Northwest grain terminal lockout would pit longshoremen against strikebreakers

From Michael Munk:

The article suggests the Lesser Evil, just re-elected with massive union support, may follow Bush’s 2002 example and invoke Taft-Hartley (T-H) to force the ILWU to keep working grain ships. T-H was the savage post war (1947) counter-attack on labor’s New Deal gains. Vetoed by Truman as a “slave-labor bill,” 20 Dems joined Senate Repubs to override his veto.

For more background: http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/09/06/how-many-democrats-voted-for-taft-hartley/


Northwest grain terminal lockout would pit longshoremen against strikebreakers

By Richard Read

The Oregonian, December 23, 2012
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/12/northwest_grain_terminal_locko_1.html

Two of three fully-crewed non-union tugboats wait on the Willamette River in Portland to dock ships in case of a lockout of longshoremen at Northwest grain terminals. Strikebreakers dispatched by J.R. Gettier & Associates are also standing by on high alert.

Scores of out-of-state strikebreakers wait on high alert in Northwest hotel rooms, ready to replace longshoremen in case of a lockout at grain terminals.
Three fully crewed, non-union tugboats protected by armed guards stand by, prepared to keep grain ships docking. In a provocative move, a California company has moored the tugs on the Willamette River near longshore Local 8's Northwest Portland union hall.

Quietly, owners of Portland, Vancouver and Puget Sound terminals have spent months preparing for a battle royal on the waterfront, lining up troops and assets like chess pieces. The agribusiness giants have laid legal groundwork for a lockout, which could occur anytime after a Monday noon deadline.

If Columbia Grain Inc., United Grain Corp. and Louis Dreyfus Commodities lock out dockworkers, Portland will become the new front line in a war between unions and a shadowy industry of strikebreaking companies that send tough guys across picket lines.

Confrontations can last months and turn violent.

But with billions of dollars of grain exports at stake, President Barack Obama could intervene, as President George W. Bush did in 2002, when he invoked the Taft-Hartley law to send West Coast longshoremen back to work.

One thing that probably won't happen, according to a national expert on lockouts and strikes, is permanent replacement of dockworkers, given labor laws and the tightknit, tenacious nature of the San Francisco-based International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

"The companies would be subject to picketing constantly, and these folks would never go away," said Michael LeRoy, a University of Illinois labor law professor. Longshore workers, he said, "can be aggressive about asserting their rights."

Longshoremen displayed that resolve last year when some were arrested for trying to block a train from entering a grain terminal in Longview, Wash. They showed it last summer, slowing Port of Portland operations in pursuit of jobs, and again in Portland and Los Angeles by making employers provide job security for guards and clerks.

Before dawn Friday, longshoremen began pulling up in large pickups at Portland's Local 8, and at other union halls in Vancouver, Seattle and Tacoma, to vote on the companies' "last, best and final" contract offer.

The companies want concessions similar to those the union made at a competing Longview grain terminal, saving the elevator millions of dollars in labor costs. But a "no" vote is all but certain, given the union bargaining team's unanimous thumbs-down recommendation.


"The vote is in the hands of nearly 3,000 men and women who have made these elevators successful by working in conditions that are not only strenuous, but also hazardous," Jennifer Sargent, a longshore union spokeswoman, said in a news release. "These members are exercising their democratic union right to decide whether the industry's proposal is positive or negative for their families, as well as for Northwest jobs and communities."
If a lockout ensues, picketers will face a familiar adversary: J.R. Gettier & Associates, a Delaware company that serves employers. Gettier is one of several strikebreaking companies nationwide.

The strike companies deploy hardened workers derided by union members as scabs, mercenaries and worse. Strikebreakers often leave home abruptly without knowing their destinations until a boss hands them plane tickets.

Once there, they hang out in hotel rooms until a work stoppage begins. They're bundled into vans and driven past protesters furious at outsiders for undercutting their cause.

Union members try to videotape strikebreakers and post images online. Strikebreakers do the same to union members.

Encounters can be dangerous. Ten years ago at 39, Canadian tool-and-die-maker Don Milner joined a picket line to support fellow union members striking at a Navistar truck plant in Windsor, Ontario.

A van driver working for a strikebreaking company ran over Milner and other protesters. The vehicle split his pelvis bone, broke an arm, shattered his bladder and kidneys and damaged his lungs.

Milner spent almost two months in a coma. He has spent almost two of the past 10 years in the hospital. But he disproved doctors who told him he'd never walk again.

"I just think scab workers are not seeing the whole picture," said Milner, who forgave the driver and declined to prosecute. "If they work for a plant for less money, they're taking all that away from a town."

Managers at Gettier and competitors Strom Engineering and Special Response Corp. declined to comment. Company web sites say they conduct pre-strike property surveys, develop strategies, post guards, replace workers and videotape picketers.

