Truthout Stories Thu, 29 Sep 2016 02:31:09 -0400 en-gb The US Is a Country, Not a Business

2016.9.28.DT.mainThe US has been sold off to the highest bidder, and until we repudiate the "free market" fundamentalism that has infected our public discourse, we'll not get it back. (Image: Jared Rodriguez / truthout; Adapted: Thomas Hawk, Rob Shenk)The US is increasingly no longer a country; instead, we're being run like a business, and in some cases, it's literally killing us. Take for example, the ongoing problem of foodborne illnesses like Salmonella, which infects more than 1 million Americans every year.

One of the most common ways of contracting Salmonella is by eating eggs. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 79,000 people get sick every year from eating Salmonella-contaminated eggs, and of those 79,000 people, 30 actually die.

This is a type of preventable problem that pretty much doesn't exist across the pond anymore. Ever since the United Kingdom started requiring chicken farmers to vaccinate their hens against Salmonella, reported cases of the disease have plummeted. There were almost 15,000 egg-related Salmonella cases in 1997, when the immunizations began; now there's close to none.

See more news and opinion from Thom Hartmann at Truthout here.

The FDA actually considered implementing a similar vaccine mandate here in the US, but decided not to in 2010, basically because chicken farmers didn't want to spend the extra money on the vaccines and they could buy lobbyists. This is what it looks like when your country ceases to become a country and becomes something else -- a business, or maybe just another asset in a corporate portfolio.

How many lives could have been saved if the FDA had decided to look out for the public first and Big Ag second? How many costly emergency room trips could have been prevented? How many recalls avoided? We'll never know for sure.

With Reaganomics came the idea that government isn't the solution, it's the problem. But this mantra is the source of many things wrong with this country. By waging war on government, which they call the "problem," Ronald Reagan and his contemporary followers in the Republican Party have sold us out to big business.

You can find evidence of this everywhere you look.

It's why Americans pay more for health care than anybody else in the world, from drugs to eyeglasses to dental work, and why we are the only developed nation in the world that allows for-profit corporations to offer primary health insurance.

It's why you have banks like Wells Fargo ripping off their customers by opening up accounts in their names.

It's why you have Salmonella outbreaks every year, even though they stopped being a real problem in Europe years ago.

It's why you have corporate farms spraying glyphosate basically everywhere, even though European countries are banning it.

The list goes on.

Thanks to Reaganomics, we have nearly lost our country.

It's been sold off to the highest bidder, and until we repudiate the "free market" fundamentalism that has infected our public discourse, we'll not get it back.

Opinion Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400
Destructive Criticism ]]> (Matt Bors) Art Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400 Trump, Clinton and the Illusion of Everlasting US Hegemony

Both Trump and Clinton believe US hegemony is a natural world order that needs to be restored. In reality, we should be having a conversation about how we navigate the decline of US hegemony, and balance the drastically uneven distribution of resources at home.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump speak during the first presidential debate, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, ob September 26, 2016.  (Doug Mills / The New York Times)Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump speak during the first presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, on September 26, 2016. (Photo: Doug Mills / The New York Times)

There was plenty to read between the lines in Monday's presidential debate, from how the unsmiling, ultra-masculine persona of Donald Trump reflected his angry, anxious base, to a lack of critique from both sides about the basis for and follow-up to NATO's intervention in Libya.

But looming over the entire conversation -- and indeed, the entire Western world's current political crisis -- is the white noise of fading hegemony. The US is losing its place in the global order, and Europe is coming with it.

This shift is impacting the rise of far-right, fascistic movements both here and across the EU. It is also one of the reasons that the West won't do anything about Syria besides offering limited funding and symbolic support to multiple factions of the opposition. Far from a long-planned conspiracy, it's more of a "throw shit at the wall in the hopes that something sticks" strategy.

For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."

Why? Isn't this the "New American Century"?

Rising powers, both at the regional and international level, are filling voids left by the US in its decline. Nowhere is this more acutely felt than in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen; Israel continues incursions into Gaza; Russia plays a central role in the defense of the Syrian regime. Multiple US allies fund various (and often opposing) sides of the Syrian war. All of these moves have been against the wishes of the US, which did not want to see a further escalation in a region where its power had been weakened so much by its defeat in Iraq.

Domestically, populations that have been poised to benefit from long-term US power -- white America, for instance -- are feeling the possibility that they may have to live different lifestyles in the future. Their fear of even slight downward mobility, mixed with their privilege-enhanced expectations, is pushing the agendas of the far right, which has successfully eclipsed traditional conservative ideas with a neofascist agenda that places the US, Austria and the UK first.

Trump admits this relative decline, more or less, when he paints a picture of a US where "everything is bad" and we are "losers." Even the freshly renovated, waterfall and sculpture-filled airports of the US are apparently in "third world" condition to him. Though such a description is a blatant mythology (the US has fairly state-of-the-art airport facilities and a very safe travel record), it may sound like it could be true, to those who think the country is falling apart.

The idea that the country is literally deteriorating backs up Trump's image of an America on the brink of extinction, and justifies the state-of-siege mentality his campaign relies on for its momentum. While its decline as a hegemony is a reality, the inevitable, near-term, catastrophic end of the US itself is a fiction invented by the same folks who deny the existence of climate change and swear that Obama is secretly a Muslim.

However, there are multiple generations now that were raised to believe they would be better off than their parents, and their dreams are being shattered. That belief, reliant on a US that would rule the world for a long time to come, is not standing up to reality. Though generations of administrations have distributed soldiers across the world, built large military bases, and designed trade pacts to solidify economic arrangements that favor US corporations, they no longer see a future in their favor.

Trump is a man of the corporation, not the country. He is one of them, and Clinton works for them.

