Obama's State of the Union Address and "American Values"

From IDOM:

The following is from the end of Obama's first State of the Union address:

In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America — values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe, values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values they're living by, business values or labor values. They are American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions — our corporations, our media and, yes, our government — still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

The above paragraphs sound great at first. Democrat or Republican, boss or employee; we all share the same values, that is, "American values." While it is almost certain many of us simply don't, let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and entertain the idea. One can certainly imagine that the CEO of a Fortune 500 company could share many personal values with a person who works on the factory floor. They both might value family, friends, God, and so forth. According to Obama, if it wasn't for the "few bad apples" that didn't share these core "American values," our faith would be restored and we would, presumably, go back to living the American dream.

But what does this mean?

Really, it is an unoriginal narrative that could be pulled off the lips of numerous Kings, Emperors, and Presidents alike. No doubt every empire thinks they're different than the last, just as the present always seems to believe it's somehow more distinguished, and learned, than the past. History is told to us as a series of events caused by decisions of individuals. Lincoln freed the slaves. Hitler invaded Poland. Columbus discovered America. Bernie Madoff is the economic crisis. Let's throw him in jail and get back to business as usual. If this is the case, how are we to make any sense of it? Why even bother?

In reality, history isn't just individuals making decisions. It's true, individuals' actions do alter events, but these actions must be put in context with the historical period in which they are taken. Simply put, we can't choose when we're born or how the society that we're born into operates. Any decision we make is bound by the limits of the environment we live in. Even seemingly abstract thoughts are originally an interpretation of the world around us.

Similarly, while the corporate CEO might share some personal values with his or her employees, they're bound by the laws of the economic system they operate under. This places the CEO and the employee directly at odds. By their very nature, corporations must make a profit. Not only that, competition and their shareholders dictate they must make an ever growing amount of profit. This means it's in the interest of the corporation to pay the employee as little as possible. Obviously, this isn't in the interest of the employee. In order to live and function in society, the employee must sell his or her labor power to the corporation (if possible, to the highest bidder). But here's what usually is left unsaid: It's actually the employee's labor power, his or her ability to work, above all else, that creates the profit. Without labor power, there are no factories or machines built or operated. There are no goods, let alone markets to exchange those goods on. Therefore, the workers really hold all the power. In effect, without the workers, there is no society.

This brings me back to Obama's fairy tale. Those two paragraphs are a telling example of whose side Obama really is on. It's definitely in the interest of the people who collect profit off of other people's work to assure us we all share the same set of "American values." They want us to believe we're "all in this together" when really they're parasites living off our sweat. They will gladly sacrifice a few of their own ( the Bernie Madoffs — the "bad apples") in order to keep alive the economic system that favors them. Almost every law they pass is intended to do so as well. This doesn't mean, however, that we workers share anything other than basic human emotions with this section of society. We are, in fact, their historical grave diggers. We have much more in common with workers from any other country in the world than we do with any American CEO.

When all is said and done, it's both the development of industry and technology, and who controls that development, that moves history. Right now industry is controlled by a small group of individuals who use that power to run America (and most of the world) in their interest. They hire elegant speakers like Obama to fill us full of platitudes so we will continue to literally work ourselves to death while they continue their lives of privilege. But just as tribal, slave, and feudal societies passed from the historical scene, so too will capitalism fall and democracy finally enter the realm of economics. But it won't fall automatically. As the recent crisis shows, they will use their State to prop up their dying economic system.

This is why we must organize politically independent of the two parties of business. This is why we need a mass party of labor, based on the unions. Obviously it will take much more than this to build a new society, but that first, historically necessary step of breaking with the Democrats, will have an enormous impact on the consciousness of American workers.

We look forward to the fight.

We're there to protect property relations not people

While still no mention of the Cuban doctors in Haiti, the NY Times is reporting U.S. troops have taken what's left of the National Palace. Just in time for the folks mentioned in this article.

Best Albums of 2009

Because I didn't have a full-time job for most of the year, I didn't buy nearly as much music as I usually do. I did, however, manage to get my hands on a few wonderful albums. The following is my picks for the ten best albums of 2009.

(ALSO: I only count albums I actually own so I know for a fact I'm missing some great music. Please let me know what caught your attention this year!)