A strikebreaker who has crossed more than 20 picket lines said he's become accustomed to running the gauntlet, which initially spooked him. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution and because strike companies prohibit interviews.

The strikebreaker said he gains satisfaction from learning to operate equipment and beating union production rates. He knows union members hate him. But he believes he actually helps them by keeping employers operating until they reach agreement.

That sort of logic disgusts Brenda Wiest, contact campaign coordinator for Teamsters Local 117 in Tukwila, Wash. She's helping strikers nearby at United Natural Foods Inc., a Rhode Island-based food distributor that has hired replacement workers.

"They come out here and try to intimidate and threaten workers who are standing up for their rights," Wiest said. "They film you constantly. They're the lowest form of humanity."
Strike companies, let alone tugboat operators such as California's Greger Pacific Marine Inc., charge employers handsomely. The mere presence of replacement workers waiting in hotels boosts employers' leverage.

Not all staffing companies will do that sort of work. In Portland, Maine, temp firm Rock Coast Personnel declined last month when Twinkies maker Hostess Brands called for replacement workers. "We didn't want to be a part of busting good well-paying jobs for hardworking Mainers," said Bill DiGiulio, vice president of operations.

In Portland, Oregon, the Pacific Northwest Grain Handlers Association has given longshore leaders until noon Christmas Eve to say whether or not the union will accept the contract offer. The employers -- minus one, Temco, a Cargill venture that defected without explanation -- won't say what they'll do if the union turns it down.

The terminal owners have taken pains to prove talks reached an impasse, which would allow them invite back locked-out workers only on the final offer's employer-friendly terms. The Union could strike, and may well do so in the event of a lockout, saying the talks hadn't reached impasse and accusing the employers of unfair labor practices.

As the lockout looms, a separate union that represents longshore workers along the East and Gulf coasts is threatening its first Maine-to-Texas dock strike since 1977. The International Longshoremen's Association strike expected Dec. 30 would affect container cargo, as opposed to grain and automobiles.

Both there and in the Northwest, Obama could issue a back-to-work order under the Taft-Hartley act. The act empowers the president to seek a court injunction that imposes an 80-day cooling-off period while federal mediators seek a settlement.

Social Security

This is the labor "leader" who led 1,300 American Crystal Company workers in the Red River Valley into a dead-end losing lock-out.

Are you going to trust labor "leaders" like him and Richard Trumka to defend your Social Security?

http://www.crcna.org/news-and-views/apology-native-americans-read?utm_source=CRC+News&utm_campaign=35e4e21623-CRC+News+%7C+December+19%2C+2012&utm_medium=email

APOLOGY TO NATIVE AMERICANS READ

December 19, 2012

Mark Charles stood near the reflecting pool in Washington, DC on Wednesday morning and led a reading of a 2010 US Congressional letter of apology to Native Americans.

Charles, a Christian Reformed Church member, consultant and promoter of Native American rights, organized the reading and has been traveling across the US in the last several months raising awareness of the event.

After holding a moment of silence to commemorate last week’s tragedy at the elementary school in Connecticut, Charles spoke to the 55 or so people, many CRC members, who were there.

He started by sharing his feelings and sketching the background of why they were there.

“I felt grieved and hurt,” he said in live streaming over his wirelesshogan website and on his UTube channel.

As he spoke, the dome of the capitol was in the distance behind him.

“There are people who need to know that their country was trying to apologize to them.”

Many of the CRC members, including Calvin College students, traveled to Washington in a chartered bus. Also in attendance were several Native Americans and others.

Artwork created for the event by two Native American artists was on display as well. Native American flute music and singing also took place.

Everyone gathered for the reading to highlight the fact that the apology to Native Americans, signed into law three years ago on Wednesday, was buried on page 45 of the 2010 Defence Appropriations Act.

“Because our leaders were not going to read this apology, we came up with a plan to be here today to read it,” said Charles.

Called The Native American Apology Resolution, the act was sponsored and  put forward by former Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., “to acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.”

The resolution officially apologizes “on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States.

A majority of the 350 million citizens of the United States do not know they have been apologized for. And most of the five million Indigenous Peoples of this land do not know they have been apologized to, says Charles.

Charles also says that the apology isn’t really an appropriate apology to the Native peoples.

“The wording of this apology and the way it was buried in an unrelated document were not appropriate or respectful ways to speak to the indigenous hosts of this land.”

Additionally, he says, it is important to communicate the contents of the letter to “Native American elders, many of whom personally endured the horrors of boarding schools, relocation, and disenfranchisement.”

Some of the non-native people at the gathering read parts of the bill and the apology. Two others read the apology in Ojibuway and the  Navajo languages.

In some ways, burying the apology in the defence bill only highlights how Native Americans have been forgotten and marginalized over the years.

But Charles said after the reading that he is not really holding the event in protest or in anger.

Rather, he says, he hopes the reading will launch a new conversation between US government officials, including President Obama, and Native American people.