Part of the US losing its place in the world is due to the very nature of corporate globalization: It doesn't favor nation-states. Multinationals, when the rubber meets the road, have no allegiance to country. This is why Dick Cheney's beloved Halliburton moved its corporate offices to the United Arab Emirates. It's why Trump couldn't admit that he has no strategy to prevent "American" corporations from moving factories overseas. You can't have neoliberal capitalism and also have the regulations needed to prevent things like outsourcing and capital flight. Trump, at the end of the day, is a man of the corporation, not the country. He is one of them, Clinton works for them.

Monday night, Trump admitted something besides the fact that he may not pay federal income taxes: The US is "losing to China." His way of combating this is still a mystery, though he claims to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because it is not pro-America enough for him. Clinton claims to oppose it, too, probably in the hopes that President Obama will fast-track it in so she doesn't have to prove her opposition. Basically, she's passing the buck before it is even handed to her. Perhaps Trump is, too.

Either way, there's a reason the TPP does not include China. It's designed for a specific type of US-centered trade that, like the scramble for Asia after WWII, is about US economic and political dominance in the region. But trade deals like the TPP are designed against the institutions of nation-states. They are designed for the "para-state" corporations, which wield far more influence over Western governments than voters do.

It's a catch-22 for the politicians who claim US allegiance but depend so heavily on the corporate sector. And since greed navigates so many of these decisions, they simply can't stop the process. So the snake eats its tail.

The specter of Chinese dominance is no small thing, nor is it a case of classic "red-bashing" against the pseudo-communist state or a bizarre "Trumpism" from the demagogue's own head; it's an economic reality that threatens the "American way of life," that mythic economic comfort enjoyed (or at least anticipated) by a predominantly white part of the country. The historic memory of this way of life, summed by Trump's "Great America," is strong. And while it did exist once, in the 1950s, it was only for a racially and economically select few. Still, its imagery has a convincing strength, and Trump's promise to "return" it captures many a white heart.

But it's not just those at the top who are scared. A shift in the global economy that pushes the US off the top would also affect the rest of the country by determining the prices we pay for food, clothes, and other essential and consumerist commodities in a post-US-centric trade environment. The conversation should be about how we navigate this with humility, and balance the drastically uneven distribution of resources in this country so that our decline doesn't result in the kind of catastrophic wars that occurred with the decline of the European empires.

While Trump invokes the decline without totally naming it, Clinton ignores or denies it. Why? Because her entire policy set is designed specifically to maintain the illusion of US supremacy. It's a macro-political version of what '60s New Left activist Rennie Davis called "organizing with mirrors," attempting to create a reality by convincing enough people that it already exists. This illusion dovetails with the Wall Street economy, which is itself based on similar principles: Ponzi schemes designed to create realities based on perception, fear and expectation. Clinton hopes she can talk US hegemony's way into a continued existence.

Due to the depth of the crisis, both candidates' promises, most certainly, will be but flashes in the pan. Only an alternative based on a drastically changed US foreign policy, bound to some type of global framework for mutual benefits amongst all people, would prevent the current destabilization from becoming yet a new global order based in the rule of the many by the few. Different players may soon take the controls, but there is little rationale to believe they will have a more moral or sustainable approach to the game.

Shading our view of this decline, especially among the political left, is an often conspiratorial assumption that the political class is always in control and that global developments are always benefiting those who instigate them. Iraq is a perfect example of the fallacy of this perfect control. It was a war launched for a blundering, desperate US foreign policy establishment to establish footholds in an important geostrategic location. It resulted in a military defeat. Moreover, the oil contracts made possible by the International Monetary Fund-supported "Oil Law" that were destined for Western corporations were sent by the new Iraqi government in the direction of Russia and China. The new Iraq has since positioned itself closer to Iran politically, and seems more interested in doing business with China than the US. This wasn't exactly the plan.

While many conservative voters argue that the US brought democracy to places like Iraq, they show no enthusiasm for actual democracy. Trump's critique of the UN and NATO is basically that they are not American institutions. Clinton's embrace of them is justified by them being "American" enough for the long game.

Trump wants the short game. War is fine if it's quick, efficient and we win. His problem with Iraq is not that it was wrong; it's that the US lost.

But Iraq's about-face is a sign that the world knows about the US decline, and even though it still lives under its waning power, it's starting to crawl out from under it.

In the end, for both candidates Monday night, the debate over these international institutions was over how much they benefit the US, not the broader world. Granted, the UN is not a model institution, and begs drastic reforms, while NATO begs abolishment. Still, it was not the actions of these institutions that was up for debate so much as the idea of them: Global alliances of governments interacting as partners do not suit the hyper-masculine, empathy-deficient worldview of Donald Trump. And for Hillary Clinton, the justification for both institutions is based on their willingness to be partners in a larger US agenda. The world is not involved in the matter.

Unfortunately, for both candidates, the question is how the US should maintain global hegemony, not if it should.

Opinion Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400
Still Caught in the Can't-Catch-Up Economy

Has the economic recovery finally filtered down to the US working class, more than seven years after the official end of the Great Recession? The US Census Bureau says yes, based on the results of its Current Population Survey released on September 13.

According to the Census Bureau, all sectors of the population -- be their incomes high or low, their ages old or young, their regions East, West, North or South -- experienced sizeable income gains between 2014 and 2015. In fact, as MSNBC reported, income grew the fastest for the poorest people: "[T]he income growth was widespread across every...racial/ethnic demographic, with Americans at the bottom seeing the largest percentage increase."

But the Census Bureau's findings are highly suspect, mainly due the mountain of economic data they ignore.

Who could trust a meteorologist, for example, who reports cheerfully: "The recent heat wave has given way to cooler, more pleasant temperatures," yet doesn't mention a tropical storm presently whipping through the region?