10) Wilco- Wilco

Yes, the cover is probably better than the album. But Wilco is Wilco. They are one of the best bands in the world. Period. If you get a chance, see them live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sifqGTzLGck


9) Mirah (A)spera

"Shells" is one of the most beautiful songs I can think of.

http://www.dustedmagazine.com/reviews/4825


8) The Dead Weather- Horehound

Indie supergroup cuts a solid modern rock record that sounds like a solid classic rock record. Ironically, both classic rock and modern rock radio stations don't play it. Reason number 2,546 why radio sucks. (Check out the video, it's bad ass.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7QSkI6My1g


7) Neko Case- Middle Cyclone

Neko Case is a hit away from being a superstar. She is hot, has one hell of a voice, and is a brilliant songwriter. I thought "People Got A Lotta Nerve" (below) might get some mainstream radio play, but it didn't really happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXl870NoF4E


6) Raekwon- Only Built 4 Cuban Linx... Pt. II

Recreating yourself can be good. But sometimes the old saying "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" applies as well. The skits are back, the dirty beats weaved in and out of tales recounting cooking and selling dope are too (as is the guest appearance of Ghostface Killah). Thank God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS2dN99KxM


5) (MF) Doom- Born Like This

MF Doom, or Doom, or whatever he calls himself today, is probably the most innovative rapper this decade. With a knack for catchy beats and clever rhymes; it is pretty much a guarantee any release of his makes my list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWdqBZdk2yc


4) Bat For Lashes- Siren Sounds

I enjoyed this album much more than I anticipated I would. Both "Siren Song" and "Daniel" were played frequently in my car. Singer-songwriter electronica? I don't know, you'll have to take a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ZHah-c0hQ


3) Grizzly Bear- Veckatimest

Grizzly Bear likes to play this game where they pack as many catchy melodies as they can into one album. They're good at it. I've seen them live twice and was impressed each time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ4jZeGUFzI


2) Antony and the Johnsons- Crying Light

Antony Hegarty's wavering, gentle but defiant voice will cause you to listen. One could draw all sorts of analogies on how his voice is like life, or whatever, but it would be hard to do that without sounding like a melodramatic douchebag. Somehow, Antony is capable of singing stuff like that. I mean, who else could sing "I'm gonna miss the bees" and not sound ridiculous?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp23w0v-GB8


1) Animal Collective- Merriweather Post Pavilion

I know, hipster darlings Animal Collective have already gained album of the year honors from the likes of "Spin" magazine and indie Bible "Pitchfork.com" to name just a couple. But this album is that good. I've been a fan for years now and am amazed at how I am never disappointed by each subsequent release. Rather than try to compare or describe, I'd recommend you check them out for yourself. (Hint: You have to listen several times before it clicks. At least I did.)

"Summertime Clothes"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxhaRgJUMl8

"In The Flowers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEAflCO4Eo

"My Girls"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zol2MJf6XNE

Updates from Iran

http://persian2english.wordpress.com/

"School of the Democrats," Obama orders 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan

I only sort of hate to say we told you so.

The Corporate Attack on Pension Plans

While George W. Bush’s attempt at privatizing Social Security famously failed, private industry has largely been successful at shifting their group pension plans into individual private accounts. In fact, for many people, traditional defined benefit employer-sponsored pensions are something they are not even familiar with. Most of us are used to 401(k), IRA, or other defined contribution plans, if we even have such a plan. These individual accounts (sometimes employers match funds up to a certain amount, many times they don’t contribute anything at all) are almost always invested in the volatile stock market. They essentially absolve companies of any financial risk associated with retirement and firmly place that risk on the back of each individual employee.

Because of the large amount of non-unionized industries, and the class-collaborationist ideology of many union bureaucrats in the industries that are, there have been few attempts to fight this blatant rollback of gains made in the past by the Labor Movement. Many of these individual retrement accounts were legalized, with little to no opposition, in the late 70s as a supplement to existing pension plans. Companies, however, soon realized they could use them to undermine the government-guaranteed benefits provided by pensions. Management set up separate retirement accounts for them, accounts that guaranteed them healthy returns, and shifted rank and file workers into these newly legalized private individual accounts that are subject to the chaos of the stock market, where returns are uncertain at best. By the 1990s, corporations typically paid less than half of what they used to for their employees’ retirement accounts. Since then, it has only gotten worse.

