The unequal division of rewards within Goldman Sachs mirrors and mocks the far larger social divide it feeds.


by Richard Wolff

So now we know about the $ 15 billion plus 2010 pay package for Goldman Sachs partners and employees. The top rungs will get their many millions each with lesser and lesser amounts going down the GS hierarchy. The mass of its over 35,000 employees will, as usual, get much, much less than the top. In addition, the appreciation of Goldman’s share prices likewise adds billions to employees who got stock options which were likewise distributed very unequally throughout the firm. The unequal division of rewards within Goldman Sachs mirrors and mocks the far larger social divide it feeds.

While vast wealth flows for the tops of finance, austerity is the watchword across the nation. Every one of the 50 state governments and nearly all of the thousands of city and town governments are sharply reducing their citizens’ economic well-being. Their debates concern the mix of raised taxes and reduced public payrolls and services to impose on a citizenry already reeling from the continuing economic crisis conditions: high unemployment, home foreclosures, job insecurities and benefit reductions.

US capitalism continues to dole out wealth for a few and austerity for the mass. Economic and social divisions helped bring on the crisis. Wage stagnation since the 1970s had enabled profits to boom, but it also provoked family debts and financial speculation that spiraled to the far side of sustainability. As the crisis deepened, rising unemployment turned wage stagnation into wage and job benefits declines. Home-ownership for millions deteriorated into a mass of empty homes confronting stunned ex-homeowners. Economic and social divisions deepened and hardened. Now, in the next act of an accumulating social tragedy, the governments’ responses – austerity – drive yet another degree of separation between the 10 % at the top (of the nation’s corporate pyramid and of its income and wealth distributions) and everyone else.

Just like speculation in credit default swaps and “jumbo” mortgages for people without jumbo incomes, deepening economic divisions will prove unsustainable. Clearly Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and the other financial giants either do not see or do not care about that deepening. In any case, they take no responsibility for producing or preventing or offsetting it.

Meanwhile, deprived of all but a few, weak organizations to articulate a clear, critical analysis of what is happening, the mass of US citizens watch, demoralized, and fume. Millions of former supporters turn away from a President as his promises of “hope and change” fade from memory or become objects of bitter humor. The space is cleared for the Tea Party to displace anger over deepening economic divisions as epitomized in big banks’ pay packages onto politicians in general and Democrats in particular. Offering only another variant of austerity, the Republicans guarantee that they too take no responsibility to change the basic direction of this society’s trajectory. Economic and social divisions will keep deepening.

The new governor of California announced last week that he proposed to cut about $ 1.5 billion from the largest and arguably the best state system of higher education in the country. Such a cut will further damage the quantity and quality of the skilled and hi-tech work force on which the nation’s economic future depends. Governor Brown also proposed over $1 billion in cuts to the Medicare program providing health care to hundreds of thousands of California’s poorest residents. Meanwhile Goldman Sachs pays out $ 15 billion alongside the other big banks’ comparable payouts. More than yet another glaring contribution to social division, these contrasts represent stages on the path to self-destructive social implosion.

***
Richard D. Wolff is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. He is the author of New Departures in Marxian Theory (Routledge, 2006) among many other publications. Check out Richard D. Wolff’s documentary film on the current economic crisis, Capitalism Hits the Fan, at www.capitalismhitsthefan.com. Visit Wolff's Web site at www.rdwolff.com, and order a copy of his new book Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do about It.




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

in a boost to closet superheroes everywhere, bystanders are listed as one of the sources for applying force to restrain shooters.


by Billy Wharton

If there is a political crisis, there is an opportunity. Jared Lee Loughner’s attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona certainly created a crisis. The New York Police Department (NYPD) is now ready to cash in on the opportunity. Or so their recent report entitled “Active Shooter: Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation,” suggests. However, this will be a bit of an unusual reward for the men in blue – they score the ideological points while the surveillance industry reaps the monetary profits.

The “Active Shooter: Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation,” is a report that documents every shooting incident in the US from 1966 until 2010. To qualify as an active shooting, the event must meet the criteria of Homeland Security “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” 281 incidents in the above mentioned time window qualify and are examined in the report in an attempt to develop a response plans.

Results

A quick survey of the shootings reveals some unsurprising results. Males have been the main the perpetrators of such violent acts. 96% of the shootings were carried by males, and the report casts doubts about the validity of the other 4% as being associated with females. There are also two “peak periods” in which such acts may be carried out, from age 15-19 and then again from 35-44. Surprisingly, the NYPD released no information about the race of the shooters.

The targets for the shooting incidents were also studied. Only 22% involved a seemingly randomly selected group, while the rest had some personal, familial or professional relation to the shooter. This is the point at which the NYPD first demonstrates its desire to bankroll the paranoia. Instead of indicating that it is unlikely that a random shooting event would occur, they argue that the numbers demonstrate that, “active shooter attacks can occur even without any prior altercation or grievance.” Cue the ominous music.

Moreover 41% of the attacks involved shooters with a “professional” relationship to their victims, by far the highest percentage. A quick scan of the documented cases in the appendix might also suggest another category that would encompass the vast majority of shooting incidents (money and work, or for those so inclined, capitalism). For example, in 2003, Emanuel Burl Patterson shot into a Labor Ready temp agency in Huntsville, Alabama while waiting for work and engaging in an argument with a fellow temp worker about a CD player. The NYPD classified this attack as “other” since Patterson was not employed at the time and had no long-term relationship with his four victims. Further, in 1999, Walter Shell attacked the law offices of his deceased ex-wife after being cut out of her will. The NYPD also classifies this as “other” since the attacker had no direct relationship that is easily quantifiable to his victim. The “money and work” category would encompass the vast majority of the shootings suggesting that the shootings spring from some economic roots.

However, the NYPD goes another route by manipulating the statistics to take the heat off of the main suspect when it comes to popular notions about what motivates such acts of violence – downsizing corporations. Only 1/3 of the 82 incidents they classify as “professional” involve employees who have been fired. They then confidently state, “the threat from active shooter attacks is not limited to downsized employees. In fact, in many cases, active shooter attacks resulted from disagreements among current employees of the organization.” A nice attempt to displace the violence from the workplace, but hardly convincing.

Recommendations

The real rub of this report is in its recommendations. While it does indicate that there are generally two ways out of an active shooting – suicide (40%) or applied force (46%) – it does not give a resounding endorsement to any police tactic or squad or even call for more funding.

In fact, in a boost to closet superheroes everywhere, bystanders are listed as one of the sources for applying force to restrain shooters. And there is no touchy feely stuff in regards to training in preparation for such an attack. No waiting for the professionals here. The third pillar of the training is to “Take Action.” If evacuating or hiding doesn’t work, the NYPD recommends that, “occupants should attempt to disrupt and/or incapacitate the active shooter by throwing objects, using aggressive force, and yelling.” Yes, this is basically the same recommendation for dealing with a bear, but it is also the chance for a regular person to become a star by taking out an active shooter.

But the report does not just rely on local heroes. Instead, it recommends preventative and preparation measures, both done in fine post 9/11 paranoid style. For prevention, the NYPD recommends the installation of surveillance cameras that cover all angles in the workplace and feed into a centralized location. This is a good example of advancing a pre-existing ideological agenda into a moment of crisis. Quite a financial boon to the surveillance camera makers and to those who wish to have every corner of New York City filmed for the purpose of total surveillance of the population. Regular people are all, simultaneously, potential heroes and suspects in this report. This point is further drilled home when the report advises people on the scene to “keep hands empty and visible at all times,” when the police arrive.

