Back to work

Apparently the transit workers in NYC are headed back to work. Faced with the prospect of jail time, union leaders were forced to concede to the demands of the ruling elite, men like Michael Bloomberg, who probably hasn’t done a day of manual labor in his life.

Of course, commuters, inconvenienced and unaware of anything remotely resembling labor history, sided with the bosses and demanded that workers return to their posts. Now, workers will be required to labor without a contract, as talks are set to resume after the holiday.

Before I start to get the general anti-union rhetoric that is par for the course when unionism and any form of solidarity is mentioned, read some of this post from Confined Space, on what transit workers face in the form of hazards, while conducted their daily transit-related tasks.

If you care to understand why unions are still necessary, here is an interesting discussion about how unions create wages that allow workers to live with some dignity.

I had hoped that Richard, over at Commie Curmudgeon would weigh in on the strike, seeing that he lives in the city and uses public transit. He didn’t let me down.

The current state of unionism is in sorry shape. Rather than being advocates of the worker, too many of labor’s leadership ends up siding with those like Bloomberg, who prefer to exploit the workers, rather than give them a share of the fruits of their daily toil. I hope that New York’s transit workers end up with an equitable contract, but I fear that they’ll be sold out and forced to accept less than they are entitled to under honest bargaining.

As our retail-based economy continues to represent most of the new jobs being created, unions and the power to bargain collectively for living wages will once again become important. We are definitely headed in the wrong direction on pay equity and with corporate mouthpieces working diligently to divide and conquer, things won't improve any time soon.

Surveillance culture

Since the revelation was made that President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans, I've heard some frightening excuses given as to why this was ok. Granted, some of it is as moronic as the caller on C-Span the other morning saying, "I 'ain't got nothin' to hide, so I don't care if they listen in on my phone calls." This type of stupidity is obviously a product of inbreeding, so there isn't much that can be done to combat this.

Then, there are the Bush apologists, driven by ideological purity, which says that all is fair in the "war on terrah'"; once again, I don't know how to counteract drinking the Kool-aid. There's not much that one can come up with that will sway a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, from their preconceived notions.

What concerns me is the general level of malaise and apparent lack of perspective of many other Americans about this, however.

Michael Hawkins, over at Spontaneous Arising, has some of the best (and genuinely frightening) analysis on what all of this means. I was fascinated by his using Benthem's panopticon in illustrating the scope and possibilities of surveillance possible, given our enhanced technological capabilities.

This stuff is worth reading, if you can wedge it in amongst the gift wrapping, eggnog and fruitcake of the season.

The US Blues

Is it possible to maintain even a façade of democracy, when hype, fear, and mindless flag-waving have replaced informed debate and a commitment to the democratic process and social justice? Whether it’s the morning callers from across the country on C-Span’s Morning Journal program, or morning drive programs carried on local radio and television affiliates, the acceptance that American’s are willing to abide by to perpetuate blatant lies is astounding.

Recently, I read Michael Parenti’s pithy book, Superpatriotism (City Lights, 2004), in which he deconstructs the meaning of patriotism, or love of one’s country. I thought he did an excellent job in showing how those who appeal to a lower common denominator, such as patriotism (based on raw emotionalism), are actually the least patriotic of people. Of course, Parenti’s definition of what patriotism is, as acceptable as it is for me, might not be acceptable to those who equate it with God, guns, and flag.

What I like about writers like Parenti, is their skill at taking ideas commonly held and then using the same definition or idea to illustrate the paucity of their position. What exactly is patriotism, leaving aside Sameul Johnson’s, “the last refuge of scoundrels?”

Here are a few of many instances that Parenti uses to illustrate the futility of the form of patriotism promoted by many on the right, as well as significant numbers on the left.

--Is it patriotic for plutocratic power brokers to hail a “healthy America”, yet defund public health services and work closely with big pharma and insurance corporations to line their pockets?

--How about insisting that middle class Americans shoulder public debt, while excusing the weathiest Americans from paying their contribution, and extending tax cuts to them?

--Is it patriotic to pay lip service to our nation’s environmental heritage and natural beauty, while doing little or nothing to prevent it being plundered by mining, timber and oil interests (see drilling in ANWR)?

--How patriotic is it to routinely overcharge the U.S. government for supplies and services, or submit false bids (noncompetitive, at that) for government contracts, and then turn around and provide shoddy products and supplies to our military personnel in Iraq? That, of course is Halliburton’s contribution to patriotism.

And while we’re on the subject of the troops, and the ubiquitous and meaningless (I’d add, sickening) mantra “support our troops”, how the hell can anyone claim they are supporting them by warehousing our wounded for months in places like Fort Stewart, Georgia, where the conditions for men and women who paid a significant physical price for the flag, were absolutely squalid. In addition, wounded military members are seeing their pay and health benefits severely reduced, while no longer active for duty. I imagine this has something to do with the fact the few members of our ruling elite or their children have to face battle conditions, so they know little about what sacrifice is when it comes to waving the flag.

So what exactly does “real” patriotism stand for? As Parenti wrote, “Real patriots do not easily succumb to popular fears about external menaces that are propagated by the plutocracy.”

He goes on to note the things that people ought to be fearful of such as,

--Global warming
--The caustic effect that money has on our political process
--Recent examples of voting fraud, election thievery, as well as outright intimidation of voters, right in our own “democratic” country
--The looting of our public treasury by rampant corporate crime.

Paraphrasing Parenti, real patriots understand that the spirit of liberty and freedom in our country was displayed by those willing to speak truth to power. The early leaders of the labor movement, Socialist candidates for president such as Eugene Debs, Thomas Paine and Harriet Tubman and all those who were willing to risk the safety of a comfortable life, to challenge the status quo of power and property that extends back to our founding as a nation.

True patriotism is knowing our country’s history and true legacy and not succumbing to emotional grandstanding and the symbolic shamanism that passes for loving one’s country. Those willing to run with the true patriotic crowd will receive their share of vilification and catcalls, but the company that you’ll keep will be much more interesting and a hell of a lot more authentic. The stakes are higher than ever to cut through the shroud of superstition and drill deeper for truth.

Your government spies on you

When Nixon engaged in illegal wiretaps, during the midst of Watergate, it eventually led to his impeachment. Now, new revelations that President Bush authorized illegal eavesdropping on U.S. citizens on numerous occasions since 2001.

We have an administration that will stop at nothing in furthering their goals and agenda. It should be obvious that they care little for the rule of law and operate without regard to the freedoms and liberties of Americans.

Here is the article in the NY Times about the latest on the Bush administration's rollback of our rights.

December 16, 2005

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters. Some of the questions about the agency's new powers led the administration to temporarily suspend the operation last year and impose more restrictions, the officials said.

The Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States, the officials said. Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Read the rest at the New York Times website.

Mainuh' makes good

From All Things Maine, I found out that the King Kong remake has ties to Maine, yessah!--

If the digital effects in the latest King Kong remake cause you to choke on your popcorn, you can thank Eric Saindon. He acted as a CGI supervisor for the film. And he's from Maine.

Saindon was born in Bangor, moved to Portland when he was 9, and graduated from Gorham High School and Central Maine Technical College. He later studied computer animation at Washington State University. He now works for WETA Digital in New Zealand, which also did visual effects for Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.Saindon will be speaking at the Holiday Inn by the Bay in Portland Thursday morning, and was interviewed for today's Press Herald.