Thank you Diane for your defense of free speech.
When I was little there was a TV show, Captain Video, which had on it an episode about the Prince from the Black Planet. On that planet, if you ever lost a contest, you became an Inferior ... for life. The Americans on the space ship knew better and showed him the light. But our treatment of ex-offenders is turning America into the Black Planet!
Millions of people are being labeled Inferiors .. for life. The outrage about letting Mr. Levasseur speak - some 30 years after his crimes - is part of this very-un-American tendency.
The American tradition is that when you commit a crime, you do your time, and then you get a chance at a fresh start. We're losing that, folks. CORI laws, off-limit occupations, security checks, lifetime sex-offender registries and the like make it very hard to start over.
During the city election campaign I talked with many young men who said some version of "I can't vote, I'm a felon." So many that we have to think someone must be telling them this.
This is wrong. First of all, once you're out of prison you are an "ex-felon", not a "felon". You are not a statistic or a probability or a risk, you are a free person ready to try again to make a life for yourself. Second, once you are out you have the absolute right in Massachusetts to register, vote and participate in public life.
And to speak at a University if people want to hear your story!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Foreclosure Issue
Foreclosures is the Elephant in the Room that most Council candidates are dodging.
Worcester has had one of the highest foreclosure rates in the state for the last 3 years. Banks are emptying buildings and leaving them to go to ruin. This blight brings rising crime and homelessness, plunging tax revenues, emptying schools and plunging property values, with a huge proportion of new homeowners throughout the City now “under water”.
Only Grace Ross has made this a central issue, organizing residents and shepherding bills through the Council to keep people in their homes and direct public money for home-buying to city residents rather than outside speculators.
Worcester has had one of the highest foreclosure rates in the state for the last 3 years. Banks are emptying buildings and leaving them to go to ruin. This blight brings rising crime and homelessness, plunging tax revenues, emptying schools and plunging property values, with a huge proportion of new homeowners throughout the City now “under water”.
Only Grace Ross has made this a central issue, organizing residents and shepherding bills through the Council to keep people in their homes and direct public money for home-buying to city residents rather than outside speculators.
District 4 results
To me, the big story of this District 4 race was that - as Clive and many others predicted - the "infrequent voters" Grace Ross was trying to engage did not turn out.
The unofficial results of this race were
Haller 62%,
Ross 38%.
The vote totals were almost exactly the same as for the Haller-Simonds race two years ago. Perhaps mostly the same people, voting the same way.
But the real winner was "Not Voting".
As percents of District 4's 14,985 registered voters, the results were
Haller 8.7%
Ross 5.3%
Not Voting 87.0%
I did a little playing with numbers from Wikipedia, and came up with an estimate that District 4 has about 24,500 adults age 18 and over. As a percent of that, the results were
Haller 5.3%
Ross 3.8%
Not Voting 91.4%
Many say that those 87% (or 91%) who didn't vote just don't care, but I've been in enough peoples homes, listening to them talk about their issues, their concerns and their feelings, to know this isn't true.
The problem is that most working people don't believe their vote will matter, that it will make their lives better, or that anyone they send off to represent them will remain on their side. And they are afraid of stirring up a struggle that they aren't ready for.
We're not going to just talk them out of those beliefs. We will have to be there talking and working with them, organizing and leading them and teaching them how to struggle and win *between* elections.
One ray of hope came from an election worker I sat next to at a polling station. At 4 pm he pointed out that there were entire streets where no one had voted, but then there were a few - no different from the others to look at - that always had a good turnout.
He used to live on one of those streets, and he had organized his neighbors to get out and vote, and to get each other out to vote.
Eleven years after he moved away they were still doing it!
The unofficial results of this race were
Haller 62%,
Ross 38%.
The vote totals were almost exactly the same as for the Haller-Simonds race two years ago. Perhaps mostly the same people, voting the same way.
But the real winner was "Not Voting".
As percents of District 4's 14,985 registered voters, the results were
Haller 8.7%
Ross 5.3%
Not Voting 87.0%
I did a little playing with numbers from Wikipedia, and came up with an estimate that District 4 has about 24,500 adults age 18 and over. As a percent of that, the results were
Haller 5.3%
Ross 3.8%
Not Voting 91.4%
Many say that those 87% (or 91%) who didn't vote just don't care, but I've been in enough peoples homes, listening to them talk about their issues, their concerns and their feelings, to know this isn't true.