Just to re-enforce the popular paranoia, the NYPD also recommends training and drills to deal with potential active shooter events. These include training on how and where to hide, preferably in a “designated shelter location,” and exercises in attempting to “visualize their entire escape route before beginning to move.” Perhaps training sessions on how to “Take Action” are also in order.

Shooting Nation

Near the end of the document, absent from the press release sent to the media, is a statistical chart that examines active shootings in the US in comparison to the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, the US is the leader with 281 incidents. Canada finished second. Of course, our neighbors to the North reported only 8 active shooting incidents since 1966. In fact, the entire rest of the world combined reported only 44 active shooting incidents in the time period of the study. Perhaps the US is an exceptional place after all.

The undeniable reality of the report – beyond the calls for more paranoia re-enforcing exercises and uber-surveillance measures – is that the gun violence in the US is linked in a particular way to the economic structural violence carried out on a daily basis. In the time period the NYPD studied, 1966-2010, the US has undergone a radical class revolution from above with the top 5% re-distributing wealth from the rest of us to themselves. This process has had serious implications for mental health in the country and has made acts that might have otherwise seemed forbidden or immoral seem viable.

No amount of training or preparedness or citizen heroes can stem this tide. The US is in serious need of a cultural and economic transformation that puts people back in control of their lives. A Socialism for the 21st century is the best prescription for preventing future active shooting attacks.

***
Billy Wharton is a writer, activist and the editor of the Socialist WebZine. His articles have appeared in the Washington Post, the NYC Indypendent, Spectrezine and the Monthly Review Zine. He can be reached at whartonbilly-at-gmail.com.



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Perhaps most annoying has been the call for a return to civility. Well, no, I don’t feel like being civil. I like being rude.


by Doug Henwood

The horrendous shootings in Tuscon have certainly inspired a lot of drivel from the commentariat. They were heartbreaking, but please let’s not draw stupid conclusions from them.

Perhaps most annoying has been the call for a return to civility. Well, no, I don’t feel like being civil. I like being rude. The problem with the rudeness in American political discourse is that it’s often so stupid, not that it’s so rude. The idea that politics can be civil is a fantasy for elite technocrats and the well-heeled. I’m reminded of something that Adolph Reed once said to me, characterizing a mutual acquaintance as the kind of person who thinks that if you could just get all the smart people together on Martha’s Vineyard, they could solve all our social problems. Obviously they couldn’t.

Margaret Atwood once wrote that politics is about “power: who’s got it, who wants it, how it operates; in a word, who’s allowed to do what to whom, who gets what from whom, who gets away with it and how.” There’s no way that could be rendered civil. The field of politics is constituted by vast differences in interests and preferences. Much of the time, we don’t talk about those things directly or explicitly. We talk about them in caricature or euphemism, or take it out on scapegoats.

Some on the so-called left, such as it is, are using Obama’s speech in Tuscon the other day as an excuse for rediscovering their crush on him. On The Nation’s website, always a rich source for high-mindedness, John Nichols wrote this (Don’t Tone It Down, Tone It Up: Make Debate “Worthy of Those We Have Lost”):

It has been said that Obama strives for a post-partisan balance. But this was Obama speaking as a pre-partisan, as an idealist recalling a more innocent America — and imagining that some of that innocence might be renewed as shocked and heartbroken citizens seek to heal not just a community but a nation that is too harsh, too cruel, too divided…. [F]or a few minutes on Wednesday night, we dared with our president to answer cynicism with idealism, to answer tragedy with hope, to answer division as one nation, indivisible.”

Really, John, when was this nation ever innocent? When we were trading in slaves and killing Indians? What act of “healing” will make this nation less divided? The rich and powerful have a lot of money and might and they’re not going to give it up easily.

Elsewhere on The Nation website, Ari Berman actually used the phrase “better angels” to characterize the pres’s rhetorical targets (In Arizona, Obama Appeals to Our Better Angels). (Uh-oh, I said targets.) This reminded me of Alexander Cockburn’s great characterization of the role of the mainstream pundit: “to fire volley after volley of cliché into the densely packed prejudices of his readers.” But clearly it’s not just the mainstream pundit—so too alternapundits. It’s not just that these stock phrases grate on the ears—their use is a symptom that their speaker is evading some complexities.

from LBO News




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

My campaigns have brought me into classrooms and newsrooms, onto picket lines and protests and most importantly face-to-face with voters in New Jersey.


by Greg Pason

The Socialist, Issue 6, 2010 - Electoral action and political campaigns can be positive experiences for local and state organizations, when reasonable goals are set and the emphasis is on outreach and party-building. My experience as a candidate has been mostly positive and I think served the state organization well.

My first campaign as a Party member came in 1994. I was just laid off, and Andrea and I just had our son, Trevor. I was drafted as an independent candidate in New Jersey’s 9th congressional district by members of the Socialist Party and NJ Independents to run against Robert Torricelli, one of the prime supporters of the Cuban embargo. The major issue in that election was health care with the Republicans rallying around their “Contract with America.” I was an organizer for the Universal Health Care Action Network (UHCAN), a major single-payer healthcare organization in the US, gained support for my campaign from the Grey Panthers and got a major endorsement by the state-wide National Organization for Women. The campaign was an organizing success, I learned the basics of election law and the Party got a boost from the activity. We made new connections. I met and worked with Rev. Lucius Walker for the first time, had my first “sit down” with the Central Labor Council and found out a bit more about the “agreements” between the Democrats and Republicans in my state to divvy up congressional districts. We also had the chance to get Robert Torricelli so mad that he started to attack one of his campaign volunteers. They didn’t call him the “flame” for nothing.

I also got my first taste of “progressives” who sup¬ported the campaign, but just couldn’t vote for anyone but the Democrat (even one as bad as Torricelli). I got a lot of “I support you Greg but we can’t let the Republicans take the House” I think I got about 1.5% of the vote and Torricelli got 65%. The district, like many others, was gerrymandered for the Democrats and the Republican candidate had little support, even from his own party. Though Toricelli was certain to win, the progressive movement rallied behind what they argued was the lesser of two evils.

Since this initial effort, the Socialist Party of New Jersey has run many campaigns under the “Socialist Party USA” banner. We’ve contested state, local and federal campaigns with multiple candidates. From 1995 to 2009 I’ve run for Governor, Senate and Congress.

In 2000, we ran into a different sort of situation. The Nader campaign was happening and the Greens were organizing. Activists were convinced they could organize some sort of big tent of liberals and progressives in the Greens and any sort of campaign by Socialists was “counter productive.” But the Greens didn’t run a radical candidate for US Senate and our campaign picked up some Green support. David McReynolds was the presidential candidate for the SP that year and the Party got pretty good publicity until the Bush v Gore debacle in Florida. I think that set back what had been a growing third party movement for a few years.

In 2002, I once again contented for US Senate and once again we had some conflict with the Greens. Their candidate Ted Glick was the director of the IPPN. an organization, which, to this day, proclaims to support alternative parties. The Greens treated the Glick campaign as they treated the Nader campaign in 2000. Our campaign was seen as counterproductive, but even more so this time. They were convinced Glick could win. Glick did make some strides; he had a very moderate platform, so much so that at least one newspaper editorial board endorsed him. We were also in the odd situation where when we began the campaign the Democrat’s candidate was Robert Torricelli. When we ended the campaign the Democratic candidate was Frank Lautenberg (who just retired from the US Senate after 20 years).

The conflict with the Greens increased as Glick used his position in the IPPN to promote his campaign in their newsletter (an organization the SP, at that time, belonged to) while ours was omitted.

