Texas Longhorns with newborn calf in Bluebonnets

Texas Longhorns with newborn calf in Bluebonnets

Please note I have a new phone number...

512-517-2708

Alan Maki

Alan Maki
Doing research at the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas

It's time to claim our Peace Dividend

It's time to claim our Peace Dividend

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

We need to beat swords into plowshares.

A program for real change...

http://peaceandsocialjustice.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-progressive-program-for-real-change.html


What we need is a "21st Century Full Employment Act for Peace and Prosperity" which would make it a mandatory requirement that the president and Congress attain and maintain full employment.


"Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens"

- Ben Franklin

Let's talk...

Let's talk...

Friday, October 5, 2012

For Obama, No More Excuses

Published on Friday, October 5, 2012 by Demos

For Obama, No More Excuses

by Bob Herbert

It's time to stop making excuses for Barack Obama. With so much at stake in this election, his performance at the debate on Wednesday night was indefensible.

President Obama listens to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in their first debate at the University of Denver. (Photo: LA Times)

Ever since he was elected, there have been reasons offered, either publicly or privately, for why Obama has been unable to fully engage some of the nation's most important challenges. Despite the rampant increase in poverty in the worst downturn since the Depression, Obama supporters whispered that he couldn't do more for the poor and couldn't speak out more forcefully on their behalf because that would not be politically advantageous. So nearly all of his economic initiatives had to be couched in language that referred to the middle class, even though the poor were being hurt far worse. LBJ could launch a war on poverty but not Barack Obama.

Black Americans have been disproportionately clobbered by the Great Recession and its aftermath, losing both income and wealth at staggering rates. Much of the black community is enduring a full-blown economic depression. But Obama and his advisers have been unwilling to address this catastrophe openly and forcefully out of fear that the president would be perceived as too black by prejudiced white voters, thus losing their support.

There is always some excuse, some reason for not bringing all of the president's energy and resources to the fight.

On jobs, the biggest crisis facing the country, the excuse for not having done more has been Republican obstructionism. There is no doubt the Republicans have tried to thwart the president every which way from sundown. But Obama never fought back in kind. He never found his inner Harry Truman, never took his case forcefully to the people. He kept trying to accommodate the other side long after it was clear that no accommodation was possible.

In the face of the worst economic calamity since the 1930s, the United States needed a mammoth job-creation and economic revitalization program, a New Deal for the 21st century. But that would have required presidential leadership capable of challenging the formidable opposition mounted by the very folks who caused the crisis in the first place. Instead we got a woefully insufficient stimulus program and a failed effort at some kind of grand bargain between the president and the retrograde Republicans in Congress. That grand bargain would have imposed austerity measures that would have further crushed the poor and the black and the middle class.

On Wednesday night nearly 60 million television viewers got to witness this chronic unwillingness of Barack Obama to fight. He did not hammer Mitt Romney for his ugly, all-too-revealing comments that demeaned nearly half the population as slackers and ne-er-do-wells. He did not go after Romney's terrible job-creation record as governor of Massachusetts. He did not assail Romney for his callous contention on 60 Minutes that people who don't have health insurance actually do get care -- in the nation's emergency rooms. "If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die," said Romney. "We pick them up in an ambulance and take them to the hospital and give them care."

Obama never bothered to bring up that cold-hearted comment during the debate, never bothered to explain why the reliance on emergency room treatment is one of the worst possible approaches imaginable to providing health care.

One of the more remarkable things about the debate was Mitt Romney's absolute contempt for anything resembling facts, truth or reality. Deliberate deception was the bedrock foundation of his strategy. He wouldn't even come clean on the tax cuts that are a cornerstone of his campaign. And yet it was Romney who had the chutzpah to look Obama in the eye and assert: "Mr. President, you're entitled to your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts."

How in heaven's name could Obama let him get away with that?

The harsh truth is that President Obama seemed unprepared for the debate. He came off as a man who didn't really want to be there, who wondered why he should have to be bothered fending off the impertinent attacks and serial untruths being flung at him by his opponent. The millions of Obama supporters who wanted to see flashes of passion and fire from their guy -- from a president fighting effectively on their behalf -- were left with nothing but the bitter taste of disappointment.

Romney, in contrast, seemed not just confident but in command. He was dynamic (as he fashioned one falsehood after another), while Obama seemed flat, uncomfortable and unwilling to vigorously counteract the falsehoods. Most important, Romney was the one far more willing to fight.

There will be more debates. And the election has not been decided by any means. But Obama's supporters need to make it clear that the time for excuses is over. The president had no right to show up for a debate unprepared and offer an expectant nation an embarrassingly half-hearted performance. Progressive leaders, who represent Obama's strongest and most faithful supporters, have an obligation to convey that message in the strongest possible terms.

The president let his people down. And if he's capable of doing that in an election that is clearly so important, it means he's capable of doing it again if he wins a second term.

© 2012 Demos

Bob Herbert, former staff columnist for the New York Times focusing on politics, urban affairs and social trends, is now a distinguished senior fellow at Demos.

