Broccoli Kitten LOVES Broccoli!

Victory for the Republic Workers

We want to celebrate the Republic Windows and Doors workers' victory of preventing the bosses and bankers from stealing their hard earned vacation, severance, and insurance pay. However, our Saturday protest is still on. First we want to raise awareness of what just happened -- a successful factory occupation, here stateside in 2008. Also, while Bank of America is trying to sound magnanimous about making these loans, these workers might still have jobs if the bank loaned when the company was still operating. Bank of America's David Rudis remarked the bank had "no obligation to pay Republic's employees." Frankly we the workers, read taxpayers, were under no obligation for the $25 Billion recently handed over to his bank.

This struggle is a microcosm of all our struggles, and is praxis of some major points. First, it highlights the power of workers, and our ability to face down the bosses using our most powerful weapon, the strike. Second, the working class struggle is one and the same as the immigrant rights struggle. Not only were a good portion of the UE workers at Republic immigrants of Latino descent, but this is one of several recent immigrant workers' fight back actions in Illinois including Cygnus Corp. Lastly, it shows the degree of militancy and organization it will take to gain victories in both the current economy and political atmosphere.

A list of related Republic Windows and Doors articles

Paul Krugman Schools George Will On The Great Depression

I think people are misunderstanding Krugman on the effect of the war. He isn't repeating the reactionary dribble that the war saved the economy, but stating the economy recovered. What he doesn't discuss here is important. The only way to prevent the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" is to destroy capital (mostly means of production in this case). When WWII is considered in a context of every competing country's (allies and opponents), means of production was essentially wiped out, we have the real reason for the United States' economic recovery after the war. The right wing can never admit this since there are too many ideological penalties the come with it. If war really was a easy way to fix economies, why the slumps after Viet Nam, Gulf War I, the current occupations?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Paul Krugman Schools George Will On The Great Depression

Austrian school economics, brought to you by the same kooks that deify Ayn Rand, and actually think there is a way for markets to expand infinitely. For those unfamiliar with this discredited school of economics, they actually do consider Greenspan and Friedman as being left, since anything that hints of regulating the monstrosities of capital is considered left of Austrian School. Free markets always have and always will fail miserably, the contradictions inherent in the profit system insure this, and history has proven it time and time again.

A little hint for acudoc, you've misidentified the so called producers in your pro ruling class diatribe, and it sure isn't the greedy captains of industry you worship. There are producers in society, and they do create all the wealth. They are called the workers.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

"The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage," or the Capitalist Case?

The MIT article exposes itself all the more when you consider the doctorate the author is working on. His thesis is quite simple and rehashes what the revolutionary left has said for over a century, albeit from the vantage of the oppressors.

Capital always needs exploitable labor, but doesn't want to pay for its reproduction. It uses the state (formed for capitals' common interests) to subsidize the cost of reproducing the next generation of labor. LGBT people, according to Kolasinski, supposedly aren't contributing to the labor pool, and hence shouldn't be "subsidized." Never mind that in the regressive tax structure we live under such subsidies actually come out of our pockets anyway, his argument is surprisingly honest in terms of how their class views ours: work, breed, work...

Kolasinski then takes out insurance at the end of his piece with oft repeated, "if we let them marry, then what's next?" A reactionary straw-man that frequently devolves into discussions of bestiality and what have you.

As a straight, married, Californian, I will be standing alongside my LGBT sisters and brothers on Saturday. An injury to one is an injury to all!

I profoundly admire Apple for taking a stand against Prop 8 (Prop Hate)

From their website, posted on October 24, 2008 at 10:18 (http://www.apple.com/startpage/):

No on Prop 8
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

Blaming the victims of the crisis

Recently I was arguing the same point this article makes with some petty bourgeois acquaintances, one a hopeless reactionary, the other a closet libertarian. They were making Wall Street's case that the entire financial crises is due to the government forcing innocent institutions like Countrywide to lend to brown (read Latino) and black people. I said "even if they did, and loans were made to every single black and brown person in the country, that still only accounts for roughly 20% of the loans. How do you account for the other 80%?" They were unable to answer it, and just reiterated the right wing 'talking points.'

