Wednesday, November 11, 2009

A Veterans Day Message from:

A Veterans Day Message from:
FLORIDA GOLD COAST AMERICAN VETERANS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS (AVER)

As citizens of one of the greatest counties in the world our blessing is our freedom.
It is important for us to remember those who have fought and died to protect the freedoms we, as Americans, enjoy.
Without that selflessness dedication and loyal commitment our veterans and service personal offer, our unique way of life, its liberty and its freedoms would have long perished.
We in Florida's Gold Coast AVER are especially proud of those individuals who, while under the yoke of Don't Ask-Don't Tell, serve honorably because they understand, as do we, that all struggles for equality and independence have a rugged beginning but historically a charismatic and visionary ending.
Keep our all our wonderful servicemembers, veterans and their families in our thoughts and prayers this Veterans Day

Please Don't Thank Me For My Service - Veterans Day 2008

From Veterans for Peace

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Please_do_not_thank_me_for_my_service.vp.html

Veterans Day Any Year

Written by Hal Muskat

I'm thinking right now of The Wall in DC. Of trips to the Armory with my dad, a WWII vet. I'm thinking of those two hundred names and faces I can't remember, eighteen and nineteen year old boys from my Basic Training company, KIA before their 20th birthdays. I've seen their names on that wall while looking for my own.

Every time I hear, "Thank-you for serving!" I want to reply, "Fuck You!"

For which of the following are you thanking me:
a) learning how to do field abortions on "pregnant gook girls";
b) Being part of a military that is responsible for millions of deaths in Vietnam;
c) Refusing orders to Vietnam;
d) Participating in the GI Movement;
e) Thinking for myself;
f) Not thinking for myself;
g) Following or not following orders?

As a member of the United States Army from 1965 - 1970, I was NOT defending America, our allies, your families or friends. America was NOT being attacked by the Vietnamese, much in the same way that America is NOT being attacked by Iraqis.

I for one, do NOT thank current soldiers for their service in Iraq or Afghanistan! I thank and honor those who repudiate this nation's militarism. I thank Iraq Veterans Against the War for their thought, action and lives. I thank those veterans who organized and testified at the IVAW Winter Soldier Hearings last year and who continue to give witness to atrocity and mayhem. ivaw.org/wintersoldier/testimony

On Veteran's Day, I salute, in addition to IVAW, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Veterans For Peace, The National Liberation Front of Vietnam, WWII Allied Forces led by General Dwight Eisenhower; Resistance fighters against the nazi's throughout Europe; Resistance movements from South Africa to South Harlem, from Philadelphia to Nicaragua where my government spent millions attempting to overthrow a democratic government who's president had the nerve to be critical of the United States.

I do salute those who choose to defend America. Go get the bad guy, McCain will tell you right where he is, but why thank anyone for killing tens of thousands of civilians cause you can't find the right cave and invaded the wrong nation? Should I thank today's soldiers for being lied to and believing in that lie? Perhaps their "good intentions" deserve a salute?

On this Veteran's Day, I again salute those veterans, from the armed forces of all nations who use their training, intelligence and compassion to seek ways in which our governments can find peace without increased militarization of the globe and our ways of life.

You may thank me, and I'd be honored, for my resistance to imperial war, for my support of the National Liberation Front of Vietnam, for my continued activism that nourishes my soul and gives me reason to live and create.

Just don't blindly thank me for anything you don't know about.

Perhaps that's why I can't seem to find my name on that Wall in a waking state.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Phoenix: Where Anarchists Pack Heat and Send Nazis Packing

From Infoshop
by Crudo
Special to Phoenix Class War Council

“Okay, you’re a goon, but what’s a goon to a goblin?”– Lil Wayne

As I looked out from my appropriated aviator Forever 21 sunglasses – I won’t lie, I felt a little uneasy. “That’s a big group,” I thought, as a motley crew of mostly large men carrying American and swastika flags began to goosestep my way. On closer inspection, I realized that the large group that looked to be about 100, was in fact, mostly police. This of course didn’t make me feel any less uneasy…

So here I was, on the front line prepared to throw down against the “National Socialist Movement,” a political party that wants a fascist all-white America. The NSM has attempted to take over from where George Rockwell’s American Nazi Party left off in the 1960’s, and attempts to be a force within the White Nationalist movement as it continues to splinter, fracture, and die. I came to Phoenix hoping that the $180 greyhound bus ticket and the 18 hour ride sitting next to a bathroom door that continued to open (despite the ever so delicately placed blue tape over it) and smell the entire room up with rotten piss, would be worth it. It was – and the success of the confrontational and militant actions on the 7th brings up several things that anarchists everywhere can learn from.



Continue reading at: http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20091109172130443

Sunday, November 8, 2009

NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access

Says Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

November 8, 2009

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

  • Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
  • Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
  • Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Broader Measure of U.S. Unemployment Stands at 17.5%

From the New York Times

By DAVID LEONHARDT

For all the pain caused by the Great Recession, the job market still was not in as bad shape as it had been during the depths of the early 1980s recession — until now.

With the release of the jobs report on Friday, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment tracked by the Labor Department has reached its highest level in decades. If statistics went back so far, the measure would almost certainly be at its highest level since the Great Depression.

In all, more than one out of every six workers — 17.5 percent — were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982.

This includes the officially unemployed, who have looked for work in the last four weeks. It also includes discouraged workers, who have looked in the past year, as well as millions of part-time workers who want to be working full time.

The official jobless rate — 10.2 percent in October, up from 9.8 percent in September — remains lower than the early 1980s peak of 10.8 percent.

The broader rate is highest today, sometimes 20 percent, in states that had big housing bubbles, like California and Arizona, or that have large manufacturing sectors, like Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

The new benchmark is a sign of just how much damage financial crises tend to inflict. A recent book by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff, two economists, found that over the last century the typical crisis had caused the jobless rate in the country where it occurred to rise for almost five years. By that standard, the jobless rate here would continue rising for two more years, through the end of 2011.