“I am asking for a new conversation about reconciliation in our country,” he said.

-- 

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

 

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell: 651-587-5541

Primary E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

E-mail: alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

Blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Violence and guns.

Judging by the conversations and discussions taking place about this tragedy of all these little kids being killed what I am going to write probably won't find too many people agreeing with me but I'm going to say what I have to say anyways.

Start taking the guns away from the police and the military and the biggest part of violence relating to guns is solved.

I notice no one is talking about banning the manufacturing of assault rifles and handguns; how come?

The fact of the matter is if someone goes berserk and wants to kill a bunch of little kids they can use a baseball bat or a knife.

It's possible this guy just "cracked" but more likely he wasn't getting the help he needed even though quite a few people knew he needed help but no one cared enough to get help to him.

I work with a lot of women in the casino industry who are really violently abused by management people who try to use their positions of authority to "get what they want" any way they want and I am surprised none of these women end up dead.

Almost every single day some woman will tell me about a problem of violence with a spouse or boyfriend and more often than not the children are getting the crap beat out of them, too.

It is just about impossible to get any government agency to intervene from the position of helping short of having the guy arrested.

In my opinion, politicians have sucked us into focusing on this or that really horrible act of violence as a way to evade discussing the real causes of violence and, more importantly, escape having to fund the kind of programs that really help people in a way that prevents the violence against people in the first place.

Of course we have a system that is devoid of morality which treats human suffering as "collateral damage."

If we were to ban the sale of hand-guns and assault rifles while continuing to allow their manufacture the only thing you do is the same as what has happened with drugs: you force up the price of obtaining these guns and the criminals are going to profit selling them as the manufacturers profit the most.

In my opinion, what this terrible and tragic killing really shows that we need in this country is a National Public Health Care System with neighborhood and community health care centers spread out across this country instead of military bases dotting the globe; health care centers providing free health care that would include mental health care in addition to general health care--- publicly financed, publicly administered and publicly delivered.

The left shouldn't be sucked in by making this strictly a "ban hand-guns and assault rifle" debate.

People in this country are indoctrinated with a culture of violence from the very beginning of life and then we think when something terrible and tragic like this happens there is some kind of quick CHEAP fix to the problem.

In one way or another, capitalism is an extremely violent system.

Anyone want to join me in calling for a ban on manufacturing assault rifles and hand guns? Ya; see how fast these politicians run away from talking about protecting kids when they have to concern themselves with protecting corporate profits; corporate profits which go to pay lobbyists who make huge campaign contributions.

I find it interesting our great free media hasn't talked much about what company manufactured the guns and how much that company contributed to the campaigns of which politicians.

"Austerity - At Whose Cost?"

From: Becky Dunlop <dunlop@binghamton.edu>
Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM
Subject: Immanuel Wallerstein's Commentary No. 343
To: COMMENT@listserv.binghamton.edu

Please do not reply to the listserv. To correspond with the author, write immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu. To correspond with us about your email address on the listserv, write dunlop@binghamton.edu. Thank you.

Commentary No. 343, Dec. 15, 2012

"Austerity - At Whose Cost?"

Everywhere, austerity is the demand of the day. To be sure, there are seeming exceptions for the moment in a few countries - China, Brazil, the Gulf states, and possibly a few others. But these are exceptions to a demand that pervades the world-system today. In part, this demand is absolutely phony. In part, it reflects a real economic problem. What are the issues?

On the one hand, the incredible wastefulness of a capitalist system has indeed led to a situation in which the world-system is threatened by its real inability to continue to consume globally at the level at which the world has been doing it, especially since the absolute level of consumption is constantly increasing. We are indeed exhausting basic elements for human survival, given the consumerism that has been the basis of our productive and speculative activities.

On the other hand, we know that global consumption has been highly unequal, both among countries and within countries. Furthermore, the gap between the current beneficiaries and the current losers has been persistently growing. These divergences constitute the fundamental polarization of our world-system, not only economically, but politically and culturally.

This is no longer much of a secret to the world's populations. Climate change and its consequences, food and water shortages and their consequences are visible to more and more people, many of whom are beginning to call for a shift in civilizational values - away from consumerism.

The political consequences are indeed quite worrisome to some of the biggest capitalist producers, who are realizing that they no longer have a tenable political position, and therefore they face the inevitable shutdown of their ability to command resources and wealth. The current demand for austerity is a sort of last-ditch effort to hold back the tide of the structural crisis of the world-system.

The austerity that is being practiced is an austerity imposed on the economically weaker parts of the world populations. Governments are seeking to save themselves from the prospect of bankruptcies and to shield mega-corporations (especially but not only mega-banks) from paying the price (lost revenue) of their egregious follies and self-inflicted wounds. The way they are trying to do this is essentially by cutting back (if not eliminating altogether) the safety nets that were historically erected to save individuals from the consequences of unemployment, serious illness, housing foreclosures, and all the other concrete problems that people and their families regularly face.