The Current Population Survey has a similar problem, reporting on pre-tax cash income increases without regard to the spiraling expenses necessary to survive in today's world.


The survey showed that median US household income rose a whopping 5.2 percent to $56,516 last year -- not only the first increase since before the recession began in 2008, but also the fastest income growth in nearly 50 years.

It also found that 3.5 million people climbed out of poverty in 2015, lowering the poverty rate from 14.8 percent to 13.5 percent -- the sharpest annual drop in poverty since the late 1960s. In addition, the percentage of Americans with health insurance for at least part of 2015 reached 90.9 percent -- the highest ever recorded.

With such upbeat news arriving less than two months before the election, it was almost possible to hear the corks popping over at Democratic Party headquarters. After all, records were broken in 2015! Obamacare is working! People are working!

Corporate media giants broadcast this ostensibly magnificent news with headlines such as "Median incomes are up and poverty rate is down, surprisingly strong census figures show" (Los Angeles Times) and "Poverty goes down, coverage goes up, and America gets a raise" (MSNBC).

The Washington Post editorial board used the report as an opportunity to ridicule both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (as if they were two peas in a pod) for their "bombardment of negativity about the US economy" on the campaign trail -- claiming the Census Bureau data proved that "the entire time candidates such as Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump were out on the stump, the US economy was performing contrary to their respective tales of woe."

But headlines such as "America Gets a Raise" imply that wages have risen significantly when they have not.

To be sure, roughly 2.4 million more people found full-time, year-round jobs in 2015 compared with the year before. But wages rose much less than 5.2 percent last year. Higher median household income reflects more hours worked rather than a substantial hike in pay.

And even by the Census Bureau's own measurement, in 2015 median household income (which is the level at which 50 percent of the population makes more and the other 50 percent makes less -- was still lower than in 2007, and lower still than the all-time high in 1999.

Further examination also reveals that people in rural areas didn't share in the increase, but rather experienced a 2 percent decrease in median income last year -- which fell to just $44,657 for these households, far below the national median.


The Cenus Bureau generalizations about median income dramatically downplay the deep concentrations of poverty that exist across the country. For example, North Dakota had the nation's biggest drop in child poverty between 2011 and 2016, but the poverty rate for Native American children, the majority living on reservations, is five times higher than for the rest of the state's children.

Likewise, buried within a Detroit Free Press article headlined "Michigan posts its largest income gain since the recession" is the admission that the majority Black cities of:

Flint and Detroit continue to have some of the highest poverty rates in the US, at 40.8 percent and 39.8 percent, respectively. The child poverty rate is higher -- more than half of the children who lived in Detroit and Flint last year lived in poverty, 57.6 percent and 58.3 percent, respectively.

The Census Bureau figures also ignore the enormous income disparities, often along racial lines, within individual cities. According to the Census Bureau, Washington, DC's median household income rose to $75,600 in 2015, but that breaks down to $120,000 for white households compared to just $41,000 for Black households. The poverty rate for the city's Black population is 27 percent -- and 75 percent of all DC residents living in poverty are Black.

There is yet another way that the Census Bureau's poverty statistics skew lower while its median income figures skew higher.

In the introduction to its Current Population Survey, the bureau makes the following caveat about its "sample" population: "People in institutions, such as prisons, long-term care hospitals and nursing homes, are not eligible to be interviewed in the CPS...[P]eople who are homeless and not living in shelters are not included in the sample." The list of those excluded from the survey thus includes millions of the most impoverished people in the US

Despite the flaws in the Census Bureau's findings, they still show roughly one in four African Americans and Native Americans and more than one in five Latinos living under the official poverty line. One in five children are living in poverty by official standards, and 10 percent of US households are trying to survive on less than $13,300 a year.


But the most glaring problem with the Census Bureau's methodology is its appallingly low poverty threshold. If the poverty line were scaled upward to a more accurate level, the official poverty rate of the US population would certainly skyrocket statistically.

The Social Security Administration developed the current poverty measure back in 1963, adopting a formula based on the minimum amount of money necessary to buy a subsistence level of food, using data from the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey. On the assumption that food expenditures made up one-third of what a family of four needed to survive at the time, that amount was then multiplied by three to define the poverty line.

This definition, using obsolete 50-year-old consumption patterns and even more antiquated 60-year-old prices (adjusted annually based on the consumer price index), is still in use today.

If that formula (food expenses times three) was ever adequate for survival -- and it most certainly wasn't in the era of Eisenhower -- it is completely preposterous today. In 2015, the poverty threshold was set at just at $24,250 for a family of four and $11,770 for an individual.

Even the Census Bureau recognizes some of the shortcomings of its formula. Since 2010, it has issued a "Supplemental Poverty Measure," adding income from sources such as Social Security, tax credits and food stamps, while subtracting some expenses, such as work costs, medical care and child-support payments.

In 2015, this statistic showed the rate of poverty at a (slightly) more realistic 14.3 percent, compared to the Consumer Population Survey's 13.5 percent.

But the Supplemental Poverty Measure is an exercise in futility, however well meaning its proponents' intentions. It does nothing to actually improve the lives of impoverished people because the government relies only on the Current Population Survey to determine eligibility for government poverty programs such as food stamps.

And while those cloistered in the bubble of the federal bureaucracy seem to find its poverty threshold adequate for survival, anyone with at least one foot in the real world is aware that no family of four can make ends meet on $24,250 a year.


Just as every household needs a budget measuring its income in relation to expenses, we should examine the actual cost of just a few major household necessities to give a cursory sense of whether that 5.2 percent rise in median household income last year actually made a dent in falling working-class living standards:

--  Rent: According to, using Census data from 1960 to 2014, median rent has risen by 64 percent after adjusting for inflation, while real household income only increased by 18 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, rents rose by 18 percent while household income fell by 7 percent.