There were some major wins for us in the campaign. The Democrat’s replacement of Torricelli by Lautenberg was challenged by all the parties (other than the Democrats) and went to the US Supreme Court. I was personally listed as a plaintiff in that case and we have our information in the US Supreme Court records. We also took part in one of the major televised debates, with all the candidates. The debate was shown nationally on C-SPAN and covered in magazines like LIFE. Lautenberg won that election. We got about 3,000 votes and Glick got about 25,000. Both of us ended up hundreds of thousands of votes behind.

In this most recent election, I once again had the opportunity to campaign for the Socialist Party, this time against Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie. The media did not cover us as it had in the past, but participation in the campaign put us in touch with thousands of activists and gave us a seat in the anti-budget cut coalition “Take Back Trenton.” The Socialist Party is regularly contacted for radio or news interviews as the “Socialist” response to many issues and through campaigning and activism our state party is seen as a “player” in the political scene. My campaigns have brought me into classrooms and newsrooms, onto picket lines and protests and most importantly face-to-face with voters in New Jersey.

At our most recent Northern NJ Local meeting, we were greeted by a dozen local high school students representing the “Socialist Party USA” in a debate in their class. They were disappointed that we did not have congressional candidates in this election but took part in the discussion and I’m sure will represent us well in the debate. They were reassured that the Party will work to have a solid slate of candidates in the 2011 state-wide elections.

Socialist Party candidates are given the opportunity to represent a democratic socialist political movement. Too often we are lumped with Leninists or authoritarian regimes or ideas. Socialists are rarely given the opportunity to illustrate these important differences and to remind US voters of the long history of the Socialist Party in the United States. We should take advantage of those opportunities. Let’s run.



Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Thomas’ role as this sexually coercive predator pushing Nina to let loose and embrace her inner black swan in the name of the art was so frustrating and gross.


January 21, 2011 - Black Swan is winning awards and stirring up discussion left and right. The film engages a number of feminist themes in the story of Nina, a ballet dancer obsessed with achieving perfection. In this post Feministing writers discuss our reactions to the film.

*Warning: lots of major SPOILERS for the film follow*

Body transformation.

Actors get a lot of attention for changing their bodies in dramatic ways – putting on a lot of muscle or losing a lot of weight. Natalie Portman, who was small already, didn’t just get even more skinny, she got a body that looked like that of a ballet dancer. Portman’s talked about how starving herself for the role was almost like method acting. Certainly the body fit the character – there are quite a few shots of Nina’s pelvis and it looks like that of a child.


Then there’s the use of werewolf mythology to externalize Nina’s internal conflict. As she struggles with personal, sexual, and artistic growth the transformation plays out on her body. There’s the actual physicalization of her psychological struggle – Nina’s scratching and cutting, which I thought was a good representation of how some people use self-harm to cope. Then when Nina can’t cope with her “perfect” body also containing the impulsive, emotional, sensual black swan, the were-swan bursts out. I think a lot of Nina’s struggle in the film is about the difficulty of being both the virgin and the whore in a world that wants women to fit perfectly into just one box (I’ll talk about this more below where Lori’s brought it up). I think the were-swan imagery’s a great use of horror tropes to represent a struggle that’s been central to a lot of feminist thought. And I gotta say, as a trans woman it’s a struggle I identified pretty strongly with – standing in two places at once, having a body that can no longer express to the outside world what’s going on inside. - Jos

Thomas: how other characters excuse his behavior because of his art, how he uses his position.

Nina and Thomas in the dance studioHis character reminded me somewhat of the public’s rationalization and Roman Polanski — of how he is idolized as this beautiful, tragic figure with such “talent” that his actions should be excused. Like allowing him to commit assault is a sacrifice the world (in other words, his victims) has to make because the value of his work takes precedent. - Vanessa

The juxtaposition of her being too “uptight” and needing Thomas to “loosen” her up was gross, since he was obsessed with his object of art and was sexually coercing her to push her to her greatest creative potential. I read it as deeply problematic. The lesbian fantasy dream I guess is supposed to be her finding her own sexual/creative experession, but the relationship in general between her sexuality and her performance was just weird….I’m going to assume Aronofsky did this intentionally. - Samhita

Vanessa, I noticed a Polanski parallel as well. I appreciated this nuanced take on a sexual predator. Not an anonymous, probably Black man in an alley, as seems to be a standard representation of rapists in popular media. Thomas may be represented visually as an arch villain, but the character’s sexual manipulation and the excuses made for him by Nina is much closer to reality. Thomas takes advantage of his professional relationships, a stark contrast to the trope of sexual violence being committed almost exclusively by strangers. The way Thomas takes advantage of Nina’s trust and admiration does seem to have positive artistic results. Of course, it also contributes to her psychological collapse and eventual suicide. Characters excuse Thomas’ behavior because he’s an artistic genius, and he apparently is. But that’s clearly no excuse for what happens to Winona Ryder’s character or Nina. - Jos

Agreed. Thomas’ role as this sexually coercive predator pushing Nina to let loose and embrace her inner black swan in the name of the art was so frustrating and gross. Mostly because I wanted her to go home and masturbate. And I wanted her to defy her mother and get high and dance and laugh with Mila Kunis’ character Lily. (Also, I wanted her to actually have sex with Lily–and like it–instead of have that weird lesbian fantasy dream with herself?) I just wanted it to be an authentic expression of her desire–not something she does because she’s desperately seeking Thomas’ approval. - Maya

Perfection.

This film resonated with me deeply, particularly around the theme of perfection; Nina’s extreme longing for acceptance, of being “chosen” — of feeling so much pressure to be perfect by your environment that your very identity is compromised — reminds me a lot of my past experience with EDNOS, personal relationships and insecurities growing up (and shit, that I still have). I don’t doubt others had the same reaction. - Vanessa

In addition to illustrating the intense pressure–external and internal–to be perfect, the film really drove home the reality that it’s a standard that’s never actually attainable–that once you start judging yourself by how close you are to “perfect,” once you get sucked down that scary path, you’re fucked. Because you can always be just a little better, thinner, more graceful, more beautiful. And then once you’ve achieved one kind of perfection–as Nina had as a “perfect” white swan–the game switches on you and it turns out that’s not enough either. - Maya

The virgin/whore dichotomy.

Nina as the black swanMajor virgin/whore complex happening here. - Lori

I think there’s definitely a tie here too between the theme of perfection and purity… - Vanessa

I saw the virgin/whore dichotomy as central to Nina’s story. She’s spent her whole life trying to be the “perfect” ballet dancer, and has seemingly achieved that goal. Physical, emotional, and sexual immaturity were all wrapped up in this image. We get to know Nina’s body intimately in the movie, and it looks, small, underdeveloped, young. She is still her mother’s “sweet girl” and subservient to her directors at the ballet, with whom she has more of a teacher/student dynamic. There’s no part of me that believed Nina’s “No” when asked if she is a virgin. Nina has achieved perfection on one side of the dichotomy – yes, at a pretty high price including the harm to her body. But it’s when she tries to become the perfect whore too that Nina is torn apart. She is asked to show not only technical perfection but sensuality as well (and Nina has to be perfect at everything she takes on). She has already been pushed so far in one direction that she can’t handle the duality. Many of the steps she takes are liberatory, if qualified – masturbating, but at the urging of the sexually manipulative Thomas, distancing herself from her mother. But ultimately they’re tied with her downfall, as Nina is being asked for simply too much. She can’t contain the perfect virgin and perfect whore at once, and the conflict actually bursts out of her body in the film’s most bombastic were-swan moment.