What guides Obama's agenda?

Question:

Are "The Powell Memo" < http://thepowellmemo.blogspot.com/ > and the Heritage Foundation's "Mandate for Leadership" guiding Barack Obama's agenda?

Check out this movie:

http://www.snagfilms.com/heist/


Question:

Do we want to reform Wall Street; or, take political and economic power away from Wall Street?


Question:

Do we want to rebuild the system; or, do we need a revolution?


Comment:

Wall Street is our common enemy; an enemy we share with the peoples of the world.


Nina Simone understood what we need:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16a3BX-uV4k


Democracy is at the crossroads.

Socialism is the solution.

Defend democracy--- cast your ballot for Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein or Stewart Alexander.

Many people are so repulsed--- and justifiably repulsed--- by the domination of Wall Street over the political process that they are calling for boycotts and burning presidential ballots.

Most people in this country are repulsed by Obama who can't defend his record and Romney's arrogance and lies with both being nothing but mouthpieces for Wall Street's dirty imperialist wars and austerity measures here at home to pay for these barbaric wars.

This is my response to those who would withdraw from electoral participation which is an important part of the struggles for peace, social and economic justice:

While I join you in your disgust over Obama who deserves to be defeated and Romney who should not be elected, in my opinion burning your ballots or boycotting the election instead of casting your ballots for one of our fellow activists for peace, social and economic justice--- Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein or Stewart Alexander--- is counter-productive.

There is time to re-think your decision and I hope you do.

How would you feel if Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein or Stewart Alexander were to shit on a struggle you initiated?

Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein and Stewart Alexander are trying their hardest to raise our concerns and we should support them, not abandon them; because their voices bring unity to our causes.

I would be interested in hearing a response to my concerns.

I offer my opposition and opinion to "burning ballots" and "boycott" on the friendliest of terms.

I would note that because some liberals, progressives and leftists have betrayed us (examples: Progressives for Obama/Progressive America Rising, Campaign for America's Future, Progressive Democrats of America, etc.) in supporting Obama there is no reason we should jump without thinking to the opposite extreme; thereby adding more confusion to the mix when we--- as liberals, progressives and leftists--- should be contributing leadership and clear thinking to the issues, problems, movements and struggles for peace, social and economic justice; constructive participation in the electoral process in defense of democracy as part of our struggles is part of our responsibility.

Between Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein and Stewart Alexander, certainly there is an alternative any liberal, progressive or leftist can support.

My preference, voiced a number of times, would have been that these three candidates should have united with one voice in a single united ticket but this did not come to be. BUT, these three candidates have agreed to sign on to the "Unified Platform" < http://newprogs.org/unified-progressive-platform-ratified > which all of us should be able to unite around.

Again, I welcome discussion.

I don't voice my concerns as an attack but rather to stimulate discussion, dialog and debate with the understanding that in the short and long terms we are going to have to find a way to work together if we are going to defeat our common Wall Street enemy in achieving peace and justice.

When all is said and done, we are going to have to wrest political and economic power from Wall Street if we are going to get real change so let's seek ways to struggle which bring us closer together.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Ex-defense chief says hit on Iran would be disastrous

Ex-defense chief says hit on Iran would be disastrous

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/10/exdefense-chief-says-hit-iran-would-be-disastrous


NORFOLK

Painting a picture of internal political dysfunction in a dangerous world, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday night that a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences.
Neither the United States nor Israel is capable of wiping out Iran's nuclear capability, he said, and "such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable. They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert."

Iran could respond by disrupting world oil traffic and launching a wave of terrorism across the region, Gates said.

"The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world."

First in this season's Norfolk Forum speaker series, Gates spoke to an audience of nearly 2,000 in Chrysler Hall.

United Nations sanctions aimed at discouraging Iran's nuclear ambitions are starting to have an impact on the Iranian economy, he said, and "that's our best chance going forward, to ratchet up the economic pressure and diplomatic isolation to the point where the Iranian leadership concludes that it actually hurts Iranian security and, above all, the security of the regime itself, to continue to pursue nuclear weapons."
And while Israeli anxiety over Iran's intentions is understandable, he added, America should make it clear to Israel's leaders that "they do not have a blank check to take action that could do grave harm to American vital interests."

Meanwhile, Gates warned, the United States is paralyzed by partisan gridlock that threatens the nation with financial insolvency.

The combination of across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect in January, put in motion by Congress' inability to agree on how to reduce the ballooning national debt, would do grave  damage to the military and virtually every other essential government operation and could throw the country into a new recession, he said.

The central problem, Gates said, is that both major parties have been captured by their ideological extremes.

"The moderate center, the foundation of our political system, is not holding.

"Too many of our politicians seem more concerned with winning elections and scoring ideological points than saving the country."

Gates ran the Pentagon from 2006 to 2011 under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He was the first defense secretary to serve under presidents of both parties.

He was also the only career CIA officer in history to rise from entry-level employee to director of the agency. He was director from 1991 to 1993.