Palin: the View from British Columbia

Hands down the best prose on SW this year

Brian Jones is a genius, witness:

I'm not sure which is more frightening, though: watching McCain and Palin whip a crowd into a patriotic, anti-Obama frenzy with racist code words, or watching McCain try to backpedal when audience members drop the code and speak in plain language?

Called the Congressperson!

I have very little faith in bourgeois representative democracy, but there are times when you can get a little bit of input. While we all know struggle is far more important than voting, the looming danger of HR 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was worth the quick phone call to voice my opposition. Representative Xavier Becerra, had the good sense (or at least political acumen) to vote against the first version of the bill. I called his office today to thank him for that and to strongly state my opposition to the Senate revisions. Lets hope the House rejects the "Bankster Bailout" again. While Bush and all the other ruling class representatives are trying so hard to convince us we are all in the same boat, we always need to remember -- "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common."

Care to try again, Dick?

"The fact is, the markets work, and they are working," said Cheney in an interview in his White House office. "And people - some of the big companies obviously - have taken risks. Risk means risk. And there's an upside as well as a downside in some of the choices they've made. We have to be careful not to have this set of developments lead us to significantly expand the role of government in ways that may do damage long-term for the economy."

The same goes for Democratic efforts to curb the predatory lending practices that left naive homeowners in trouble, says Cheney: "We don't want to interfere with the basic, fundamental working of the markets."

Your markets are working alright! Thanks Dick, for making our case for socialism even more compelling and easier to win people over to. While the real solution to the crisis is a socialist revolution, here are some stopgap reforms to carry us through the year.

• Use the newly nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to refinance all troubled mortgage holders with 30 year fixed rate notes on a fair and realistic valuation of their homes, not the over-inflated housing bubble prices. Let the investment banking industry take the losses on all refinanced price differences.


• Institute an immediate and progressive wealth tax with severe penalties for capital flight.


• Institute a immediate windfall tax for record profit making petroleum corporations, in fact, let's extend that to all the non-bid contract war profiteers as well.


• Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the obscenely rich, create a much more progressive tax structure, and remove all tax loopholes and subsidies for corporations.


• End the brutal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq (with half of that 2.1B a week being used for reparations).


• National single payer healthcare.


• Take the 700B and rebuild inner cities, create a national public transportation system, and invest the rest in public research and development of alternative energy sources.

Black September article compilation

Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight

The folks at the Wall Street Journal Online finally being honest about the inherent failure of free markets? Important how they don't mention the contradiction of privatization of profit, but socialization of losses, but it is the WSJ after all. A glimpse of how they view us:

...to the discomfort of workers -- companies are quicker to adjust wages, hiring and work hours when the economy softens.

In other words, the working class always bears the burden--during boom or slump. Our task is to organize against them placing this on us! Times like this expose their proffered excuse for sucking surplus value out of us, "because we [the capitalists] take all the risks," for the lie it always is.

Crisis in Capitalism (a redundant phrase, really)

When I gave my sub-prime mortgage crisis talk in 2007, skeptics were saying it was no big deal. "The economy will rebound," "deregulation is always a good thing," trust the market," etc. Armed with Marxist analysis of economics and recognition of the fundamental principles of a crisis of overproduction, allowed us to see the sub-prime mess was just a precursor of a much larger catastrophe. A good time to re-read Rosa Luxemburg, to understand how credit eventually exacerbates crisis. This is playing out exactly the way she explains in "Reform of Revolution."

The bi-partisan neoliberal project is now bearing fruit. While the Bush gang certainly helped to accelerate this with their murderous 2.1 billion dollar a week occupations, the chicken were going to come home to roost eventually. It is going to take serious struggle on the ground to keep this entire thing from being placed on our backs.

A system out of control
Crucial analysis of the scope of the crisis, and addresses how there isn't any quick fix using their usual tools. This article is a must read!

Working harder and falling behind
The ruling class wants someone to pay to get them out of their latest crisis. Guess who they want that to be?

US Economy: Rudderless and Reeling from Direct Hits
When fiscal conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts agree with us on deregulation being a prime cause, you know the system is in crises.