Those who seek short-term advantage continue to play the stock market in constant and fast trading. But this is a game that is dependent in the middle run upon the ability to find purchasers for the products on sale. And effective demand is steadily disappearing, both precisely because of these cutbacks in safety nets and because of the massive fear that there are still more cutbacks coming.

The proponents of austerity have been regularly assuring us that we are turning the corner or will soon do so, and that a revived general prosperity will return. However, we have not in fact been turning this mythical corner, and the promises of revival are becoming ever more modest and projected to take ever longer.

There are also those who think that a social-democratic solution is available. Instead of austerity, we should augment government spending and tax the wealthier segments of the population. Even if this were politically realizable, would it do the trick? The proponents of austerity have one plausible argument. There aren't enough world resources to sustain the level of consumption everyone wants as more and more individuals demand politically to be among the higher consumers.

This is where the exceptions to which I referred come in. They are at the moment expanding the numbers of high consumers, not merely shifting the geographic location of high consumers. The countries that have been “exceptions” are thereby increasing the economic dilemmas, not resolving them. There are only two ways out of the real dilemma involved in this structural crisis. One is to establish a non-capitalist authoritarian world-system which will use force and deception rather than the "market" to permit and augment the inegalitarian world distribution of basic consumption. The other is to change our civilizational values.

In order to realize a relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian historical system in which to live, we do not need "growth" but what is being called in Latin America buen vivir. What this means is engaging in continued rational discussion about how the whole world can allocate the world's resources such that we all not only have what we really need to survive but also preserve the possibility for future generations to do the same.

For some parts of the world's populations, it means their children will "consume" less; for others, they will "consume" more. But in such a system, we can all have the "safety net" of a life guaranteed by the social solidarity that such a system makes possible.

The next twenty to forty years will see an enormous political battle, not about the survival of capitalism (which has exhausted its possibilities as a system) but about what kind of system we shall collectively "choose" to replace it - an authoritarian model that imposes continued (and expanded) polarization or one that is relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian.

           

by Immanuel Wallerstein

-- 
Becky Dunlop
Secretary, Fernand Braudel Center
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton NY 13902
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/ 

Under the guise of "liberalism" and "progressivism" we are being fed massive doses of ideological poison.

Under the guise of "liberalism" and "progressivism" we are being fed massive doses of ideological poison.

All the more reason for working people to read and study Marxism themselves instead of allowing those like Paul Krugman to "explain" to us what Marx had to say.

This crowd of over-paid "thinkers" includes: Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker and George Lakoff.

Their "

meeting of the minds" seems to take place under the auspices of The Century Foundation which very few people are familiar with but which has a primary role in smashing movements before they get off the ground to where these grassroots movements have real influence and power.

The great "philanthropists" who profit so richly from their Wall Street investments then spread their money through foundations in a way intended to control their working class victims from whose labor they derive their wealth certainly can't have a working class so ideologically armed with Marxist ideas which will ultimately lead to challenging Wall Street 1% for political and economic power.

A few of the movements these foundation-funded outfits have crippled with their ideological poison include:

* The single-payer universal health care movement.
* Occupy Wall Street.
* The working class struggle in Wisconsin (Michigan is next on their hit list).
* The civil rights movement.
* The peace movement.
* The environmental movement.

And last, but not least,

* The labor movement.

Of course their ideological poison being forced-fed to us in large doses under the guise of "liberalism" and "progressivism" has clobbered and pummeled any attempt to get an anti-imperialist movement off the ground here in the United States--- just look at the demise of the United States Peace Council.

And to even contemplate creating a socialist movement with the strength to replace this rotten capitalist system is deserving of a good strong dose of ideological poison as effective as the clunk on the head from a policeman's billy-club.

Oh, wait; I forgot one of the movements they really abhor--- starting a political party that would enable the working class to free itself from Wall Street's two-party trap which would challenge Wall Street for political and economic power--- an anti-monopoly concept brought forward by Marxists.

These over-paid ideological shysters hired by Wall Street to confuse us can wax poetic--- for a big price of course--- about all of societies' injustices... so long as they are, also, simultaneously, a movement wrecking crew.

This isn't to say we shouldn't read and disseminate the things written by Democratic Party hacks like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker and George Lakoff whose writings usually come wrapped in very powerful kernels and grains of truth; but, we shouldn't be afraid to look more critically at the ideas they bring forward because along with very powerful kernels and grains of truth they more often than not peddle lies and myths intended to disorient and confuse in a way that prevents effective movement organizing.

George Lakoff's most recent book, "The Little Blue Book; the essential guide to thinking and talking Democratic" is a perfect example of the poison being disseminated under the guise of "liberalism" and "progressivism" while fostering a sinister, lying attack on socialism and Marxism.

Anyone who doesn't believe me need only read pages 120 and 121 in Lakoff's most recent book. Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz and Dean Baker are following George Lakoff's attacks on socialism and Marxism religiously.