The Kansas native now holds the honorary post of chancellor at the College of William and Mary. A 1965 graduate of the college, he is the first alumnus in the modern era to become chancellor.

Bill Sizemore, 757-446-2276, bill.sizemore@pilotonline.com

An open letter to the Sierra Club

Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club Political Director;

What is really pathetic is that the Sierra Club doesn't even bring forward the views of the two "greenest" candidates in this race: Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein.

After watching the real debate on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!," I don't think there is any doubt that both Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein out shined  both Romney and Obama who, without the assistance from a teleprompter, proved he was nothing but an idiot on the order of George Bush.

Because Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein have been too short-sighted to understand that had they come together with a united progressive ticket, the American people are going to be cheated out of the opportunity to vote for a team which could have turned this country around; but that is neither here nor there at this late date since either Obama or Romney will continue dragging us down the road to ruin.

Since Obama, who can't defend his horrible record after four years in office, deserves to be defeated; Romney, obviously, shouldn't be elected. What a mess. This is lose-lose for the American people.

The only thing left is for Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein to lead a massive movement of people raising hell in the streets insisting that their progressive programs be implemented.

As the leaders of a massive movement for real change against Wall Street's reactionary agenda of wars abroad paid for with austerity measures here at home, Anderson and Stein should present themselves to the American people in a united ticket in 2016.

By being honest in bringing to the attention of your members the campaigns of Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein, the Sierra Club could do a great service in quest of saving our country and our democracy.

Again, I say shame on the Sierra Club for intentionally ignoring the Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein campaigns.

Don't bother asking me to renew my Sierra Club membership; and don't bother sending me your requests for contributions because all such requests will be met with the same response the Sierra Club has shown towards Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party--- your requests for further dues and contributions will simply be ignored.

Alan L. Maki

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Barack Obama deserves to be defeated at the polls; Mitt Romney does not deserve to be elected.

George Lakoff, the well-heeled, muddle-headed, middle class intellectual has provided a "guide" for tonight's debate.

Here's the link to Lakoff's shallow thoughts masquerading as "progressive thinking" on what to watch for in the Presiden

tial Debates starting this Wed evening:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13764-what-to-watch-for-in-the-presidential-debates

Re: George Lakoff

Lakoff is NOT a progressive; he supports the warmonger Obama.

In his book "Don't Think Of An Elephant" Lakoff declares that progressives should offer "progressive policy directives" but never bring forward specific progressive solutions to problems.

His current book links being progressive to supporting Democrats: "The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic."

What Lakoff has taught these neo-liberal thoroughly reactionary Democrats is how to peddle their reactionary neo-liberal Wall Street agenda as "progressive;" thereby tricking the American people to continue getting caught in this "two-party trap."

Lakoff is responsible for "packaging" Barack Obama to be acceptable to liberals, progressives and the left by confusing them that rhetoric is the same as policies, legislation and solutions.

After all, Lakoff is a master LINGUIST, a trickster with words; it is his job to suck people into supporting candidates who sound like they will do what is right while knowing full well they are going to do Wall Street's dirty work and give us the shaft.

Obama is carrying out Wall Street's agenda of dirty imperialist wars abroad paid for with austerity measures forced down our throats here at home; and it is George Lakoff's job for which he is paid extremely well to make this sound good.

I notice in this article by George Lakoff, there is no mention of the fact that alternative REAL progressive candidates like Rocky Anderson--- Justice Party, Jill Stein--- Green Party and Stewart Alexander--- Socialist Party will not be allowed in the debates although people can see and listen to candidates Anderson and Stein as part of tonight's debate here on Democracy Now!:

http://www.democracynow.org/events/2012/10/third_party_candidates_to_join_in_real_time_on_democracy_now’s_live_coverage_of_first_pres_debate__1121

And for what real progressive politics is all about; check out the New Progressive Alliance:

http://newprogs.org/

The New Progressive Alliance is on FaceBook, too; just search "New Progressive Alliance" and join real progressives in discussion, dialog and debate.

All this crap about "safe states" has to go; no politician ever deserved to be punished at the polls more than this Wall Street warmonger, Barack Obama.

The central question of this entire campaign is one based on class that everyone is afraid to ask:

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

There is no question more important than this question yet it is not being asked of the American people because the very question has to do with a dirty word the corporate serving MainStreamMedia and all the muddle-headed, well-heeled and over-paid capitalist sooth-Sayers like George Lakoff assigned to give all of this a progressive connotation and twist wants to pretend doesn't exist: imperialism, the last and final stage of capitalism now in its most barbaric and cannibalistic form.

Barack Obama has been designated to oversee Wall Street's imperialist interests; capitalism in its twilight and dying days dragging us all down a dark, dangerous bumpy road with hidden curves headed straight to perdition with no stops for a breather in purgatory.

Mark Twain understood the barbaric and cannibalistic nature of U.S. imperialism as he gave considerable thought to the Spanish-American War--- a war still going on in the Philippines--- to which Obama has added more troops and the occupations of the Philippines and Puerto Rico we are still paying for but no one in government can tell us how much we have paid.