The problem is that most working people don't believe their vote will matter, that it will make their lives better, or that anyone they send off to represent them will remain on their side. And they are afraid of stirring up a struggle that they aren't ready for.
We're not going to just talk them out of those beliefs. We will have to be there talking and working with them, organizing and leading them and teaching them how to struggle and win *between* elections.
One ray of hope came from an election worker I sat next to at a polling station. At 4 pm he pointed out that there were entire streets where no one had voted, but then there were a few - no different from the others to look at - that always had a good turnout.
He used to live on one of those streets, and he had organized his neighbors to get out and vote, and to get each other out to vote.
Eleven years after he moved away they were still doing it!
It's still taboo in America to speak the truth about how the current disaster for women in Afghanistan began; but it was the fruit of the CIA-organized, funded and equipped war against the Afghan revolution and then against the Soviet troops who came into Afghanistan to defend it.
But I remember the accounts every week of US-supported "Mujahadeen" entering towns, burning the school and the health center, killing the doctors and the teachers, and fleeing into the mountains.
And I remember a letter from an AFSC volunteer in an Afghan village who was present when the civil war began in '78, before the Soviet intervention. The revolutionary government in Kabul issued a series of decrees, taken up by the town's revolutionary committee. These were, in order (if I remember it right): a decree that women could appear in public without a veil; a decree that women must be allowed to speak at public meetings; a land reform, redistributing the holdings of the feudal landlords to the peasants; a decree that all girls had to receive a 4th grade education just like the boys; a decree granting women equal rights with men to a divorce; a decree granting women the right to attend college;
and finally a decree abolishing the right of husbands to kill their wives.
It was on the Friday after the last of these decrees that the Mullahs led the outraged faithful (men) out of the Mosques and on a rampage, hanging any communists, supporters of the government or unescorted women they could lay their hands on. Thus began the civil war, with the US supporting one side (with arms so advanced that even its NATO allies weren't allowed to have them) and the Soviet Union supporting the other.
Many young people I've told this story to are unable to guess which side the US was on; but of course it was on the side of the wife-killers. And it was in protest of the Soviet intervention - and in support of the wife-killers - that Jimmy Carter (Lord bless him) withdrew the US athletes from the Moscow Olympics and initiated the rapid arms buildup that marked the beginning of Cold War II - which did not end in the obliteration of our civilization, but could have.
Virtually no one spoke against this madness, because our terror of being accused of being soft on communism was still so great. Even most of the US anti-imperialist movement shied away. The Soviet move seemed outrageous because they no sooner had entered Afghanistan then they presided over the arrest and execution of the Afghan President Amin, who had begged and pushed them to send troops.
They claimed to have proof that he was a CIA agent, who had deliberately sabotaged the revolution by leading a campaign of wanton killing of enemies. This seemed like quite a whopper at the time; but now, in hindsight, I'm not so sure.
But I remember the accounts every week of US-supported "Mujahadeen" entering towns, burning the school and the health center, killing the doctors and the teachers, and fleeing into the mountains.
And I remember a letter from an AFSC volunteer in an Afghan village who was present when the civil war began in '78, before the Soviet intervention. The revolutionary government in Kabul issued a series of decrees, taken up by the town's revolutionary committee. These were, in order (if I remember it right): a decree that women could appear in public without a veil; a decree that women must be allowed to speak at public meetings; a land reform, redistributing the holdings of the feudal landlords to the peasants; a decree that all girls had to receive a 4th grade education just like the boys; a decree granting women equal rights with men to a divorce; a decree granting women the right to attend college;
and finally a decree abolishing the right of husbands to kill their wives.
It was on the Friday after the last of these decrees that the Mullahs led the outraged faithful (men) out of the Mosques and on a rampage, hanging any communists, supporters of the government or unescorted women they could lay their hands on. Thus began the civil war, with the US supporting one side (with arms so advanced that even its NATO allies weren't allowed to have them) and the Soviet Union supporting the other.
Many young people I've told this story to are unable to guess which side the US was on; but of course it was on the side of the wife-killers. And it was in protest of the Soviet intervention - and in support of the wife-killers - that Jimmy Carter (Lord bless him) withdrew the US athletes from the Moscow Olympics and initiated the rapid arms buildup that marked the beginning of Cold War II - which did not end in the obliteration of our civilization, but could have.