Most economists predict that the rate will in fact begin to fall next year, largely because of the federal government’s aggressive response — fiscal stimulus, interest-rate cuts and a variety of creative steps by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department. Friday’s report showed that monthly job losses continued to slow recently, though the improvement has been gradual.

At the White House Friday, President Obama signed a bill to extend unemployment benefits and a tax credit for home buyers, and said that he was looking at ways to enact more stimulus. On Wednesday, the Fed announced that it expected to leave its benchmark interest at zero for “an extended period.”

Nearly 16 million people are now unemployed and more than seven million jobs have been lost since late 2007.

Officially, the Labor Department’s broad measure of unemployment goes back only to 1994. But early this year, with the help of economists at the department, The New York Times created a version that estimates it going back to 1970. If such a measure were available for the Depression, it probably would have exceeded 30 percent.

Compared with the early 1980s, a smaller share of workers today are officially unemployed and a smaller share are considered discouraged workers.

But there are many more people who would like to be working full time and have been able to find only part-time work, according to the government’s monthly survey of workers. The rapid increase in their ranks and in the officially unemployed has caused the rate to rise much faster in this recession than in the early 1980s. Two years ago, it was only 8.2 percent.

One of the more striking aspects of the Great Recession is that most of its impact has fallen on a relatively narrow group of workers. This is evident primarily in two ways.

First, the number of people who have experienced any unemployment is surprisingly low, given the severity of the recession. The pace of layoffs has increased, but the peak layoff rate this year was the same as it was during the 2001 recession, which was a fairly mild downturn. The main reason that the unemployment rate has soared is the hiring rate has plummeted.

So fewer workers than might be expected have lost their jobs. But those without work are paying a steep price, because finding a new job is extremely difficult.

Second, wages have continued to rise for most people who still have jobs. The average hourly wage for rank-and-file workers, who make up about four-fifths of the work force, actually accelerated in October, according to the new report.

Even though some companies have cut the pay of workers, the average hourly wage has still risen 1.5 to 2.5 percent over the last year, depending on which government survey is examined. Average weekly pay has risen less — zero to 1 percent — because hours have been cut. But average prices have fallen. Altogether, the typical worker has received a 1 to 2 percent inflation-adjusted raise over the last year.

In the other two severe recessions in recent decades, workers with jobs fared considerably worse. At the same point in the mid-1970s downturn, real weekly pay had fallen 7 percent; in the early 1980s recession, it had fallen 4 percent.

It is a strange combination: workers who still have a job are doing better than in other deep recessions, but the unemployment and underemployment have risen to their highest level since the Depression.

Dennis Kucinich: Why Is It We Have Finite Resources for Health Care but Unlimited Money for War?

Friday 06 November 2009

Washington - Following a statement on the Floor of the House of Representative, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:

“Why is it we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war?

“The inequities in our economy are piling up: trillions for war, trillions for Wall Street and tens of billions for the insurance companies. Banks and other corporations are sitting on piles of cash of taxpayer's money while firing workers, cutting pay and denying small businesses money to survive.

“People are losing their homes, their jobs, their health, their investments, their retirement security; yet there is unlimited money for war, Wall Street and insurance companies, but very little money for jobs on Main Street.

“Unlimited money to blow up things in Iraq and Afghanistan, and relatively little money to build things in the US.

“The Administration may soon bring to Congress a request for an additional $50 billion for war. I can tell you that a Democratic version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Trillions for war and Wall Street, billions for insurance companies... When we were promised change, we weren't thinking that we give a dollar and get back two cents.”

Dennis Kucinich is a congressman from Ohio and a 2008 presidential primary candidate. http://kucinich.us/ by Dennis Kucinich, OpEd News

Friday, November 6, 2009

PROTEST THE NAZI PARTY IN DTWN PHX, AZ- NOV 7, 2PM!!!

To friends and allies,

On Saturday, Nov. 7th, 2pm, the National Socialist Movement will be holding an event at the Az Capitol building located at 1700 Washington St. These folks are straight up neo-Nazis, complete with swastika and sieg heils and other racist bullshit. As these folks like to dress up like SS, brownshirts and other antiquated replicas, the Phoenix Class War Council is inviting folks to join their Inglorious Bastards Bloc. Whether you want to dress up or not, folks are encouraged to confront these fascists in whatever way you see fit.

History has shown that these folks do not just go away if ignored. History has shown that the only way to be rid of this ilk is to directly confront them and let them know they will need to stay off our streets, hidden in their holes.

Nationwide, nazis have been riding into the mainstream on the coattails of the anti-immigration movement. It's time to stop it.

The war on public-sector unions

From Socialist Worker:

State and local governments are making deep spending cuts wherever they can, and taking aim at the power of public-sector unions. Lee Sustar documents this latest turn in the long war on labor--and talks to activists who are putting forward an opposition.

THE LONG war on unions is escalating in the public sector as the recession wipes out tax revenue and triggers deep budget cuts in states, large and small.

The biggest headlines have come out of California, where 193,000 state workers have suffered pay cuts of at least 14 percent because of "furlough" days, while thousands more have endured layoffs.

But the picture is similar everywhere. To take two examples from recent days: In Iowa, Gov. Chet Culver will cut $520 million in state spending by ordering furloughs for 3,258 employees and layoffs for 180, while leaving 230 positions vacant. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell anticipates laying off hundreds of state employees just in time for the holiday season, in addition to the 300 Pennsylvania government workers who have already lost their jobs.

This list could go on.

In some cases, the attacks on unions go beyond layoffs and furloughs to target union organization itself.

In Detroit, Mayor Dave Bing has tried to claim that the city's fiscal crisis allows him to unilaterally "terminate" union contacts covering about 4,500 workers--and he's already ended the practice of deducting dues from workers' paychecks. He seems to be taking his cue from Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuño, who's using new laws to sweep aside union contracts--in order to lay off 25,000 public employees and privatize big chunks of government services.

