Dockworkers Display War Opposition Strength in Historic Ports Shut Down

Rank and file members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which includes some 25,000 men and women, took matters into their own hands on Thursday to protest the war in the largest one day strike since the invasion of Iraq. All along the West Coast, ILWU members shut down the ports, grinding business to a halt.

J.B. Powell at The Huffington Post described today the estimated effect on business.

“A spokesperson at the Port of Oakland citing John Martin and Associates economic analysis, said that $1.2 trillion in business activity flows from West Coast ports each year. She reported that it costs between $50,000 and $100,000 for each ship delayed for a day from docking. Officials, she said, planned for the strike and diverted ships, but the action kept at least one ship from docking in Oakland. There are 29 ports up and down the coast.”

Acting on a motion from a a recent caucus of members, the workers defied the wishes of even their own International union’s officials who argued against the strike, but said they supported the members’ right to protest.

Jack Heyman, a local officer of the ILWU who wrote the resolution to strike, said in a Democracy Now broadcast Thursday the action of the ILWU members directly demonstrates the power of resistance workers possess.

“Well, what this action was was raising the level of struggle from protest to resistance, and we’re hoping that these kinds of actions will resonate to other unions and workers.

It’s already catching on with some of the port truckers. Actually, they’ve been doing actions for quite awhile. While it’s not mainly based on the war—I think they’re very much affected by the high price of fuel—they’ve been shutting down ports over that issue, but also immigrant rights, because many of them are immigrant workers.

And I hope that this will be an example to other workers that we have the power, we’ve got to use it. And that’s how we can bring this war to a halt.”

Telling of the committment to speak out, ILWU member Angela Benjamin, brought her 8 year old son, George, to the rally, missing a day’s pay to show her support for the war opposition.

“My father was a Vietnam Vet and he died in 1969,” Benjamin said. “So it’s important for me to be here to protest this war. I have a personal idea about what’s going on.”

Obama Talks Policy Online with MOMocrats Bloggers

MOMocrats, punditry from a motherly perspective dedicated to putting a Democrat in the White House, today unveiled their exclusive interview with Barack Obama on issues close to the hearts and minds of American families.

The 23 contributors to MOMocrats, including myself, hail from across the U.S. and weigh in daily on the candidates and issues of election 2008. Most recently, following the ABC debate that angered bloggers and received poor reviews from the press, MOMocrats decided to draft a list of questions they wish had been asked of the candidates. They then sent these questions to the Obama campaign. Of the questions, Obama responded to 5 , submitted by both readers and MOMocrats contributors and ranging from foreign policy to family leave.

First off, the senator was grilled on poverty and affordable housing and responded:

“I believe that inserting simplistic tag lines or one-dimensional goals are
unlikely to be helpful in meeting this challenge.”

He elaborated further by describing his plan to tackle the problem of affordable housing with his Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

“The Affordable Housing Trust Fund would use a small
percentage of the profits of two government-sponsored housing agencies,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to create thousands of new units of affordable
housing every year.”

In addition, Obama wrote that he would

“ensure that all Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs are restored to their original purpose.”

Obama was asked in another question, what he would do as President to address the mortgage crisis and crushing debt burden so many U.S. families now face. His response:

“Six months ago, I announced my plan to put a middle-class tax cut worth $500
per person or $1000 per family into the pockets of workers who deserve it.
I also proposed eliminating income taxes for seniors making under $50,000
and creating a universal mortgage credit for homeowners who do not itemize,
which will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners.”

“And because this kind of relief can’t wait until the next President takes
office, I proposed a plan in January to provide an immediate tax cut of $250
for workers and their families and a temporary $250 bonus to seniors in
their Social Security checks. These tax cuts will help to stimulate the
economy by immediately putting money into the pockets of working Americans
who need it and will spend it. And if the economy continued to worsen, I
called for an additional $250 to workers and seniors to help them get by.”