Like poverty, independence for Puerto Rico is not an issue in this presidential campaign--- after all, Wall Street reaps huge profits from cheap labor which breeds poverty in Puerto Rico.

And, like Puerto Rico, Indian Reservations mired in racist poverty are not being discussed.

How come George Lakoff is afraid to grapple with this very forthright and accurate question every voter should be asking herself or himself---

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

Poverty, its cause and solution, has yet to be addressed during this campaign even though any school child knows that working people without jobs and working people with jobs paying poverty wages are going to be poor.

And the contribution of squandering our Nation's wealth--- all created by workers--- on these dirty wars is, also, making working people poor as the Wall Street merchants of death and destruction grow richer. We might as well be dumping the wealth of our Nation into the deepest depths of the oceans.

Will there be any discussion of how Obamacare (which is the same as Romneycare) is really the "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bailout and Profit Maximization Act of 2010?" One more question going without asking.

George Lakoff's ideas of what is progressive do not include the need to end these dirty imperialist wars so we can reap "peace dividends" to finance human needs.

George Lakoff's ideas of what is progressive do not include the need for a minimum wage that is a real living wage that is legislatively tied to all cost of living factors and indexed to inflation.

George Lakoff's ideas of what is progressive do not include the need for a National Public Health Care System and a National Public Child Care System which combined would put over 15-million unemployed Americans to work in decent, good-paying jobs while providing the American people with free health care and free child care.

Progressives--- real progressives--- are not afraid to raise these kinds of questions while bringing forward these very specific solutions to our most pressing problems.

Barack Obama deserves to be defeated at the polls; Mitt Romney does not deserve to be elected.

No matter which one wins the American people along with the peoples of the rest of the world--- we all lose.

Democracy is at the crossroads.

We have a real mess that is left up to us, We the People, to resolve through grassroots organizing and united, militant activism.

I find it interesting George Lakoff would have us focus on "patriotism" while leaving out any discussion of peace and poverty.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

AFL-CIO Endorses Nationwide Consumer Boycott of American Crystal Sugar in Response to Crystal Sugar’s 14-Month Lockout

The national AFL-CIO is calling for a boycott of American Crystal Sugar after management has kept workers locked out for over a year here in the Red River Valley.

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/37077-afl-cio-endorses-nationwide-consumer-boycott-of-



I find it very interesting that local, state and national AFL-CIO leaders were opposed to American Crystal Workers occupying the plants when faced with a lockout but now claim they will organize a boycott of American Crystal Sugar.

Does anyone really believe that this boycott will consist of anything more than a another press conference?

Richard Trumka has given American Crystal Sugar's management the ultimatum:

Negotiate a contract in good faith or face a boycott.

Given the fact that Trumka was opposed to workers taking over the plants when management first threatened the lockout; and for over a year Trumka has made no effort to stop replacement workers from entering the ACS plants and operating them at maximum capacity... I bet American Crystal Sugar's management are just shaking in their boots at the threat of the AFL-CIO threatening a consumer boycott as many consumers already "boycott" sugar simply because they can't afford its high price as a result of the AFL-CIO working with ACS management and politicians (Democrats and Republicans) to keep the price (and profits from) beet derived sugar artificially high.

Let's get real here.

The union has already agreed to most of ACS management's concessions and ASC management refuses to negotiate in good faith.

Do you suppose ACS management wants to shed itself from the union altogether?

In fact, the owners/shareholders of American Crystal Sugar stated long before the lockout that it was their intent to get rid of the union and Richard Trumka and the corrupt local and national "leaders" of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) used intimidation tactics against their own members who dared to so much as mention that a worker take-over of the plants be considered.

Here is a list of sugar companies from all over the world:

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/companies/sugar/

How many of these companies' products do U.S. consumers see on the shelves when it comes to beet derived sugar that they can choose from as an alternative to American Crystal Sugar?

Union leaders are subjecting American Crystal Sugar workers to a losing "battle" behind all kinds of militant sounding talk that amounts to nothing but more betrayal from which workers will continue to suffer because they were not encouraged to do the right thing in the first place when ACS management threatened a lock-out.

The correct response should have been a take-over of the plants by the workers until the contract was settled.

There is a lesson in this for other workers.

For American Crystal Sugar workers this is now a done deal. They have lost; if the AFL-CIO union "leaders" have their way these workers will not only lose out on what they should have won in a new contract; they will end up losing their union--- and their jobs... the ultimate in concessions.

U.S. workers are paying a terrible price for class collaboration trade unionism.

What is required is a return to class struggle trade unionism with a good heavy dose of anti-imperialist education.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Democracy at the crossroads

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) proves that in this election, democracy is at a crossroads.

Can democracy survive this kind of Presidential and government secrecy carried out in collusion with Wall Street behind the backs of the American people?

Can democracy even survive another four more years of an Obama Administration?

The struggle for working class issues like the relationship between war and peace and poverty and unemployment is a struggle to defend democracy from Obama and these parasitical Wall Street vultures/venture capitalists seeking his re-election.