Road Game Melee

Sparks' Candace Parker at center of late scuffle
Parker Ejected in Sparks Brawl

Now hidden, now open

Looks like more and more people are beginning to see through the lies this system is based on.

How bad will it get?
Well, at least the billionaires and hedge fund managers made money. Now, we working class people will face the pain from their extravagance and excess. Their free market correction consists of them taking the money and running, while workers suffer the attendant consequences.

Americans may be losing faith in free markets
When the cognitive dissonance between the ruling class propaganda and people's actual experience becomes too great, they begin questioning the false premises this society is based on. The only thing free markets have done, ever, is make the rich all the more richer. The best part is the end of the article where reformism is hinted at.

Why the Bail Out of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae is Bad Economic Policy

The Wall Street Journal seems closer to reason than the Democratic Congress. Over the weekend its editorial clarified what socialists since Marx have been saying: "What taxpayers need to understand is that Fannie and Freddie already practice socialism, albeit of the dishonest kind. Their profit is privatized but their risk is socialized."

Capitalism's very foundation is the socialization of labor, risk, whatever, and the privatization of profit. The parasites (capitalists) are usually good at obfuscating this, but when the inevitable crisis inherent in the system exposes them, the fact of exploitation is revealed to all.

Quick Thoughts on Furman's 'Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story'

Just read Jason Furman's laughable paper on Wall-Mart "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story." Early on he writes "A Harvard applicant has a higher chance of being accepted than a person applying for a job at that Wal-Mart," as anecdotal support as to why he feels Wall-Mart jobs are great "opportunities." Talk about strained analogies!

In sections where he cites studies on Wall-Mart's economic impacts, Furman liberally quotes findings supporting his conclusions, but immediately cites inconclusiveness whenever the studies differ from his thesis.

Later, when discussing rates of exploitation various companies have in comparison, he writes:

"If Microsoft paid each of its employees an additional $5,000 or expanded its health benefits, its profits would be largely unchanged. If Wal-Mart took the same step -- and did not pass the cost on to consumers -- it would be virtually wiped out."

This assumes the only option Wall-Mart would have was Furman's arbitrary choice of $5,000! A figure lower than that seems inconceivable to Furman, who earlier in the same section of his paper speaks of "Wal-Mart's mind-boggling $10 billion in profits." Somehow there is no room for wage increases or better benefits. Nope, it's an all or nothing proposition for neo-liberal proponents.

While the paper as a whole glosses over any information contrary to his conclusions, the best part is when he addresses Wal-Mart's notoriously rampant sexual discrimination and other lawbreaking:

"Finally, Wal-Mart should obey labor laws that bar gender discrimination, unpaid overtime and environmental laws like the Clean Air Act."

For free market champions like Furman, these are legal issues unrelated to economic questions entirely. Never-mind that gender based pay gaps and unpaid overtime are economic issues by their very nature.

Furman's rosy conclusion that Wal-Mart is in fact a progressive force in society is closely tied to his wholesale apologetics for Clinton era social welfare slashing. Throughout his piece Furman refers to the gutting of the social safety net under the Clinton presidency as "making work pay." What this odd phrasing really means is making workers pay. With Barack Obama's recent appointment of Jason Furman as top economic advisor, one worries what a possible Obama administration holds in store for workers.

Parker dunks in Sparks’ win over Fever

video

First the Slowdown, Then the Crash

Rachel Ray faux Kuffiyeh flap

What repressive fashion measures will the jingoistic reactionary right wing media impose on us next? In addition to her ignorance, Michelle Malkin has once again proven her insanity, racism, and xenophobia know no bounds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24860437/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24864619#24864619

Cuba Will Live

Saul Landau writes an interesting piece on how reactionaries held an event honoring murderous terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.

Peace Actions in Japan

Let's play Pay for your Occupation!

That's right! For the low, low price of millions a month your nation can enjoy the following amenities:

• The constant fear of dying by small arms fire, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, random mortar shells, and a host of other grisly products of the U.S. military-industrial-complex.


