Archive for June, 2007
June 28th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Well, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has dealt yet another “conservative” blow to the nation. This time by essentially overturning Brown vs the Board of Education. Schools are still expected to achieve racial “diversity.” However, accomplishing racial integration is very difficult if it is unconstitutional to use race as a criteria. Justice Roberts argument was:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” (NY Times, 6/28/07)
University of Alabama Students burn desegregation literature, 1956. - Image courtesy of Library of Congress
Roberts’ statement is a tautological argument that is based on a false premise - that race would not be an issue if we did not attempt struggle against institutionalized racism. His quote is reflective of the bumper sticker political analysis which has become all too familiar. However, the assumption of a color blind society, which is enforcing discrimination through attempts at racial integration, is faulty to the point of criminality.
What the Bush administration, “conservatives,” and now Bush’s Court, are attempting is the elimination of civil rights and affirmative action advancements over the last 50 years. Why? Is it because they do not want a society with increasing levels of equality and participation? Do they want a society of peasants and patricians? Do they oppose a representative democracy, but support a feudal government run by a monied (white) elite?
Roberts’ trite argument plays well to the mythology of race and privilege in the United States. The rhetoric - particularly now - is that everyone in the U.S. is equal, and there is no structured inequality. Race is a non-issue which we dealt with long ago. Race-based policies and considerations are not “fair” to whites, and place whites at a disadvantage. This is sometimes ridiculously referred to as “reverse” discrimination. Of course there is no acknowledgment that without the body of legislation and policy under the umbrella of “affirmative action,” whites could not argue they had been discriminated against. The legislation refers to “race” - not as confined to people of color, but also to whites.
The often posed solution is to use socioeconomic status, rather than race, as a basis for social policy and integration. The argument is that class is the only real divider after all. Unfortunately, that is a false argument.
There is no proxy for race in the United States. Race is its own system of inequality, though it is certainly reinforced by social class. That reinforcement is not accidental - but structured into social policy. Social policy is, after all, a form of social engineering.
The United States started out with the restriction of citizenship to whites. At that time citizenship carried with it the right to own property, to testify in court, to access public education and public services - and eventually - the right to vote. These privileges of citizenship were granted largely on the basis of race - not social class. However, they certainly had (and continue to have) social class implications. These policies gave whites a social class advantage which was passed down from generation to generation. It facilitated an opportunity path for whites that did not exist (or was significantly restricted) for those who were deemed “not white.”
The institutionalization of race, and race separate policies, continued for more than two centuries, and they continue today. Unimaginably, we are still fighting voting rights and gerrymandering based on race in 2007 (among a myriad of other race-based disparate impacts). Are the images of who was left to drown or starve during Hurricane Katrina so easily forgotten? At that time racial disparity stood clearly in front of the eyes of every person who turned on a television. Also remember, that very quickly the interpretation was put forward that this was not about “race,” but social class. The dominant white population is much more comfortable talking about social class (which is largely perceived as an “individual” issue) than about race - where we must examine the costs of racial privilege.
Race and social class intertwine, they are not the same. While there are more poor who are white than any other racial group, whites are disproportionately under represented in the ranks of the poor. Whites are also dramatically over represented in the ranks of the middle class, and even more so in the upper class. This is largely due to race based policies that subsidized the accumulation of wealth (most significantly with home ownership) for whites, while denying that access to those who were not white.
So what does all of this have to do with the Supreme Court ruling regarding education? Education is strongly related to people’s ability to participate and advance in the social class environment in the US (though this is changing). Without equal access to education the doors of social class mobility once more start to close. Brown vs Board of Education ruled that there was no legality or validity to “separate but equal.” The decision to desegregate public education was not to make a more “diverse” environment, but to equalize the playing field for social class participation.
There has been a terrible transformation in education systems’ arguments about the importance of racial and cultural diversity to education. While those arguments are valid, it is not why we integrated schools. Diversity in education (race, culture, age, class, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc) is tremendously valuable for all kinds of reasons, Brown was not about the value of diversity. It was about addressing institutionalized inequality based on race.
That fundamental inequality based on race has not been resolved. Look at test scores, high school completion rates, college entrance and graduation rates or even the status and reputation of different school districts. All show there are significant racial divides. Racial integration is not a relic of some bygone day. In our schools; in our neighborhoods; in our health and infant mortality; in the work force; race still stands as hugely significant to social and personal outcomes.
Contrary to the rhetorical argument put forward by Roberts, the promoter of discrimination is not efforts to have schools that mirror the racial demographics of their districts and population. The discrimination happens at virtually every level of social interaction and organization. It is reinforced by racial segregation which fosters the mythology of stereotypes, and the reality of disparate economic opportunity. Education (and not simply K-12 education) is an important component of social maintenance and change. Race and social class inequality are principal among the systems being maintained or changed.
The most common example of past in present discrimination is: segregated neighborhoods lead to segregated schools lead to segregated job opportunities. We have done a rather pathetic job of changing housing segregation (both in terms of race and class) which is why integration in education becomes monumentally important.
The 5-4 decision by the Roberts court reversed the decisions of two appellate courts. It has also virtually reversed Brown vs the Board of Education -one of the most important court decisions impacting racial equality in the United States.
One might wonder what happened to both Roberts’ and Alito’s highly touted respect for stare decisis - legal precedent (see end notes). Justice Breyer issued a stinging rebuke which is pertinent and hopefully not prophetic: “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.” In regard to the importance of precedent, he stated: ““It is my firm conviction that no member of the court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision..” This pretty much rules out any confusion over the context and intent of Brown v. Board of Education.
END NOTES
Supreme Court Cases involved: Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association v. Brentwood Academy and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.
Voting in the majority: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.
Voting in the minority: Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens (NY Times
Text of the Court’s opinion - Justice Breyer’s dissent starts on page 109 of the 185 page opinion.
REGARDING stare decisis
From Day 2 of Roberts’ Confirmation Hearing in response to a question regarding Roberts agreed with the importance of stare decisis:
ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. I would point out that the principle goes back even farther than Cardozo and Frankfurter. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, said that, “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.”
So, even that far back, the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability, adherence of integrity in the judicial process.
AND
ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. I would point out that the principle goes back even farther than Cardozo and Frankfurter. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, said that, “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.”
So, even that far back, the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability, adherence of integrity in the judicial process.
AND particularly for the current decision:
ROBERTS: Obviously, Brown v. Board of Education is a leading example, overruling Plessy v. Ferguson, the West Coast hotel case overruling the Lochner-era decisions.
Those were, to a certain extent, jolts to the legal system, and the arguments against them had a lot to do with stability and predictability. But the other arguments that intervening precedents had eroded the authority of those cases, that those precedents that were overruled had proved unworkable, carried the day in those cases.