Wall Street's greed, the TPP and democracy.

I find it very interesting Barack Obama always uses the left to "leak" out information he doesn't want to provide himself.

Obama used Communist writer Gerald Horne to "leak" the fact that his "mentor" as a youth was Communist Frank Marshall Davis. The "Frank" in Obama's book. How would Gerald Horne have known this had it not been for Obama or someone close to Obama feeding him this information?


Obama used Tom Hayden and the "Progressives for Obama" to "leak" he was a closet "progressive" and "peace activist." Hayden even forced Obama as a speaker at a huge peace demonstration in Chicago just to get a picture of Obama speaking at a peace demonstration... that photograph still remains as the centerpiece on the "Progressives for Obama/Progressive America Rising" website even though Obama has been exposed as a Wall Street warmonger employed by the merchants of death and destruction.

Now Obama uses the "Public Citizen" and "Foreign Policy In Focus" to "leak" information about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). How quaint and coincidental.

I would note that this is the FOURTEENTH "round" of discussions on the TPP according to the government's very own website--- a pact that the Obama Administration made anyone who talked about this previously sound like some kind of paranoid idiot:

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

Obviously, Obama now wants to consolidate his Wall Street backing so it becomes a political necessity to acknowledge these talks are in progress.


And these left-wing phonies breaking the "news" about the TPP through "leaks" turn right around and continue supporting Obama: Gerald Horne, Tom Hayden, the foundation-funded outfits associated with Foreign Policy In Focus; and, last but not least, the AFL-CIO pretending to be "progressive."

Leo Gerard and Richard Trumka are great buddies with Obama--- they "have his back."

What about the backs of workers who continue losing their jobs as a direct result of these "trade deals" like the TPP? Who is covering their backs? It would be nice if the leaders of the AFL-CIO were as interested in protecting the lives, jobs, rights and livelihoods of workers whose dues pay their big fat salaries as they are protecting "Obama's back."

Check it out.

Right here now on the U.S. government's own website:

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

This is the website of the "Office of the United States Trade Representative; Executive Office of the President.

One has to wonder why one would have to rely on "leaks" instead of being able to read all the documents associated with the TPP on the official government website.

Who "leaked" this "partial" information; and why was it done?

Obama isn't concerned about this "leak?"

The TPP has been in the works at least since 2010 when they had their First Round of Talks on the TPP...

But, think about this:

How long did it take to prepare for this First Round of Talks?

Did it begin with Bush? Was this then carried over by Obama knowing about this even before he was elected?

Was Obama already surreptitiously in a stealth, secret way and alluding to the TPP in his article in Foreign Affairs Magazine in 2007?

Why must the American people learn about the TPP from "leaked documents" not being able to verify their authenticity rather than being able to read all the documents themselves provided directly from the United States government?

Why hasn't Barack Obama been running for re-election based on his involvement in promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

It seems the "great leaders" of this great bastion of democracy fear what the American people--- most notably the working class--- may have to say about the TPP.

All just a bunch of hypocrites.

Does anyone call the way this TPP is being shoved down our throats: democracy?

The TPP: A Quiet Coup for the Investor Class

Re: Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

To:

Lacy MacAuley

Media Relations Manager 
lacy@ips-dc.org 
202-787-5242 Office 
202-445-4692 Cell


From:

Alan L. Maki
alan.maki1951mn@gmail.com

September 26, 2012



Lacy MacAuley

I keep reading about the "leaked chapters" of the TPP. Recently your own writer referred to these "leaked chapters:"

http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_tpp_a_quiet_coup_for_the_investor_class

Note: See complete article below.

But according to Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, the leaked chapters of the TPP “sent shock waves through Congress because it showed that U.S. negotiators had totally abandoned Obama’s campaign pledges to replace the old NAFTA trade model and in fact were doubling down and expanding the very Bush-style deal that Obama campaigned against in 2008 to win key swing states.”

I have been trying to find these "leaked chapters" to read but no one can provide me a link; why is this? The article above has all kinds of links to other things but none to these "leaked chapters."

I resent writers who keep referring to something I can't read and I think many people feel the same way.

I can find no place on your web site to contact the writer of this article.

I hope you will provide me the link/s to the "leaked chapters of the TPP."

Also, why hasn't your organization sought to make the entire TPP document public since your writer claims "600 corporate lobbyists" have been provided with copies.

My concern, judging by your foundation funders and your Advisory Committee--- many of whom back Obama--- you are protecting Obama from criticism while making Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) appear to be unbiased:

Salih Booker, Global Rights
Sarah Browning, Split This Rock Poetry Festival
Robert Borosage, Campain for America’s Future
John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies
William Hartung, New America Foundation
Martha Honey, Center on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development
Michael Klare, Hampshire College
Roxanne Lawson, TransAfrica Forum
Thea Lee, AFL-CIO
James Lobe, Inter Press Service
Lora Lumpe, Friends Committee on National Legislation
Cynthia McClintock, George Washington University
Lisa McGowan, Solidarity Center, AFL-CIO
Jae-Jung Suh, SAIS-John Hopkins University
Joe Volk, Friends Committee on National Legislation
Coletta Youngers, consultant
Stephen Zunes, University of San Francisco
I insist on being provided a link or a copy via e-mail of these "leaked chapters of the TPP" because people have a right to read for themselves what this TPP consists of.