Coast Guard, Northwest grain terminals gear up as lockout appears imminent for longshore workers

1,300 American Crystal Sugar Company workers locked out for over a year now in the Red River Valley.

And here comes another lockout on the west coast.

Anti-lockout and anti-scab legislation is needed.

International united militant working class resistance, struggle and solidarity is required to end these corporate lockouts.

Cross border working class action is required.

No government union busting.

Coast Guard, Northwest grain terminals gear up as lockout appears imminent for longshore workers

By Richard Read

 

The Oregonian, December 15, 2012

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/12/coast_guard_northwest_grain_te.html

 

 

A vessel takes on wheat at Columbia Grain Inc.'s North Portland terminal on the Columbia River, where Coast Guard officials have established one of the zones they recommend for protestors in boats.

The U.S. Coast Guard has established a safety buffer zone around grain ships calling on Portland and Vancouver as a potential lockout of longshore workers looms.

Owners of Northwest grain terminals, which could impose the lockout at any time, have brought in three towboats with non-union crews on standby, a law enforcement official disclosed Friday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of a gag order issued by federal mediators who supervised last-ditch contract talks that ended Wednesday between the owners and the longshore union.

Coast Guard officials have also recommended "on-water picket areas" to local leaders of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, in case of protests on the Columbia and Willamette rivers.
The steps by the Coast Guard and the employers reenforce signs that a lockout or strike is imminent at six of the Northwest terminals that handle a quarter of U.S. grain exports. Mediators say only that the union and the employers are considering options after the talks that continued after Sept. 30, when a longshore labor contract expired.

Coast Guard Capt. Bruce Jones, commanding officer for Oregon and southern Washington, issued safety rules posted Friday in preparation for publication in the Federal Register.

"There is the potential for injury and damage to both protestors and shipping due to the labor dispute," Jones wrote. "The Coast Guard believes that a safety zone is needed ... to ensure that protestors and other river users are not injured by deep-draft vessels ...."

The temporary zone, already in effect, bars people and boats from an area 500 yards ahead of grain vessels and 200 yards beside and behind the big ships. Jones has also recommended safe but prominent areas for any protestors in boats near Columbia Grain Inc. and Temco terminals in Portland and United Grain Corp.'s elevator in Vancouver.

The companies have towboats standing by to replace local boats that maneuver vessels to and from terminal docks, according to the law enforcement official. Towboats that usually handle the work, and that haul grain barges, are operated by members of unions that plan to honor any longshore picket lines.

Towboats that stood by in Longview, Wash., earlier this year, at a terminal where labor protests turned violent, came from as far as the Gulf Coast, via the Panama Canal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are the grain bosses (3 of 4 foreign owned)

Columbia Grain Inc.

Based in Portland, Columbia Grain is owned by Marubeni Corp., one of Japan's trading powerhouses.

Columbia, founded in 1978, operates a grain elevator at the Port of Portland's Marine Terminal 5, a sprawling industrial complex on North Lombard Street. On April 10, firefighters doused a blaze in one of the elevator's 125-foot silos.

Columbia supplies the terminal from a network of elevators and rail hubs across Washington, Montana and North Dakota. The company sends grain, pulses and oilseeds to Asia, East Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Latin America.

 

Louis Dreyfus Commodities

LD Commodities Inc. is a Netherlands-based arm of Louis Dreyfus Group, a French global conglomerate.

LD owns a Portland grain terminal on the Willamette River's east bank, north of the Steel Bridge. Some civic leaders have long lamented the structure for blocking Rose Quarter development.

LD, which employs more than 35,000 in 55 countries, also owns a Seattle terminal covered by the bargaining agreement.

 

Temco

Temco is a 50-50 joint venture between Cargill, an agricultural and industrial giant, and CHS Inc., a grains, food and energy company merged from numerous farmer-owned cooperatives.

The venture operates two terminals included in the current talks: the Cargill Irving Elevator, on the east bank of the Willamette River north of the Broadway Bridge, and a Tacoma facility. It also owns a terminal in Kalama, Wash., not covered by the bargaining agreement.

 

United Grain Corp.

United Grain is part of Mitsui & Co. Inc., another giant Japanese trading company.

The company bills its terminal in Vancouver as the largest elevator on the West Coast. Built in 1935, the terminal was expanded this year to hold as much as 202,000 tons of corn and soybeans in silos up to 20 stories high.

The $72 million expansion enables United Grain to export as much as 5 million tons a year from the Port of Vancouver. A recent deepening of the Columbia River shipping channel allows bigger ships to call on the port, transporting grains consumed by Asia's expanding middle class.

Cargill, founded in 1865, employs 142,000 in 66 countries.



Thanks to Michael Munk for this information:

 

www.michaelmunk.com

Did Angela Davis address the question she was invited to speak about?