But even the far smaller government spending cuts that have become routine in the recession are having devastating results--not only for union members, but the public that relies on crucial public services.

For example, in Chicago, layoffs are set for Cook County Stroger Hospital, the health care provider of last resort for the uninsured and the poor. "The county has recently given layoff notice to 80 nurses, but it's not due to funding issues, but a reorganizing of the hospital to make it more on par with private institutions," said Dennis Kosuth, a member of the National Nurses Organizing Committee at Stroger. "The layoff notices have instilled some fear for the future of the hospital among nurses."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TEACHERS UNIONS are the biggest targets of all. Budget cuts have already cost 40,000 teacher jobs in the course of the recession. In Hawaii, public schools face 17 "furlough Fridays" during the school year, forcing parents to try and find ways to raise money to keep schools open.

The message from the White House about this blow to our children's education? Be grateful to us, because things could have been worse.

According to government figures, the $787 billion stimulus package passed earlier this year prevented tens of thousands more teachers from getting pink slips. Nevertheless, school kids face the loss of skilled and effective teachers, bigger class sizes and fewer resources, even as Wall Street bonuses soar and the Pentagon war machine gears up for another Afghanistan surge.

The education cuts alone should be at the center of a national debate on social priorities, led by a president who promised "change." Instead, the crisis is being used by the White House to give added momentum to ongoing efforts at school privatization dressed up as "reform."

Under President Barack Obama's Race to the Top program, money-starved states and school districts can tap $4.3 billion in federal education money if--and only if--they lower barriers to the creation of charter schools and impose merit pay on teachers, regardless of existing collective bargaining agreements.

That's a twin-barreled attack on the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the 3.2 million-member National Education Association (NEA), which together represent the biggest single sector of unionized workers in the U.S. today. As David Rapkin, a member of the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) board of directors, put it:

It's political blackmail, plain and simple. Sell the soul of public education, make decisions that will ultimately hurt not just teachers, but kids and communities, or else we'll starve your schools. No serious research ties merit pay to student achievement, while much of the literature shows it actually does a great deal of harm.

So what you have is the federal government putting a gun to our heads in order to further a dogmatic, blatantly ideological agenda. They don't care about educating kids; what they want to do is privatize education and bust unions.

The cutting edge of school privatization has been in the post-Katrina New Orleans school system, where a majority of kids now attend charter schools, and the remaining public schools are starved for resources.

But now the central front is shifting--to the Washington, D.C., school system, where Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee laid off 388 high-seniority teachers while keeping hundreds of newly hired teachers on the payroll in complete disregard of a contract with the Washington Teachers Union.

Meanwhile, in New York City, billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg campaigned for re-election on the promise to move 100,000 students--10 percent of the total--into charter schools.

The trend is growing. As the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools points out, "Today, a record 14 communities have more than 20 percent of their public school students enrolled in public charter schools, eight more than the number from just three years ago. Additionally, 72 communities now have at least 10 percent of public school students in charter schools, 27 more than three year ago. These numbers illustrate that charter enrollment growth remains strong."

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) already has 9 percent of its students in charter schools--that's 59,122 students, the most of any school district in the country. Now, LAUSD wants to put 50 brand-new schools and 200 "underperforming" ones through a "Public School Choice" initiative that encourages charter schools operators to take control of them.

Under the school board's legally questionable move, the teachers' union, UTLA, can submit its own proposals for reform or simply allow outside entities to move in. Those angling for control of LA schools include the nonprofit Green Dot, which has an impressive array of corporate foundations behind it.

The Los Angeles Times editorial page, hostile to the UTLA and a vociferous proponent of school reform, declared that the reform must go through, or else: "If the Public School Choice initiative does not emerge as a strong reform policy, L.A. Unified will be signaling its ongoing inability to fix itself and its schools--which could prompt an outside takeover of the district."

The LA Times hard-line stance reflects the extent to which the city's establishment, led by billionaire investor Eli Broad, is determined to roll over the UTLA and its reform leadership.

When UTLA planned a one-day strike to protest layoffs of some 4,000 teachers and other school employees, LAUSD obtained a judge's temporary restraining order that barred the walkout on penalty of fines that would have bankrupted the union and stripped the teaching credentials of strikers. The judge's order recalled a New York judge's injunction against striking subway workers in New York City in 2006, which has left the union financially crippled to this day.

It's a none-too-subtle message to public-sector workers: If you're going to resist, you'd better be ready for the fight of you lives.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THIS TYPE of onslaught is all too familiar to members of unions in the private sector, where the percentage of workers has dropped from more than 30 percent in the 1950 to just 7.6 percent today.

Public-sector workers have seen plenty of attacks previously: the 11,000 striking air traffic controllers in the PATCO union who were fired by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 worked for the federal government, and the smashing of their union gave the green light for the most aggressive management attacks on unions in industry since the 1930s.

But in general, the public sector has been friendlier territory for organized labor, notwithstanding the fact that several Southern states bar collective bargaining agreements with unions. Overall, 36.8 percent of public-sector workers are organized. Thus, in the effort to grind down union power, federal, state and local government officials are taking their cue from private employers.

Business has used the recession to extract concessions from organized labor and squeeze workers harder, both in union and nonunion environment. The numbers tell the story: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, worker productivity in manufacturing rose 1.2 percent in 2008, even as manufacturing jobs declined 3.4 percent and hours worked fell by 3.9 percent. While those percentages may seem small, they represent vast gains for capital.

The labor movement's response to this new wave of attacks ranges from paralysis to capitulation.

The United Auto Workers' (UAW) embrace of the Obama administration's proposal to restructure General Motors and Chrysler has led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, the elimination of union work rules built up over decades, big cuts in benefits and a six-year ban on strikes. At Ford, workers recently voted to reject those concessions. But the UAW, once the pacesetter for a steadily rising standard of living for U.S. workers in the decades following the Second World War, is still collaborating with employers in a race to the bottom.