As concluded, "As a result, the share of cost-burdened renters [households spending more than one-third of their income on rent] nationwide more than doubled, from 24 percent in 1960 to 49 percent in 2014."

If anything, the pace is accelerating: In the last year alone, median rents rose by 2.3 percent to $1,120 per month for a 1-bedroom apartment and $1,300 for a 2-bedroom.

--  Child care: The cost of child care has nearly doubled since the 1980s -- yet it is not considered a necessary household expenditure, even though 75 percent of mothers with children six to 17 years old are in the labor force, as are 61 percent of mothers with children under 3 years old.

In 2015, the average child care cost rose to over $143 a week. As a result, fewer working parents can afford to pay for it and end up keeping children with relatives or trading off child care shifts while the other parent, if they have one, is at their job.

Whereas 42 percent of parents paid for child care in 1997, only 32 percent did so by 2011. The poorest families spend the largest proportion -- one-third of their incomes -- on child care.

--  Health care: The Supplemental Poverty Measure for 2015 showed that with medical expenses -- including insurance premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, prescription drug costs and other uncovered medical expenses -- factored in, 11.2 million (or 3.5 percent) more people are living in poverty than the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey acknowledges.

And we can expect next year's statistics to be even worse, as employers continue to push more insurance costs onto their employees. More and more employers are turning to plans with higher co-pays and so-called "high-deductible" plans, offering premiums workers can barely afford and deductibles of $1,000 or $2,000 a year -- meaning workers have to pay these amounts before insurance kicks in even a penny toward their medical care.

This year, deductibles alone are rising nearly six times faster than wages, according to the 2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey of the Kaiser Family Foundation.


A NEW Georgetown University study on job creation shows that workers with a high school diploma or less have lost the most income during the recovery, as more jobs go to those with at least some post-secondary education -- perhaps reflecting a glut of "over-educated" applicants for low wage jobs.

"Of the 7.2 million jobs lost in the recession," the Georgetown study states, "5.6 million were jobs for workers with a high school diploma or less...On net, there are now more than 5.5 million fewer jobs for individuals with a high school education or less than there were in December 2007."

This downward trend began well before the Great Recession. A report by the Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution found that between 1990 and 2003, real median wages had already fallen by 20 percent for male workers without a high schooldiploma age 30 to 45, and by 12 percent for women in the same category.

As the New York Times, citing the report, concluded: "Less-educated Americans, especially men, are shifting away from manufacturing and other jobs that once offered higher pay, and a higher share are now working in lower-paying food service, cleaning and groundskeeping jobs."

But this decline in wages is tied to more than the decline in manufacturing jobs. As the Times article added, "[P]ay levels are declining in almost all of the fields that employ less-educated workers, so even those who have held onto jobs as manufacturers, operators and laborers are making less than they would have a generation ago." Inflation-adjusted annual pay for manufacturing jobs fell from $33,600 in 1990 to $28,000 in 2013.

While much media attention today is devoted to labeling the so-called "millennial" generation the best-educated in history, fully two-thirds of those between the ages of 25 and 32 have no bachelor's degree -- a figure that is virtually identical to the baby-boomer generation.

But the earnings shortfall for young people without a bachelor's degree compared to those with a four-year degree has fallen from 77 percent in 1979 to just 62 percent today. And with student debt averaging $35,000 per college grad, a bachelor's degree is simply out of reach for most low-income young adults.


The long-term decline in wages is not an accident, nor an unfortunate consequence of factors beyond the control of US policymakers. On the contrary, it has been a long time in the making.

Since the late 1970s, both Democratic and Republican policymakers joined with the rest of the corporate class in a strategy intended to drive down working-class living standards in order to raise corporate profits. This comprehensive set of policies -- which involved legal green lights for union busting, wage and benefit cuts, dismantling social welfare subsidies, and privatizing formerly public services in order to shift costs onto consumers -- has more recently become known as "neoliberalism."

The greatest damage from neoliberalism was done early on, from the late 1970s through the early 1990s. The average real hourly wages of production and nonsupervisory workers fell by 15 percent between 1973 and the mid-1990s, lowering the ceiling for working-class wages ever since. Wages briefly rose during the economic boom of the late 1990s -- only to be derailed by the early 2000s when wages began to stagnate again. The Great Recession once again accelerated the decline.

The claims of the 2015 Current Population Survey should be viewed in this historical context. Since 1979, the vast majority of US workers have seen their wages bouncing back and forth between decline and stagnation, while the wealthiest few have enjoyed massive gains in income. Even the Census Bureau's statistics showed that the enormous degree of income inequality in 2015 was "not statistically significant" from the year (or years) before.

So a more appropriate headline for the articles about the Census Bureau report would be, "Neoliberalism continues to slash working-class living standards, with no end in sight (until workers fight back)."

News Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400
Unprecedented National Prison Strike Enters Third Week

The largest prison work strike in U.S. history has entered its third week. Organizers report that as of last week, at least 20 prisons in 11 states continued to protest, including in Alabama, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, South Carolina and Washington. The Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee says at one point, about 20,000 prisoners were on strike. With protest has come punishment. Several facilities have been put on lock-down, with prisoners kept in their cells and denied phone access both before and during the strike. Organizers have also been put in solitary confinement.


JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The prison guard work strike at the Holman Correctional Facility in Alabama comes as the largest prison work strike in U.S. history has entered its third week. Organizers report that, as of last week, at least 20 prisons in 11 states continued to protest, including Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, South Carolina and Washington. The Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee says at one point about 20,000 prisoners were on strike. With the protest has come punishment. Several facilities were put on lockdown, with prisoners kept in their cells and denied phone access both before and during the strike. Organizers were also put in solitary confinement.