What the hell is going on; hundreds of leftists turned out to hear Angela Davis talk about this:

ANGELA DAVIS DECEMBER 10!
"After the Elections - Where Do We Go From Here?"
6 pm MLK Labor Center 310 West 43rd Street btwn 8/9 Aves
Presented by Left Labor Project ADMISSION FREE

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=450370798353542&set=a.450370551686900.102196.190668574323767&type=3&theater

The event was advertised as very specific:

The Left Labor Project presents Angela Davis-- After the Election: Where Do We Go From Here?

Great subject matter but did Angela Davis address the topic she was brought to speak about?

You be the judge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkR0LqrwCnc&list=PLnPLUb_CyJa83Kn0PV_0ejiYMI-ny78jQ&index=1

As you listen to this video make a list of all of Angela Davis' suggestions about "where we go from here."

Let's have a discussion on the points she brought forward on the topic.

Make a list.

Question: Why didn't Angela Davis connect the dots between wars making us poor, the need to tax the rich in order to create jobs by putting people to work solving the problems of the people?

No mention of WPA, CCC, CETA, National Public Health Care and Child Care Programs--- over twenty-five million jobs in all for less than we are paying for militarism and wars.

No mention of these kinds of solutions to our problems so there was no mention of what kind of movements we need to build in order to force the government to enact these kinds of programs.

Angela Davis passed over the main problems (although she pointed to the jobs poster behind her and mentioned it) but then skipped movement building and talked about how she likes to talk about socialism and communism without suggesting how the socialist alternative to capitalism should be placed on the table in the present for people to discuss as part of the discourse about solving our problems.

Why no "end the wars" sign?

Why no: "People before Wall Street profits" sign?

Why no sign asking: "How is Barack Obama's Wall Street war economy working for you?"

Why no sign in the union hall of 1199 stating: "Obamacare is the Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010"?

Angela Davis also forgot about the anti-monopoly struggle; challenging Wall Street for political and economic power.

A few weeks before this talk Angela Davis campaigned to re-elect Obama at a huge rally in Detroit.

Angela Davis describes Obama as having "progressive proclivities."

Does anyone really believe Barack Obama has any "progressive proclivities?" If so, what are those "progressive proclivities?" Let's get these "progressive proclivities" stated right here so we know what we are working with--- or up against.

Perhaps there is a "Progressive Health Insurance Company" Obama is partial to?

A "progressive proclivity" would mean Obama is someone who tends to trend toward peace; wouldn't it?

I would suggest Angela Davis consults a dictionary, preferably a good dictionary of philosophy, for the definition of "progressive."

She can find a good definition for the word "proclivity" in any standard dictionary.

Obviously Angela Davis refused to address the topic she was invited to speak on because there must have been at least one person in the audience of hundreds who would have asked her:

You campaigned for Obama now we are going to have to fight him and his Wall Street agenda of wars abroad paid for with austerity measures here at home?

Angela Davis blamed people for not mobilizing the day after Obama was elected to fight for the change they wanted but she never took that suggestion to people in the streets celebrating Obama's election and she didn't talk about specific plans to initiate such movement building activities and actions this time around.

And what about states like Minnesota with Democratic super majorities? What do we expect to gain? Specifics are required.

Wouldn't this gathering of labor leftists have been the perfect forum from which to launch such a mobilization with a specific program for change like this:

A progressive program for real change...

* Peace--- end the wars and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya; shutdown the 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil. No new Wall Street imperialist wars. End drone attacks.

* A National Public Health Care System - ten million new jobs.

* A National Public Child Care System - three to five million new jobs.

* Re-establish the Works Progress Administration (WPA) - three million new jobs.

* Re-establish the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) - two million new jobs.

* Re-establish the Comprehensive and Employment Training Act (C.E.T.A.) - 6 million jobs.

* Tax the hell out of the rich and cut the military budget by ending the wars to pay for it all which will create full employment.

* Enforce Affirmative Action; end discrimination.

* Raise the minimum wage to a real living wage based on all cost of living factors & indexed to inflation.

* What tax-payers subsidize in the way of businesses, tax-payers should own and reap the profits from.

* Moratorium on home foreclosures and evictions.

* Defend democracy by defending workers' rights including the right to collective bargaining for improving the lives and livelihoods of working people. Rescind “At-will” employment the main impediment to union organizing.

* Roll-back and freeze the price of food, electricity, gas and heating fuels; not wages, benefits or pensions; no more concessions.

* Defend and expand Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare; repeal Obamacare which is nothing more than the “Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010.”

Wall Street is our common enemy.

How is Barack Obama's Wall Street war economy working for you?

Let's talk about the politics and economics of livelihood for a real change.

Organize the “People’s Lobby” to counter the interests of big-business.

**** Establish a working class based people's progressive party.

Is there anything wrong with having a discussion about all of this?