He further detailed a Foreclosure Prevention Fund, and a Credit Card Bill of Rights that would ban

“unilateral changes to credit card agreements, applies interest rates
increases only to future debts, and prohibits interest on transaction
fees.”

Most significant of Obama’s answers on domestic family issues was his response to expanding Family Leave for workers and supporting state paid leave programs.

“As a state legislator and a U.S. Senator, I have always supported family
friendly policies. As president, I will initiate a 50 state strategy to
encourage all of the states to adopt paid-leave systems, and I will provide
a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states
offset the costs for employees and employers.”

You can read more of Obama’s answers on raising the federal minimum wage, his view on torture, and Child Care and Dependent tax credits along with the full text of the interview here.

MOMocrats has also issued an open invitation to the Clinton campaign for their response to the questions.

Crossposted on The Huffington Post

On citizen journalists and the validity of accounts

The fireball that has erupted over a comment made at a fund raiser has knocked me off my feet. Over the past few days, what amounts to a standard, though creatively written account of another political event/fund raiser by a citizen journalist has become the fuel for an insane amount of intolerance described here that is almost as hateful as the thinking Barack Obama is being labeled for with his remarks on economically disadvantaged small-town people.

Do I need to get into all the reasons why one might expect a man who has campaigned for last 15 months or so all over the U.S. to know better than to phrase his remarks as such? Well, that is not where I’m headed, and quite frankly, I say this with all honesty, it often falls on deaf ears. However, I do intend to speak out for my citizen journalist colleague, Mayhill Fowler, with whom I, and a number of other of other contributors, have written on The Huffington Post’s Off the Bus since June of last year.

Mayhill, as far as I have known, is unabashedly supportive of Obama. She also has very keen eyes and ears as her writing attests. She is very artful at describing the scene and the atmosphere as well as the reaction she experiences at campaign events. Over the last several months, I have read her many posts, of which a vast majority are favorable to Obama’s campaign efforts. And I have followed with a slight sort of envy her outright dedication to covering the campaigns, which isn’t always possible when you have young children under foot as I do.

Therefore, I am appalled at the amount of backlash she has received for having written her account of this expensive San Francisco fund raiser. I have attended numerous campaign events and throughout my years training as a journalist, I’ve covered events, people, issues I did and did not care about, much as a citizen journalist or any journalist for that matter would cover. Some were favorable to an idea or candidate I supported, some were critical. But, all were written from the truth as I believe Mayhill’s account was written.

What I don’t understand is how ordinary Americans can go on the defensive over the work of a citizen journalist, who is more like they are, than any big name paid reporter on any big news operation anywhere.

The value in the citizen journalist’s account is that, unlike the paid reporter, they work for free. They are beholden to no one but themselves. And therefore, they are under no  obligation to write, cover or opine about subjects but from their own unique perspective.

We must remember the amount of varying viewpoints, accounts, thoughts and questions citizen journalists may pose is the very cornerstone to the idea a free press, most crucial in this age of corporate controlled big media.

Let us not become so embedded in our support of a candidate at the expense of free thought and dissent that we forget the underlying foundation that allows our candidate his or her platform in the first place.

Sold out? Black voters and the Obama campaign

Glen Ford, posted this column on Black Agenda Report a few days ago on why even if Obama wins, black Americans would find themselves with only a continuation of irrelevence in decision maker’s and politicians minds.

Ford makes special note of his disappointment in seeing Danny Glover, the actor and activist who has rallied for many progressive causes, band together with several other activists to endorse Obama formally in the past weeks.

It was Glover’s support of Obama that most surprised me of the four authors of the written endorsement, of which I detailed in my earlier post below.

In a refreshingly honest way, Ford does an excellent job of outlining from start to finish the theatrics that have come into play during the Obama campaign.