Virtually no one spoke against this madness, because our terror of being accused of being soft on communism was still so great. Even most of the US anti-imperialist movement shied away. The Soviet move seemed outrageous because they no sooner had entered Afghanistan then they presided over the arrest and execution of the Afghan President Amin, who had begged and pushed them to send troops.
They claimed to have proof that he was a CIA agent, who had deliberately sabotaged the revolution by leading a campaign of wanton killing of enemies. This seemed like quite a whopper at the time; but now, in hindsight, I'm not so sure.
Rails to Worcester
In 1959, through trains (4 each way daily) made the run from Worcester to Boston in 58 minutes, with stops with baggage handling at Framingham, Wellesly Farms and South Station. The run from Springfield to Boston took 2 hours and 1 minute, with additional stops in Auburn and Palmer.
With the tracks in comparable condition, including restoring double-tracking where necessary, and using modern rolling stock - not super-trains, just light-weight high-speed cars, with traction on every axle, that lean into the turns - it should be possible to average 20% higher speeds. Cut 2 minutes from every 1959 stop for no baggage and higher acceleration, but add a minute each for 10 or 12 commuter stops, and commuter trains could run hourly from Boston to Springfield in less than 1 hour 40 minutes, and less than 50 minutes from Worcester to Boston.
Expensive? Yes. Pie in the sky? No.
Passenger service never did make money directly. The railroads recouped the expense of providing commuter and inter-city passenger rail service by 'speculating' in land, purchasing it low and re-selling at a huge profit when its value was increased by their investment and service.
As a society we have to start doing that kind of accounting, looking at the value added to our communities by government investment and services - and at how to recover some of it for the cost - not just looking at the bottom line of government balance sheets.
With the tracks in comparable condition, including restoring double-tracking where necessary, and using modern rolling stock - not super-trains, just light-weight high-speed cars, with traction on every axle, that lean into the turns - it should be possible to average 20% higher speeds. Cut 2 minutes from every 1959 stop for no baggage and higher acceleration, but add a minute each for 10 or 12 commuter stops, and commuter trains could run hourly from Boston to Springfield in less than 1 hour 40 minutes, and less than 50 minutes from Worcester to Boston.
Expensive? Yes. Pie in the sky? No.
Passenger service never did make money directly. The railroads recouped the expense of providing commuter and inter-city passenger rail service by 'speculating' in land, purchasing it low and re-selling at a huge profit when its value was increased by their investment and service.
As a society we have to start doing that kind of accounting, looking at the value added to our communities by government investment and services - and at how to recover some of it for the cost - not just looking at the bottom line of government balance sheets.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Feingold?
So is Feingold the one?
Someone is going to have to challenge Obama in the 2012 primaries.
It must be someone who will stand up to Obama, the Blue Dog Democrats and the Oligarchs on a broad range of domestic and international issues, and who has the strength of character and understanding to not compromise on a wedge issue such as support for Israel.
It must be someone who stands squarely on the side of the American working people and is not trying to find common ground with the Oligarchs
It must be someone who can reach and rally the rank-and-file activists of the labor movement, and fire up their hearts and their courage.
It must be someone who speaks not just to and for the hopes of the people but who gives expression to our anger.
Ideally it should be someone of color, because many Afro-Americans may otherwise support Obama no matter what he does, but it must at least be someone who understands the centrality of race in America and the importance of confronting racism and building "black-white" unity.
It must be someone with the skills and instincts of an organizer and a leader, not just a lawmaker. Someone with a proven track record of coalition-building. Someone with a vision of a lasting transformation of American politics, a new kind of politics rooted in and driven by an organized people.
And it must be someone who has the charisma to break through peoples' skepticism and cynicism and touch their hearts.
Dennis Kucinich actually comes pretty close on the issues, understanding, commitment and passion, although maybe weak on leadership and coalition building. We need to look closely at why his campaigns for president never caught fire.
Those who have taken the time and effort to really listen to Kucinich and watch his performance at events like the AFL_CIO rally last year at Chicago's Soldiers Field know that there was a potential in his campaign for a great political upset. And yet, a measure of the task we face is that after two presidential runs, his name recognition is still below 80%. Many who do recognize his name are conditioned to snicker when they hear it, without even being able to explain why. Perhaps this was due to the urgency people felt about finding someone who could beat Bush, and the fact that they had not lost all hope in the system as it is. Certainly it owed much to his being nearly totally ignored by the corporate media.
