social Security benefits. Blacks' low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. African-American men who make it to age 65 can expect to live, and collect benefits, for an additional 14.6 years - not that far short of the 16.6-year figure for white men.

Second, the formula determining Social Security benefits is progressive: it provides more benefits, as a percentage of earnings, to low-income workers than to high-income workers. Since African-Americans are paid much less, on average, than whites, this works to their advantage.

Finally, Social Security isn't just a retirement program; it's also a disability insurance program. And blacks are much more likely than whites to receive disability benefits.

Put it all together, and the deal African-Americans get from Social Security turns out, according to various calculations, to be either about the same as that for whites or somewhat better. Hispanics, by the way, clearly do better than either.

Okay, well done Krugman. It seems so transparent one wonders why Bush and his Merry Pranksters push it? The answer lies in that last two paragraphs quoted. The point of the political exercise is to pit whites against blacks, etc., etc. To Krugman's credit he doesn't end with the racial balance sheet which--even as it contradicts Bush's argument--pits one group against the other for a finite slice of the pie.

Is this an example of what Mr. Bush famously called "the soft bigotry of low expectations?" Maybe not: it isn't particularly soft to treat premature black deaths not as a tragedy we must end but as just another way to push your ideological agenda. But bigotry - yes, that sounds like the right word.

And cynicism.

Past and Future U.S. Covert Operations

What's next for the Department of Defense now that Iraq has successfully conducted elections? Check out the latest from journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article . In "The Comming Wars" Hersh says the Pentagon (Rumsfeld in particular) has gained control over the "war on terrorism" through a series of secret presidential findings and orders, and he is planning covert attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and other targes.

The Department of Defense categorically denies the thrust of Hersh's article, and is particularly harsh on his use of unnamed sources. Of course we can't know what Bush and Rumsfeld are up to because it's all classified. But some time in the future, these documents will come to light if the National Security Archive at George Washington University is still around. The NSA (not to be confused with the National Security Agency) web site is thick with declassified documents of U.S. foreign policy most of which have been acquired through Freedom of Information Act suits.

One set of these docs is on the 1953 CIA-inspired coup of Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq. Read this to get an understanding of why people in Iran might not be so happy with the well-intentioned interventions of the U.S. and Britain.

They also have a very intense collection of documents on the 1973 coup of elected Chilean President Salvadore Allende. Ironically, it was the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet that forced a reform of the Chilean social security system that moved the pensions of most workers into private accounts. These accounts are now proving to be inadequate to meet retirees needs. Pinochet kindly exempted the military from that "reform."

Licked at the Polls, Unions Debate Reform

With declining membership, an exceedingly hostile NLRB, and the re-election of Bush despite yet another "all or nothing" get out the vote drive for the Democrat, the AFLCIO has launched a discussion about organizational reform. I haven't slogged through everything yet, but wanted to post links to the major proposals.

Initially the proposals were coming from only a few unions, especially the Service Employees (SEIU). But this now seems to have become as close to an open debate as we've seen since the 1930s. At that time a group of unions that wanted to organize mass production industries led a rebellion within the AFL against unions who wanted to stick to organizing skilled workers. After a year of internal division, the industrial unionists left the AFL to form their own union federation--the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Are we headed in the same direction?

Here are links to the major policy papers:

Official AFLCIO Discussion: http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ourfuture/index.cfm
"It’s time to talk about the future of America’s union movement. How should we strengthen the union movement for the future? What will it take to give working families the power we need to balance corporate power? How do we make the most of the solidarity and energy of the 2004 presidential election campaign? And most important, what will it take for the union movement to grow?"

Links to Specific Proposals for Change: http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ourfuture/proposals.cfm

Unite to Win (sponsored by SEIU): http://www.unitetowinblog.org/
"The rich keep getting richer in America today, while big corporations search the globe for cheaper labor.  Meanwhile, our jobs are less secure.  Most of us are working longer and harder.  Rising health care costs are making coverage unaffordable and forcing costly strikes and lockouts in union contract negotiations."

Teamsters: "American workers and workers the world over need a strong U.S. labor movement. Without it, the inexorable global race to the bottom will lead to further inequality, further erosion in basic wage, labor, and social standards, and further limits on political democracy."