• The ability to be abducted and tortured (er, sorry, harshly interrogated) for months on end.


• The right to hand over all rights to your natural resources to transnational corporations.


• The outright destruction of all important infrastructure and most housing.


• Mass unemployment with the added feature of harsh anti-union laws.


• The freedom to leave your lifelong home and join the millions of unemployed refugees either in camps in neighboring nations or within your own borders with no hope of ever returning home. For no extra cost, learn to fear your neighbors of decades as part of a colonial style divide an conquer scheme.


• An added benefit of tons of radioactive depleted uranium littering your entire country.


• Occasional and infrequent access to clean water, electricity and other necessities.

All these and so much more, courtesy of Senate Democrats!

One wonders if Rumsfeld and his fellow war criminals had this mind when they were claiming their war of aggression 'would pay for itself.'

http://socialistworker.org/2008/05/12/paying-to-be-occupied

Hands off Iran!

These are the notes from a talk I gave in the Summer of 2006. While some of the events and information is dated, the situation is still as tense. This talk was heavily informed by Revolutionary Rehearsals by Colin Barker, ed., International Socialist Review, and other sources. I've recently read David Barsamian's 'Targeting Iran,' and am about to start Phil Marshall's 'Revolution and Counter Revolution in Iran.' When I've completed reading that I will probably take this talk, combine it with the another Iran talk I gave in the Fall of 2007, and turn it into a proper essay when finished. ~ Robert D. Skeels

We are here to talk about the current U.S. threat to Iran. If you listen to the mainstream corporate media, this discussion takes an opposite tack, suggesting somehow that Iran poses a threat to the U.S., but as we will see this simply isn't the case. We will look at the facts about Iran's nuclear program. We will also look at some of the reasons why the U.S. is menacing Iran, Iran's importance in the region, and recent history. Lastly we will discuss what kind of anti-war movement is needed to take on the issues regarding Iran. Let's take a look at the administration's ongoing "Iran is a nuclear threat" propaganda first so that we can dispel rumors and conjecture and move on the the actual situation.

Since Bush declared Iran as part of his "axis of evil," his administration has openly talked of regime change in Iran. This is nothing new, it is part and parcel in the policies set in the 2002 National Security Strategy -- often referred to as the Bush doctrine. Nor is the fact that such calls for regime change are central to documents from the Plan for the New American Century, and similar Clinton administration strategy documents calling for full spectrum dominance and the like.

Despite strong sentiment in much of the U.S. ruling class to realize regime change in Iran, there are several things holding it back. First and foremost is the failed occupation of Iraq, which has the U.S. military completely tied down and is drawing more and more resources as time goes by {might want to mention 3,700 more troops bound for Iraq}. Another reason is that until fairly recently, the Bush administration had no compelling justification other than some strained excuses of Iran sponsoring a few groups the State Department classifies and terrorists. This alone wouldn't produce broad public support for U.S. military intervention, nor win support from the world community. As all of the initial "justifications" for invading Iraq have been proven patently false, polls overwhelmingly showing people not only against the Iraq war, but now saying it never should have be instigated, the Bush administration's desire to expand its imperial adventures in the Middle East were effectively on hold.

When Iran announced it had restarted its nuclear research work and had successfully enriched fuel grade {3.5%} level uranium, those calling for Iranian regime change felt they finally had an issue on which the could get some traction on. The Bush administration has been making ominous threats. The most memorable are John Bolton's "tangible and painful consequences," and Dick Cheney's "meaningful consequences." The far right pundits have discussed using bunker busting bombs, including the nuclear variety of such devices. Before attributing such bellicose posturing to the neocons or the right, we need to look at the leading Democrats, who not only share the same policies, but in some cases sound more hawkish than their supposed opposition. Howard Dean called for a "harder line on Iran." John Kerry insisted the Administration "has not been tough on Iran... you have to keep your eye on the target." Liberal darlings Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have strong opinions: the former calling for "surgical missile strikes," the later saying "we can not take any options off the table... they [Iran] will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

All this tough talk might seem understandable if Iran was actually creating weapons and threatening to use them. Problem is, it isn't. Iran, unlike its regional neighbors Israel, India, and Pakistan, is a signatory of the {sign 1968, ratify 1970} of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (henceforth NPT). Further, Iran signed an additional protocol in 2003 allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wider access and inspection abilities than normal NPT requirements. Under the NPT Iran is completely within its rights to research and develop nuclear power. Iranian officials state they want nuclear power for areas in Iran which are difficult to transport petroleum to, and so that more petroleum is available for export.