So it is clear that even at his confirmation hearing Roberts was aimed at “jolting the legal system” in relationship to Brown vs the Board of Education regardless of his support for stare decisis.
And from the Alito confirmation:
ALITO: Well, I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important doctrine. It’s a fundamental part of our legal system.
And it’s the principle that courts in general should follow their past precedents. And it’s important for a variety of reasons. It’s important because it limits the power of the judiciary. It’s important because it protects reliance interests. And it’s important because it reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions.
It’s not an exorable command, but it is a general presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents.
Warren Court that Ruled on Brown - Library of Congress
Roberts Court 2006 - Wikipedia
June 26th, 2007
By Jason Miller
“Children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.” –Sigmund Freud
Frightening as it may be, the Earth’s fate rests in the hands of children. With incredibly formidable military firepower at its disposal, the United States could catalyze Armageddon at any time. And while they may be adults chronologically, our sociopolitical structure is dominated by emotional infants.
Nietzsche once pronounced God dead. In the United States, we have a more readily demonstrable (and perhaps related) problem. Our collective id has rendered its governing superego impotent, and perhaps dead. Our prevailing moral standards, as inconsequential as they have become, are of the Jerry Falwell variety. They are mean-spirited, self-serving, judgmental, narrow-minded, selfish, and belligerent. As far as US Americans are concerned, Christ may as well have preached the Sermon on the Mount from the lowest recesses of Death Valley.
Recall that our basic drives such as libido, hunger, and aggression flow from the infantile dimension of our psyche known as the id. In terms of psychodynamics, the superego’s role is to counter-balance the irresponsible, amoral, and essentially sociopathic nature of the id with a healthy degree of conscience and guilt. Yet in the United States, we are inculcated with a deep sense of our exceptionalism and entitlement from the moment we emerge from the birth canal, thus crippling our ability to empathize and seriously impeding the development of our superego.
Consequently, conscience, guilt, personal discipline, and delaying gratification are barely extant in the toxic cesspool of our sociocultural environment.
Let’s examine some of the spiritually corrosive social forces which have molded our malleable natures in such a way that our behavior as a nation closely resembles that of a depraved miscreant:
While counseling and therapy are essential tools to heal from psychic wounds, emotional disorders, and mental illnesses, many mental health professionals offer their patients palliative “ego strokes” rather than the remedial brutal honesty and tough love they truly need. Instead of giving their clients the tools they need to heal themselves, they enable their ids to continue running rampant, unfettered by that “nasty old superego” and its “toxic guilt.”
Even those who don’t seek professional help are absolved of the pangs of conscience by the high priests and priestesses of the corporate media. Prostitutes to the establishment like Oprah pat them on the head, reassure them that their pathological self-absorption is wonderful, and tell them to further immerse their minds in pernicious idiocy by reading instruction manuals on narcissism like The Secret.
Commit a crime? No problem. We have a legal system, not a justice system. If you have money enough to hire a shrewd attorney, you are unlikely to face the consequences you deserve, regardless of the egregiousness of your crime. Unfortunately, if you don’t have money, you will face the equivalent of electrocution for stealing a loaf of bread, which means several brutal, dehumanizing years in the most populous prison industrial complex in the world for “crimes” like self-medicating to escape your already miserable circumstances.
Lack the cash to buy the $2,000.00 flat screen you “have to have” to watch the obscenely commercialized and over-hyped Super Bowl? No problem. In the advanced stages of our savage economic system, finance capital reigns supreme. There are untold thousands of lenders prepared to let you use their money, provided you agree to pay their usurious interest rates.
Want it yesterday? Not to worry. We have fast food, one hour photo, instant credit approval, movies on demand, pills to chase the blues and blue pills to give you an erection, instant coffee, microwave meals, zero down loans, and a host of other means to satisfy the relentlessly impatient demands of our ids.
Feeling bored, lonely, or depressed? Turn on the television. Fill your mind with inanity, brain candy, infotainment, and potent affirmations that your tenacious adherence to the reprehensible “American Way” is justified, patriotic, and admirable.
Need a career, training, money for college, the indoctrinated belief that you are risking your life for a noble cause, and the false security that your government will support you once they are done with you? “Join the people who have joined the Army” (or Marines, Navy, or Air Force). Our moneyed elite (desperately) need willing pawns to wage their wholesale terror operations in Iraq and elsewhere.
While it may sound a bit conspiratorial, before we go dismissing the notion that the erosion of our moral restraint (superego) has been intentionally engineered and orchestrated, let’s consider the question, “Cui bono?”
Having stunted, retarded, corralled, or in some cases, disabled the superegos of the “unwashed masses,” there is almost no end to the malevolence our sociopathic plutocracy, upper level military careerists, “religious” leaders, AIPAC, and reactionaries can commit in our names (with our overt or tacit approval) to further enrich and empower themselves.
Consider but a few examples of abominations for which we, as a nation, are responsible:
We have committed war crimes analogous to those of Nazi Germany through our pre-emptive invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. How many hundred thousand or million civilians must die before we realize that “collateral damage” is an Orwellian euphemism for mass murder?
We have long been complicit in the brutal oppression of the Palestinians. When the final Palestinian is imprisoned, obliterated, or driven out of Gaza and the West Bank will we then recognize that we facilitated an ethnic cleansing?
We employ economic tyranny and manipulation to make de facto colonies of developing nations, harvesting and consuming 25% of the world’s resources to “sustain” 5% of the world’s population. Isn’t gluttony one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
We listened to the likes of Ronald Reagan (a reactionary who never met a socially redeeming policy, law or public initiative he didn’t want to eliminate) when he moronically asserted that enacting universal health care would undoubtedly lead to “Godless Communism.” So we continue embracing a system enabling cynical wealthy elites and amoral corporations to generate outrageous profits derived from the administration of health care. As a result, there are 50 million uninsured US Americans, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world, we are 37th in the world in health care quality, HMO’s and managed care entities often refuse to provide necessary medical procedures, insurance companies routinely deny claims based on technicalities, and hospitals dump indigent patients on Skid Row rather than treating them.
On the subject of indigents, how is it that a nation awash in prosperity has over a million homeless human beings on any given night? Or that cities like Orlando and Las Vegas have made homelessness a crime? How can a significant percentage of those condemned to sleep under bridges and eat from dumpsters be veterans who fought for our country? Could it be that chicken hawk ruling elites like Dick Cheney used them as cannon fodder in their wars necessitated by capitalism’s endless demand for new markets, cheaper labor, and more resources, and then disposed of them like so much rubbish when they came home?