Communication Workers of America (CWA): "Democracy in the workplace is the basis for popular support for collective bargaining, provides the best foundation for union organizing, and should provide a framework for union infrastructure at the local and national levels as well as for the AFL-CIO. It is widely accepted that there is a collective bargaining crisis in the US driven by the worst management repression of workplace rights in any democracy. CWA believes that active union members are the best and only hope for reversing this, and that unions must invest much more in mobilizing our members."

Harry Kelber's article "What's Wrong with Both SEIU and CWA Plans for Revitalizing the Labor Movement" (http://www.laboreducator.org/whatwrong.htm) is a good critique from the perspective of a labor educator with a long interest in union democracy. Kelber also has a Blog: http://reform-aflcio.blogspot.com/

Apprentices: Steve Forbes Represents the American Dream

Okay, this has nothing to do with free speech. But I can't resist commenting on tonight's episode of The Apprentice with Donald Trump.

As usual, this season of The Apprentice pits a two teams of "entrepreneurs" against each other. The twist is that one set of contestants has college degrees, the other set have completed high school and then clawed their way up from the bottom. "Street smarts vs. book smarts" as the promos say.

Well tonight the victors (the folks with college degrees) had the wonderful opportunity to have dinner and cigars with Steve Forbes on his private yacht. That really isn't my idea of a reward...but that's probably why I'm not on the show. In case you don't know, Forbes is the publisher of that bastion of capitalism Forbes Magazine and also a chief proponent of the so called "flat tax" that would tax the likes of him equally with a construction laborer (gee that sounds fair). Well, as the yacht passed by the Statue of Liberty, various "book smart" contestants gave fawning praise to Forbes as THE icon of the American Dream. And as Forbes flew away in his private helicopter, one contestant actually said "I want to be just like him." I guess this is what Bush's "ownership society" is all about.

It was an oddly profane moment. With the symbol of immigrant America illuminated in the background, we are asked to see a man who inherited his job and money as a great symbol of freedom. Sure, Forbes has immigrants in his background, but they were not the kind that came through Ellis Island.

P.S.: I found this genealogy of Steve Forbes online. Can't vouch for it, but if it's correct it looks like old Steve has some very fine ancestors.

U.S. Torture (or is it "abuse") of Detainees

I'm finally getting around to reading some of the U.S. government documents relating to the torture and/or abuse of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in other detention centers that the ACLU posted to it's site recently. Having recently chipped in $35 to join the ACLU I'm feeling pretty good about my investment.

The headliner document is a brief FBI email intended to alert the higher-ups of some problematic behavior by Department of Defense (DOD) personnel (dated December 5, 2003). Of course the most damning text is redacted, but you can get the general idea. In a nutshell, the agent has just visited the Guantanamo Bay detention center and witnessed DOD interrogators using "torture techniques" on detainees.

"Of concern, DOD interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI told a detainee that [redacted]. These same interrogation teams then [redacted]. The detainee was also told by this interrogation team [longer redaction].

"These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believes that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee."

Quaintly, the FBI agent is most disturbed by the potential public relations impact on the FBI. To quote the agent:

"If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will [be] left holding the bag before the public."

Well, I suppose it is nice to know that some parts of our government seem to disagree with the use of torture, and even see it as a hinderance to the "war on terrorism." It's also good to know that the Freedom of Information Act hasn't been completely disabled by the Bush administration. But it's cold comfort.

Soapbox Under Construction

I've named this blog after what was once Chicago's best-known free speech center--Washington Square Park, popularly known as Bughouse Square. I work in the Newberry Library which is right across the street from the park.

The park is no longer a free speech center, just a nice place for affluent people to walk their dogs and for office workers to eat lunch during the summer. The occassional homeless person napping beneath the trees is quickly ushered out by the police.

In the coming days/weeks/months I plan to fill the blog with commentary on contemporary politics, history and the political/commercial uses of history, and thoughts on the state of American education. Along the way there will be a healthy dose of attention to the dynamics of the National Security State and the newly apparent imperialism of the U.S. government.

Your comments may or may not be welcome, but feel free to send them anyway.

First Shot

I'm taking the leap into blogging. Forgive me.