As for the threat of weapons development -- Iran has no weapons grade uranium, in fact it has very little fuel grade uranium.. As of March 6, 2006 the General Director of the IAEA {Mohamed El Baradei} reported "the Agency has not seen indication of diversions of nuclear materials to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."

Facts like these are all but ignored by the U.S. media, echoing government misinformation including the now famous "Iran could produce nuclear bomb in 16 days" headline based on an absurdly hypothetical 350 fold increase in production cited by an assistant secretary of state {Stephen Rademaker}. In reality Iran, assuming no technical difficulties, and that its intentions were to create a weapon, is at least a decade away from such an endeavor. In 2005 the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate cited at least 10 years, as does the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Earlier this year U.S. National Intelligence Director (and mass murderer) John Negroponte estimated 2010 to 2015 as the earliest Iran could have a weapon -- again this is assuming they are engaging in such development. Eric Ruder's article in Socialist Worker issue 592 talks of how Iran would require 16,000 centrifuges to refine for a weapon. A far cry from their existing 164 centrifuges, and well above the Iranian offer {rejected by the U.S.} to limit their centrifuge count to 3,000. He also points out that Iran doesn't have enough uncontaminated uranium to do so anyway, which would require them to import uranium or refining technologies they don't have.

At this point there can be little doubt that any talk of an Iranian nuclear weapons program is nothing more than propaganda and misinformation just like the WMD lies that were told before Bush invaded Iraq. But just like those lies, which were initially accepted because they were repeated shrilly and endlessly, the Iran lies will undoubtedly be repeated ad infinitum for some time to come. While From Iran's standpoint it would actually make sense to develop nuclear weapons in self-defense, but as we have seen, they don't have such a program. Additionally, On August 9, 2005 Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons. We've established Iran poses no threat to the U.S., so let us look at the U.S. threat to Iran.

Iran finds itself surrounded by the very power that claims its threatened by them. Currently the U.S. has colonial style military occupations both to Iran's immediate east and west in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. has countless air-bases in the region including those in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and others -- not to mention the gulf is full of U.S. carrier groups. Then there is Israel, the only real nuclear threat in the Middle East and a primary cause of regional instability, which is following the U.S. lead on the current posturing towards Iran. Dick Cheney had the Pentagon draw up plans for an all out attack on Iran if any terrorist events happen in the future, regardless if Iran had anything to do with it {I wonder what he would do if operation rescue, one of our biggest domestic terror organizations attack a clinic?}. If we can believe everything that sources including New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh have written, then U.S. special forces and operations are already in Iran targeting assets and contacting potential allies for a U.S. attack.

The ongoing U.S. and Israeli threats against Iran last year led to natural nationalist and anti-imperial feelings among Iranians, and is partly the reason for Mahmud Ahmadinejad's victory. The hypocrisy of the U.S. and Israel leading the charge against alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program is staggering. The following quote from Socialist Worker illustrates this:

THE U.S. refusal to consider Iran's proposal to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone exposes what all the U.S. hype about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program is really about. On the surface, Iran's proposal appears to fit U.S. aims. In fact, the U.S. used U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, passed in 1991, which for "establishing in the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction" as justification for its 2003 war on Iraq. But Israel is currently the only nuclear power in the Middle East--with an arsenal of some 300 nuclear weapons. The U.S. doesn't want to eliminate nuclear weapons in the Middle East--so long as they remain in the hands of an ally.

We are back to the real reasons the U.S. is menacing Iran, a desire for regime change, American hegemony in the Gulf, and a furthering of its imperial aims. As former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter said recently: "The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-a-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change." With this we need to examine exactly what the U.S. wants and why.