Even if you are one of the few to have kept your traditional pension plan, companies are using the current crisis of Capitalism as an excuse to freeze pension accounts and even steal money from them in order to subsidize their market mishaps. If all else fails, companies simply declare bankruptcy and have their workers, as well as other workers across the country, bail them out with public tax dollars.

Nine of the ten largest pension defaults in history have happened since 2000, leaving the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, which was set up by the government in order to protect retirements benefits against such practices, deeply in debt.

With the Federal government, as well as many individual states and local governments, facing a huge budget crisis, workers with pensions find themselves in the precarious situation of bailing out their old employers with tax dollars in order to keep their promised benefits, while at the same time seeing many of the social programs that benefit the general public defunded to the point of being ineffective and sometimes completely shut down. Big Business and their political servants use this to divide the working class by blaming “greedy union workers” for demanding what is rightfully theirs, and should be the right of all workers.

When issues like this are brought up, by the mainstream press or even by friends and family, it is often assumed that the capitalist class has a role to play in finding a solution. Union leaders have also told us this for years, that we all should get together, sit down at a giant metaphorical table, and find something that works for all. When this happens, the “right” of the corporations to make a profit is never even questioned. Why is this?

When we ask ourselves this question, it becomes clear that Capitalism itself is the problem. Our interests are in direct contradiction with those of our bosses. The capitalist class must make a profit off our labor in order to ensure their economic, social and political power. Obviously, this is an over-simplification of class relations in society, but it is a basic point we can bring up as we explain our ideas on a daily basis. Instead of simply asking for a seat at that table, we need to demand the whole thing. After all, we made it.

"Small Thing"

While listening to internet radio (Pandora), I heard the following song by Barton Carroll (listen to it before you read on):

http://bartoncarroll.com/pages/listen.php?f=SmallThing.mp3&title=Small%20Thing

The first thing that struck me about the song was that it's from the viewpoint of a German during WWII. Yes, she was a civilian, and yes, she was young, but I was already thinking about her role in one of the most vile societies ever created. She admits to being "naive enough to survive." Is that a reference to the Germans in Berlin basically going on with daily life while the Russians were advancing? Hitler was insanely calling on nonexistent units to guard the city while Fascist loyalists were rounding up anyone who could hold a gun (and shooting anyone who couldn't or wouldn't). Those who were able to simply ignored their former leaders, clearly seeing the bankruptcy of their ideology. Or is it referencing earlier times, when defeat wasn't certain, when many who benefited from having the Nazis in power simply chose to ignore their atrocities, if not participate in them? In this case, is being "naive" an excuse?

Soon it became clear I was way off. She was telling the story of her being raped by the Soviet troops. I didn't catch it right away, but on second listen it was extremely obvious right from the beginning. The song isn't about the politics, at least not in a direct sense; it's simply about one girl who was one of the many victims, all across the world, of a horrendous war crime that still happens on a regular basis today. She was "naive enough to survive" her rape, not Nazi Germany. Moreover, when she mentions this, it's to imply her mother was also raped and never really fully recovered from the violation.

I picture her sitting down with her son to explain to him who his real father is, or, perhaps more accurately, which group of men his father may have been one of.

"Lord God let the walls melt into the door. Let my skin grow o'er and heal my sore."

What makes this song so brilliantly written, is what isn't written. The unspoken context. Carroll no doubt wrote this from a German woman's perspective on purpose. It isn't hard to feel sympathy for a victim that's on your side. We can all do that. But what about the other side? WWII is one of the rare historical situations where nearly everyone is in agreement that Nazi Germany needed to be destroyed. And by God, it sure as hell did. But we don't like to dwell on what that actually meant. We aren't told anything of the storyteller or her family's politics. Perhaps they were Nazis and active within the party? Maybe they were apolitical and just "going with the flow"? Or, which would add a horribly tragic twist to the story, maybe they were anti-Fascists and actively participating in the resistance? The question Carroll wants us to ask ourselves is this: Does it matter?