Now that same sort of partnership-at-all-costs unionism is coming to the teachers' unions.

In a recent article on the Huffington Post, AFT President Randi Weingarten rebranded the AFT as "public school entrepreneurs, trying new approaches, taking some risks and looking for promising ventures--all in the quest to improve student learning. Our efforts are magnified by the tremendous backing of our fellow education entrepreneurs--five of America's most prominent private philanthropic foundations." The money went to nine local teachers unions to support a variety of projects, including towards greater "collaboration" with school officials and developing programs that tie teacher pay to test scores.

The foundations that bankrolled much of the AFT's "Innovation Fund"--the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation--are some of the most aggressive proponents of charter schools.

And in a signal that the AFT leadership is willing to adapt to that agenda, Weingarten added, "With the exception of vouchers, which drain vital resources from public schools, everything is on the table in terms of reform, as long as it is good for kids and fair to teachers."

Weingarten's idea of fairness was on display in a teachers' contract in New Haven, Conn., which she personally helped to negotiate. According to the Wall Street Journal, the contract, which allows administrators greater freedom to close schools, includes "tough performance evaluations and fewer job protections for bad teachers." According to Weingarten, it's "a model or a template" for future teachers' contracts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THAT'S BAD news for rank-and-file teachers and more militant local leaders who are trying to hold the line on privatization, defend union rights and put forward a genuinely democratic vision of school reform, based on fully funded schools and parent-teacher-community alliances. In UTLA, the reform leaders and the Progressive Educators for Action (PEAC) are strategizing over next steps.

Elsewhere, rank-and-file militants are organizing to challenge the retreat by Weingarten and her counterpart, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel.

In recent elections in the United Educators of San Francisco, a new caucus, Educators for a Democratic Union, made a strong showing and captured several seats on the union's executive board earlier this year. In Chicago, where the corporate-driven school reform movement took off in the late 1990s, another new group, the Coalition of Rank and File Educators (CORE), just won their union's two seats on the pension board. Given that schools CEO Ron Huberman has made pension "reform"--i.e., cutbacks--a top priority, CORE will be at the forefront of a key struggle for the union.

Rebuilding--indeed, saving--the teachers' unions won't be quick or easy. But the pieces are coming together for stronger resistance. In New York City, a new formation, the Grassroots Education Movement (GEM), has brought together longstanding militant groups to challenge the retreat of the United Federation of Teachers, where Weingarten was president before taking the top spot nationally.

"It's the beginning of a grassroots movement of teachers who are willing to fight the assaults on public education, like charter schools, and put forward a vision of quality public education," said GEM activist Megan Behrent, a high school teacher in Brooklyn.

The K-12 schools aren't the only place where resistance to the cuts is taking shape. At the University of Vermont, the faculty union, affiliated with the AFT, was central to a wider fightback against the cuts.

"In the face of public scandals about administrative bloat and financial mismanagement, the United Academics AFT/American Association of University Professors full-time unit won a surprisingly superb contract in September as the union threatened a public campaign," wrote Helen Scott and Nancy Welch, who teach English at the university. "The part-time union subsequently won a far less good contract, but avoided givebacks."

That was just one battle in a longer war, however. The university successfully pushed through major budget cuts despite a big campaign by faculty members and students that involved a student walkout--and the faculty union had to be pushed into supporting the fight. "The elected leadership of the union is quiescent to the extreme; they only reluctantly signed onto the campaign, and are even more reluctant now to challenge the continuing cuts," Scott and Welch wrote.

A similar struggle is unfolding on a much larger scale at the University of California, where a contract fight by the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) became the focal point for a one-day strike and walkout September 24 across the UC system. At a time when the biggest public-sector union in California, the Service Employees International Union, has failed to mobilize its members against cuts, UPTE helped spark a wider fight.

Central to the solidarity effort is AFSCME Local 3299, the UC union that last year won a strong contract after a campaign that included a one-day strike and several marches and demonstrations. Local 3299 has refused UC's demand for unpaid furlough days, so the administration has targeted the local. As Kathryn Lybarger, an activist in Local 3299 at UC Berkeley, put it:

They intend to make up the savings, in a far more punitive manner, that they would have gained if we had agreed to their furlough program. This means a cut of about 4 percent or more for our members, which is equal to the amount of pay raise we won this year from our recent contract fight. Note that the funding shortfall from the state is less than 3 percent of UC's overall budget. Smells like revenge from UC against a union that kicked their ass.

More and bigger battles lie ahead at UC and beyond. Tax revenue shortfalls are expected to worsen, even as the economy recovers, so governments at all levels will be seeking to squeeze as many concessions out of workers as possible. In the UC system, activists have set March 4, 2010, as a day of action.

The UC solidarity movement should serve as a marker for the entire labor movement. At a time when governments claim that budget deficits mean there's no alternative to the cuts, the workers, students and faculty at UC have changed the debate, questioning the social and political priorities in California and beyond--and fighting to change them.

As the attacks on public-sector workers and services continue to mount, that example couldn't be more timely.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Victimless Crimes: More G20 Cases Fall Apart

From Infoshop
The sheer number of police officers -- and the difficulty they had identifying each other -- is preventing local prosecutors from getting convictions against summit arrestees.


[Corporate News Article on Continued G20 Fallout]

Victimless Crimes

BY MARTY LEVINE
Usually, police states run a bit more smoothly than this.

During Pittsburgh's G-20 summit in September, 3,000 police officers came from departments all over the country to help provide security. Activists denounced the police presence as overkill, but the tactics may actually be backfiring on law enforcement. The sheer number of police officers -- and the difficulty they had identifying each other -- is preventing local prosecutors from getting convictions against summit arrestees.

Three people facing felony aggravated assault charges -- among the most serious charges filed against protesters -- had those charges dismissed on Oct. 28. The Allegheny County District Attorney's office, it turned out, couldn't determine which police officers were involved in the circumstances leading to the arrests.