I find it interesting FPIF provides no other contact information for its writers (or perhaps I am just not able to find the info on your site?).

Contact Us


Lacy MacAuley

Media Relations Manager
lacy@ips-dc.org
202-787-5242 Office
202-445-4692 Cell

I will call you about this later today after you have had a chance to discuss this with the writer. I find it difficult to believe Hilary Matfess, the writer, would write about the TPP without having read the "leaked chapters of the TPP" for herself or at least finding out if such "leaked chapters of the TPP" actually exist.

But; my concern remains: Why should we the people, in this great democracy, not be able to read for ourselves the entire TPP by obtaining a copy from our government?

One of my primary, though not only, concerns with the TPP is that it will enable the Ford Motor Company to import the Ford Rangers it is producing at its new plant in Thailand financed by Minnesota and U.S. tax-payer bailouts and subsidies intended for the survival of the now closed Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant which resulted in the loss of 2,000 union jobs of those manufacturing the popular Ford Ranger pick-up trucks as the manufacturing of the Ford Rangers has been off-shored to Thailand.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this important and timely matter;


--
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/


Article...

The TPP: A Quiet Coup for the Investor Class

By Hilary Matfess, September 25, 2012

It would be a relief to report with any certainty that the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—a massive proposed free-trade zone spanning the Pacific Ocean and all four hemispheres—are definitely empowering corporations to the detriment of workers, the environment, and sovereignty throughout the region. Unfortunately, the secretive and opaque character of the negotiations has made it difficult to report much of anything about them.

What can be confidently reported about the TPP is that, in terms of trade flows, it would be the largest free-trade agreement yet entered into by the United States—and, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, that the ministers negotiating the agreement “have expressed an intent to comprehensively reduce barriers in goods, services, and agricultural trade as well as rules and disciplines on a wide range of topics” to unprecedented levels. Yet despite these grandiose ambitions, details of the negotiations and drafts of the text have been purposefully withheld from Congress and American citizens.

The secrecy surrounding the negotiations is breathtaking. In July, 134 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk requesting that the appropriate congressional committees be consulted and that a draft of the text be released. The members reminded Kirk that draft texts were circulated and congressional committees consulted throughout the NAFTA negotiations in the early 1990s. Their letter received no response. A month later, House members petitioned Kirk to allow a congressional delegation to observe the negotiations—as in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the launch of the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization, and numerous NAFTA rounds. Despite its persistence, Congress has not been granted any significant oversight or insight regarding the negotiations.  

While Congress, the press, and the public have had to make do with leaked chapters of negotiations, Just Foreign Policy reports that 600 corporate lobbyists were granted access to the negotiated text. American democracy is in a sorry state when corporations are granted more access to even the text of sweeping government agreements than the public and its elected officials. Although corporate influence on U.S. trade policy is hardly a new phenomenon, the simultaneous waning of congressional oversight is all the more unsettling.

In May, Democratic Reps. Barney Frank and Sander Levin wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to express their concern about the TPP’s provisions entrenching capital mobility. Their letter requested “an official written statement of the U.S. policy” concerning the ability of parties to the agreement to deploy capital controls in the face of a financial crisis. If the leaked drafts accurately reflect the direction of the negotiations, countries that instituted capital controls could be taken to court by private corporations and could be held liable for damages. Hundreds of economists signed letters in January and February 2011 opposing these provisions, yet the investment chapter leaked in June suggests that neither their concerns nor Frank’s and Levin’s were taken into consideration.

Other troubling trends have emerged in the leaked chapters. According to Citizen.org, the negotiations thus far have given corporations the right to avoid government review when acquiring land, natural resources, or factories. They have also banned corporate performance requirements, guaranteed compensation for the loss of “‘expected future profits’ from health, labor, [or] environmental” regulations, and included stunning provisions concerning the right to “move capital without limits.” If these are indeed terms of the TPP, then the agreement would make it nearly impossible for countries to hold corporations accountable for their conduct—and would in fact hold governments liable for any “damage” incurred by corporations due to the institution of regulations.

Many progressives had hoped that President Barack Obama would shift U.S. trade policy away from staunch free-marketeering. But according to Lori Wallach, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, the leaked chapters of the TPP “sent shock waves through Congress because it showed that U.S. negotiators had totally abandoned Obama’s campaign pledges to replace the old NAFTA trade model and in fact were doubling down and expanding the very Bush-style deal that Obama campaigned against in 2008 to win key swing states.”