I think this speaks brilliantly to the virgin/whore dichotomy, such a central part of how women are understood. We are either the prude or the slut, easy or frigid. We are expected to fit in one box, and do so perfectly, but we face conflicting demands as sometimes we’re supposed to be the “little princess” and sometimes the dominatrix. It’s too much for anyone to take, and it’s the every day struggle of women in a culture that doesn’t recognize us as full, complex people. Natalie Portman’s character is an extreme example of this division and how it can destroy a person. - Jos

Word to what Jos said. Poor Nina’s downfall comes from a problem that is so, so familiar to many women. Sure, the horror film genre, and the drama of the setting in the ballet world, and the perfect metaphor provided by the Swan Lake tale, amplifies the dichotomy. But really, this is an everyday struggle. I think when we talk about the virgin/whore dichotomy, it’s often to discuss the pressure women face to fit neatly into role or the other. But I was reminded, watching this movie, just how often we’re asked to play both. Be sweet and sexy, submissive and ambitious, maternal and exciting–at different times, for different people, in an impossible balancing act. And, of course, do it perfectly, effortlessly, as if you aren’t trying at all, as if you just happen to be exactly what everyone wants you to be. This is what seems to ultimately destroy Nina–the pressure to do it all while maintaining that illusion of effortlessness.

One complaint I have about the film, though, is that I thought it almost made the dichotomy too obvious–and pushed the horror of Nina’s deterioration to a cartoonish extreme. As my best friend Martha Polk wrote in a great review, there’s already a whole lot of scary shit in the everyday experience of being a woman and navigating these impossible pressures. There’s no need to bring in the special effects when sticking to the more subtle terror in Nina’s mind would make a more powerful–and, arguably, more feminist–film. - Maya

Nina’s relationship with her mother.

While a wee obvious, I liked how Aronofksy tied the mother and Thomas’ influence over Nina together with their ”Little Princess” and “Sweet Girl” pet names (although Thomas didn’t call her that name until the very end), particularly because I think it’s important to expose just how much of an influence the two of them had in Nina’s deterioration. And it was so telling of how “clueless” they seemed to be, how surprised and unable to take responsibility for what was happening to her, when the signs of her mental health issues were so obviously escalating, and how they enabled (and directly contributed to) her unhealthy behavior. -Vanessa

Public reception of the film.

I’ve read a few reviews of Black Swan where the critic basically said, “If Natalie Portman was a man people would be saying x, y, and z about her performance.” I find it interesting that even critics who are praising her for pushing the performance so far can’t even do so without qualifying their praise with, “This is what people would say if the actor was a man.” There are so few real, complex film roles for women out there, so there are very few opportunities for them to be seen at the top of their craft (I think there’s a lot more room for range on TV right now).

I am glad to see that Portman’s involvement in crafting the role has been emphasized publicly. I think both she and Aronofsky have done a good job of showing this isn’t just the work of a male auteur and an actor for hire – Portman really owns this part and is invested in the story it’s telling. - Jos

from Feministing

Compare this discussion to a mainstream review of Black Swan:


Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

The Revolution leaks all the time -

you can't call a plumber to fix it.


Poet, author, historian and revolutionary John Ross died recently. Ross played a critical role in the mid 90s by reporting on and publishing the writings of the Zapatista movement in Southern Mexico. This poem is presented to honor the contributions John Ross made to the movement for human liberation.


THE REVOLUTION IS NOT LIKE A FAUCET


The Revolution does not begin

over coffee at the Epicurean,

does not begin over gravy and grits,

in the first joint, the last hit,

the Morning Chron, your morning shit.

The Revolution does not begin

pulling greenchain on the graveyard shift,

or making the welfare line by nine.

The Revolution doesn't begin

in your mind, your heart, your liver,

your prick, doesn't begin

when you clench your fist,

The Revolution doesn't being in 1776,

1917, the depression, the dawn,

doesn't begin with gurus, Cinques,

the news from L.A. Havana, manana.

The Revolution doesn't begin

with both barrels, at the bottom of bottles,

on the pages of bibles, with the blues.

The Revolution does not begin,

The Revolution has no beginning.

The Revolution is unending.

The Revolution is not like a faucet -

you can't turn it on and off.

The Revolution leaks all the time -

you can't call a plumber to fix it.

- John Ross




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Current debates show that the all- European rebellions against the austerity politics of governments and the EU are having effects.


by Walter Baier

“One thing is clear”, writes the editor of a conservative Austrian newspaper, “the EU does not save Ireland but the banks holding Ireland shares.” (23 November). While the British and the German banks are now reaping the returns from their speculation in Ireland, they are with full war chest already lunging at their next victims, Portugal and Spain, where they hope to cash up in the same way.

Even laymen such as the majority of journalists are beginning to see that this cannot work out any longer. And the conservatives who only a few weeks ago announced that the great crisis was behind us are now grasped by blank horror in the face of the death spiral into which the Euro is plunging.

For many decades the governments and the EU have been fattening the beast of the finance market and now they are eaten up by it. This could well prompt malicious joy, couldn’t it? The idea, however, that a solution were lying in the renationalisation of politics proves no more than an illusion in the face of the impact at which the markets are now attacking the economies even of big nations. We should not let ourselves be deceived: Behind the Euro there is not the promised country of harmonious fiscal political diversity, but the dominance of the D-Mark-bloc (including Austria). Thus the big crash would not toll the hour of the Left but of the extreme Right. As we know, necessity is the mother of invention, which always implies a lacing of realism. Confronted with the all-European protests of recent months and having arrived at the objective limits of financial viability, even the German government strongly advocates European regulations which are to
allow for the ordered debt relief of states incapable of meeting their obligations.

In other words: not only the European tax payers but also the creditors, i.e., the banks, institutional and private investors profiting from plundering entire national economies, are to be among those cleaning up the mess (Only the little word “also” is what is irritating here, since all this is not “also” but exclusively about those profiting from the crisis being made accountable for the damages caused by them).

Yet, we find confirmed what critical economists have already stated at the beginning of the year: keeping up the illusion that the debts would be paid back one day only facilitated a further skimming off of interest rates albeit increased by “risk premiums“. A propos risk! The illusion amounted to nothing more than the continuation of the plundering.

This spiral must be stopped. It is now necessary to take the following
steps:
* a relief of that part of the debts which represents the result of economic imbalances within the EU and of speculation;
* the conversion of another part of the debt by the European Central Bank
* a public and transparent examination of public debts so that those responsible for inefficiency and corruption can be named and held accountable;
* to make available loans by the ECB to facilitate job-creating investments
in the infrastructure on behalf of government units;
* the creation of a funds financed by the banks to support those creditors that are endangered by the debt conversion but at the same time “relevant to the system” (such as pension funds);
* a top down redistribution of incomes by means of consistent taxation of profits and financial returns;
* the transferral of all banks requiring public means into public property and their restructuring by democratic participation of employees.

Current debates show that the all- European rebellions against the austerity politics of governments and the EU are having effects. Yet, this is still not enough! Pressure must be increased all over Europe in order to bring about a change in the politics of the states and the European Union.

from Transform Magazine Oct. 2010




Please Donate to our Union Printer Drive!

Rodinson's work helped him to understand "that the world of Islam was subject to the same laws and tendencies as the rest of the human race."

Maxime Rodinson (26 January 1915 – 23 May 2004) was a French Marxist historian, sociologist and orientalist. He was the son of a Russian-Polish clothing trader and his wife who both died in the Auschwitz concentration camp. After studying oriental languages, he became a professor of Ethiopian (Amharic) at EPHE (École Pratique des Hautes Études, France). He was the author of a rich body of work, including the book Muhammad, a biography of the prophet of Islam.

Rodinson joined the French Communist Party in 1937 for "moral reasons", but later turned away after the party's Stalinist drift. He was expelled from the party in 1958. He became well-known in France when he expressed sharp criticism of Israel, particularly opposing the settlement policies of the Jewish state. Some credit him with coining the term "Islamic fascism" (le fascisme islamique) in 1979, which he used to describe the Iranian revolution.