AMY GOODMAN: Joining us from Austin, Texas, is Azzurra Crispino, the media co-chair of the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee. Still with us, Pastor Kenneth Glasgow of The Ordinary People Society, TOPS, and Kinetik Justice inside Holman. Juan?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Azzurra Crispino, I'd like to start with you. Talk about this nationwide strike. Is this -- does this have any precedent in modern U.S. history? And how extensive is it? And some officials are claiming that it's already petered out.

AZZURRA CRISPINO: Well, certainly, the history here bears repeating. When George Jackson was assassinated 45 years ago, he had been calling for a prisoners' union and a nationwide prison strike. So it's fitting that on September 9th, on the 45th anniversary of the Attica uprising, that we were finally able to deliver the largest prison strike that has ever been seen in U.S. history. In terms of the momentum, certainly now there has been a shift towards dealing with repression. But as you stated, there are several facilities across several states in which strike action continues to occur.

AMY GOODMAN: So what exactly is happening right now across the country?

AZZURRA CRISPINO: Well, there's been a shift to a lot more hunger strikes. So, in Merced County jail in California, over a hundred prisoners are on hunger strike. They are joined by the wife of one of the inmates, Victoria, who is also on hunger strike. They are calling for a 2,000-calorie diet, an end for solitary confinement for juvenile detainees, and, in addition, for the firing of a Lieutenant Moore, who's been particularly sadistic as a guard there. In South Carolina, there continue to be uprisings, specifically at Turbeville Correctional Institution. And there have been continuing hunger strikes in Michigan, as well as Ohio. In Michigan, Dying to Live, Cesar DeLeon and others have been a hunger strike for more than a hundred days. They are calling for an end to long-term solitary confinement past a year.

But I think the greatest conversation has to deal with repression, and all of that is occurring. So we just heard, less than two days ago, that at Kinross unit in Michigan, that guards -- initially it seemed that there was going to be a conversation. The warden had come out and was speaking to the inmates, over 400 of them, which had peacefully marched in the yard. But after the warden left, basically, a riot repression team came in and dragged prisoners out of their showers and out of their cells, zip-tied their arms behind their back and threw them out in the yard and left them out there for five to six hours in the rain without any access to bathroom facilities. So the repression that prisoners are facing around the country for having participated in the strike is real, and it's very severe. So right now we're really focused on responding in order to help get the word out and get people to call into those units, so that we can help to support those who are being repressed, as well as to continue supporting strike workers, whether that's people who are continuing to be on work stoppages and rolling work stoppages or continuing to hunger strike.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Kinetik Justice, is the strike still going on among prisoners at Holman?

KINETIK JUSTICE: Uh-uh, not at Holman, right here or nothing. I want to say that the strike is not going on. Like, a lot of things have been completely unorthodox at Holman for the last few days. And in the last two days, we've actually had officers to augment the shifts to allow the people to move around. So, a lot of things are trying to get back to normal, in the sense that people are finally getting out of these dormitories and moving around. So, things are not locked down as a strike. So, no, not at Holman, it's not continuing, as we set out.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you all for being with us. And, of course, we'll continue to follow this. Kinetik Justice, in solitary confinement at Holman in Alabama, prison of a thousand men. Azzurra Crispino, joining us from Austin, media co-chair of the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee. And thanks so much to Pastor Kenneth Glasgow, founder and national president of The Ordinary People Society, TOPS, a faith-based organization focused on criminal justice and rehabilitation of repeat offenders.

News Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400
Farmworkers Taste the Fruits of Victory

After three years of tireless organizing, 500 farmworkers at Sakuma Brothers Farms in Washington state have finally won union recognition.

The berry pickers, mainly indigenous migrants from Mexico, began their fight with a work stoppage in 2013 and never let up.

They formed an independent union, Familias Unidas por la Justicia, and launched boycotts against Sakuma and its major client, multinational berry distributor Driscoll's, calling for the farm to recognize the union and negotiate.

This year the boycott went international, as the Washington workers joined in solidarity with berry pickers in San Quintín, Mexico, who have led massive strikes for higher wages and benefits and against sexual harassment on the job. 

Pickets popped up outside grocery stores across the country. At least two food co-ops took Driscoll's off their shelves. This growing pressure, along with ongoing direct action in the fields -- workers organized four strikes this year alone -- brought Sakuma to the table.

Farmworkers are excluded from the labor law that guarantees organizing rights to most private sector workers in the U.S. They can't follow the usual route to unionize by filing with the National Labor Relations Board for an election. But that doesn't mean farmworkers can't build pressure on their employer to recognize a union.

Sakuma agreed to an election and on September 12, workers voted yes by an overwhelming 77 percent. It's a rare win for an independent local farmworker union. 

Turning Out the Vote 

Work at Sakuma is seasonal. This year the season to pick strawberries, blueberries, and blackberries runs from June through October. (The season is shifting with climate change, says Ramon Torres, president of the union.)

In the off season, workers travel back to California to work on other crops. Most come back each year -- but the low wages, uncertain hours, and difficult conditions keep turnover high, said Vice President Felimon Pineda.

This year, out of a workforce of 500, there were around 100 new workers, and the union had to reach them all. Workers mainly live in bunkhouses provided by the company.

"We organized 15 workers who could help do house meetings," Torres said. "We went worker by worker, family by family, until people knew the truth about what we were fighting for."

Another group of 30, mostly union activists who'd been involved from the start, took charge of outreach in the town. "We did lots of training on how to organize, how to talk to other workers," Torres said.

Because many workers speak Triqui or Mixteco, indigenous languages spoken in southern Mexico, the outreach teams divided up by language. Torres estimates the activists won over 70 percent of the newer workers. 