But it points to a "recognition barrier", our need for a candidate who already has a high name recognition and media presence - if possible.
It is not too soon to be looking at the few people who are our trusted voices on the national political stage, not too soon to be thinking and talking about whether "they're the one" who could do it - or rather who could lead *us* in doing it!
Kucinich again? Barbara Lee? Bernie Sanders? maybe Al Franken? Or Michael Moore?
Or maybe Russ Feingold?
Let's keep looking, asking, talking to each other, and challenging them! And let's keep *our* hope alive!
Someone is going to have to challenge Obama in the 2012 primaries.
It must be someone who will stand up to Obama, the Blue Dog Democrats and the Oligarchs on a broad range of domestic and international issues, and who has the strength of character and understanding to not compromise on a wedge issue such as support for Israel.
It must be someone who stands squarely on the side of the American working people and is not trying to find common ground with the Oligarchs
It must be someone who can reach and rally the rank-and-file activists of the labor movement, and fire up their hearts and their courage.
It must be someone who speaks not just to and for the hopes of the people but who gives expression to our anger.
Ideally it should be someone of color, because many Afro-Americans may otherwise support Obama no matter what he does, but it must at least be someone who understands the centrality of race in America and the importance of confronting racism and building "black-white" unity.
It must be someone with the skills and instincts of an organizer and a leader, not just a lawmaker. Someone with a proven track record of coalition-building. Someone with a vision of a lasting transformation of American politics, a new kind of politics rooted in and driven by an organized people.
And it must be someone who has the charisma to break through peoples' skepticism and cynicism and touch their hearts.
Dennis Kucinich actually comes pretty close on the issues, understanding, commitment and passion, although maybe weak on leadership and coalition building. We need to look closely at why his campaigns for president never caught fire.
Those who have taken the time and effort to really listen to Kucinich and watch his performance at events like the AFL_CIO rally last year at Chicago's Soldiers Field know that there was a potential in his campaign for a great political upset. And yet, a measure of the task we face is that after two presidential runs, his name recognition is still below 80%. Many who do recognize his name are conditioned to snicker when they hear it, without even being able to explain why. Perhaps this was due to the urgency people felt about finding someone who could beat Bush, and the fact that they had not lost all hope in the system as it is. Certainly it owed much to his being nearly totally ignored by the corporate media.
But it points to a "recognition barrier", our need for a candidate who already has a high name recognition and media presence - if possible.
It is not too soon to be looking at the few people who are our trusted voices on the national political stage, not too soon to be thinking and talking about whether "they're the one" who could do it - or rather who could lead *us* in doing it!
Kucinich again? Barbara Lee? Bernie Sanders? maybe Al Franken? Or Michael Moore?
Or maybe Russ Feingold?
Let's keep looking, asking, talking to each other, and challenging them! And let's keep *our* hope alive!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
War reauthorization vote
Comment on Truthout.org:
In a defining moment in US history, 32 brave Democrats voted against the war reauthorization act. The "progressives" who defected - lamentably under Barney Frank's leadership - don't get it. The dollar, now hurtling toward disaster, is issued by a private consortium of the biggest bankers, which was given an outrageous private monopoly over the issuing of money. Our elected representatives have no control over them, and they have no loyalty to us. Like it or not, we, the people and our representatives, can't save their dollar. The IMF, which has never been a friend to working people anywhere, can't save it. We must not sacrifice our core interests and convictions on its alter. Make good note of who the 32 are - and their brave leaders Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern and of course Dennis Kucinich. These are the ones who are clear about whose side they're on, the ones still standing after all the threats and blandishments, the shell games and payoffs. These are the ones we have to defend, with all our might.
In a defining moment in US history, 32 brave Democrats voted against the war reauthorization act. The "progressives" who defected - lamentably under Barney Frank's leadership - don't get it. The dollar, now hurtling toward disaster, is issued by a private consortium of the biggest bankers, which was given an outrageous private monopoly over the issuing of money. Our elected representatives have no control over them, and they have no loyalty to us. Like it or not, we, the people and our representatives, can't save their dollar. The IMF, which has never been a friend to working people anywhere, can't save it. We must not sacrifice our core interests and convictions on its alter. Make good note of who the 32 are - and their brave leaders Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern and of course Dennis Kucinich. These are the ones who are clear about whose side they're on, the ones still standing after all the threats and blandishments, the shell games and payoffs. These are the ones we have to defend, with all our might.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)