Rodinson's work combined Sociological and Marxist theories, which, he said, helped him to understand "that the world of Islam was subject to the same laws and tendencies as the rest of the human race." Hence, his first book was a study of Muhammad ("Muhammad", 1960), setting the Prophet in his social context. This attempt was a rationalist study which tried to explain the economical and social origins of Islam. A later work was "Islam and Capitalism" (1966), the title echoing to Max Weber's famous thesis regarding the development of Capitalism in Europe and the rise of Protestantism. Rodinson tried to rise above two prejudices: the first one widespread in Europe that Islam is a brake for the development of Capitalism and the second one widespread among Muslims that Islam was egalitarian. He emphasized social elements, seeing Islam as a neutral factor. Throughout all of his later works on Islam, Rodinson stressed the relation between the doctrines inspired by Muhammad and the economic and social structures of the Muslim world.

from Wikipedia

As socialists, we say unequivocally that political assassination has no role inside of a democratic society or our movement.



by Andrea Pason & Billy Wharton - co-chairs Socialist Party USA

On behalf of the Socialist Party USA, we send our sincerest condolences to the families of the people killed today in the shooting in Tucson, Arizona. This was an attempt at political assassination as the shooter, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, reportedly shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ, D.) in the head before turning his gun on the crowd. The dead include a 9 year child and five others, with twelve people wounded. Rep. Giffords remains in critical condition.

As socialists, we say unequivocally that political assassination has no role inside of a democratic society or our movement. Throughout American history, assassination has been a tool primarily used by the right-wing. The death by execution of strong leaders such as Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. stand as testimony to the damage done to our cause. We are democratic socialists and we seek to make a democratic revolution. A revolution that places people in control of their own lives. Political assassination has no role in such a movement.

The same cannot be said of the far-right. Right wing activists have consistently engaged in acts of assassination and in rhetoric that reinforces and encourages such acts. We can note the murder of abortion rights activists such as Dr. Barnett Slepian as well as the violent and hyper-masculine language consistently promoted by the right-wing media. Loughner was reported to be heavily influenced by these ideas, motivated by the call to arms being issued by the far-right.

And he did not have to look hard for motivation to attack Giffords. During the recent mid-term election, Sarah Palin’s Political Action Committee produced a chart that targeted Democrats. The chart employed cross-hairs to identify the electoral opponents and utilized language like “We'll aim for these races,” “This is just the first salvo” and “join me in the fight.” While Sarah Palin did not pull the trigger, she certainly holds a significant amount of guilt for creating the conditions in which such as act was possible.

Now is the time to reject such politics both here in the US and globally. A fitting tribute to the innocent victims from the Tuscon shooting would be to end the US occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and to end the bombings in Pakistan. The US military has, through targeted assassinations, extraordinary renditions and drone attacks, made political violence an everyday part of life in this region. As we learned in Tuscon today, such violence creates real human tragedies. The lives of innocents lost in the Middle East to political violence are of equal value to Loughner’s victims.

As socialists, we aim to create a non-violent world. A world where the great wealth of society is used to satisfy human needs. Ours will be a democratic revolution where the great majority of working people are finally able to express their desire for things like jobs, peace and freedom. There is no place in this process, in the transition to a democratic socialist society, for political assassination. This is the political tool of the right and only serves to re-enforce the presence of the repressive apparatus of the government. We want freedom and believe that mass non-violent political protests are the means to acquire it. We invite you to join
us in this struggle for a better world.

Organizers point to the widespread outrage expressed over similar legislation last year in Arizona, and plan to be beat legislators to the punch in Virginia.



January 12, 2011 - Virginia United Against Oppression says it aims to stop "all out assault" on undocumented people and workers in the Commonwealth.

A new group called Virginia United Against Oppression has formed a statewide campaign in Virginia to fight racist anti-immigration and anti-worker rights legislation in the General Assembly. The group has organizers statewide building a campaign against the "massive attack on all people living in Virginia".

The 7 anti-immigrant bills are expected to move through the short session of the General Assembly over the next two weeks, ostensibly to get them to the floor before public opposition is increased. A similar process exists for the bills pertaining to workers rights.

Activists and citizens are mobilizing across the state to bring attention to this these issues pointing out that:
-The bills are a full scale attack on undocumented people in Virginia, turning state police and all public employees into immigration enforcement officers, denying services and education to immigrants, and encouraging racial profiling.

-Along with legislation designed to limit workers abilities to file workers compensation claims, legislators will also be moving to embed Virginia's "right to work" laws in the state constitution, laws that already exist as statute, but harder to repeal if added to the constitution. In addition, another constitutional change is being proposed adding language that mandates a "secret ballot" when workers try to form unions and leave the decision of how and when a union forms in the hands of business owners rather than employees.

For a full list of the bills being opposed, or supported, by Virginia United Against Oppression please visit: http://virginiaunitedagainstoppression.wordpress.com/the-bills/

Virginia United Against Oppression is mobilizing people statewide in a variety of ways and plans on directly lobbying legislators, educating the public, and rallying all Virginians, documented or not, to take a stand against what they say is racist and xenophobic fear mongering made into law. Organizers point to the widespread outrage expressed over similar legislation last year in Arizona, and plan to be beat legislators to the punch in Virginia.

Organizers are encouraging anyone interested in the issues to take action and to contact them for ideas and cooperation.

For more information or to schedule an interview contact:
Brandon Collins
brandoncollins(at)comcast.net

###

Some more reasons to oppose racist legislation in Virginia:

-Having state police enforce federal immigration laws will be a burden on Virginia taxpayers, all public employees will be "deputized" as immigration officials and will detract from their ability to do their jobs.

-Public employees should not be forced to turn in people seeking assistance. Refusal to do so puts public employees at risk of job loss and loss of conscience.

-Localities should always be aware and witness immigration enforcement in their communities, eliminating this opens the door to great abuses.

-Immigrants awaiting deportation are often detained for months, sometimes for a year, in jail cells normally reserved for criminals, this is a great expense for taxpayers if we add to these numbers while simultaneously creating profits for private prison contractors. Beyond the tax issue, putting more people in jail for "crimes" that are misdemeanors is a human rights catastrophe.

-No human being is illegal, Virginia should welcome immigrants not put them in prison simply for existing.

-Social services and education for immigration are not a drain on our society, rather it makes for a safer society when the needs of all people are met.

-Further, many undocumented people pay into the tax system but do not file returns thus paying more into the system than other low income citizens.
The nation's eyes will be on Virginia, we should not pass racist legislation when the rest of the country is appalled by racism. Virginia's tourism industry could be severely impacted under a boycott such as has been seen in Arizona.

-Immigration is a federal issue, and should remain a federal issue. US trade policy is the main driver of migration to the United States.

-Workers should have a right to decide how and when they form unions.

-"Secret ballots" on the surface sound fair, however, by not allowing union sign-up or card check, the law puts the control and timing of union organizing into the hands of employers rather than employees, who could still opt for a secret ballot system but by their own decision rather than the employer.

-Since "card check" isn't allowed anyways, the only reason to put this language into the state constitution is to negate any federal laws on the matter such as the Employee Free Choice Act.

-Virginia's "right to work" laws are already Virginia statute, putting them into the state constitution makes it harder to repeal these laws in the future.

-Both constitutional issues bolster the stated goal of some state officials in Virginia and around the country to change the US Constitution to allow states to ignore federal laws whenever they want.

-People deserve to work in a safe environment, when accidents happen workers should be able to be compensated for their injuries. The new legislation will shorten the time allowed for workers to file claims, limit what qualifies to receive compensation including secondary injuries, and makes it harder for employees to defend themselves in the filing process.