The struggle over the Trans-Pacific Partnership reveals a disturbing trend in American politics. The much discussed Citizens United ruling granting corporations personhood has given way to a trade negotiation process in which corporations are granted more rights than American citizens, their elected representatives, or foreign governments impacted by the deal. That trade negotiations with such an immense potential impact on numerous sectors of the American economy have been conducted in secret is troubling enough. To consider that those negotiating the treaty have willfully ignored experts and elected representatives in favor of corporate interests calls into question the sustainability of American democracy. 

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Do you see any votes here that look like they come from liberals, progressives or leftists?

Here we go again into another war---

U. S. Senate Joint Resolution 41, while its authors, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman (whose worthless political butt Obama saved to do this dirty work when a real voice for peace could have been elected) claim this resolution is "not authorization for war" but it sure as heck is part of the ever-expanding and deafening drum-beat for war with Iran.

All these phony liberals, progressives and leftists telling us we must get Obama and these Democrats elected then after the election we should act when these warmongers don't stop their dirty deeds make me sick.


Now is when all who believe in peace should be declaring loud and clear---

No peace, no votes.

Why would anyone with a conscience cast a vote for any of the 90 U.S. Senators who are engaged in a campaign to drum up a war with Iran?

This vote, like all past votes in defense of the Israeli killing machine, should cause people to see how useless this so-called "Progressive Caucus" is in Congress.

Ironically, this resolution, U.S. Senate Joint Resolution 41,
( http://legiscan.com/gaits/view/429912 ) was passed along with the bill to approve government spending--- spending for more militarization and wars.

Here is how they voted--- which was a foregone conclusion because the resolution had 83 co-sponsors:

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Not Voting
Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Not Voting
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Not Voting
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Not Voting
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Not Voting
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

 
NAYs ---1

Paul (R-KY)


Not Voting - 9


Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Heller (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kirk (R-IL)
Murray (D-WA)
Rubio (R-FL)
Vitter (R-LA)

What does this tell us?

That we have a U.S. Senate full of Wall Street bribed warmongers... and we are supposed to be silent "until after the election?"

Through "Letters to the Editor," demonstrations and picket-lines--- let these warmongers know right now that they are not going to get your vote; and why not.

Here in Minnesota we have the opportunity to vote for Michael Cavlan for United States Senate and Rocky Anderson for President.

Tell the warmongering Democrats and Republicans working for Wall Street's masters of war to go to hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9HDljNlWYk

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

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Part-time faculty pay reaching poverty level

by: Michelle Kern 
September 21 2012 

The American Federation of Teachers recently highlighted the tenuous employment and poor compensation of part-time college teachers in an article titled: "New report blasts working conditions of adjunct faculty."

The article spotlights findings of two recent reports. In the first, a survey of 500 adjunct faculty found they are frequently hired at the last minute for courses they have little time to prepare for, with little or no support from the institution. They rarely have opportunities for professional development or chances to share in the collegial culture of education.

The second report, "Dismantling the Professoriate," paints a bleak portrait of the poverty-level wages and lack of professional support for adjunct faculty, who often make significantly less per course than their full-time counterparts:

"The median pay per course, standardized to a three-credit course, was $2,700 in fall 2010, and ranged from a low of $2,235 at two-year colleges to a high of $3,400 at four-year doctoral or research universities.

"Part-time faculty respondents saw little, if any, wage premium based on their credentials.

"Professional support was minimal for part-time faculty members' work outside the classroom and for their inclusion in academic decision-making."

Grassroots efforts are also drawing attention to the low pay, lack of benefits and lack of support in a field that has come to depend on the presence of a surplus of "freeway flyers," as adjuncts are often called.

A "crowd-sourced" spreadsheet at adjunctproject.com lists data from part-time faculty all over the U.S., on wages, health benefits (or more commonly, lack thereof), access to institutional support, union membership and retirement.

Budget cuts are often blamed for the over-reliance on part-time adjuncts to handle the bulk of teaching. Budgets have indeed been slashed in education, but data shows at the same time, the non-teaching administrative sector has grown.

While college administrations often tout the fiscal advantages of using part-time faculty, they don't apply the same logic to their own ranks. Between 1976 and 2005, part-time faculty rose from 31 percent to 48 percent, while part-time administrators declined from 4 percent to 3 percent.

College administrators' salaries are several levels higher than the wages of adjunct teachers. Although full professors' salaries may seem commensurate with those of administrators, salaries and wages for all teaching staff have not kept pace, even with rising tuition, as reported by the American Association of University Professors.

The AAUP says tuition rose much faster than full-time faculty salaries, with the greatest gap at public institutions, where tuition and fees grew by 72 percent, accounting for inflation, while professors' salaries rose by less than 1 percent at doctoral and baccalaureate institutions and fell by over 5 percent at master's universities.

Meanwhile, the AAUP says, between 2006-7 and 2010-11, median presidential salaries jumped by 9.8 percent, adjusted for inflation, while median full-time faculty salaries rose by less than 2 percent."

In fact most adjuncts have been hired when universities were not facing budget cuts, the AAUP reported .