We strong-arm developing countries into implementing neoliberal economic policies and free trade, deepening the impoverishment of their citizens to further enrich ourselves. This leaves them little choice but to migrate here, where virtually all of the money and resources are flowing. Now that 12 million “illegals” have established residence in the US, we are arrogantly preparing to perpetuate their employers’ capacity to exploit them or to implement a draconian plan to rip their families and lives apart, imprison them, and eventually send them back to the abject poverty we created.
Climate Change? We simply deny we bear an ounce of responsibility and rev up our gas-guzzling SUVs, pick-ups, and Hummers.
Yes, in spite of the extreme moral poverty reflected in the myriad wounds we continue to inflict upon the Earth and its sentient inhabitants, we have the audacity to call ourselves a Christian nation. Whether it is conscious or not, we organize our existences around the abhorrent beliefs that “it’s all about me,” “get them before they get me,” “he who dies with the most toys wins,” and “blessed are the rich, the joyous, the well-fed, the aggressive, the merciless, the heartless, and the warmongers,” thus manifesting the virtual antithesis of Christ’s teachings.
But what can you expect from a nation of unsupervised ids?
Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor ( https://bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine’s Corner within Cyrano’s. You can reach him at
June 25th, 2007
By John Chuckman
This is an excerpt from “What’s It All About? The Decline of the American Empire by John Chuckman published by Constable & Robinson Ltd, London. Available from Indigo Books, Canada.
In military matters, China has taken America by surprise a number of times recently, and surprises of this nature are not things with which Americans deal well, some portion of America’s political establishment becoming irritable and uncomfortable. It is not clear how much of this is based on genuine analysis and how much on the kind of paranoid reaction which characterizes America’s attitude towards Arabs since 9/11. There is also the distinct possibility of traces of anti-Asian prejudice which has a long history in America and in its policies. America’s paranoid reaction to a number of events in the past - the rise of Japan, Communism, Islamic fundamentalism - reflect an arrogant imperial attitude of expected easy superiority which does not welcome any clouds on the horizon.
China’s explosion of a thermonuclear warhead not many years ago that proved through chemical analysis of atmospheric samples to resemble America’s best at the time, the W-88 warhead, lead to a McCarthy-like campaign to track down a betrayer of American secrets. Attention focused on a Chinese-American scientist at Los Alamos Laboratories, and the New York Times, undoubtedly prompted by the FBI, conducted a terrible campaign of innuendo. The FBI charged the man with a ridiculous number of things, a favorite technique of political police trying to get a plea on something, but the lack of any evidence saw him released with his career ended and his reputation muddied. It seems never to have occurred that China’s new army of clever scientists and engineers, always seen going about with the best laptop computers in hand much the way British businessmen in London once all wore derbies and carried umbrellas, might just have developed this technology themselves, or largely so, of course benefiting from the bits and pieces garnered from others that always support new work anywhere.
China has put a number of satellites into orbit, including a manned one, and has a very ambitious space program, including plans for landing people on the moon. The American military sees near-earth space as its most important base for future “projection of power” over the planet, its militarization of space well underway, so China represents a potential challenge not yet felt from India. The huge noise made by Republicans under Clinton’s administration over the remote possibility that China may have secretly contributed to an American election gave us a heady whiff of the paranoid fears that reside in some quarters of American society.
Most recently, China launched a vehicle into space designed to destroy a satellite. An obsolete Chinese weather satellite in an orbit about 500 miles above the earth, roughly the same orbit as that occupied by many of America’s fleet of spy or global-positioning satellites, was the target for this apparently successful test. The message was clear: China is now capable of destroying the satellites which are now America’s eyes for war. The news was especially dramatic coming as it did not long after America’s admitting that a powerful Chinese laser, or other directed-energy beam on the ground, had, a while back, swept an American spy satellite over China, temporarily blinding it.
The satellite-killer led to a lot of noisy accusations about China’s aggressiveness and its militarizing space, but these claims are quite inaccurate. The United States has been militarizing space for many years, gradually and in many surreptitious ways. The space shuttle program, for example, was always a military one, the shuttles actually being very costly, inefficient vehicles for science, sometimes even leading to delays in the launch of important science projects.
America’s fleet of military and spy satellites, many of whose capabilities remain secret, is used actively today as a weapon. Nations friendly to American policy are given priceless data to support their efforts while opponents are left at a serious disadvantage. This was done, as just two examples, in supporting Iraq’s invasion of Iran and in supporting Israel’s assault on Lebanon - both examples, by any sensible reckoning, of America’s using these sophisticated machines not for defense but to support aggression it regarded as being in its own interest at the time.
Perhaps, the clearest militarization of space is America’s new anti-missile missile program, a program not just of research but of deploying actual weapons. No matter how ineffective the existing American system is - it has failed many tests, and independent scientists advise us that the computer programming for such a system is truly beyond our existing ability - America’s spending new billions on it has to make China and Russia uneasy. The same scientists and other experts warned some years back that a new American “Star Wars” program would start a new weapons race, and they were right. The Russians have already announced the development of a new warhead that spirals unpredictably when heading for its target. It also may put into service a mobile version of its highly-accurate Topple-M intercontinental missile.
China’s response includes its ability to destroy spy satellites needed as eyes for such a system plus an increase in the number and quality of its intercontinental missiles. China’s DF-31A missile is its first solid-fueled intercontinental missile, meaning it can be fired more quickly than its existing liquid-fueled ones, and it is the first Chinese intercontinental missile that can reach all parts of the United States. It could be made mobile, and a submarine-based version is under development. It should be noted that China’s nuclear deterrent until now has been extremely modest, consisting of about two dozen known missiles plus some element of uncertainty as to whether there are in fact a limited number more.
China used the anti-satellite test to get America’s attention for negotiations over the anti-missile missile system. They did get American attention, there being a very unpleasant reaction in Washington, but it is not clear that any kind of negotiations will follow. China’s immediate offer to negotiate a treaty against the militarization of space was ignored. America’s stubbornly-held view of anti-missile defense is that it is part of its overall anti-terrorist efforts, an argument which stretches credibility rather thin, especially in view of plans for basing some of these anti-missile missiles in former Soviet satellite states, plans that are highly confrontational towards Russia. There has also been talk of American anti-missile missiles being placed in Afghanistan, intended for Chinese I.C.B.M.s, again a highly provocative idea, going towards creating uncertainty in China’s sense of its nuclear deterrent.