For instance, Pittsburgh police detective Brian Nicholas arrested Joshua Berman on Sept. 24 for allegedly tossing a "cylinder-like object" and striking another officer in Oakland around 10 p.m. But at a preliminary hearing, Berman's defense attorney pointed out that assault charges require a specific victim. Assistant district attorney Geoffrey Melada responded by telling magisterial District Judge Kevin Cooper, "I don't think the burden [on the prosecution] is to give you his name, his favorite pet, where he likes to vacation."

"We had to expect when we came into the G-20 that this scenario would unfold, with thousands of officers from all over the country," Melada argued.

Could prosecutors find the officer if this case were held for trial in Common Pleas Court? Cooper asked.

"I can't represent that we will have more information" in the future, Melada said.

Cooper dismissed the assault charge, though Berman still faces trial on a handful of lesser charges, including disorderly conduct.

Similarly, in another Sept. 24 arrest in Oakland, assistant district attorney Paul Barkus tried to argue that "names are not an element of the offense" of aggravated assault. Defendant Frank Smith was accused of not obeying a dispersal order in front of a line of police, then struggling with arresting sheriff's deputies during his arrest

Asked by Smith's defense attorney John Pushinsky to identify the deputies, Pittsburgh police officer Michael Saldutte testified that "due to the complexity of events ... I was unable to get their information."

"You do need a victim" to pursue the charge, Pushinsky argued before the judge.

District Judge James Hanley agreed. He dismissed the assault charges against Smith, who still faces misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest, failure to disperse and disorderly conduct.

The prosecution was essentially forced to dismiss another assault case entirely. Cornell student Malcolm Sanborn-Hum was arrested on Enfield Street at Baum during the anarchists' march on Sept. 24: Sanborn-Hum had objected while a fellow protester was snatched by police in fatigues and shoved into an unmarked sedan. Besides aggravated assault charges, Sanborn-Hum had faced the misdemeanor charge of failure to disperse.

But when it came time to prosecute him, the district attorney's office couldn't identify the arresting officers -- or even the agencies they worked for.

"We can't substantiate who these officers are," Melada said. "They're not Pittsburgh police, they're not county sheriffs ..."

Sanborn-Hum will have his charge of disorderly conduct dismissed, in exchange for performing 50 hours of community service.

It's not clear how many more cases will fall apart due to similar circumstances. But even some successful prosecutions may be turned over on appeal. Eleven people have already been fined for disorderly conduct during Sept. 25 mass arrests on Oakland's Cathedral of Learning lawn -- but some of those were found guilty after officers testified that they didn't see them commit any crime. As Pittsburgh detective Robert Shaw testified about one such defendant: "I don't know who, but somebody [that is, an unidentifiable law enforcement agent] said to me, 'That's your arrest' and that's how I met her."

"The first real contact I had with [another defendant] was when they were brought to me on Forbes Avenue," testified another Pittsburgh officer, William VanDivner.

At least two of those 11 arrestees are already planning appeals. More than 40 cases still await full trial or an initial hearing.

"This situation is indicative of the need for the CPRB to conduct a thorough review" of G-20 training, planning and procedures, says Beth Pittinger, head of the Citizens Police Review Board. A CPRB public hearing concerning G-20 policing is scheduled for Nov. 10, at an Oakland venue still to be announced. Among other things, the CPRB's investigation is expected to address the fact that police clad in riot gear lacked visible badges or numbers -- making it hard for police and citizens alike to identify individual officers.

"Maybe the aggravated assaults never happened," Pittinger says. "But if they did, the assailants walk and the victims are served another injustice. ... I don't know which notion is more disconcerting."

http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyr...id%3A71094

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Obama’s banker-friendly financial overhaul

From World Socialist Web Site
31 October 2009

In the wake of a financial meltdown that precipitated the deepest recession since the 1930s, the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders are working to institute regulatory changes that avoid any serious constraints on Wall Street banks and financial institutions.

The so-called legislative process itself is a mockery of democracy. An army of financial industry lobbyists is at work wining and dining key legislators, whose elections were funded by millions in campaign contributions from banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, etc. Wall Street lawyers are helping draft the details of regulatory bills in closed-door meetings, while Obama and his top economic advisers—many of whom are former investment bankers and all of whom are longstanding proponents of bank deregulation—confer with the CEOs of the most powerful firms.

The guiding premise of the enterprise is that the capitalist “free market” must at all costs be safeguarded, along with the personal fortunes of the financial oligarchy. Flowing from this, the informing notion behind the proposed changes is to allow the banks to return to business as usual, recouping their gambling losses at the expense of this and future generations of working people, while setting in place mechanisms for the government to more effectively manage the next financial debacle.

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified before the Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives in support of a bill jointly sponsored by the White House and committee Chairman Barney Frank (Democrat of Massachusetts). The bill would give the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board so-called “resolution authority” to order the seizure of a major financial firm whose failure would destabilize the financial system.

The idea is to prevent the type of panic that accompanied the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September of 2008. Geithner, Frank and the White House are selling the bill as a boon to taxpayers. It is supposedly an alternative to the multibillion-dollar bailouts at taxpayer expense that followed last year’s crash.

In fact, the proposal would give the executive branch and the Fed unlimited powers, without the need for congressional consent, to allocate taxpayer money to prevent the failure of a major commercial or investment bank, insurance firm (such as AIG) or other financial company by placing the firm in receivership. Supposedly, the seized firm’s shareholders and unsecured creditors would take large losses, the firm’s top management would be sacked, and the firm’s assets would be sold off to investors.

The cost of the rescue, according to the bill, would be repaid through fees levied on other banks with more than $10 billion in assets (around 120 banks). However, these fees would be assessed over an indefinite period, while the taxpayers would pay the bill upfront.