My initial reaction made me think about that question. Indeed, the Russians were on the right side of history, especially when it came to sacking Berlin. Despite the terrible leadership of Stalin (whose betrayal of the German working class was one of the major reasons the Nazis were able to take power in the first place), the Soviet Union played the leading role in defeating Fascism. No single country sacrificed more. This, of course, doesn't excuse the actions of many of the Soviet soldiers entering Berlin. Some accounts say 90,000 women were treated for rape in Berlin hospitals, and there's no telling how many were raped but didn't seek treatment. Just thinking about the sheer size of the crime is so daunting it's tough to comprehend that it actually happened. Lootings and robberies were also rampant. The city was completely destroyed. I was in Berlin in 2006 and there were still marks left from the battle.

"I heard that our brothers and our fathers did the same on their side. I heard that all brothers and all fathers do the same during war time."

I would like to say with one hundred percent certainty that if I would've been there I would've pulled my comrades off the helpless German girls and women; I would've drawn my weapon to make sure no one was shooting unarmed civilians; I would not have allowed the smashing of Nazism to forever be soiled by the uncivilized actions of bloodthirsty hooligans ignorant of the historical significance of the situation and hellbent on pillaging the enemy's capital simply because they can. But, in all honesty, I don't think I can. At least not with one hundred percent certainty. I think of my brother, shot in the back of the head by a German solider during the occupation because he looked up while being marched to a prison camp. I think of my sister, raped by multiple German soldiers as they passed through what's now Belarus on their way to Moscow. I think of my best friend, a man I'd known since he was a child, who I watched spend his last few weeks in agony coughing and moaning until he finally died of pneumonia fighting on the Eastern Front. All of them are walking beside me as I march into Berlin. All of them demand their revenge. Am I strong enough to tell them no? Why should I? The Germans could have said no, but they didn't.

And so on and so on millions of times over....

War is a crime, and the context is the culprit. It is a crime against the unwritten laws of human nature, not of any passing government. Yes, it's true, in this society, sometimes we need to commit crimes. But unless we have a clear understanding of the context, the crime of war is the worst possible crime. It makes us act in ways that aren't natural. War can make our friendly neighbor down the street order the massacre of an entire village. It can make a family man, a church going man, earn a living as a guard at concentration camp. It can make the computer whiz you went to high school with spend his days firing missiles from a drone into a family's living room thousands of miles away, only to drink beer and watch football with friends minutes later. They may be called heroes, evil-doers, allies, or enemies, but they are really just criminals.

History tells me I'm in no way immune from such a crime. And it says the same thing to you. We just have to make sure our crimes are in the right context.

"I was a child. I was on the wrong side. I was broken in by broken men with draining eyes. War sleeps deep in a man, long after guns are gone. He loses care for small things, and I, I was a small thing."

Wall Street has got a brand new bag

From the NY Times:

The bankers plan to buy “life settlements,” life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash — $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to “securitize” these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.

No fooling us

Americans: We're sick, poor, undereducated, and overworked. But, forget all that, we're happy about it. I think this is a collective case of the man in us being too proud to ask for directions when we are clearly lost.

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Awfulness.html

Elections in Afghanistan: What Now?

On Thursday, August 20, 2009, Afghanistan held its provincial and presidential elections. This is the second presidential election since the occupation of the country began in 2001. While a winner has yet to be declared, many have predicted that incumbent Hamid Karzai would win outright in the first round of the runoff election, although recent reports suggest a second round of voting is probable. Regardless of who is elected, they will be backed by the U.S. led NATO occupation forces, who aren’t planning on leaving any time soon. A few days before the election, Barack Obama made it a point to reiterate that the war in Afghanistan “won’t be quick.” Towards the beginning of the year the administration ordered thousands of more troops to the region, and early reports are suggesting Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s upcoming assessment of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is going to call for even more troops (up to 45,000 more). The reports of possible further escalation are coming right as a recent poll suggests that a majority of Americans are now, for the first time, against the war.