Another recent military surprise from China was the unveiling of the new Jian-10, swept-wing fighter. The project to develop this plane apparently was a closely kept secret, hence the surprise at its appearance. It is the same general type of fighter represented by America’s F-16 or the Eurofighter Typhoon or Russia’s MIG-29, although its capabilities are not well understood. Whether or not it meets the performance standards of these other front-line, supersonic fighters, the plane represents a remarkable technical and manufacturing achievement by the Chinese, portending also the day when China learns to compete in civil aviation. China’s current military philosophy of husbanding its resources for only the kinds of projects best fitting what are deemed its greatest future needs has apparently permitted it to compete in this costly field of high-tech aviation which includes only a small number of nations.
China’s new investments in its military are, like so many things about China, heavily criticized by the American establishment. The truth is they represent a small fraction of what the U.S. spends, no matter what accounting you use. Widely accepted, published data put China’s military spending at about 10% of America’s, although some say it may be about half again more than that through hidden spending. They may be right, but they ignore the reality of a great deal of hidden spending in America, particularly when it comes to so-called black programs, and the unquestioned fact remains that America accounts for fully half of the entire planet’s military spending.
China’s new spending is to a considerable extent driven by what it sees as American imperial attitudes and behavior. Recall the incident of the American spy plane flying right up against Chinese air space early in Bush’s administration and being forced down by the Chinese. This was an extremely provocative act, somewhat resembling the flight of an American U-2 over Russia just days before a scheduled summit between Eisenhower and Khruschev. During the first hours of this recent, smaller crisis, the new Bush administration took a hard-line approach, making no apologies (a Chinese pilot had died bringing the spy plane down) and demanding the plane and its crew be returned immediately. After a while Bush relented, reportedly after his having consulted his much more knowledgeable father, and took a more accommodating approach. China then promptly allowed the crew to be flown home and returned the spy plane, after a bit of time, disassembled in a crate, mimicking a much earlier American exploit, one that undoubtedly had provided many laughs over the years at the Pentagon, when a defecting Soviet pilot landed one of the U.S.S.R.’s most advanced fighters in Japan. No one knows how successful the Chinese were in studying the spy plane’s top-secret electronic gear, but generally such machines are destroyed by explosive devices detonated by the crew when crashing or being forced to land. Things can be learned even from demolished mechanisms. Then again, those devices don’t always work.
China has not challenged American world leadership, nor has it set it as a goal to be able to do so, but this incident of the spy plane was interesting for a number of reasons, mainly in that it demonstrated China’s willingness to confront America behaving aggressively in China’s own backyard. Had it come to shooting, China could not have won, but much of the world’s public opinion was on China’s side in what clearly was reckless American behavior.
Few Americans appreciate the extent to which such high-risk behavior characterized American activity during the Cold War. Intrusive American military over-flights of the Soviet Union in the 1950s were common, indeed Krushchev was irritated and angry over the extent of these flights which Eisenhower observed once would have started a war had the Russians behaved the same way over the territory of the United States. There were also many confrontations with nuclear submarines, including a number of scrapes and collisions owing to close approaches on Soviet boats. Indeed, it has been reported, and there is some evidence from photographs for believing, that the advanced Russian submarine, Kursk, which sank during tests in 2000, sending its crew to a slow death, was the result of a torpedo fired in error by an American commander whose boat was closely observing the Kursk’s maneuvers. If so, it might help explain what many regard as a rather kid-gloves approach Bush has taken towards the Russians despite a belligerent history and many differences over policy.
June 25th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Check out this presentation by lawyers from Cohen & Grigsby on how corporations can get around immigration laws to get workers visas, by “proving” there are no US workers for the job.
June 25th, 2007
BY Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V ConventionAccording to a report not yet released, the Council on Science and Public Health of the American Medical Association has recommended that a chronic and widespread affliction of Americans be officially declared a psychiatric disorder. It has been named the Political Attention Deficit Disorder (PADD). It is recommended that the disorder be included in a widely used mental illness manual created and published by the American Psychiatric Association. The current manual was published in 1994; the next edition is to be completed in 2012. The benefit to people of an official classification is coverage by health insurance.
“The symptoms of PADD are all around us and treating it professionally can do more for our country than any election,” said Dr. Mable Wank in the report’s introduction; she is chairwoman of the Council and a professor at UCLA.
Here are the Council’s main findings on PADD:
Nearly 80 percent of adult American citizens are unable to pay sustained attention to issues and problems associated with their government. They are unable to accept their responsibility as citizens, including their obligation to vote, read in-depth articles and books on political issues, become active members of politically oriented groups, and initiate discussions on current events with friends and family. “The decades-old decline in voter turnout is a direct result of a national epidemic of PADD,” said the report.
The chief cause of PADD is the desire to avoid the very real pain of cognitive dissonance, the difference between what Americans want to believe about the greatness of their country and the disturbing reality that their government and country are in terrible shape, which is a constant reminder when there is normal, healthy political attention. Such pain suppression, however, is counterproductive and was found through careful studies at several universities, including the Harvard Medical College, to correlate with depression and anxiety disorders, as well as a heightened level of cynicism and despair. According to the report, many suicides and possibly many criminal acts result from PADD.
Another consequence of PADD is that people devote more of their time, energy and money to pleasure-seeking distractions. PADD is correlated with profound statistical significance to clinical symptoms such as obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction, video game addiction, Internet addiction, sexual promiscuity, excessive shopping, gambling addiction, and other harmful behaviors.
The report profiles a person severely afflicted by PADD. The psychiatrists unanimously concluded that George W. Bush is a PADD victim. Symptoms include no desire to pursue major and contentious policy issues through in-depth reading, discussion and analysis; a clear dependence on others for policy decisions, particularly Vice President Cheney; an inability to maintain sustained focus on diverse policy issues simultaneously; and an inability to articulate policy. The widespread public perception that Bush is unintelligent, uninformed and dogmatic stems from his PADD, concluded the Council. “He needs immediate, emergency therapy for his PADD; that might help get us out of Iraq,” said Dr. Wank.
Reached by phone, Dr. Aaron Gestaltstein, a Council member and psychiatrist with the Michigan Institute for the Study of Individual and Societal Health, said the AMA proposal will help raise awareness and called it “the right thing to do if the United States is ever to regain effective government and equitable public policies.” “Sick Americans deserve compassionate treatment if our country is to survive - PADD is no joke,” he added.
“I saw a college-educated man last month who was so depressed about the Bush Administration - yet he could no longer read newspapers, watch cable news shows or visit news and commentary websites. He was spending virtually all of his non-work time visiting pornography websites and eating at Chinese buffets,” Gestaltstein said. “He is a terrible mess and swears he will never vote again.”