One provision of the bill which has garnered little comment either by its official proponents or the media would give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with the consent of the treasury secretary and the Fed, the power to “extend credit or guarantee obligations … to prevent financial instability during times of severe economic distress.”

This amounts to a blank check to use public funds to bail out Wall Street. What is actually being proposed is the replacement of the ad hoc bailouts that characterized the past year with an institutionalized mechanism for looting the public purse for the benefit of the financial aristocracy.

Little wonder that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has broadly endorsed the administration’s bank “reform.” He told a conference in New York this week that “we need a resolution mechanism so that the system isn’t destroyed.” Dimon knows full well that such a law will expand the profits of the big banks by making their borrowing costs cheaper, far outstripping any fees they might be required to pay in the event of a government seizure of a major firm.

There are those within the financial and political establishment who are warning that the administration’s policies are enhancing the power of the biggest banks and making an even greater financial disaster all but inevitable. Asked by CNN on October 21 whether the administration’s regulatory changes will avert another financial meltdown, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general of the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TAPR), said:

“I think actually what’s changed is in the other direction. These banks that were too big to fail are now bigger. Government has sponsored and supported several mergers that made them larger… The idea that the government is not going to let these banks fail, which was implicit a year ago, is now explicit.

“So, if anything, not only has there not been any meaningful regulatory reform to make it less likely, in a lot of ways, the government has made such problems more likely. Potentially, we could be in more danger now than we were a year ago.”

Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman who heads Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, is evidently alarmed. He has been publicly calling for the reinstatement of the legal wall between commercial banking and investment banking that was a cornerstone of the Depression-era bank reforms instituted by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, commercial banks—which take deposits from ordinary consumers—were banned from owning and trading risky securities, the very practice that brought the biggest banks to the brink of collapse in 2008.

This would mean breaking up such behemoths as JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Volcker has no support within the Obama administration. Wall Street is adamantly opposed to such a reform, as are Obama’s top economic advisers. The director of the White House’s National Economic Council, Lawrence Summers, pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 when he was treasury secretary in the Clinton administration.

Daniel Tarullo, a Fed governor appointed by Obama, last week dismissed Volcker’s proposal as “more of a provocative idea than a proposal.”

As for the claims that the public will not be forced to pay for the government “resolution” of major financial firms facing collapse, their worth can be judged by looking at the other major planks of the administration’s financial regulatory plan.

Frank’s Financial Services Committee this month passed a bill on derivatives—the unregulated $592 trillion market in complex and murky financial contracts that led to the collapse of AIG—which exempts from government oversight a huge portion of such deals, including so-called “customized” credit default swaps and derivatives contracts of non-financial companies. It also places the management of “standard” derivatives in the hands of privately owned clearinghouses closely aligned to the big Wall Street banks.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill passed by Frank’s committee, nominally establishing a new agency to police consumer lending fraud and abuse, exempts 98 percent of the nation’s banks as well as car dealerships from oversight, and allows the federal government to override state consumer protection laws that are tougher than federal regulations.

All of these loopholes were inserted at the behest of bank lobbyists.

Then there are the sham bank pay restraints announced last week by Obama’s “pay czar,” Kenneth Feinberg. Not only do these rules apply only to the 25 highest-paid executives and employees of seven companies still holding TARP money, including just two banks, they apply only for November and December of this year. And the limits in cash salaries and bonuses imposed by Feinberg are to be largely offset by stock issued to the affected multimillionaires.

The Wall Street Journal published an analysis Wednesday showing that Feinberg actually increased the base salaries of 89 of the 136 people under his remit, raising their average regular salaries to $438,000, an average increase of 14 percent. At Citigroup, which is 34 percent owned by the US government, Feinberg agreed to more than double salaries for 13 of the 21 employees, upping them by an average of $202,000.

Barry Grey

The author also recommends:

US House panel approves pro-Wall Street derivatives bill
[19 October 2009]

Obama’s bank regulation plan: A free pass for Wall Street
[18 June 2009]

Thursday, October 29, 2009

US Chamber Shuts off TheYesMen.org and Websites of Hundreds of Other Activist Groups

From Infoshop

InterActivist
October 27, 2009

Hundreds of activist organizations had their internet service turned off last night after the US Chamber of Commerce strong-armed an upstream provider, Hurricane Electric, to pull the plug on The Yes Men and May First / People Link, a 400-member-strong organization with a strong commitment to protecting free speech.

"This is a blow against free speech, and it demostrates in gory detail the full hypocrisy of the Chamber," said Andy Bichlbaum of The Yes Men. "The only freedom they care about is the economic freedom of large corporations to operate free of the hassles of science, reality, and democracy."

After suffering embarrassment at the hands of the Yes Men on Monday, the Chamber immediately threatened legal action, then followed through Thursday by sending a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice to Hurricane Electric Internet Services. In the DMCA notice, the Chamber claimed that the parody Chamber website operated by The Yes Men constituted copyright infringement, and demanded that the site be shut down immediately and that the creator's service be canceled.

But the Yes Men are not served directly by Hurricane Electric, but by May First / People Link. And when Hurricane Electric shut down the fake Chamber of Commerce site (now relocated), they also took down the websites of 400 other organizations.

May First / People Link fought back. They immediately "mirrored" the site, and then quickly negotiated with Hurricane Electric to restore service to their other members.

"The DMCA attacks the critically important right we have to effectively comment and criticize institutions and companies," said May First/People Link Co-Director Alfredo Lopez. "It's an undemocratic, backwards law, a perfect example of how the government shouldn't intrude on our lives. But the Chamber was perfectly happy to use it to stomp on the Yes Men's rights to free spech, and the rights of hundreds of other organizations to operate on the web."

The 400 May First / People Link members weren't the only victims of the Chamber's action on Thursday. Today is the start of the national release of the Yes Men's new film, The Yes Men Fix the World. The film is being released in a number of independent theaters - who, not being part of a chain, are heavily dependent on the Yes Men website for selling tickets to the film. The Chamber's actions thus impinge on the ability of these small businesses to turn a profit.