It is impossible to talk about the current situation in Afghanistan without talking about the U.S. led NATO occupation. According to NATO’s own website, there are 64,500 foreign troops occupying Afghanistan soil, with nearly half of those troops coming from the U.S. and the rest coming mainly from the UK, Germany, Italy, France and Canada. These figures, however, don’t take into account the large number of “private contractors” (i.e., mercenaries) in Afghanistan, which is said to be around 70,000. This puts the total foreign troop presence in Afghanistan over 130,000. Many Afghans view the propping up of the Karzai regime as the main task of these occupying forces. Given Karzai presides over what is widely considered one of the most corrupt governments in the world, this destroys whatever credibility the “pro-democracy” forces might have had. On top of this, history tells us the Afghan people are less than receptive to foreign control of their land, regardless of the invading force’s stated intentions.

Back in 2001, after the relative ease of early U.S. operations, Alan Woods warned the war was far from over. He explained, “The Taliban have lost their grip on power, but not their potential for making war. They are very used to fighting a guerrilla war in the mountains. They did it before and can do it again. In the north, they were fighting in alien and hostile territory. But in the villages and mountains of the Pushtoon area, they are in their own homeland. The prospect opens up of a protracted guerrilla campaign which can go on for years.” This view, which has subsequently been proven correct, was nearly absent from the mainstream media, who had praised the swift defeat of the Taliban and dubbed Afghanistan the “good war.” Many of the so-called “anti-war” activists and politicians spouted similar nonsense, with some going as far as arguing against sending troops to Iraq because they wanted to keep them in Afghanistan.

Much like the presidential election in late 2004, Afghanistan’s recent election was held under foreign occupation, with the Taliban threatening violence to anyone who votes. In the days before the election, there was an onslaught of attacks. The Taliban managed to fire rockets at the presidential palace as well as orchestrate various suicide attacks across the capital Kabul. While the government played down the events, they also forbade journalists from covering any violent actions during the day of the election. Despite the government censorship, Al Jazeera reported that at least 26 people were killed in 135 incidents. Understandably, voter turn out was lower than many expected. Despite what officials may say, this played well for Karzai, who is receiving somewhat of an unexpected challenge from former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah. Only days before the election, Karzai was able to secure the return of feared warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostum is to turn out the ethnic Uzbek vote for Karzai in exchange for influence in the new government. This was not unexpected, as Karzai’s senior vice presidential candidate is a Tajik warlord named Mohammad Qasim Fahim. With many people staying home because of the violence, the votes the warlords were able to bring in could very well give the election to Karzai.

So what is to make of all this? First off, it is important to acknowledge the obvious disconnect between the imperialist power and their local Afghan representatives. While Obama has been using Afghanistan to prove his hawkishness since the beginning of his run for president, all the major Afghan presidential candidates have made it clear dialogue with the Taliban is key to their candidacies. NATO bombing missions, which appear to be the Obama administration’s specialty, are clearly not as popular in Afghanistan as they are in Washington. Also, it is important not to forget about the Afghan people. They are largely being lost in the grand schemes of both local, and foreign, leaders. Sonali Kolhatkar, an author and advocate for Afghan women, addressed this fact on a recent “Democracy Now” episode. She said, “…I think we really need to remind ourselves that these elections are happening in the context of this occupation that’s now gone on for nearly eight years, what it ends up looking like in context of these elections is one set of warlords—that’s us—protecting a second set of warlords—that’s Karzai and his cohorts—from a third set of warlords, which are the Taliban.” Right now, the people of Afghanistan are seen as pawns. The imperialist invaders are largely clueless and view them as “collateral damage,” while the local warlords, from whichever variety, view the people as cannon fodder and are only interested in brute control.

This isn’t to say the situation is hopeless, however.

The question of “Socialism or barbarism” is perhaps stated at its most acute relevance in Afghanistan. Clearly, the solution for the Afghan people doesn’t lie within the artificial borders of their country (which many have never accepted anyway). The fate of Afghanistan is tied to neighbor countries like Iran, and most notably, Pakistan. The people of Afghanistan see the Iranians rising up against their brutal theocratic regime and they are also no doubt aware of their country’s deep ties with Pakistan. But what conclusion are people drawing from these relationships? Due to both misinformation and the actions of those who control these countries, many Afghans are getting a distorted view of their neighbors. The Taliban almost went to war with Iran and it is common knowledge that Pakistan’s infamous intelligence service, the ISI, has been a source of support for the Taliban (with the U.S. providing much of the resources during the war with the Soviets). Right now, education is key. Groups like “The Struggle” (the IMT’s section in Pakistan) understand this well, as they set up Marxist educational relief camps during the brutal attacks on the Pushtoonkhwa area of Pakistan earlier this year. It is hard to overstate the importance of such actions. Once the peasants and workers decide to take power, there will be no stopping them.