“Better yet, Obama was now free to more brazenly woo Republicans and Reagan Democrats, knowing Blacks had become so cowed (or even delusional) they would pretend not to hear the overtures to the enemy. In Selma, Alabama, Obama claimed that Blacks had already come “90 percent of the way to equality” - a signal to whites that the days of Black racial agitation were nearly over. In Reno, Nevada, Obama expressed deep empathy with those Reaganites who had been so repulsed by the “excesses of the 1960s and 1970s.” On Katrina, Obama declared that government “incompetence” after the storm “had been colorblind.” If that were true, then every act of man in the aftermath of the hurricane was racism-free. That’s Obama’s position.”

Clinton, Obama Silent on Winter Soldier, Silence on The Responsible Plan, Progressives Divided

Last Thursday over 30 Democrat challengers publicly presented their support for “The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq,” assembled from existing congressional legislation by national security experts, retired generals, and Congressional candidate Darcy Burner. As of today, The number of Democrat endorsees of the plan has risen to 45.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have yet to acknowledge the Iraq withdrawal plan crafted by members of their own party, and it appears there is little pressure from the press to question them on it.

The two candidates’ also continue their refusal to acknowledge Winter Soldier, the public testimonies of Iraq War veterans that occurred this month in D.C. and one of the most important anti-war events in over 3 decades. If their refusal is any indication, the American public would be waiting a very long time to hear any mention of the Iraq plan.

Complicating matters, Sen. Obama has just this week received the endorsement of 4 notable anti-war progressives, writers and activists: Tom Hayden, Barbara Ehrenreich, Danny Glover and Bill Fletcher. Yet within the progressive activist community, there remains division over the endorsement, recently evidenced on the pages of the Huffington Post, the Guardian and The Nation.

Hayden, Ehrenreich, Glover and Fletcher make their case that Obama’s centrism provides the precise strategic opening for left leaning issues to find their way into his administration.

However, critics of the endorsement, insist that it’s putting all your eggs in one already weak basket and will only dilute the strength of the anti-war movement.

Christopher Hayes, in The Nation last Thursday, describes exactly how the recent “Responsible Plan” differs markedly from the current withdrawal plans offered by both Clinton and Obama:

“The Responsible Plan opposes any residual forces as well as permanent military bases. It flatly states, “We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces, and end our military presence in Iraq.” It looks toward restoring “Constitutional checks and balances and fix[ing] the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us.” It also addresses the need to take responsibility for a humanitarian crisis in which thousands of Iraqis who worked with US forces are in danger and millions are displaced across the region.”

It’s clear Clinton’s Iraq objectives fall terribly short with no timetable for withdrawal. Obama’s plan includes withdrawal specifics, but falls short of bringing the troops home in less than a year, against the wishes of large numbers of U.S. voters, according to recent opinion polls.

Stephen Zunes, writing at Common Dreams, outlines the very tough choice progressive voters seem to be facing in choosing Obama over Clinton. But in Zunes’ opinion, despite conflicting statements from Obama and his recently resigned foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, the Illinois senator is still the clear choice over Clinton to ultimately bring the troops home.

“out campaigning Senator Obama tells voters that as president he’d withdraw combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months, but one of his top foreign policy advisers told a different story. She told a British television reporter, and I quote, “he will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a U.S. Senator.” … Senator Obama…has promised to bring combat troops out in 16 months, but according to his foreign policy adviser, you can’t count on him to do that. In uncertain times, we cannot afford uncertain leadership”

…And, based on the details revealed in both candidates’ plans, whatever unforeseen complicating factors may emerge in Iraq over the next couple of years, it is almost certain that more American troops will be out quicker under a Barack Obama administration than a Hillary Clinton administration.”

Timetables aside, what so divides the progressive voter’s decision to support Obama is his history and framing of his candidacy as a centrist politician. Some view it, like Progressives for Obama, as a sliver of hope, others eye it with skepticism.

While you have to admit the number of voters who support Obama makes for an undeniable movement, shouldn’t caution be urged in making a full endorsement of any of the two candidates, given their current positions on the war? Obama, specifically would need to do much more to deserve the support of the progressive wing given his past and current statements on healthcare and the economy.