"The Chamber claims to represent 3 million businesses of every size, yet their actions undermined a fair number of small businesses," said Mike Bonanno of the Yes Men. "The Chamber is clearly much less interested in actual freedom, economic or otherwise, than in the license of their largest members to operate free from the scientific consensus." (The Chamber has opposed or refused to endorse a climate bill, the absurdity of which the Yes Men's Monday action was designed to highlight.)

This isn't the first time a Yes Men site has found itself targeted by a DMCA complaint brought by a large corporation. The Yes Men have in the past received DMCA notices from Exxon, Dow Chemical, DeBeers, and the New York Times. In each case, the the Yes Men (represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation) refused to comply, and prevailed. Even the George W. Bush campaign sent a complaint to try to interrupt service to GWBush.com, in 2000, resulting in extensive ridicule that culminated in Bush's mind-boggling gaffe that "There ought to be limits to freedom."

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Crashing the bankers' party

From Socialist Worker

Lee Sustar and Rigoberto Gogol look at the protests in Chicago against the banks that are making big profits thanks to trillions in taxpayer money while workers suffer the effects of the crisis.


IN AN angry and spirited demonstration, more than 2,000 people from labor, community and faith organizations protested outside the annual meeting of the American Bankers Association October 27 to vent their fury at the banks' inflated profits and bloated bonuses while workers lose their jobs and homes in record numbers.

Denise Dixon, executive director of the Illinois group Action Now, captured the mood when she recounted the devastation of home foreclosures in Chicago and across the U.S.--among the more than 4 million total expected between 2008 and 2012:

The banks must be held accountable for the destruction they have caused in our communities. Every 13 seconds, another home goes into foreclosure. Urban areas across the country that are already beaten down by high unemployment rates, violence, health concerns and substandard education systems stand in the eye of the storm of the foreclosures. This storm leaves in its wake so much destruction it makes Hurricane Katrina seem like a spring shower.

The protest, dubbed the Showdown in Chicago, was called by the National People's Coalition (NPC), a network of grassroots community groups, religious organizations and unions. Anchoring the effort was the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which was represented by several top officials, including union President Andy Stern. New AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was a featured speaker--a noteworthy development, given the tension between the AFL-CIO and the SEIU's breakaway Change to Win union federation.

Trumka, the former leader of the United Mine Workers of America, gave one of his trademark fiery speeches:

The bankers have turned the American economy into their own private casino. Gambling away our financial future with our money. Bringing us to the brink of a second Great Depression, and then sticking out a hand for taxpayers to bail them out. And bankers, let me tell you, we didn't put you back in business so you could pay billions of dollars in bonuses to the suits. Those bonuses have to go, and mortgage relief has to come our way.

Anna Burger, chair of Change to Win, roused the crowd with a series of questions, asking if the banks had renegotiated sub-prime loans, loaned money to small business or financed the creation of jobs--and got the same answer each time: "No." She led the crowd in one of the most popular chants of the day: "Enough is enough!"

A few rank-and-file labor activists were also featured, including Armando Robles, president of United Electrical (UE) workers Local 1110, the union that carried out the successful factory occupation at Republic Windows & Doors in Chicago that forced Bank of America to make good on workers' severance package. Robles said was proud that his co-workers fought back. "Everybody has to do it, no matter what," he said. "For dignity, for respect, for our families--for the working class."

Also speaking was another UE local president, Keith Scribner, who represents workers fighting to force Wells Fargo to pay up for workers' severance pay at the now closed Quad City Die Casting. The banks "got $330 billion in taxpayer bailouts and backstops, and they're using our money to fight reforms that would protect us in the future," Scribner said, before presenting cutout effigies of leading Wall Street bankers with pink slips and leading the crowd in the chant of "You're fired."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE DEMANDS that the speakers put forward on Congress--stopping foreclosures, creating a new consumer finance protection agency with real teeth, passing financial reform legislation that bars speculative risk-taking--are urgently needed.

Yet the call for next steps in this fight was limited. For his part, Trumka urged those in attendance to call their representatives and senators in Congress. And while SEIU Illinois State Council President Tom Balanoff declared that that the event would mark the beginning of a national movement, details weren't forthcoming.

SEIU President Andy Stern, who stood on stage during the event, but didn't speak, said that his union backed the protest because "we've got a country that's upside down" in its priorities. "We need to do like we did at Republic Windows, and what we did to Ken Lewis," he said, referring to the successful pressure campaign to oust Lewis as CEO of Bank of America.

The protest was a capstone to three days of meetings organized by the NPC, which mobilized activists from 20 states to organize a counter-event to the bankers' convention. The events began October 25 with a meeting of 500 people at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, a few blocks away from where the bankers met. The keynote speaker was Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who blasted payday lenders and corrupt practices by some banks. Durbin did not, however, criticize bankers in general.

In stark contrast were the stories from participants in the People's Commission--people who were pushed to the wall by home foreclosures and forced to fight back, and in the process became leaders of their communities in the struggle for shelter. For example, Rosario Frisse talked of the many homes she and other activists have been able to save by holding direct actions against Bank of America.

With stories like these still on their mind, activists protested a few hours later outside the American Bankers Association ball--which, incredibly enough, had a "Roaring Twenties" theme.

The second day of the "Showdown" attracted some 600 people. It began with a teach-in and session with Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair, who called on the audience to support Barack Obama's call for a new agency to protect consumers.

But what suited the activists' mood better was what came next: a march on the Chicago headquarters of Goldman Sachs. The marchers went to deliver a message demanding that Goldman's $23 billion bonus pool be donated to the efforts to stop foreclosures in the coming year--and demonstrators occupied the building's lobby for 30 minutes to underline their point.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE LIVELY final march and rally outside the bankers' convention deserves to be repeated, but on a much larger scale. What's needed is a mass march on Wall Street to turn up the heat on the banks, or a large-scale protest in Washington to shake up Congress and the financial lobbyists--and the White House, which has put bankers at the head of the line in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.