The challenge for psychiatrists treating PADD patients, as noted in the Council’s report, is to help Americans fully integrate political attention into their lives. Their discomfort and hopelessness must be changed into positive behaviors. Friends and relatives of PADD victims are urged to get them to join public interest groups working for the betterment of American government and society, such as Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org..
June 23rd, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Michael Hayden, current head of the CIA, has decided to declassify a CIA report on its “indiscretions” … that was completed in 1973. It is a big deal that this administration is going to release any information - such a big deal that one might ask “Why?”.
Many people have perhaps forgotten that it was findings of the “Church Committee” (United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) that instituted controls on the Intelligence Community to protect the constitutional rights of the population - controls that have been more than eliminated by legislation since 2001.
Perhaps the motive for releasing the report from 1973 is to make the activities of the Bush administration seem “usual.” The CIA had a long history of unsavory covert activities. The most publicized being Iran-Contra. Less publicized is the recruiting, training, and supplying of Islamist fighters to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan (who became al Qaida). A laundry list of past actions would place current Bush administration activities (such as NSA spying without a warrant on US citizens, or extraordinary renditions, or secret CIA prisons) on a continuum of illegal activities. Current administration policies could then be argued as necessary, and not that extreme, within the context of the posed new threats to “civilization.”
It was with some interest that I read the France has banned state employees from using BlackBerrys. The belief of the government of France is that use of the popular handheld risks US intelligence monitoring access to confidential material. The ban has been in place for the last year and a half. Notably, that while a denial of any such information security risk was issued by Research in Motion (the producers of BlackBerry), no such assurances came from the NSA or other intelligence agency on the US.
Meanwhile, there is a steady stream of reports of abuse of power that the virtually unfettered “intelligence” and “justice” communities have engaged in. While some abuses are attributed to unclear procedural issues, it is clear that the real procedural failure is a lack of limits on the power of the agencies. The problem starts at the top with Bush’s refusal to follow law in demanding illegal programs - the NSA “wiretapping” without a warrant being one example. With the administration taking an “anything goes” approach, is it really surprising that other arms of the Executive Branch would do the same?
Hayden’s decision to declassify a 24 year old investigation seems more strategic to me than a symptom of attempts at transparency by an administration renowned for everything being secret and “executive privilege.”
Articles of Interest
FBI Finds It Frequently Overstepped in Collecting Data
FBI Data Mining Program Raises Eyebrows in Congress
‘Signing Statements’ Study Finds Administration Has Ignored Laws
US Agencies Disobey 6 Laws that President Challenged
June 22nd, 2007
BY Joel S. Hirschhorn author of Delusional Democracy and Friends of the Article V Convention
The frog-in-boiling water model helps us understand political upheavals: how citizens wake up early enough (or too late) to respond to social and economic oppression. Sometimes the greed and arrogance of Ruling Classes makes them careless and social waters heat too quickly. Sensing doom, alert citizen-frogs escape or revolt. Or they stay complacent and boil. The Bush Administration has turned the heat up on us, explaining why nearly 75 percent of Americans believe their country is on the wrong track and 70 percent think the economy is worsening.
Mexico is the richest Latin American country but has extreme economic inequality, which measures social temperature. Mexicans are jumping out of oppressive waters en masse, right into the U.S., exacerbating our rising inequality. The Chinese have learned to offset oppressive communist forces with materialistic capitalism - like our affordable materialism keeps Americans distracted and docile (with help from Chinese imports). In colonial America the greedy British motivated our Revolutionary War, but with oppression now coming from within, will Americans wait too long?
Some Americans keep warning us - people like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Aaron Russo, Dennis Kucinich, Lou Dobbs, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Bill Moyers, Jon Stewart, and Keith Olbermann. They entertain complacent “frogs” and preach to the choir of alert “frogs” that also know the temperature is rising dangerously. Many of the former keep hoping that putting better Democrats or Republicans in office will get us back on the right track. Many of the latter are ready to jump to what our Constitution offers us: an Article V convention.
And once you know that plutocratic elites from both major parties have for decades opposed the Article V convention to propose constitutional amendments, YOU should favor what THEY oppose.
We frequently see a knee-jerk fear reaction to an Article V convention. Such fear is misplaced and baseless. Only the rich and powerful elites running and ruining our nation should fear a convention.
It is fatalistic to fear that a convention could make things worse by removing valued parts of the Constitution or adding terrible things. Naturally, no one knows with certainty what a convention might propose. But we do know with certainty that whatever a convention proposes must satisfy the Constitution’s rigorous ratification requirement. That two step process is part of the genius of the Constitution. Recall that a convention is the alternative to Congress proposing amendments. And what do Americans think of Congress?
A measly 23 percent view Congress positively. Expecting Congress to enact really good laws, spend our taxes wisely, and keep the president and executive branch agencies from abusing us is like a joke on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It is laugh-at-loud funny to put trust and faith in Congress. It matters not whether Democrats or Republicans control Congress. Nearly all members are under the thrall of moneyed interests. Congress is a national embarrassment. Our misrepresentatives are partners in corruption, dishonesty and oppression. Over decades they have allowed the presidency to accumulate imperial powers. Do you really believe they are worth $165,200 a year, with generous health and pension benefits?
Still, we live in a great nation. But great nations rise and fall.
America is no longer close to what it should be - or once was. It no longer fairly serves and protects all Americans. Too many Americans are working poor, hungry, homeless, poorly educated, imprisoned, debt-ridden, crime victims, facing economic insecurity, nonvoters, and lacking health care.
What we have is a plutocracy run by and for the Upper Class that sucks up a huge fraction of the nation’s wealth. Lobbyists ensure that public policy increases economic inequality and rewards corporate interests, even if it requires preemptive wars like the Iraq fiasco, sanctions massive illegal immigration, and sends good jobs overseas. That so many people escaping other nations (with hot or boiling water) want to come to the USA should not blind us to the creeping decline of our democracy and the heating of our social waters.
How much worse does American democracy have to get before public outrage demands what the Constitution’s Framers gave us in case citizens lost confidence in the federal government? Haven’t Americans lost enough trust to use what elites have fought and feared? Can’t we trust ourselves to have a peaceful populist rebellion through an Article V convention before we boil?
If America’s distracted citizen-frogs stay glued to their large plasma TVs, SUVs, electronic devices, and obese-friendly foods they may find themselves boiled. Our constitutionally protected freedoms will be gone. George W. Bush has shown how easily that is done. Our middle class will be gone. Our national sovereignty will be gone - sold out through globalization chicanery. For all but the rich, our quality of life and standard of living will be gone. The Upper Class will be richer and happier in their opulent gated McMansions and private entertainment and vacation spots, protected and pampered by their private police and servants.