Comment:

Democratic Party hacks and their over-paid apologists have created this idea that if they talk about taxing the rich they can avoid talking about the need to financing militarism, these dirty imperialist wars and the Israeli war machine.

Does anyone seriously believe that a Democratic Party which has evaded discussing the "Peace Dividend" will actually carry on a struggle to tax the rich?

We need to fight for the "Peace Dividend" and fight to tax the rich along with corporate profits and all Wall Street transactions. This is the only way we are going to pay for the kind of massive universal social programs required to put millions of people back to work by putting them to work at real living wages solving their problems.

Lyle Dotzert, rank-and-file union leader passes.

I just got news that my good friend Lyle Dotzert passed away peacefully at home after a lifetime of committed working class struggle yesterday in Windsor, Ontario.

See page 14:
http://www.cawlocal.ca/195/uploads/28E6C683BE114BAFBCE6F5D5A7FE4DE8_SMALL_Part_1.pdf

Lyle's service will be tomorrow from 5:30-9pm at Walter D. Kelly Funeral Home in Windsor, Ontario. The union was his church. So a few of his union brothers will say a few words at 7:30 tomorrow evening.


Solidarity sung by Pete Seeger was what Lyle's life was all about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g1IArAW5Dk


And this song by Nina Simone expresses everything Lyle Dotzert stood for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16a3BX-uV4k

Our family appreciated Lyle's support and solidarity when we really needed it when we were facing deportation from Canada after being targeted by right wing bigots including Stephen Harper.

Lyle Dotzert, a true working class hero.

Is Hamas the obstacle to justice for the Palestinian people?

Here is the crux of the problem when it comes to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

The apologists for Israel say:

"Hamas, the terrorist group, is part of the war machine. When they stop, the rest will."

This line of thinking is just not correct because Hamas could fold up and go away and the genocidal policies of the Israeli killing machine would continue just as before Hamas.

Hamas is not the problem; the right wing Israeli government's expansionism serving the interests of U.S. and British imperialism is the problem.

Get the United States, Britain and the Israeli right wing racists out of the picture and the Israeli and Palestinian people will work out a just solution to their problems.

If Palestinians and Jews can marry, live in the same house, sleep in the same bed and raise loving families they sure as heck can live together in peace in the same region.

This May Day send Wall Street a message they will never forget... organize now!

Winnipeg Labour Council, friends and activists plan for May Day... shouldn't we all? Please share widely...

Dear Friends, Sisters and Brothers,

Below is the Winnipeg Labour Council's timely and important invitation to a special, expanded May Day planning meeting; an RSVP is requested.

International Workers' Day celebrates the solidarity of all workers for their rights and dreams of a better world. It is chance to show working people do not share the dominant, selfish views consciously imposed on us through the corporate media, biased textbooks, right-wing politicians and so on.

Instead, working people use May Day to express that we can have a world without war and austerity, where nations are equal and live in peace and friendship, where everyone receives what they need and every able person has a good-paying, safe job.

Considering capitalism's growing problems such as growing poverty, unemployment, war and environmental catastrophe, there's a wealth of themes to pick from.

There's plenty to fight for in today's Manitoba, from the thousands of Aboriginal people still without homes for a second Christmas after deliberate flooding in 2011 to the loss of close to 10,000 manufacturing jobs in 2010, from growing food bank use to not meeting our Kyoto carbon emission goal.

We are close to the 100th anniversary of several historical events that shaped Canada's labour and left movements, including the First World War which ended with the banning of several anti-war socialist parties, and the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike that continues to inspire workers across Canada today.

For a strong, militant trade union movement,
For a strong alliance of trade unions and Aboriginal peoples,
Darrell Rankin
Manitoba office, Communist Party of Canada

* * * * * *
From: David Sauer
Sent: November-27-12
Subject: May Day 2013 planning meeting

Dear sisters and brothers,

On May 01, 2012, roughly 250 workers and their allies marched through the city of Winnipeg for the annual May Day march celebrating International Workers' Day.  For 2013, the Winnipeg Labour Council would like to have an even larger demonstration of solidarity.  With that in mind, the WLC is hosting a May Day 2013 planning session at 2:00pm on Sunday, December 16th in the Winnipeg Labour Council boardroom (504-275 Broadway).  We are looking to have a good contingent of activists who would like to help plan the march and its themes.  Please circulate to your activists and RSVP with the Winnipeg Labour Council either via e-mail (davesauer@mts.net) or by phone 942-0522.

in solidarity,

brother Dave Sauer
Winnipeg Labour Council

Rick Snyder's re-election poster

The Nation. How to save the Democratic Party.