Of course, this lesson isn’t just for Afghanistan and its neighbors, but is also a lesson for those of us across the rest of world. Ultimately, only the world’s working class can end the wars, occupations, and brutal dictatorships that plague our society. As the situation in Afghanistan tells us, it is urgent we do so.

Free advice to Democrats

First off, my real advice to anyone who is a Democrat, or anyone who voted for Obama for that matter, would be to leave the Democrats and help form a Labor party. The Democratic party is fundamentally a party of business and it represents the interests of the ruling class. We, the working class, need class independent political representation more than anything in this country right now.

Having said that, I still wonder why the Democrats can't figure out they have political power. Right now they control both the House and the Senate (with Al Franken becoming the magic filibuster-proof number sixty in the Senate), the White House, and they even recently got a judge appointed to the Supreme Court. Yet, reading the papers one would think poor President Obama has his back against the wall. Huh?

Here is my free advice* to the Democrats: Go on the offensive! Stand up for yourselves for Christ sakes! Tell all the semi-fascists at these cute little town hall meetings to go fuck themselves. They lost the election, an election where change was an obvious rally cry, so they can prepare to see the country go in a direction they might not like. Yell, scream, rant and rave; it's just too bad. Teach those "Blue Dog" Democrats a little party discipline. You don't want to vote with your party? Fine, no more chairs of committees, no more DNC money, etc. They'll cave, they like their jobs.

You see, as Mick Jagger once said, "you can't always get what you want." Sometimes people's viewpoints are in the minority. In a democracy, even one as undemocratic as this one, this means that sometimes a portion of the population loses and policies get implemented that they might not like, in fact, sometimes they might downright hate the policies. The sooner these cry babies figure that out, the sooner we can take their bib off, sit them up at the grown-ups table, and have a real fucking conversation. (Preferably one that doesn't bring up Nazi Germany every time their no-history-knowing-asses are struggling to find context.)

I know, I know, I sound a bit naive. Did the Democrats ever really intend to change anything? No, of course not. Even the horrid health care "reform" bill, which already tasted like sugarless kool-aid, is being watered down more. Employee Free Choice Act? Well, take out the card-check provision and maybe they'll think about it. No, the Democrats can't even be called "progressives." I harbor no illusions about them. It's just that, and perhaps as I grow older I'm getting a bit more sensitive, I'm sick of watching these spineless cowards get beat to a political pulp by a group of proudly ignorant buffoons and not even fight back.

Actually, now that I think about it, the best thing may be for Pa to take the Dems out back behind the shed and put 'em out of their misery.


* It is worth noting that I am giving this advice despite my sheer hatred of this political party.

Paper Heart

I saw a screening of "Paper Heart" tonight. I liked it. The whole movie depends on whether or not you buy the lead actor's "I may come off as a bit naive but I'm actually probably more aware of things going on around me than you are" shtick. I did. (She was at the theater, along with the dude who played the director, and answered questions after the show. Her personality doesn't appear to be an act.)

Humdinger!

This sounds like the last trip I made to my hometown! (It was the quasquicentennial celebration.)

Disillusionment with Barack Obama Growing

This was written for the upcoming issue of Socialist Appeal.

With the much ballyhooed “first 100” days of Barack Obama’s Presidency long past, we are starting to see signs of disillusionment from many of his more vocal supporters. Obama, the man who was supposed to usher in a new era of “change,” is now increasingly being seen as “more of the same.”