Perhaps it comes as no surprise that both Obama and Clinton won’t touch the Winter Soldier hearings in their speeches to voters. John Kerry, himself one of the original soldiers of the Vietnam war who testified in the first Winter Soldier hearings in 1971, has publicly remained quiet on the hearings this month.

Sadly, Kerry, one of Obama’s most politically prominent endorsers was villified for his testimony when he was campaigning for president in 2004 and continues to be by the right wing this very day.

Pastoral

Pastoral

WHEN I was younger
it was plain to me
I must make something of myself.
Older now
I walk back streets
admiring the houses
of the very poor:
roof out of line with sides
the yards cluttered
with old chicken wire, ashes,
furniture gone wrong;
the fences and outhouses
built of barrel staves
and parts of boxes, all,
if I am fortunate,
smeared a bluish green
that properly weathered
pleases me best of all colors.

No one
will believe this
of vast import to the nation.

William Carlos Williams

Clinton campaign’s fake radio news

Just when you think the primary contest couldn’t get any more pathetic. (When will it be over?!!) This afternoon there is a report (to Time courtesy of the Obama campaign) of the Clinton campaign running this ad on radio stations in Ohio.

The ad begins:

“This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP…”

Then it goes on to say various other things: Obama, NAFTA, political maneuvering, etc.

You know when you’re in your car, you’re already consumed by the task of driving, perhaps you’ve got passengers with you talking, etc. So you’re probably only going to hear the beginning of this “ad” calling your attention, then comes the “election news update.”

Apparently, outright trickery of voters is not too low a level to stoop for Clinton. And I thought the “3 a.m.” ad was bad.

I’ve been trying to come up with something positive to say about the primaries, really I have…

Crossposted on MOMocrats

Chris Dodd on VP list? We need his class of dems.

Sen. Chris Dodd is rumored to be on the VP list for one of the two candidates running and most of the talk seems to center around Dodd as a choice of Obama’s. If this is true, Dodd would be an asset to his running mate.

Strong on domestic issues, he’s served on the senate foreign relations committee for several years. Most notably, he’s in favor of paid family leave, an idea which the U.S. has been painfully slow to consider in contrast to other countries and says he plans to introduce a bill on this in the coming weeks.

Most recently, I wrote about the 15 year anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act and how the Department of Labor wants changes made to the law that would set control in the hands of businesses who contend that family/medical leave is bad for the bottom line because employees abuse it.

I read this response by Chris Dodd on the Wall Street Journal to a pro-business editorial recently, and I must say, I’m glad to have him on our side.

If you’re interested in helping document the ways that the FMLA has helped families and send a message to politicians, you can share your story here at the National Partnership for Women and Families site.

Crossposted at MOMOcrats.com

Corporate lobbyists working to weaken FMLA

While ripe for improvements, the Family and Medical Leave Act currently provides millions of families the right to job security should they take time from their job to care for a loved one.

In a recent op-ed in the Progressive, Sanhita SinhaRoy, writes about how business and trade associations are aiming to weaken the Family and Medical Leave Act before Bush leaves office and the role of business lobbyists in these efforts.

“.. lobbyists for the business sector have been looking to weaken the law. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other trade associations are urging the Bush administration to chip away at the law before the president leaves office,” she writes.

Lobbyists claim the intermittent leave is difficult to administer and increases costs to employers. One of their proposals would require employees to take a minimum of a half-day for intermittent leave for doctor’s appointments that may require only an hour or two.

SinhaRoy explains: “Such a move could be devastating. It would force workers to take time off in larger blocks, thereby using up their leave more quickly than may be needed.In addition, lobbyists for the effort say the current law is difficult to administer and leads to fraud, abuse and lower productivity.”

Update on “Edwards Has My Vote Pledge”

Update on my post below on this:

They’re up to 557 comments as of this afternoon.