First Contract

Workers gathered on September 12 to wait for the votes to be counted. Torres announced the results as workers cheered.

The next step is to bargain a first contract. Eight berry pickers make up the bargaining team.

"The first thing we want is a fair wage, a wage that our people can sustain themselves on," said Torres. Under a complex system of piece rates, wages can range from $9.47 to $17 per hour, depending on weather, crop, and worker experience. Health benefits are another important demand.

"These are the most basic things we can fight for, but in the future, we'll look at how to negotiate pensions, holidays, and overtime," Torres said.

"We always have it in our minds that we are in a continuous fight," said Pineda.

Boycott Still On

When Sakuma agreed to an election, Familias Unidas officially called off its boycott of Sakuma clients. But the farmworkers in San Quintín are still asking consumers to boycott Driscoll's berries.

Torres and Pineda expressed their gratitude to supporters who took up the boycott campaign across the country. The outside support helped sustain the campaign -- as farmworkers went on taking risks in the fields.

"Workers lost their fear," Pineda said. "They stopped being on their knees in front of the company, in front of the supervisors."

"I'm really proud that our people now have the capacity to have benefits, to have another kind of life, not the life that I had," said Torres. "Everyone is feeling really happy, but the biggest feeling is that, going forward, there is going to be a better future for their kids."  

New book from Labor Notes: Secrets of a Successful Organizer is a step-by-step guide to building power on the job. "Full of so many creative examples and powerful rank-and-file stories, it makes you want to dive right in." Buy one today, only $15.

News Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400
Police Kill Alfred Olango, Unarmed Black Man, During His Mental Health Emergency

Police in the San Diego, California, suburb of El Cajon shot and killed an unarmed African-American man Tuesday, after his sister called 911 to report her brother was having a mental health emergency. Eyewitnesses said 30-year-old Alfred Olango was holding his hands up when he was Tased by one police officer and then fired upon five times by another officer. In video posted online, Alfred Olango's grieving sister is seen tearfully confronting police. She tells them, "I called you to help me, but you killed my brother."


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!,, The War and Peace Report, as we turn right now to what just took place in San Diego, California. Juan?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, police in the San Diego, California, suburb of El Cajon shot and killed an unarmed African-American man Tuesday, after his sister called 911 to report her brother was having a mental health emergency. The shooting comes as protests continue over the fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte and Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Eyewitnesses in El Cajon said 30-year-old Alfred Olango was holding his hands up when he was tased by one police officer and then fired upon five times by another. Reporter Ashley Matthews of local station NBC 7 spoke to Michael Ray Rodriguez, who said he witnessed the killing.

MICHAEL RAY RODRIGUEZ: We were leaving out of these apartments right here, facing north. I see a man. I see a black man surrounded by officers with their guns out, which caught my attention. So I tell the others, "Look, look, look," so that we're all looking, we're watching. The black man was up with his hands up like this, scared to death, not knowing which way he's going to go. As he don't know which way he goes, he's jerking, he's confused. He runs this way. As soon as he runs this way, they discharge: boom, boom, boom -- five shots right into him. And that's the honest truth.

AMY GOODMAN: In a dramatic video posted to Facebook, a woman named Rumbie Mubaiwa begins filming moments after Alfred Olango is shot dead. In the background, Olango's sister is heard crying over the death of her brother.

RUMBIE MUBAIWA: OK, so the police did it again, y'all. They shot another unarmed black person, as usual. And the lady is saying she called them for help, not to kill her brother. And they shot her brother.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In the video, Alfred Olango's grieving sister is seen tearfully confronting police. She tells them, "I called you to help me, but you killed my brother."

OLANGO'S SISTER: Guys, why couldn't you tase him? Why couldn't you guys tase him? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

RUMBIE MUBAIWA: What's his birthday, so they could find his information?

OLANGO'S SISTER: Why couldn't you guys tase him? I told you he's sick. And you guys shot him.

AMY GOODMAN: The sister of Alfred Olango can be heard in the video saying, quote, "I called three times for them to come help me. Nobody came. They said it's not priority," end-quote. Police scanner audio at the time of the shooting reveals officers knew they were responding to a so-called 5150 call, or a mental health emergency. It does not appear that officers dispatched a Psychiatric Emergency Response Team. El Cajon Police Chief Jeff Davis acknowledged it took the officers 50 minutes -- that's 5-0 minutes -- to respond to the 911 call of Olango's sister. He said there was no weapon found at the scene of the killing. Chief Davis disputed witness accounts that Olango had his hands in the air, saying the man pointed an object at an officer with both hands, as if to fire a handgun.

POLICE CHIEF JEFF DAVIS: The male subject paced back and forth while the officers tried to talk to him. At one point, the male rapidly drew an object from his front pants pocket, placed both hands together on it and extended it rapidly towards the officer, taking what appeared to be a shooting stance, putting the object in the officer's face. At this time, one of the officers with the Taser discharged his Taser in an effort to subdue the subject. Simultaneously, the officer who had the object pointed at him discharged his firearm, striking the male.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Some reports on social media claim that officers confiscated the cellphones of witnesses who recorded the killing. El Cajon Police Chief Davis denied those claims. He said police did obtain a cellphone video from a worker at a drive-through window of a nearby restaurant who filmed the killing and volunteered the footage. Chief Davis said the video had been handed over as evidence to the district attorney and would not be made public while an investigation remains ongoing. El Cajon police did, however, distribute a picture they say is a still photo taken from the video, showing a pair of officers pointing their weapons at Alfred Olango, whose hands appear to be raised at shoulder height. It's unclear from the photo if he's holding any objects. The killing immediately sparked protests. Hundreds of people gathered at the Los Panchos restaurant, where Olango was killed. They later protested outside El Cajon police headquarters.