Iran is the largest and most heavily populated country in the Persian Gulf. It is the world's forth largest oil producer. Throughout history it has been a major player, but the only history U.S. imperialism is interested in is the petroleum era. More specifically since the 1950's when the CIA initiated a coup d'etat to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadeq, whose "crime" was nationalization of Iranian oil, and install the brutal regime of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi--the Shah.

During the 1970's a genuine working class movement began challenging the Shah, whose military and secret police were infamous for vicious repression. At it's high point, the Iranian working class created shoras throughout industries, workplaces, and communities. Shoras which are worker's councils, which we typically call soviets, were the organizing points from which they revolution sprung. Mass movements, protests, sit ins and work stoppages crippled and eventually toppled the Shah's brutal rein. This deserves much more time, which we don't have time to do justice here. For those of you that haven't read it, I strongly suggest getting a copy of "Revolutionary Rehearsals" and reading the Iran chapter. The worker's revolution that ultimately overthrew the Shah had some ideological and organizational weaknesses primarily because of leftist leadership which lacked a grounding in the real Marxist tradition. That left, heavily influenced by currents of Stalinism and elitism, was prone to abandoning principle and made major tactical errors including focusing solely on the overthrow of the Shah and not preparing the working class to assume rulership for such an eventuality. This left a power vacuum which allowed Ayatollah (Seyyed Ruhollah) Khomeini to place himself at the head of the the revolution. Using a combination of populism and anti-imperialist sentiment, mixed with aspirations of creating an Islamic republic, Khomeni became the de facto leader during and after the 1979 overthrow of the Shah. His spiritual beliefs aside, Khomeini was a firm believer in free market capitalism, which meant his consolidation of power required dismantling the same revolutionary powers that placed him at its head. In a short time his counterrevolutionary moves saw a total elimination of both Iran's left and the workers' organizations so effective at toppling the Shah. What remained is the current ruling class of Iran, a mix of Theocrats and capitalists who are to all intents and purposes, as repressive as the Shah was.

From the standpoint of U.S. imperialism, the revolution was disastrous. The U.S. lost one of its strongest allies in the region which was more like Israel and less like Saudi Arabia in terms of using its U.S. supplied military hardware for regional control. In interest of getting back to current time, I need to gloss over very important events including the U.S. Embassy seizure, the USS Vincennes shooting down a civilian airliner {Iran Air Flight 655}, the U.S. encouraging, funding and arming of both sides of the Iraq Iran war {1980-88}, Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair, and others.

The current situation with Iran and its relation to U.S. imperialism is complicated and I can't hope to possibly cover everything here. It is important to discuss some topics in relation to current tensions in Iranian U.S. relations outside of the nuclear issues.

Iran's importance as of late is very much an issue of globalization. It has seen major investment and economic alliances from Europe, Russia, and Asia -- particularly China. Much of this has been in energy related developments and pipelines, but also in other industries. This flurry of foreign investment, plus promises to relax social restrictions is what brought former President Mohammad Khatami to power. However, his devotion to neo-liberal capitalism, which has created unemployment and stagnant wages, also saw a revival in working class struggle. Working class dissatisfaction with Khatami, anti-imperialist sentiment, and national pride over Iran's nuclear program are all part of what brought current President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to power. However, his equal commitment to Iran's capitalist class has resulted in continued working class struggles as seen in the recent Tehran bus drivers strike. Iran's economic connections with the counties mentioned above are part of what has prevented the U.S. from securing U.N. actions like sanctions, and kept it from getting any international support for its saber rattling. In reality, this growing of Iranian influence on a world scale is what is really fueling calls for regime change.

In a true twist of irony the U.S. has further increased Iran's power and importance in the region through its failing occupation of Iraq. Following the classic colonial strategy of divide and conquer, the artificial sectarian divisions the U.S. created in trying to pacify Iraq have resulted in creating a powerful Shiite government with strong ties and sympathies to Tehran. The very reactionaries that were boasting "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, Real men want to go to Tehran" have created conditions that have strengthened Iran and other Shiite run countries hands considerably in the region and given rise to further dissent in Arab states that serve U.S. interests. This is another reason why the U.S. ruling class is united in calls to threaten Iran, as U.S. credibility and influence in the region is seriously threatened.