If Congress finally obeys the Constitution some fear that convention delegates will be corrupted through special interest money just like current politicians. That is highly unlikely.
First, many Americans will actively watch and influence how state legislatures select one-time delegates. Second, the incredible novelty of the nation’s first Article V convention will ensure intense coverage by domestic, foreign and Internet media. Third, that novelty will also engage enormous numbers of Americans - especially school and college students - now rightfully turned off by our political system, ensuring citizen oversight of delegates and the convention. Fourth, the only group working for the first convention - Friends of the Article V Convention - has committed itself to creating and ensuring strong oversight of the convention process.
Imagine our first Article V convention under intense scrutiny in today’s techno-media world. It will be the ultimate reality show, enticing Americans to use their brains over shopping and mindless entertainment. Conversations about possible amendments will flourish. Surveys and polls will constantly determine what Americans support and oppose. The convention will remind Americans that citizenship requires civic engagement. Convention delegates will know that they are being scrutinized. They will know that their proposals must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. They will be listening to US. In sum, we have more than enough safety nets to prevent the convention harming our Constitution.
Why not dream about a restorative convention with hundreds of smart, patriotic Americans as delegates? We have enormous numbers of brilliant, wise and honest Americans - just not in politics anymore. If we can trust the lives of people to juries, we can trust carefully selected convention delegates to find intelligent ways to improve our government and political system through amendments. In the last part of the process, we can tell our state legislators whether we want them to ratify specific proposed amendments.
Will the first convention be mesmerizing and entertaining? Will it help educate and inform Americans about our Constitution and government? Will it put Ruling Class elites on notice that we the people are seriously pursuing governance we can trust? Yes, yes and yes.
Should we wait until 95 percent of Americans think the nation is on the wrong track? Until just 5 percent approve of Congress? Until we belatedly find ourselves boiled? No, no and no.
Support the effort to get the nation’s first Article V convention, especially if you sense our societal waters becoming hotter - sometimes faster, as under Bush. Sign up at www.foavc.org. Don’t let self-delusion and false hope in Republicans or Democrats blind you. Let freedom ring. Make Thomas Jefferson proud.
June 21st, 2007
By: Phil Rockstroh
Why did the Democratic Congress betray the voting public?
Betrayal is often a consequence of wishful thinking. It’s the world’s way of delivering the life lesson that it’s time to shed the vanity of one’s innocence and grow-the-hell-up. Apropos, here’s lesson number one for political innocents: Power serves the perpetuation of power. In an era of runaway corporate capitalism, the political elite exist to serve the corporate elite. It’s that simple.
Why do the elites lie so brazenly? Ironically, because they believe they’re entitled to, by virtue of their superior sense of morality. How did they come to this arrogant conclusion? Because they think they’re better than us. If they believe in anything at all, it is this: They view us as a reeking collection of wretched, baseborn rabble, who are, on an individual level, a few billion neurons short of being governable by honest means.
Yes, you read that correctly: They believe they’re better than you. When they lie and flout the rules and assert that the rule of law doesn’t apply to them or refuse to impeach fellow members of their political and social class who break the law — it is because they have convinced themselves it is best for society as a whole.
How did they come by such self-serving convictions? The massive extent of their privilege has convinced them that they’re the quintessence of human virtue, that they’re the most gifted of all golden children ever kissed by the radiant light of the sun. In other words, they’re the worst sort of emotionally arrested brats — spoiled children inhabiting adult bodies who mistake their feelings of infantile omnipotence for the benediction of superior ability: “I’m so special that what’s good for me is good for the world,” amounts to the sum total of their childish creed. In the case of narcissists such as these, over time, self-interest and systems of belief grow intertwined. Hence, within their warped, self-justifying belief systems, their actions, however mercenary, become acts of altruism.
The elites don’t exactly believe their own lies; rather, they proceed from the neo-con guru, Leo Strauss’ dictum (the modus operandi of the ruling classes) that it is necessary to promulgate “noble lies” to society’s lower orders. This sort of virtuous mendacity must be practiced, because those varieties of upright apes (you and I) must be spared the complexities of the truth; otherwise, it will cause us to grow dangerously agitated — will cause us to rattle the bars of our cages and fling poop at our betters. They believe it’s better to ply us with lies because it’s less trouble then having to hose us down in our filthy cages. In this way, they believe, all naked apes will have a more agreeable existence within the hierarchy-bound monkeyhouse of capitalism.
This may help to better understand the Washington establishment and its courtesan punditry who serve to reinforce their ceaseless narrative of exceptionalism. This is why they’ve disingenuously covered up the infantilism of George W. Bush for so long: Little Dubya is the id of the ruling class made manifest — he’s their troubled child, who, by his destructive actions, cracks the deceptively normal veneer of a miserable family and reveals the rot within. At a certain level, it’s damn entertaining: his instability so shakes the foundation of the house that it causes the skeletons in its closets to dance.
By engaging in a mode of being so careless it amounts to public immolation, these corrupt elitists are bringing the empire down. There is nothing new in this: Such recklessness is the method by which cunning strivers commit suicide.
Those who take the trouble to look will apprehend the disastrous results of the ruling elites’ pathology: wars of choice sold to a credulous citizenry by public relations confidence artists; a predatory economy that benefits one percent of the population; a demoralized, deeply ignorant populace who are either unaware of or indifferent to the difference between the virtues and vicissitudes of the electoral processes of a democratic republic, in contrast to the schlock circus, financed by big money corporatist, being inflicted upon us, at present.
Moreover, the elitist’s barriers of isolation and exclusion play out among the classes below as an idiot’s mimicry of soulless gated “communities” and the pernicious craving for a vast border wall — all an imitation of the ruling classes’ paranoia-driven compulsion for isolation and their narcissistic obsession with exclusivity.
Perhaps, we should cover the country in an enormous sheet of cellophane and place a zip-lock seal at its southern border, or, better yet — in the interest of being more metaphorically accurate — let’s simply zip the entire land mass of the U.S. into a body bag and be done with it.
What will be at the root of the empire’s demise? It seems the elite of the nation will succumb to “Small World Syndrome” — that malady borne of incurable careerism, a form of self-induced cretinism that reduces the vast and intricate world to only those things that advance the goals of its egoist sufferers. It is an degenerative disease that winnows down the consciousness of those afflicted to a banal nub of awareness, engendering the shallowness of character on display in the corporate media and the arrogance and cluelessness of the empire’s business and political classes. It possesses a love of little but mammon; it is the myth of Midas, manifested in the hoarding of hedge funds; it is the tale of an idiot gibbering over his collection of used string.