There are 3 bills relating to workers rights that can be supported:
-Workers should not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation or preference, including state workers.
-Workers compensation should cover all injuries on the job including brain injury

http://virginiaunitedagainstoppression.wordpress.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Virginia-United-Against-Oppression/146569948730890

“We don’t care about the cold, Ohio can’t be bought and sold,” as they marched to the Statehouse in downtown Columbus.



January 8th, 2011 (Columbus). Hundreds of Ohioans braved the cold to protest John Kasich’s attacks on unions, workers’ rights, the environment, and public schools. Ohio faces an $8 billion biannual budget deficit. Using the budget crisis as a pretext, Kasich and his fellow Republicans have broadcast their intention to cut wages and benefits for public workers, privatize state functions, and cut public education. In addition, they are expected to propose financial aid cuts and tuition increases. Environmental activists attending the rally denounced Kasich’s decision to return federal funding that had been allocated for the 3C rail project. Joining the protest were labor, environmental, and community activists from cities around the state, including Columbus, Cleveland, Akron, Dayton, Athens, Miami, and Cincinnati. Participants chanted, “We don’t care about the cold, Ohio can’t be bought and sold,” as they marched to the Statehouse in downtown Columbus. Inside, John Kasich was celebrating “Family Day.” Outside, protestors criticized policies they said would hurt Ohio’s working families.

Speakers at the rally included Jobs With Justice organizer Deb Steele, the Rev. Eric Brown of Woodland Christian Church, Free Press publisher and former Green Party gubernatorial candidate Bob Fitrakis, Free The Planet’s Pat O’Connell, Bob Parks of the Ohio State Labor Party, Meigs County environmental justice advocate Elisa Young, and community activist Ruben Castilla Herrera. Following the rally, student activists from around the state met to strategize and build a rapid response network ready to go into action when Kasich unveils his budget. More protests against Kasich are expected on Monday, when the College Democrats will rally at 11 AM across from the Ohio Theater in Columbus, and on Friday, January 14th, when the newly formed OneOhioNow coalition will hold a kickoff rally outside the Statehouse at 2PM.

from the Defend Ohio Campaign

Summers provided the ideological rationalizations for the new mechanisms of neoliberalism, the primary strategy of global capitalism and its Brave New World Order




The following is Part II of Mitchell Cohen's "Larry Summers, Goodbye & Good Riddance." Read Part I by clicking here

by Mitchell Cohen

The interpenetration of high-finance, ecological destruction and war has always been a hallmark of capitalism. Larry Summers understood this only too well. He became the principal economist shaping U.S. financial aid to the government of Indonesia. As massive fires gutted Indonesia's forests and produced unbreathable clouds of smoke that hung for a thousand miles over the region for many months; and as Indonesia's military was preparing to again invade and massacre civilians in East Timor; and as anti-imperialists and enviro-activists throughout the world protested the U.S.'s economic and military assistance to the murderous Indonesian junta, Clinton's chief financial advisor said:

“We welcome the announcement in Jakarta today that the International Monetary Fund and the Government of Indonesia have reached agreement on a revised economic program designed to stabilize the Indonesian economy. The United States has a strong economic and national security interest in seeing Indonesia succeed in these efforts, which will depend on its ability to sustain both economic and political reforms. . . . We look forward to the timely board approval and disbursement of these funds, as well as those from the World Bank.
“We also welcome the Asian Development Bank's announcement that it has approved a substantial loan to improve financial sector governance in Indonesia. This loan will support efforts to strengthen Indonesia's banking system and is critical to restoring financial stability and growth."

The words just melt in your mouth.

Nearing the end of his 2nd term, President Clinton upgraded Lawrence Summers (first, Undersecretary for International Affairs; next, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury) as his new Secretary of the Treasury, replacing the retiring Robert Rubin. At his 1999 confirmation hearings, not a single U.S. senator bothered to ask Summers whether he still found "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country" to be "impeccable."

Summers provided the ideological rationalizations for the new mechanisms of neoliberalism, the primary strategy of global capitalism and its Brave New World Order:
● promoting cutbacks in all public services while "enclosing" (privatizing) lands, resources and social services that had been in the public domain and previously used in common (water, forests, air, transportation, medical care, etc.), sometimes using the legal pretext of "Eminent Domain" at home and economic and military might abroad;
● patenting what would become known as "intellectual property rights" (corporate ownership of genetic sequences in people and other living organisms);
● establishing a new market and "stock exchange" for trade in "pollution credits"; and,
● proletarianizing peasants and villagers, driving both labor and nature under the domination of new forms of exploitation and expropriation.
In the name of neoliberalism, the Clinton/Gore administration annihilated and then rebuilt (somewhat) under private ownership Yugoslavia's water and electric systems, schools, hospitals and sanitation facilities, bridges, dams, refineries and factories. The Clinton/Gore bombardment of that country displayed the U.S. Empire's vast modern arsenal of death and ecological devastation. Depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, graphite bombs, supposedly invisible "Stealth" fighter jets, and so-called "Apache" and "Black Hawk" helicopter gunships ravaged the recalcitrant populace. "Don't Fuck With Us" was the mes-sage scrawled on U.S. bomb fragments found near Pristina, in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo.

As the U.S. bombed such beautiful cities as Belgrade, Nis and Pristina into the stone age, a "second wave" of attacks was launched -- the economic bombs of the IMF's "structural adjustment policy."

Back in the 1990s, opponents of U.S. policies focused on the horrors of the massive bombardment of Kuwait/Iraq, and then Yugoslavia. But in general they failed to fully observe the underlying long-term economic goals that the bombardments and de-structuralizations were designed to accomplish. In a similar way, Bush's and Obama's "War on Terror" is used today as a cover for repressing resistance to the expansion of empire. The Somali pirates, for example, have become one of the more visible forms of resistance to the dumping of hazardous wastes off the north-east coast of Africa -- a consequence of the neo-liberal project that had been codified and refined by Summers. There is a growing understanding that "neither government regulations nor the capitalist market is capable of providing adequate protection for natural ecosystems or communities affected by environmental pollution," and so some of the victims of neoliberalism are taking matters into their own hands against the corporations poisoning them.

Nor are we immune from such policies here at home. While the world's environment is in worse shape than ever, also underway has been a gigantic transfer of wealth from the working class to banks, private corporations and their owners, leading to record levels of profit-taking on Wall Street. Just as he'd argued to deregulate trade in toxic wastes, Summers also advocated deregulating the banks. He testified before Congress that the banks and financial institutions were perfectly capable of regulating themselves -- and was a main opponent of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that restricted what the banks were allowed to do. Congress overturned the Glass-Steagall Act with Clinton and Gore's approval, leading to the economic crisis the world has been enmeshed in for the past 4 years. Former President Clinton himself has had second thoughts about Summers' role here, saying that Summers was wrong in the advice he gave him against regulating derivatives. And yet, President Obama seems to have had no second thoughts over appointing Summers to be director of the White House's National Economic Council, enabling Summers to again ascend to the pinnacle of global power, with the military might of the United States enforcing the administration's economic policies.

In the Autumn of 2006, Summers became a part-time managing director of the investment and technology development firm D.E. Shaw & Co. He was paid $5.2 million in his second of two years working there, while working just one day a week, and at the same time also collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from the same corporations to which Summers would later allot government bailout money.
When Summers' hero -- right-wing economist Milton Friedman -- died in 2006, Summers wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times entitled "The Great Liberator." In it, he argued that "any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites" and that Friedman had made real contributions to monetary policy. But his real contribution, Summers opined, was "in convincing people of the importance of allowing free markets to operate."