All of this leads us back to the Bush doctrine and what kind of anti-war movement is necessary to combat it. The Bush doctrine makes specious claims to wanting to establish freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. U.S. imperialism has a long history of supporting democracy in the region. For example: the KING of Saudia Arabia, the KING of Jordan, and the SHAH of Iran. In a word, the U.S. isn't interested in anything other than proxies to serve its interests. U.S. handling of the democratically elected Hamas proves this, as does the carefully crafted Iraqi constitution that prevents it from voting on things like ending U.S. occupation or re-nationalizing industries.

In the last weeks the U.S. has acquiesced to calls for diplomacy and will join in the Iran Six (Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and the U.S.) for multi-lateral talks over Iran's rights under the NPT. It did this only after it failed to bully other U.N. members into imposing sanctions, and is predicating it on a precondition that Iran suspend nuclear activities. This far from being the end of a military threat -- Condoleezza Rice called the talks "one last excuse" for Iran to resist American demands.

The anti-war movement needs to demand that the U.S. enter talks in good faith without any preconditions at all. The movement needs to demand that Iran's calls for security guarantees be granted and the the U.S. stop its rhetoric about all options being on the table. Furthermore it needs to demand a real negotiations to see resolution 687 realized, creating a WMD free Middle East -- including those of the U.S. and Israel.

This is why I feel it is important to be a member of the ISO (if you're not--you should be), where we are able to sharpen and then present these arguments to a larger audience. To be successful the anti-war movement must be principled and make the understanding, acknowledgment, and resistance the U.S. imperialism its very foundation. The ISO argued early in favor of the Iraqi resistance, and while we were criticized by liberals at the time, it is easy to see what has prevented the U.S. from moving on to Iran and Syria is the brave Iraqi resistance. An effective anti-war movement cannot compromise on issues like Palestine, must not accept arguments in favor of "humanitarian" occupations, and cannot allow itself to be silenced to avoid offending pro-war candidates like it did in 2004. We must make our voice clear and to quote our flyer for this talk: "U.N. sanctions or U.S. bombs, we say Hands off Iran!"

Local Man Sues Government After Being Wrongly Deported

What happens in an atmosphere of racist anti-immigrant sentiments. Here's wishing the ACLU gets a huge settlement out of the Department of Faderland Security, and the funds would come directly of the xenophobic right wing's taxes only.

Exchanges with White Supremacists

While I shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place, I made a comment post in response to a YouTube post that blacks somehow perpetrate more racism towards whites (I am rdsathene). My follow up post with the links was never posted because YouTube comments don't allow for links, and I realized the utter lack of historical knowledge and unprincipled politics of the types posting on YouTube would have been a waste of my time. Notice how 'CoollrThnU' immediately resorts to ad-hominum attacks and jingoistic U.S. nationalism.

rdsathene
Equating the racism of the oppressor to the racism of the oppressed? Blacks suffer a double oppression in the U.S., and are in no position to use racism to oppress whites economically or politically. The converse, of course, has been true ever since whites enslaved blacks. Anything appearing as racism from black individuals is typically a reaction to suffering a lifetime of real racism and oppression here in the cradle of racism.

CoollrThnU
Ameerica is not the fucking "cradle of racism", doucebag. The fucking European CREATED racism, or at least were the first to act upon it in a major way.

rdsathene
Yes, I'm a "doucebag" [sic] for pointing out something widely known. White supremacists here can save their comments for someone who cares to hear their racists drivel. Here are a few places to start for the under-educated:

• http://www.isreview.org/issues/26/roots_of_racism.shtml


• http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.com/2007/03/marxism-and-oppression.html


• http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/unknown-date/black-power.htm

Angry White Man (Ron Paul)

Interscope Sucks My Dick: Antiquiet Interviews Josh Homme Of Queens Of The Stone Age

JOHN MOLYNEUX

If Your Commute Is Getting Longer, Blame the Cell Phone

Not sure if I needed a study to confirm this...