What can be done? In these dangerous times, credulousness to party dogma is as dangerous as a fundamentalist Christian’s literal interpretation of The Bible: There is no need to squander the hours searching for an “intelligent design” within the architecture of denial and duplicity built into this claptrap system — a system that we have collaborated in constructing by our loyalty to political parties that are, in return, neither loyal to us nor any idea, policy nor principle that doesn’t maintain the corporate status quo.
Accordingly, we must make the elites of the Democratic Party accountable for their betrayal — or we ourselves will become complicit. The faith of Democratic partisans in their degraded party is analogous to Bush and his loyalist still believing they can achieve victory in Iraq and the delusion-based wing of the Republican Party who, a few years ago, clung to the belief, regardless of facts, that Terri Schiavo’s brain was not irreparably damaged and she would someday rise from her hospital bed and bless the heavens for them and their unwavering devotion to her cause.
Faith-based Democrats are equally as delusional. Only their fantasies don’t flow from the belief in a mythical father figure, existing somewhere in the boundless sky, who scripture proclaims has a deep concern for the fate of all things, from fallen sparrows to medically manipulated stem cells; rather, their beliefs are based on the bughouse crazy notion that the elites of the Democratic Party could give a fallen sparrow’s ass about the circumstances of their lives.
In the same manner, I could never reconcile myself with the Judea/Christian/Islamic conception of god — some strange, invisible, “who’s-your-daddy-in-the-sky,” sadist — who wants me on my knees (as if I’m a performer in some kind of cosmic porno movie) to show my belief in and devotion to him — I can’t delude myself into feeling any sense of devotion to the present day Democratic Party.
Long ago, reason and common sense caused me to renounce the toxic tenets of organized religion. At present, I feel compelled to apply the same principles to the Democratic Party, leading me to conclude, as did Voltaire regarding the unchecked power of The Church in his day, that we must, “crush the infamous thing.”
Freedom begins when we free ourselves from as many illusions as possible — including dogma, clichés, cant, magical thinking, as well as blind devotion to a corrupt political class.
I wrote the following, before the 2006 mid-term election: “[…] I believe, at this late hour, the second best thing that could come to pass in our crumbling republic is for the total destruction of the Democratic Party — and then from its ashes to rise a party of true progressives.
“[…] I believe the best thing that could happen for our country would be for the leaders of The Republican Party — out of a deep sense of shame (as if they even possessed the capacity for such a thing) regarding the manner they have disgrace their country and themselves — to commit seppuku (the act of ritual suicide practiced by disgraced leaders in feudalist Japan) on national television.
“Because there’s no chance of that event coming to pass, I believe the dismantling of the Democratic Party, as we know it, is in order. It is our moribund republic’s last, best hope — if any is still possible.”
I received quite a bit of flack from party loyalist and netroots activists that my pronouncement was premature and we should wait and see.
We’ve waited and we’ve seen. Consequently, since the Republican leadership have not taken ceremonial swords in hand and disemboweled themselves on nationwide TV, it’s time we pulled the plug on the Democratic Party, an entity that has only been kept alive by a corporately inserted food-tube. In my opinion, this remains the last, best hope for the living ideals of progressive governance to become part of the body politic.
Phil Rockstroh, a self-described, auto-didactic, gasbag monologist, is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at:
June 17th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
“From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable.” — General Taguba to Seymour Hersch in the New Yorker
After 34 years of service, General Taguba was forced to retire in January 2007 - apparently in retaliation for his report on the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.
Seymour Hersch’s article The General’s Report in the June 25, 2997 New Yorker, is damning in regards to “who knew.” General Taguba makes clear that he feels that “everyone knew.” He reports that it was clear to him that the orders for the torture came from higher up, and that the torture was systematic and pervasive. He also makes clear that Rumsfeld, Myers (then head of the Joint Chief of Staff), and Abizaid (then in charge of Central Command) knew of the conditions well before the Senate testimonies ever occurred. Therefore, all the “lack of knowledge” testimony was a lie. So too is the prosecution of enlisted personnel as if they were acting on their own initiative.
The former senior intelligence official said that when the images of Abu Ghraib were published, there were some in the Pentagon and the White House who “didn’t think the photographs were that bad”–in that they put the focus on enlisted soldiers, rather than on secret task-force operations. Referring to the task-force members, he said, “Guys on the inside ask me, ‘What’s the difference between shooting a guy on the street, or in his bed, or in a prison?’ ” A Pentagon consultant on the war on terror also said that the “basic strategy was ‘prosecute the kids in the photographs but protect the big picture.’ ” (Hersch)
“Protect the big picture” he says. What exactly was - and is - the “big picture?” Certainly part of that picture was to keep the Bush Administration out of the picture. It amazed me at the time, and it amazes me still, that Bush and Cheney could task Alberto Gonzales with writing a legal legitimation of torture, and why the U.S. was not bound by the Geneva Convention, then argue they never legitimated torture. Likewise Rumsfeld’s quipping remarks regarding the “interrogation techniques” as not that bad. So folks knew. In fact, it seems likely that torture was ordered from the top.
The country was well served by General Taguba and his dedication to honesty and integrity. It is poorer as he, and others, are purged from the military.
Abu Ghraib was not the only lie - as we now know - though this article is not a detailing of the lies.
The Guardian/UK headline states blatantly “Blair knew US had no post-war plan for Iraq.” This is no surprise for those who took the Downing Street Memos seriously. What is new in this article is how upset Blair was about Bush’s lack of a reconstruction plan. This report reconfirms what was clear from before the preemptive invasion of Iraq - the Bush administration saw this as a “cake walk.”
Two questions arise. First, did the Bush administration really think Iraq would be in and out, or did they hope for the levels of chaos and disruption that ensued? (Which “big picture” was that a part of?) The second question is “What did Blair hoped to gain out of committing Britain to this illegal war?” Was it the same as whatever the Bush administration’s goals may have been?
We should be very nervous when decision makers stand to benefit significantly from their committing a nation to drastic action. Individual’s might confuse their interests as national interests. For example the interests of big oil, or military industries, or construction industries (or those firms that invest in them like the Carlyle Group) are not necessarily the same as the interests of the nation. The “plan” if we read neoconservative reports and plans was to treat Iraq as a test case of unfettered capitalism.
I have no idea what Blair’s connections are to industry and finance, but it seems that he felt serving those interests were important. Hence, the 1 billion pound payments to Prince Bandar by the MoD of Britain in conjunction with the largest military arms deal in England’s history has made is in the news. So too is Blair’s accepting responsibility for the deal.