A decade ago, the then-unified AFL-CIO mobilized tens of thousands of union members to protest the World Trade Organization in Seattle to protest the impact of corporate globalization. Today's recession--in part the result of the same pro-business policies protested in Seattle--has been incalculably more devastating to working people. The unions should mobilize on at least as large a scale in response.

Certainly, labor leaders aren't keen to cross Obama on economic policy or much else. They prefer to play an inside game in Washington, and target banks rather than their enablers like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, White House economic adviser Larry Summers and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke.

Nevertheless, by organizing a protest against the banks, the National People's Coalition and its backers in the unions have put down an important marker.

So far, the media has focused almost entirely on "populist anger" from the right--in the form of the "tea party" protests. The Showdown in Chicago highlighted the potential for labor, progressives and the left to take the initiative, and put forward a pro-worker agenda.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Thousands protest bailout bonuses at Chicago bank meeting

From Raw Story

10-27-09

Thousands of protesters chanted "the banks got bailed out we got sold out" as they marched through the streets of Chicago on their way to a meeting of US bankers Tuesday.

Carrying signs proclaiming "Hold Wall Street accountable" and "Foreclosures ruin communities," they demanded an end to massive bonuses for the bankers who they say helped bring on the financial crisis and credit crunch which dragged the United States into the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Organized by a coalition of union and community organizations, the protesters called on the bankers to stop lobbying against financial reform and to invest the trillions they received in government bailouts to stem the tide of foreclosures and invest in businesses which will help kickstart the economy.

"We love our country when you work hard and you're able to take care of your family," Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union's Illinois office told the crowd gathered near a meeting of the American Bankers Association.

"The people (at the bankers' meeting) are people who love their company more than our country... Who love their bonuses more than our country."

Organizers said the American Bankers Association and six top banks have spent 35 million dollars fighting financial reforms after accepting 17.8 trillion dollars in taxpayer bailouts and backstops.

Franklin D. Roosevelt “The Economic Bill of Rights”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union


It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.


source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

Monday, October 26, 2009

Massive protests rock Guatemala

From Worker's World

Published Oct 25, 2009 10:43 PM
By Daoud Brown Guatemala City

Oct. 13—In massive national protests, tens of thousands of campesinos, union workers, students and Indigenous people blocked roads and bridges on Oct. 12—El Día de la Raza—effectively paralyzing many parts of the country including this capital city of 3 million.

The mainly Indigenous protestors, holding oversized red flags, hit the streets in Huahuatenango, Quiché, San Marcos and at least 10 other cities in the countryside—some reportedly carrying machetes, sticks, paving stones and slingshots—and halted traffic on the main roads to the Caribbean and Pacific coasts and the Inter-American Highway. Blockades snarled traffic on most routes into the capital.

They are demanding that certain mining concessions, a cement factory and a hydroelectric plant that they believe will destroy their environment with toxic waste be shut down; that land reform including access to scarce arable land be enacted; that pure water springs be protected from contamination; that the jailing, persecution and violence directed against farm worker leaders be halted; that four campesino political prisoners be released; and that the use of private security guards and armed paramilitaries to assassinate and persecute Indigenous and campesino leaders be investigated.

Daniel Pascual, leader of the National Indigenous & Campesino Coordinadora (CONIC), told the newspaper Diario de Centro América that the protests “were called to exert pressure on the government to live up to their commitments” earlier agreed to but ignored. (Oct. 13)

The Oct. 12 actions were exactly 90 days after a march of 10,000 Indigenous and campesinos from San Juan Sacatepéquez to the capital on July 14, when President Álvaro Colom met with protest leaders. “In this country, if we were not doing this, no one would listen to us,” said Pascual. “There is no justice. The judges are corrupt. Campesinos are murdered. People are dying of hunger and no one says anything. Only by taking this road can we get a hearing.”

The marches and blockades got under way before dawn at 4 a.m. Oct. 12 and lasted long into the night, when thousands gathered in the capital around the Casa Presidencial. Fifteen protesters held a six-hour sit-in and hunger strike there and vowed to continue until President Colom agreed to meet with them on their demands—which he did, just before midnight. After hours of intense negotiations, the government also agreed there would be no reprisals against protesters.

One 19-year-old marcher was killed by gunfire during the tumultuous day, in what campesino leaders described as an assassination aimed at organizations of the rural poor. Two others were wounded in the attack. Business leaders said the protests had resulted in big financial losses to industry and commerce.

Students from San Carlos National University commandeered five buses to block traffic in the south of the capital for six hours. In Chimaltenango, farm workers demanded cancellation of the debt owed by 70 rural communities to the Fondo Nacional de Tierras (Land Fund). In Quiché, campesinos from the Farm Workers Unity Committee (CUC) threatened to put down their tools if the government did not act quickly on their demands. The huge plaza around the National Palace was jammed with buses that had ferried thousands from the countryside. Colorful hand-lettered banners told local stories of the daily struggle of workers and farmers against the bosses and landowners.

Facing the plaza was a giant portrait of Jacobo Arbenz, elected Guatemala’s president by a landslide in 1950. The popular Arbenz presided over real land reform, expanded democratic and labor rights, and the expropriation of land from the powerful United Fruit Company—until he was overthrown in a 1954 coup with the help of the United Fruit Company and the CIA. Graffiti covered the walls in the crowded working-class quarter called Zona 1: “No more militarism,” “For the disappeared—

Memory, Truth, Justice,” “No to capitalism,” “Urban resistance” and “Guatemala desperate—For work, for land, for food.” Venezuela chose the day to announce emergency donations of yucca products to alleviate the food crisis in Guatemala. The Day of Dignity and Resistance of the Indigenous Peoples, or El Día de la Raza, was also celebrated on Oct. 12 in Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile, as well as in Guatemala where Indigenous people are more than 60 percent of the population.


Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.