At the same time, colleges are increasingly turning toward corporate models and business culture. And corporations and businesses are taking more of a role in diverting public education funds intended for colleges, and instead directing them to private profit. Cheap and surplus labor is the model for an expanding bottom line in Wall Street-driven institutions and the same process has taken hold of our institutions of higher learning, especially in privatization at public universities.

Without tenure, adjuncts are among the first to be fired when cuts are on the table, just like temps and contract workers across many other fields. This can translate to depressed wages across the board for teaching staff, higher class loads for the remaining faculty (in some cases throwing teaching duties on "stipend" paid graduate students who make even less than adjuncts), and a decrease in dues in the teaching union locals, attacking their ability to fight educational austerity measures.

Slashing the teaching workforce in education does not cause the economy to grow or save the budgets of universities in the long run. Expanding wages and benefits and teaching opportunities for adjuncts would bring more regional prosperity, increasing the tax base and helping to grow available funds for education.

The political will must also be found to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, who benefit from the presence of public universities and a well-educated labor force. Full time and part time teaching staff must forge organized and unified fight-backs, to press universities to benefit the teaching staff who attract students to the school. Resisting the privatization of our public resources will also help reverse the trend of making education jobs poverty-level.

Adjuncts should not view themselves as "the expendables," but as a workforce that now makes up the majority of higher education staff. If there is a union at your college, join it. If the adjuncts are not organized or not part of the existing union, press to become a part of the union or form an adjunct union.

Organization is the best weapon against capitalism, which has definitely entered the arena of higher education. The future of our working people, teachers and students alike, is at stake.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Friday, September 21, 2012

The U.S. working class is paying the price that created 60,000 Chinese billionaires as Wall Street absconds with Quadrillions.

I found this statistic interesting:

There are 60,000 billionaires in China. 

http://china-wire.org/?p=22137

Is creating selfish, greedy, money-grubbing billionaires what socialism is about?

At whose expense are these 60,000 billionaires accumulating this kind of wealth?

And, what isn't stated is this:

How many billions/trillions of dollars has the Chinese government allowed the parasitical Wall Street coupon clippers--- venture/vulture capitalists and financiers--- and the other finance capitals of the world like Bay Street and The Square Mile to abscond with as workers who have created this tremendous wealth are forced to live in disgraceful poverty?

The main foreign exploiters always are willing to "share" the wealth with a few of the puppets they use in order to get away with stealing a lot more so we have to ask how much, in addition to these "home-grown billionaires," the foreign financial centers have stolen from the Chinese people through the exploitation of their labor.

Considering there are 60,000 billionaires in China it is logical to assume that the actual robbery taking place far exceeds even trillions of dollars--- we are probably looking at an enormous figure running beyond the Quadrillion range. I don't even know what there is beyond Quadrillion but the thing to keep in perspective is that the Chinese government continues to peddle this bullshit about "socialism with Chinese characteristics---" market socialism--- as an excuse for forcing workers to endure poverty. 

The Chinese government collaborates with these foreign financial centers in all kinds of elaborate schemes most people can't even understand or comprehend in order to facilitate this gigantic swindle and theft of an entire nation's wealth.

And to think that one of the primary objectives of Barack Obama's very secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] (NAFTA on major steroids) will move more production to China where this exploitation will be expanded, enlarged and intensified--- again at the expense of Chinese workers and the American working class which has already suffered the closing of over 55,000 mines, mills and factories in order to create these Chinese and foreign billionaires with Quadrillions in profits for the few.

Of course Romney supports the TPP, too.

Obama or Romney--- Democrats or Republicans; the two-party trap is once again set; workers are going to lose.

Capital from the major financial centers around the globe led by Wall Street has united to reap super-profits from the exploitation of workers while workers haven't caught on to "workers and all oppressed peoples of the world unite."

And these politicians and foundation-funded outfits can't figure out what causes poverty? More like they are hiding what causes poverty because tremendous wealth, and what is done with this wealth, what is at stake. 

Come on, really; is there any reason any child should be forced to go to bed hungry or any person should be homeless or without health care amidst this kind of wealth being created? 

And, what is with workers being paid poverty wages instead of real living wages when there is this kind of wealth?

To think that so many billions of people have to suffer because these billionaires are "entitled" to profit.

There is no better time than now for workers and oppressed people to demand real change:

People before profits!

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism--- barbaric and cannibalistic.

What the hell are working people going to have to endure as capitalism lives out its twilight years of severe and super-exploitation, wars, inequality, hate and poverty?

Kind of obvious why no Wall Street politicians like Obama or Romney want to address the truth about poverty as an election issue.

And Minnesota Mark Dayton has gone to China on a "trade mission" while he did nothing to halt the closing of the St. Paul Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant. One would think with 60,000 billionaires in China Dayton could have found a joint partner to keep the Ford Plant operating--- but, wait; the idea is to bludgeon the U.S. working class until it is willing to compete with Chinese workers in the "race to the bottom" and closing these plants is what it is all about.

The U.S. working class is paying the price that created 60,000 Chinese billionaires as Wall Street absconds with Quadrillions.

Completely and totally disgusting.


-- 
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