In July’s issue of Harper’s, a liberal monthly magazine, Kevin Baker’s cover story directly compares Obama to Herbert Hoover. He writes, “Obama’s failure would be unthinkable. And yet the best indications now are that he will fail, because he will be unable—indeed he will refuse—to seize the radical moment at hand.” (Emphasis in the original.) Nobel Prize winning economist and NY Times Op-Ed columnist, Paul Krugman, has also famously already been at odds with the Obama Administration. In a recent column regarding Obama’s “overhaul” of the economy Krugman says, “In short, Mr. Obama has a clear vision of what went wrong, but aside from regulating shadow banking — no small thing, to be sure — his plan basically punts on the question of how to keep it from happening all over again, pushing the hard decisions off to future regulators.” Even Bill Maher, the popular anti-Bush comedian, devoted several minutes of his HBO show to chastise Obama for being more of a celebrity than a leader. It appears Obama’s elegant platitudes about the “irresponsibility” of corporate America are proving insufficient even for those who are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There is a material reason why Obama is no longer wooing many of his previous allies. From his campaign promise to fundamentally revamp the health care system, to his promise to shut down the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, very little has actually been done. Take health care for example. Despite the majority of Americans wanting a universal, socialized system similar to those in other industrialized countries, Obama has ruled out any such proposal. Recently, while speaking to the American Medical Association, Obama made it clear that the “public option” in his unnecessarily complex health care plan is not a “Trojan horse” for a single-payer system. In other words, forget about it.

Obama was also the “anti-war candidate.” Not only has Obama done little to nothing to end the occupation of Iraq since he has taken office, he has actually expanded military operations in Afghanistan, as well as increased cross border attacks into Pakistan. On top of all this, the Obama Administration has kept many Bush-era “anti-terrorism” policies, including the above mentioned failure to close Guantanamo Bay. Jeremy Scahill, best-selling author and independent journalist, was recently asked about these policies on Bill Moyers’ PBS show. He pointed out that not only have prisons not been closed, they have expanded. According to Scahill, “The fact is that, at Bagram, we see an expansion. They’re spending $60 million to expand that prison. You have hundreds of people held without charges. You have people that are being denied access to the Red Cross in violation of international law. And you have an ongoing position, by the Obama administration, formed under Bush, that these prisoners don’t have right to habeas corpus.”

One of the most important “historic changes” promised was Obama’s “pro-labor” stance, or so we were told. While running for office, Obama did give pro-union legislation, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, some lip service. Since taking office, however, he has yet to use the power of the bully pulpit to rally support for the bill. The campaign to pass EFCA has been organized labor’s top priority for several years now. A tremendous amount of time, effort, and money has been spent by Labor to bring about a Democratic-controlled Congress as well as having a Democrat in the White House. Now that these goals have been realized, we see the Democrats making no substantial effort to pass even this modest legislation. While Obama has remained quiet, other Democrats have come out openly against the bill, effectively killing it and saving Obama the embarrassment of having to completely renege on his word. As Josh Lucker wrote in these very pages, “The unions nationally contributed $450 million in the last election to the Democratic Party, and what do their members have to show for it? More job losses, continued loss of pay, no universal health care, bailouts for the bosses, and now, the final nail in the ‘hope’ coffin seems to have been driven. A central point for the union support of the Democrats in the 2008 elections, EFCA, appears to have been an empty promise.”

Many of these policies have our well-meaning liberal friends scratching their heads in bewilderment. Many first time voters are beginning to wonder how much their vote really matters. None of the changes they voted for are even being attempted, let alone implemented. Since well before Obama took office, Socialist Appeal predicted there would be no fundamental change in policies. This isn’t because we own a crystal ball, or are privy to any secret information; it is the result of our class-based analysis of U.S. society. Put simply, Barack Obama is a representative of the ruling class, and the policies he puts forth will benefit the class he represents. While there very well may be some cosmetic changes (which, interestingly enough, have yet to happen), Obama and the Democratic Party are simply incapable of implementing any real fundamental change.

Above all, Obama’s election highlights the need for political class independence. Even the most “progressive” candidate is no match for the political machine of our business-controlled two-party system. In order to implement the changes that many people desire, a mass party of labor based on the unions is needed, fighting for a socialist program. These societal changes inevitably will meet resistance. After all, the colossal wealth and power of a privileged minority is at stake. The crisis we are living through is not simply the result of bad policies, bad leaders, and corporate greed. It is at root the result of the internal contradictions within Capitalism. This is exactly why the Workers International League advocates class independent political action. And in the final analysis, in order to achieve real change, we must end Capitalism.