CHRISTOPHER RICE-WILSON: They're saying they shot an unarmed black man. And we have to ask why. Why is it OK to just kill a man when you think he has a weapon? The policy states you must see a weapon, and, more than that, the weapon must be aimed, pointed or causing harm to you. It's not enough to say somebody had a gun or a knife or any weapon, and shoot them because they possessed a weapon. The police have to be under threat. They have to fear for their life. And the mere existence of an object in any man's hand, let alone a black man's hand, is not justification for killing him.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Christopher Rice-Wilson of Alliance San Diego. San Diego protesters are planning to demonstrate all day today outside El Cajon police headquarters beginning at 9:00 a.m. California time. This comes as protests continue over fatal police shootings of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte and Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A United Nations representative recently compared the police killings of African Americans in the United States to the, quote, "past racial terror of lynching," unquote. Special thanks to Democracy Now!'s John Hamilton for that report.

This is Democracy Now!,, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, we'll be joined by Arlie Hochschild. Her latest book, Strangers in Their Own [Land]: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. Stay with us.

News Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400
The Unpersuadable ]]> (Tom Tomorrow) Art Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400 Report Slams EPA Civil Rights Compliance

The nation's top environmental regulator has failed to meet its civil-rights obligations, forcing communities to endure extreme delays or inaction when seeking respite from polluters, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found.  

In a report released Friday, the commission zeroed in on what it called the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's lackluster compliance with both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and an executive order requiring agencies to consider environmental justice when creating rules -- as well as its track record on clearing cases.

The 230-page report cites and reinforces the findings of a 2015 Center for Public Integrity investigation. The series found that the EPA's Office of Civil Rights had dismissed nine out of every 10 complaints alleging environmental discrimination and had never formally found a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funding from acting in discriminatory ways

"Environmental justice is an issue that, one would think, we would have made much more progress on since this has been around for more than a generation," Commissioner Michael Yaki said during a teleconference Friday. "Much ado was made about EPA putting into effect an environmental justice component into what it did. If anything, this report shows that, as it applies to EPA - which has done many great things over the years - in this particular instance, it has fallen very short. One can say it is practically toothless in its ability to protect the poorest and minority populations of our country from things such as coal ash."

The report, sent to the White House and congressional leaders, found that the Office of Civil Rights has a "long history" of not effectively enforcing Title VI, dating to 2003, when the commission first dug into the agency's case backlog.

The commission's latest review found that of the 25 complaints lodged with the Office of Civil Rights between December 2015 and July 2016, 14 were rejected due to lack of jurisdiction, two were withdrawn by complainants and two were closed for lack of evidence.

As of June, the office had 32 cases pending jurisdictional review, the oldest from 2013, the commission found. Its report said the lingering backlog shows "the Office of Civil Rights is not fulfilling its mission to become 'a model civil rights' program.'"

"When we look at this issue, it is one of urgency," commission Chairman Martin R. Castro said during the teleconference.  "It affects individuals' daily lives. It affects our ability and the community's ability to enjoy and value and really exercise many of the other civil rights." Castro said the EPA had "woefully failed" to meet its civil-rights obligations.

The EPA reviewed the report prior to publication and said it found "serious and pervasive flaws" that were not corrected in the final document. The agency said in an email to the Center that these included "factual inaccuracies, material omissions, mischaracterizations [of] EPA findings, and conclusions not supported by evidence; as well as fundamental misunderstandings about EPA legal obligations and regulatory authorities across a number of the Agency's programs…"

Mustafa Ali, senior advisor for environmental justice to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, said in a statement that the commission did not adequately consider the work the agency has done to make environmental justice a priority.

"EPA has a robust and successful national program to protect minority and low-income communities from pollution," Ali said.  "This work, coordinated across our federal, state and tribal partners, has achieved strong results in reducing exposure to serious health threats that overburdened communities face."

Ali said the EPA is working to address shortcomings in its consideration of environmental justice, including developing the  EJ 2020 Action Agenda. In addition, the Office of Civil Rights has announced plans to do more frequent compliance reviews and publish an annual report to chart the office's progress. In December, it  issued a notice of proposed rulemaking removing certain complaint-processing deadlines and put out a case manual for investigators examining civil-rights claims.

In its report, the civil-rights commission echoed critics who say this change would actually weaken protections for complainants. Commissioners recommended that the agency maintain statutory deadlines that require it to decide within 20 days whether to accept a complaint for investigation and allow it another 180 days to complete an inquiry.

The Center found that the office took nearly a year, on average, just to determine whether to accept a complaint.

Marianne Engelman-Lado, a senior attorney at the environmental law firm Earthjustice, called the commission's report "a clarion call for change," which has "the power of the bully pulpit and of moral persuasion." She praised its call for EPA officials to open up what many regard as an opaque Title VI investigative process. In their report, the commissioners recommend that the EPA make sure complainants have a seat at the table during any settlement negotiations.

"We're pleased the commission is recognizing that environmental justice is a space lacking in civil-rights enforcement," Engelman-Lado said.

The commission's report recommends that the EPA add staff to the Office of Civil Rights and that Congress study environmental justice requirements under civil rights law and give EPA funds to fulfill those duties. It calls for the EPA to provide minority, tribal and low-income communities with technical assistance to enforce a federal rule governing disposal of often-toxic coal ash.

Most notably, it recommends that the EPA classify coal ash as "special waste"; test drinking water wells near coal ash lagoons; assess the soundness of high-risk coal ash dams and disposal sites; and fund research on the ash's health effects.

Across the country, coal ash has fouled water sources and endangered public health. In 2014, the agency set national disposal standards that amount to guidelines for the states that call for treating the ash as if it were household trash. Weakened by loopholes, the EPA rule was the product of vigorous lobbying by the utility industry.

News Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400
The Tracks of John Boehner's Tears

There are a few certainties in this world: fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, John Boehner's gotta cry. Remember how a year ago -- just a year ago -- the former speaker of the House wept when Pope Francis addressed a joint session of Congress? And then only a couple of days later announced he was stepping down as speaker?

There were tears then, too. In part, tears of joy, because Boehner no longer would have to deal with the Freedom Caucus, those tea party Republican bully boys who had been making his life miserable, threatening government shutdowns --and Boehner's job --at every turn. As deeply conservative as he is, Boehner nonetheless realized that even in a grossly dysfunctional Congress at loggerheads with the president, occasionally some modicum of bipartisanship had to come into play or the entire enterprise would go belly up. The Freedom Caucus found such a rational thought revolting.

To see more stories like this, visit Moyers & Company at Truthout.

So, battered but unbowed, he quit, sang "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" when he declared his departure to the press corps and seemed greatly relieved to get out of government. He said he'd be playing more golf, relaxing, hanging out with friends. He's been pictured mowing his lawn in Ohio and driving his RV across what he calls "America's asphalt prairie."

Yes, there he was, John Boehner, the tear-stained, chain-smoking man of leisure, right? You've got to be kidding. A fellow with his connections? He has been cozying up to corporate interests and their lobbyists since the 1990s. Boehner could no more stay away from Washington than a kitty cat could stay away from a dangling strand of yarn. He is back in the DC marketplace, where power and influence are the coin of the realm and he's crying all the way to the bank.

A couple of weeks ago, Reynolds American, the second biggest tobacco company in America --and maker of Boehner's favorite brand, Camels --announced that he was joining its board.

"John Boehner has always loved Big Tobacco," Fortune magazine reported.

"In 1995, the former House speaker was caught passing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to his fellow congressmen --something he later said he regretted. And when Boehner resigned late last year, OpenSecrets data showed he took more money from the tobacco industry than any other lawmaker during his 26 years in Congress. Not to mention Boehner smokes so much that when he left the Capitol, his office was fumigated to get rid of the smell, according to CNN Money.

"…He will serve on the corporate governance, nominating and sustainability committee, likely helping his colleagues shape how Washington regulates the struggling US tobacco sector, CNN reports. This year alone, Reynolds American ranked second in contributions from tobacco lobbying-related groups, having donated more than $470,000 to mostly Republican lawmakers, according to OpenSecrets."

The job likely pays Boehner "north of $400,000 a year," Politico reports --that's almost twice the $223,500 a year he was making as speaker of the House.

Oh, but it gets better. A few days ago, there was a second announcement, this time that Boehner was joining Squire Patton Boggs, one of the crown jewels of Washington's K Street lobbying nexus, with $25 million in federal lobbying revenue last year, described by Kate Ackley at the congressional newspaper Roll Call as "a global law firm that traces its roots to one of Washington's oldest and most prominent lobbying practices." She added that the shop "is also the professional home of several former Boehner congressional aides and to former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Democratic ex-Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana."

That makes sense, for as the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets reports, Squire Patton Boggs "has long been a K Street revolving door hub, boasting a big concentration of former occupants of congressional office buildings. And it's no surprise to see that firm or others snatch up newly available former lawmakers, who can command the highest billing rates when clients ask for their help. Of the 75 House members and senators who left the Hill at the end of the 113th Congress, at least 48.8 percent went to work for lobbying firms."

With their knowledge of how Capitol Hill and the rest of Washington works, their vast lists of contacts and glad-handing expertise, these guys are paid top dollar. Boehner will doubtless make a million or more per year. In exchange, he and his colleagues will be pulling strings for their supper on behalf of Squire Patton Boggs' impressive A list of clients: Amazon, Airbus, Walton Enterprises, Space X, Mars Inc., Nissan North America, Goldman Sachs, Royal Dutch Shell, AT&T and the People's Republic of China, among others.

Boehner already will be quite familiar with some of those customers. According to OpenSecrets, from 2009-12, AT&T was Boehner's top campaign donor, and Fortune reports that among other Squire Patton Boggs accounts, "the Las Vegas Sands casino corporation… gave Boehner $50,600 in 2014 and copper producer Freeport-McMoRan… gave the former Ohio lawmaker $40,800 the same year."

But Squire Patton Boggs and Boehner are quick to point out that he will NOT be a lobbyist. No, sir: Instead, their announcement news release proclaims that he's to be "a strategic advisor to clients in the US and abroad, and will focus on global business development."

This is, in a word, baloney. The worst-kept secret in Washington is the increasing number of lobbyists who call themselves anything but, making an end run around the regulations that require lobbyists to register with the government, as well as around rules Barack Obama put in place restricting the kinds of work lobbyists could do in his administration. American University historian James Thurber tells OpenSecrets, "There is a very easy way to define yourself as a strategic adviser or someone else who, quote, 'doesn't lobby…' and get away with this."

As Catherine Ho at The Washington Post recently wrote, "…The model of 'unregistered' lobbyists seeking to influence the government is likely here to stay unless the next president and Congress close loopholes that allow the practice to flourish."

Not likely. And so the Washington insiders like Boehner and his crowd have figured out yet another way to play the system -- sharpies milking millions from big business and government while casting aside the needs of the nation.

When John Boehner resigned his speakership, influenced, some said, by the unselfish sacrifice he witnessed during the pope's visit last year, he is said to have read to the Republican leadership the prayer of St. Francis. That's the one that begins, "Lord, make me an instrument of your peace."

Instead, former Speaker Boehner has decided to make himself the instrument of plutocrats and special interests.

It's enough to make you weep.

Also see: Boehner Joins the Not-Quite-a-Lobbyist Ranks

News Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 -0400