One of the largest lessons from the massive debacles of the Bush administration will be that there is no mechanism for putting a leash on a cabal with extreme power. The Bush Administration has broken virtually every law and rule in the books with impunity. There is no Constitutional leash left to protect the nation from an abusive Executive Branch. That is a sad lesson to learn, but it did not just happen. It has been a plan long in the making. The question is, is it a plan we can reverse?
June 15th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
They stand in icy water; in crowded conditions; wet to the skin for 18 hour shifts. They work for one of the largest food processors in the world. They are paid below legal wage, and not paid overtime. Now, 167 of them sit in ICE custody after a raid on the North Portland (Oregon) plant at which they were employed. Some had ICE agents show up at their homes and take them into custody.
The workers (including legal immigrants) were employed at $7.00 an hour (below Oregon’s minimum wage of $7.80). They worked up to 18 hour shifts with no overtime in appalling conditions. Why did the workers stay?
Rodriguez, the former worker, said most employees did not report poor conditions and long shifts to authorities for fear of losing their jobs.
“Most of them didn’t have papers to work, so they had no choice; this is where they could find work,” Rodriguez said. “It made me sad, because these people came here to work. The women had little kids at home to feed.” [Work complaints hang over plant]
Now those children, like the children of the workers arrested at Michael Bianco, Inc - a military contractor being paid with our tax dollars - sit waiting for parents who will never come home.
Meanwhile, half a world away, Chinese authorities free 200 people from slavery in the brick kilns in Xinhua Province, China. The workers, including 29 children, had been held against their will (in some cases for years), without pay, and tortured with hot bricks if they did not work “hard” enough.
Human trafficking, which seems to be an ongoing issue, has again hit the news recently. The U.S. State Department has added more countries to the trafficking list. Some are “enemies,” and some are “allies,” but they include: Iran, Uzbekistan, and North Korea, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. Human trafficking is virtually synonymous with slavery - or at the very least extreme exploitation. According to an article by Grant Podelco “U.S. Report Decries ‘Modern-Day Slavery’” at Tolerance Canada:
“According to U.S. government estimates, approximately 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year and about 80 percent of them are female. Up to half are minors.”
- 640,000 women
- 400,000 children
- almost a million people a year
- many of these are for the so-called “sex trade”
They too are “illegal immigrants” and their illegal status keeps them captive - as does the undocumented status of the workers as Del Monte or Michael Bianco. No papers, no protection, easily controlled and exploitable. These are not different issues, but part of the same issue.
I just go up the wall every time I hear an employer saying “We have absolutely nothing to gain by hiring illegal immigrants.” Or, I hear “THEY are driving down our economy,” “stealing our social services,” “taking jobs away from Americans,” COSTING us BILLIONS of dollars a year …”
The undocumented worker is much more controllable than a documented or even citizen worker who has the protection of law on their side. The “legal” worker can file an OSHA complaint, or a pay complaint, without fear of losing their family and their home. The legal worker has at least some “legs” to demand the law be followed. The undocumented worker does not. The employer has the only reasons they need to recruit and hire undocumented workers - the bottom line and a compliant workforce.
Let’s look at the Del Monte situation in Portland.
There were 167 workers rounded up. If we take one 18 hour “shift” for 167 workers, getting $7.00 an hour and no overtime, it looks like this:
Undocumented Worker
7.00 * 18 hrs = $126
$126 * 167 employees = $21042.00
Legal Worker
7.80 * 8hrs= $62.40
7.80 * 1.5 (overtime)= $11.70 * 10 hours= $117.00
One worker for a full 18 hour “shift” = $179.40
$179.40 * 167 employees= $29959.80
“Costs” saved in one shift - $8917.80.
Of course, those workers not paid for all of the time they worked, and yes, 18 hour shifts are “illegal.”
This calculation doesn’t even take into consideration the “savings” of not providing safety equipment, pumps needed to keep the water off the floor, etc.
One must address the issue that they are “undocumented.” That may be because they entered the country illegally, or it may be that their documents have lapsed. It may be that they are legally in the country, but their visa only permits them to work for a specific employer - like Del Monte. However, if Del Monte chose not to put those workers with visas to work at Del Monte, then those workers would have to sit and wait - with no pay. Many do not - they work “illegally” some place else.
But why are they here? Is it because it is the “land of opportunity.” For some, this is certainly true. However, one must look at the situation which the U.S. has dramatically participated in from Mexico to the tip of South America - the economic “transformation” of the nations south of the U.S. border. NAFTA alone is estimated to have displaced 40% of the small farmers in Mexico. “Displaced” to where, and to what? For many, it is to abject poverty and they head to where jobs are - regardless of how exploitative - the United States. Or they “earn” their way across the border as drug “mules.” Or children - now mostly grown - come to join family that they have waited more than a decade to join.
The hostility of the current atmosphere is being fanned by politicians, media figures like Lou Dobbs, and by racists with their own agenda. Of course the virulence only aids those companies with undocumented workers. It creates an atmosphere of fear which makes those workers and their families only more vulnerable.
No one calculates how much “consumers” are saving because of the economic processes at play on either side of the border. No one seems to calculate how much profit is made by companies exploiting a vulnerable workforce. Few look at the fact that most of these undocumented workers are paying taxes, and paying into social security and Medicaid - though they will never draw those funds. I find it difficult to imagine that these workers cost “us” more than they contribute - willingly and unwillingly.
Don’t get me wrong. I am adamantly against “illegal” immigration. However, I am against it because of the exploitation. It is the exploitation of these workers that drives down wages and working conditions in the U.S.
While I am against “illegal” immigration, I know full well that it is not an issue that is going to be resolved with 1,000 mile double fences with predator drones, and National Guard troops. Nor will it be solved with the construction of massive prison complexes in the desert. It will not be solved until we address the forces that are pushing folks into migration - poverty and fear for their lives. It will not be solved until “We the people” stand on the side of the people rather than on the side of the corporations.
Some day we will see that the lot of the people of the world is our lot. As the hegemonic forces at play in the world continue their inexorable absorption of power and control over the means to survival, we will see clearly just how linked our lives are. We will see the similarity between the mother from El Salvador working as a housekeeper in some executive’s house, and our scrabbling for enough to keep a roof over our heads and our children fed. Some day we will see that our interests are shared with her and not with a transnational corporation. Until then, most will see the incarceration and expulsion of 167 people as some victory for “Truth, Justice, and American Security.”
Links to Oregonian Articles
Work complaints hang over plant. Huntsberger and Wozniacka. Oregon Live Link
Raids included people’s homes. Bryon Denson. Oregon Live Link.
Raid sends illegal immigrants underground. Esmeralda Bermudez. Oregon Live Link
Previous Posts
.jpg/350px-SCOTUS_2006(2).jpg){kind=link}