Under Summers and other officials from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization, "world trade . . . burgeoned with imbalanced cargoes: banned pesticides, leaded gasoline, CFCs, asbestos, and other products restricted in the North [but which] are sold to the South," according to Jim Vallette, formerly of Greenpeace. "Tropical timber, oil, coal, and other natural resources flow from South to North with little or no benefit to the host communities; and while regulations tighten around dirty coal and dangerous nuclear power plants in the North, they are proliferating in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America, where they are owned and operated by Northern corporations.

"This trade has been facilitated through tens of billions of dollars of financing by the World Bank, the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the U.S. Export Import Bank, [quasi-]government institutions in which Mr. Summers has wielded his economic logic. His 1991 memo can be considered a working thesis behind this decade's dominant global economic policies."

Summers' recent actions as director of President Obama's National Economics Council serve to continue his contempt for those on the receiving end of global capitalism's largesse. One of his last battles as part of the Obama administration was to remove caps on executive pay at firms receiving stimulus money, including Citigroup, from which he is under fire for accepting free rides in its corporate jets.

CONCLUSION
Lawrence Summers embodies the class he represents and the policies most fruitful to ripping trillions of dollars from the working class in the United States and natural resources from around the world in order to expand the Empire of capital. Thus, when U.S. President Barack Obama announced his appointment of Lawrence Summers -- a fellow Harvard Alumnus -- as Director of his National Economic Council, Obama completely disregarded Summers' responsibility in causing or exacerbating the international financial crises and the great suffering they have caused. Instead, Obama revoltingly heaped praise on Summers, oblivious to the impact (or maybe in support) of the devastation Summers' policies wrought on behalf of capital:
“As Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and then Secretary of the Treasury, Larry helped guide us through several major international financial crises -- and was a central architect of the policies that led to the longest economic expansion in American history, with record surpluses, rising family incomes and more than 20 million new jobs. ... I am glad he will be by my side, playing the critical role of coordinating my Administration's economic policy in the White House -- and I will rely heavily on his advice as we navigate the uncharted waters of this economic crisis.”

So much for Obama's slogan of "change". The die was cast before he stepped foot in the White House. Environmental activists might do well to ask President Obama, for starters, what are his views on grassroots activists' demands -- ridiculed by Summers -- for U.S. ratification of the ban on the export of hazardous wastes. 

***
Mitchel Cohen is a poet and member of the Brooklyn Greens/Green Party, Chair of the WBAI Local Station Board, and hosts "Steal This Radio" on NYTalkRadio.net. You can order his two new books of poetry -- "The Permanent Carnival" and "One-Eyed Cat Takes Flight" by writing to him directly at: mitchel-cohen@mindspring.com.

ADDENDUM
World Bank officials have always helped to shape and to administer U.S. government policy. Prior to his tenure as president of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981, Robert McNamara had, you will recall, been the Secretary of Defense of the United States and, in that capacity, the main architect of the "auto-mated battlefield" which the U.S. government applied in Vietnam, slaughtering more than two million Vietnamese people and poisoning their crops, farmlands and water supply for generations to come. It was McNamara who approved the use of Agent Orange and other defoliants that poisoned the land throughout the region, and along with it American GIs. Moving to the World Bank, McNamara maintained his inter-est in the region, helping to open up Thailand to the sex trade industry and presiding over the privatization of publicly used lands and infrastructure there, resulting in ecological and social catastrophe.

The revolving door between high-level government appointments and international banking, insurance and multinational corporate boards has been spinning as freely as ever regardless of who holds the Presidency. After appointing Summers to his post Clinton selected Ron Brown, former lawyer and public relations flak for Haitian dictator Jean Claude Duvalier, as Secretary of Commerce. From that post Brown participated in setting up the IMF's devastating Structural Adjustment Program for Haiti. Another of Brown's roles was to oversee the transport of toxic wastes abroad.
Brown, Summers and the others pushed the World Bank/ IMF line, which imposed "Structural Adjustment Programs" for countries unable to make regular payments to western banks on the interest of monies loaned to them, owing them large amounts. Should they not accept that "debt restructuring" they get bombed and sanctioned until they do. While individual banks of course want to recoup their loans, global finance capital as a whole fosters indebtedness as leverage to accomplish a number of things critical to the continued expansion of capital:
(1) hammer the working classes in debt ridden countries into line;
(2) obliterate ("enclose") longstanding communal ways of living and colonize it with the "free market";
(3) establish networks of Non-Governmental Organizations -- capital's new global managers -- to intercede in and thus "manage" any resistance. Organizations such as NRDC, traveling to Ecuador, inserted itself on behalf of indigenous, workers and community movements, supplanting them from speaking in their own voice and around their own demands. NRDC, in this instance, negotiated away the movement's victories against Occidental Petroleum in exchange for minor and temporary improvements in their material situations;
(4) drive down gains made during decades of struggle;
(5) present a pretext for "balancing the budget" at home, and thus provide an excuse for attacking gains made in workers' living standards and the environment here; and,
(6) develop small indigenous capitalist classes dependent upon global capital, and maintain them in power by any means necessary, including military force.
This is largely what the US/NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia was about, along with the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan -- the reassertion of capitalist hegemony over the region. The U.S. and NATO forced Yugoslavia, under a newly reluctant Milosevic, back into the arms of its masters. In his last act as Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown led a coterie of corporate executives, military personnel and defense contractors whose companies had contributed generously to the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, to Yugoslavia, in search of corporate gain and expansion of their markets that the break up of that beleaguered country made possible.

When Brown's plane went down over Yugoslavia fourteen years ago with dozens of corporate moguls aboard, it exposed the "intervention" as an attempt "to bring the region firmly into the American sphere of military and commercial interest."
At stake, at the time, in addition to cheap labor, military parts, future oil rights and a vast assortment of natural resources in already-developed mines, was $5.1 billion in reconstruction funds (that figure tripled, and by now has doubled again, to more than an estimated $32 billion), with the World Bank set to dispense $1.8 billion for the region in corporate giveaways each year. As Alexander Cockburn rightly put it, "[Brown's] was the tour to cash in the investment and bring home the trophies."

The Infamous Memo
DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP
‘Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:

1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges
may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.

The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.