Just amazing--- The Nation Magazine publishes an article, "How To Save the Democratic Party"--- written by an anonymous "progressive" writing under the pseudonym of "L. R. Runner" and then selecting a slew of "progressives for Obama" as "contributors" all of whom are foundation-funded flowers with the article so far attracting almost 200 comments from readers most of whom couldn't care less if the Democratic Party bites the dust and neither L. R. Runner nor any of the "contributors have the common human decency to engage in the discussion they began.

http://www.thenation.com/article/171613/how-save-democratic-party

I have made a number of comments including this most recent one:

alanmaki

I find it interesting the Nation's selected "progressives for Obama" who "contributed" their comments to the article written by "L.R. Runner;" just like Runner, are so arrogant they refuse to become engaged in a discussion on a topic they considered so important.

This tells us something about how serious they are about real change.

It also tells us a great deal about their concept of democracy.

The foundations pay them to think for us and like any straw boss they send the message, "never mind thinking, leave the thinking to me."

So far the only thing we know for sure those who want us to believe it is possible for progressives to gain a voice and decision-making power inside the Democratic Party are looking for is to reform capitalism and capitalist markets.

L. R. Runner and all the "contributors" seem to have bought into George Lakoff's advice everything is about:

Framing issues around progressive policy directives while intentionally not bringing forward specific solutions to the very real problems people are experiencing because to do so might cause a loss of votes for the Democratic Party.

There seems to be considerably more interest on the part of people who think we need to free ourselves from this two-party trap which begs the question:

Why no article in The Nation focused on breaking free from the Democratic Party and inviting "contributors" who will take their participation seriously and engage people who comment in a discussion?

Would this kind of article not be appreciated by the foundation-funded outfits financing the magazine and these "contributors" to the L.R. Runner article?

We know ALL the so-called "liberal," "progressive" and "leftist" foundation-funded outfits front for the Democratic Party so of course those receiving funds from these foundations are going to have an agenda intended to keep people under the "big tent" which has become more like a circus tent with the clowns keeping us distracted between the main acts: the Wall Street bailout, Israel's murderous attacks on the Palestinians, the United States Senate approving the National Defense Authorization Act, the budget debates, 'the fiscal cliff" with militarism and war spending omitted, the people locked out of the health care debate.

All the talk about "budgets being the real indicators of this Nation's priorities yet we, the people, have no say in the decision-making process in a way that determines the priorities of our country.

Oh; and don't forget the Trans-Pacific Partnership where the top corporate lobbyists--- Obama's largest bundlers--- have all the say in all the decisions made in secrecy behind closed doors.

And then we have this group of "progressives" whose identity is as confidential as that of L.R. Runner who met with Obama behind closed doors with the stipulation that everything said and discussed remain in the room and discussed with no one.

I can't help but wonder, even if this group of "progressives" were to come into decision-making capacities inside the Democratic Party what they intend to do; carry out the same kind of deception they provided to Obama for the next Democrat anointed to run for president in 2016?

Do L.R. Runner or any of the carefully selected contributors have in mind any specific solutions to people's problems they actually think will solve real problems?

We know they can recite facts and figures when it comes to unemployment and poverty; but, do they really comprehend living, breathing working people without jobs are going to be poor?

Apparently these "progressive for Obama" who have morphed into "progressives for the Democratic Party" have taken Ron Paul's advice and they intend to fly under the radar in infiltrating the Democratic Party.

But wait!

These are the same people who have been lecturing us about how it is our fault Obama has caved to Wall Street rather than doing what is right (I suppose there could be a pun intended with the word "right").

But how do you build movements except around bringing forward specific solutions to very specific problems.

And if you do this you can't fly under the radar to carry out your infiltration because the party hacks, corporate controllers and manipulators see you coming.

Just try getting into the Democratic Party calling for an end to the carnage of the Palestinian people by the Israeli killing machine or objecting to drone attacks that kill 200 innocent people for every target on the "kill list."

The fiscal cliff fiasco

In this "battle" surrounding the "fiscal cliff," the Democrats are hiding their true Wall Street agenda behind this phony facade of "economic populism" these over-paid muddle-headed foundation-funded middle class intellectuals like Dean Baker, Robert Reich and Paul Krugman have created for them using George Lakoff's "framing" methods embedded in red-baiting and anti-Communism in which financing militarism and wars play no part even though the largest and most overwhelming part of the federal budget goes directly to financing militarism and wars instead of being designated for human needs--- all intended to try to keep people from stampeding out from under the Democratic Party's "big tent" which prohibits the entry of movement builders unless they will submit to holding up the Dumb Donkey's settling for what the sparrows leave behind.

The one and only reason a "fiscal cliff" exists in the first place is because the cliff has been created from years and years of funding militarism and dirty imperialist wars.

Like any garbage dump turned into a "park;" the "fiscal cliff" is a Wall Street creation.

The United States Senate voted 98 to 0 for the National Defense Authorization Act... how much has been allocated for people's needs? Kind of makes it easy to figure out how your Senators voted, eh?

What a score: Wall Street 98; the people 0.

Wall Street profiteers, the merchants of death and destruction versus the people's needs.

Wall Street investors go to the bank; the people get pushed off the "fiscal cliff" unto the sharp rocks below.