Footnotes

1 - Lawrence Summers, Memo to senior World Bank staff, December, 1991. Published in The Economist, February 1992.
2 - Mitchel Cohen, Listen Gore: Some Inconvenient Truths About the Poltics of Environmental Crisis, Red Balloon pamphlets, 2007.
3 - Brian Tokar, Earth For Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash, South End Press, Boston MA: 1997. p. 66, quoting from Gore, Earth in the Balance, p. 337, 297. For a more complete analysis of Gore's book, see Brian Tokar, "An Environmental Presidency," Z Magazine, April 1993, pp. 23-28; and "Environmental Doublespeak," The Ecologist, vol. 23, no. 4, July/August 1993, pp. 157-58.
4 - Brian Tokar, ibid.
5 - Later, after a firestorm of outrage about the memo engulfed the World Bank in controversy, an aide at the World Bank, Lant Pritchett, said that he'd been the one to have actually written it, that it was meant as "ironic," and that Summers signed it in that spirit. Pritchett said -- much after the fact -- that it was meant as a joke.
6 - Jose Lutzenberger, in "Greenpeace Waste Trade Update," no. 5.1, First Quarter 1992.
7 - As NY Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins wrote, when the Democratic Leadership Council and the AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Commis-sion) targeted former Georgia Congress Representative Cynthia McKinney for defeat because she had the temerity to call for justice for Palestinians, the Democratic leadership -- from Maynard Jackson, Andrew Young, and John Lewis in her home town of Atlanta to Jesse Jackson Sr., Terry McAulliffe and Bill Clinton nationally -- ran away from her. They let a Republican judge who supported right-wing fundamentalist Alan Keyes in the 2000 Republi-can primaries re-register as a Democrat and beat McKinney with Republican votes in Georgia's open primary system.
8 - Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, "Memo Misfire: World Bank "Spoof" Memo on Toxic Waste Holds More Irony Than Laughs," San Francisco Bay Guardian, May 1999.
9 - OECD countries -- Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- so-called "developed" and relatively wealthier countries.
10 - Jim Vallette, "Larry Summers' War Against the Earth," May 13, 1999. As printed in Counterpunch.org.
11 - Mokhiber and Weissman, op cit.
12 - Interestingly, the Carnegie Corporation gave a $25,000 grant to the Pacifica Foundation in 1996 to help subsidize the launching of what would become its preeminent show, Democracy Now.
13 - The Development Group for Alternative Policies, Inc., "Statement on the Appointment of Lawrence Summers," 1400 I St. NW, Suite 520, Washington D.C. 20005.
14 - Robert Wampler, "Kyoto Redux? Obama's Challenges at Copenhagen Echo Clinton's at Kyoto". National Security Archive at George Washington Uni-versity. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB303/index.htm. December 18, 2009.
15 - Lawrence Summers, 1991 interview, in William Rees, "Footprints to Sustainability". University of British Columbia. UBC Reports, Vol. 52 No. 4 Apr. 6, 2006.
16 - David E. Sanger, "Treasury Nominee is Closely Questioned," in The NY Times, June 18, 1999.
17 - Christopher Whalen, testimony given on May 24, 1995 by Legal Research International Chief Financial Officer, before the Congressional Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs.
18 - Ralph Nader, March 9, 1995, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs.
19 - Lawrence Summers, statement of June 25, 1998.
20 - Mitchel Cohen, "Ecological Devastation in Yugoslavia," and "Bombing the Bridge to the 21st Century," in Against Nato's War on Yugo¬slav¬ia, Radical Philosophy Association, NY, April 2000.
21 - Mitchel Cohen, "Not on the News," Against NATO's War in Yugo¬slav¬ia, op. cit. http://www.thing.net/~oliveworks/
22 - Johann Hari, "You are being lied to about pirates. Some are clearly just gangsters. But others are trying to stop illegal dumping and trawling," The Inde-pendent, January 5, 2009. http://www.independent.co.uk. See also Salim Lone, "Destabilizing the Horn: American-Backed Warlords Invade Somalia," posted to TomPaine.com, January 8, 2007; John Beacham, "U.S. orchestrated Ethiopian invasion of Somalia," pslweb.org, January 5, 2007; K'Naan, "Why we don't condemn our pirates in Somalia," URB Magazine, April 14, 2009, http://www.alternet.org/story/136481; also, a great song by David Rovics, "Pirates of Somalia," http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?song id=8112054&q=hi&newref=1 .
23 - Brian Tokar, "Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash," South End Press, 1997.
24 - "Geithner, Summers among key economic team members announced today." Newsroom. November 24, 2008.
25 - Louise Story, "A Rich Education for Summers (After Harvard)," The NY Times, April 5, 2009.
26 - Summers, Larry, "The Great Liberator". The New York Times, November 19, 2006.
27 - Jim Vallette, International Trade Information Service and formerly of Greenpeace.
28 - Deborah Soloman, Mark Maremont (February 14-15, 2009). "Bankers Face Strict Pay Cap". Wall Street Journal. p 1.
29 - Jay Fitzgerald, (February 11, 2009). "Larry Summers Jet Ride Called Part of Larger Problem". Boston Herald. http://www.bostonherald.com/ busi-ness/general/view/ 2009_02_11_Larry_Summers__jet_ride_called_part_of_larger_problem/
30 - "The alphabet soup of UN structural adjustment programs, debt service payments, enterprise zones, the IMF, World Bank, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, U.S. Agency for International Development and what today we call NGOs -- non-governmental organizations, the so-called "progressive" arm of globalization -- are the resulting mechanisms through which the New World Order is implemented." See Mitchel Cohen, "The L.A. Rebellion and the World Bank," in What Is The Existential Vacuum ... & Does It Come With Attachments?, and also Mitchel Cohen, Haiti and Somalia: The International Trade in Toxic Waste, for further development and case study applications of NGOs in practice and the development of a new global division of labor to which the Gulf war was central.
31 - Contrary to NATO's war propaganda, for many years Yugoslavia's elected president, Slobodan Milosevic, was not Russia's "friend," but the International Monetary Fund's point man in the region, the one responsible for imposing IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs on his country. One writer even quotes Milosevic as having "urged Yugoslavs to overcome their 'unfounded, irrational, and ... primitive fear of exploitation' by foreign capital." (Leonard Cohen, "Broken Bonds: Yugoslavia's Disintegration and Balkan Politics in Transition", p. 56) It was only when massive public protests forced Milosevic to ease the rate of privatization of public utilities that he incurred the wrath of the international financiers led by the US, Germany and Eng-land." Mitchel Cohen, "Bombing the Bridge to the 21st Century: Behind NATO's Bombardment of Yugoslavia," http://www.truedemocracy.net/td2_4/51-nato.html.
32 - Counterpunch, April 1996.

50-year-old Gary Thomas Kelley, allegedly directed racial slurs at 44-year-old Juan Daniel Varela before the May 6 shooting near their homes.



A probable cause statement filed May 6 said Kelley confronted Varela outside Varela's home and repeated racial slurs at Varela. Varela then apparently attempted to kick Kelley who then allegedly pulled out a revolver and shot Varela, police said.

A police statement said the two men had gotten into altercations several times in recent years. The family wants Kelley charged with premeditated first-degree murder, not second-degree murder, with a hate crime allegation, Galindo said.

"This family wants justice. They're asking that violence stop and that Gov. Brewer and other elected officials take responsibility for this hostile atmosphere they have created" by the immigration law and other legislation, Galindo said.

But Phoenix Police Department spokesman, Officer Luis Samudio, said Friday the shooting was not a hate crime, an allegation that under Arizona law could subject a person convicted of a crime to a stiffer sentence.

Robert Shutts, homicide bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, said the case remained under investigation and that the murder charge could be upgraded to first-degree and a hate-crime allegation added if evidence warrants.

Shutts wouldn't comment on whether the new immigration law was a factor in the case. But he said authorities weren't trying smooth over the case or minimize it, as the Varela family has alleged.

"That's not even close to the truth," he said. "We are treating this case with ... utmost seriousness." Kelley on Friday remained jailed in lieu of $750,000 bond, facing one count each of second-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The AZFamily.com story has more details:

The alleged killer was yelling racial slurs seconds before he fired the shots that killed 44-year-old Juan Varela.

Varela was a third-generation American, yet his family claims he was called a “wetback” who was going to be sent back to Mexico by the man who murdered him. They claim it was a hate crime and the police are not doing their job. That is a charge the department denies.

A family spokesperson says, “We ask for justice, that’s what the family wants is justice.”

As someone reasonably knowledgeable about hate crimes, I can say that this case throws up all kinds of red flags. It is true that the mere use of ethnic slurs in the commission of a crime is not enough by itself to warrant hate-crime charges, but it is a potential piece of evidence in such a case. More significant is the fact that he had a prior history of agitation in the neighborhood, and it sounds as though that was racial too.

There certainly is plenty to investigate here. The Phoenix police should not be dismissing the potential for this to be a bias crime. And frankly, second-degree murder sounds pretty light, too: This guy went over to his neighbor's property with a gun and began shouting racial slurs at him. Those sound like powerful elements of premeditation to me.

There's some comfort in knowing, at least, that the case is not being handled by Joe Arpaio's detectives. But this case bears close watching.

from Alto Arizona