News &
Letters to the Editor
01-30-02
|
|
U.S. is the ringleader
Today in Tokyo president Bush made the statement that the North Korean people are starving
because they are “building weapons of mass destruction.” The fact that the
people of North Korea are starving has very little if anything to do with the possibility
or the probability that they are building weapons of mass destruction. There are three
main reasons for the food shortages in that destitute country: they have suffered severe
drought in the last several years, the country is mostly mountainous with very little
arable land and their population, like all populations of the world, continues to grow.
How can we chastise any nation for building weapons of mass destruction when we are not
only the ringleaders in that department, we continue to amass our arsenals when we should
be reducing them? The more weapons we amass, the more we cause other nations to do the
same. The accelerating global temperatures that we are now experiencing will very probably
be the greatest threat ever faced by humankind, but how will we get this message to our
president?
Don Johnson
Tora Bora no success
To have a goal, agenda to kill people simply because they have been labeled our
“enemy” (labeled by certain government officials) is barbaric, unacceptable.
To call the killing of 300 al Qaida fighters at the Tora Bora offensive “a
success” is disgusting. We are talking about human beings! What type of threat were
they? And even if they were a threat, is the answer to kill them all? Our government
continues to put us and civilians all over the world in a more dangerous position. Just as
payback violence goes round and round in Israel and the occupied territories, so it will
between the United States and those we continue to kill and enrage.
On 2-9-02, the Afghan government released 320 Taliban fighters from prison—said to be
a gesture of reconciliation. Wait just a minute, are these men not one and the same as
those killed in the Tora Bora attack, are these men (320 of them) now free, not the same
men Bush called the “evil terrorists” who want all Americans dead. Yes, I
believe they are all the same men. This is so deadly ridiculous … Afghan fighters,
Northern Alliance fighters, Taliban fighters, anti-Taliban fighters, Al Qaida fighters,
terrorists, etc.
Those 300 fighters killed at Tora Bora, those in prison in Cuba, those just released in
Afghanistan and John Walker Lindh are all the SAME.
Rumsfeld called the prisoners in Cuba “the most dangerous killers on Earth,” ya
right, and the Afghan government just released 320 of them. Afghan Prime Minister Hamid
Karzai told the 320 men “to go home,” and vowed to release all captured soldiers
who were not in command positions. Karzai said the men were innocent conscripts.
Time and time again in the editorial pages, Americans said Walker was lucky to be in the
hands of the American military and not the brutal lawless Afghan military. Many said if he
was left in Afghanistan he probably would have been killed. Oh yes, everyone is evil,
ruthless, noncompassionate, except the United States. Well, if Walker Lindh was in prison
in Afghanistan, he would be a free man, but no, he’s getting life in America.
How can one government release 320 men, send them home, and another government call the
same enemy, the worst killers on the planet. Would the Pentagon call it “a
success” if these 320 freed Taliban fighters were killed?
Unbelievable, the Afghan government lets them all go home, no trials, no parole and we are
giving Lindh life, Americans even wanted him shot.
A local psychotherapist, Mary Moriarty, in a Tribune editorial questioned Lindh’s
mental health. Why? Because he chooses to fight against the United States? Because he
dumped Christianity and America and took up Islam in a foreign land? Because he gave up a
comfortable life in California? Because he took up arms against the Northern Alliance?
There must be something she sees that I do not, because all that Walker has done so far
shows no signs of mental illness. For Americans to think Lindh has mental illness because
he chooses Islam and the Taliban over Christianity and the United States is racist, racism
against Muslims. It is currently not against the law or a sign of mental illness to become
a Muslim or go to war. Americans go to war all the time. Walker needs to be freed. He did
not do anything wrong.
Frank Erickson
|
|
|
A lot of these jobs are cast as low-wage simply because they pay
low wages, not because of anything inherent in the jobs.
-Dean Baker
Center for Policy and Economic Research |
The phrase “nickel and dimed,” made popular by Barbara
Ehrenreich’s latest book highlighting the inability of Americans to survive on wages
from one job alone, is on the lips of several from St. Paul’s United Food and
Commercial Workers Local 789. The union, forseeing stiff competition from non-union
big-box retailers, is sponsoring a new initiative that they hope will change how, as
member Terry Hoffman says, “the retail sector values and pays its people.”
Terry Hoffman has worked in the frozen foods department of the same Lunds Food Store just
blocks from his home for 17 years. He’s backing this initiative because, “just
looking out for our members isn’t enough anymore.”
Bill Pearson, president of UFCW Local 789 agrees: “Retail wages are in a race to the
bottom, and workers are being ‘nickel and dimed.’”
As the retail sector grows rapidly, this issue will affect more and more people: the
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 228 million retail jobs in 1999 and predicts an
increase of 15 to 20 percent by 2008.
“Too many working people are unable to support their families,” he continues.
“We are using our current contract negotiations with local retailers to set a
standard for retail employees throughout the region, regardless if they are members of our
union or not.”
Instead of pushing to raise pay across the board, where those at the top will profit the
most, the union is asking for a raise in the wages at the very bottom—that of
part-time carry-out and entry-level workers. “Not all our senior workers are thrilled
with the idea,” says Pearson, “but most understand that we’re thinking
about this as a long term strategy.”
Hoffman agrees with this strategy. “Attracting good entry-level employees is
important to our whole store operation,” he says. “Workers who see a real future
in their job are more interested in training … more reliable and better workers. It
makes my job more productive.”
Economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Policy and Economic Research in
Washington, D.C., says that this union’s work could be an important precedent:
“A lot of these jobs are cast as low-wage simply because they pay low wages, not
because of anything inherent in the jobs.” He suggests that by not paying workers a
living wage, retailers may be undermining their future. “Better paid workers can
contribute more to the company and the economy,” said Baker.
Local 789 is small, with only 5,000 members from only the eastern half of the Twin Cities
area. They have a Web site at www.YouAreWorthMore.org that encourages non-union retail
workers to think about their conditions and consider joining the union. The site also
features a “union contract for non-union workers,” which shows them what they
should expect in the grievance process, predictable wage increases and seniority
protection should there be layoffs. “It’s simple stuff we take for
granted,” says Pearson, “but non-union workers just don’t have it.”
These contracts, says Pearson, have worked their way into break rooms at non-union stores.
Pearson believes it’s vital that retail workers see what is at stake. “Big
retailers such as Wal-Mart and Target are moving into the grocery business and they want
to keep the union out. They pay a slightly higher starting wage for their grocery
workers—because of union wage competition—but less in benefits and raises for
experiences and services. That results in compressed wages, so experienced employees make
barely more than new workers.” pulse
|
|
|
 Legislators
got Valentines declaring “We love our civil liberties! Vote No on the Minnesota
Patriot Act.” Fifty people from 15 civil liberties and social justice groups, led by
the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, launched opposition to the bill being
“fast-tracked” (with little debate) at the State Capitol. Noting the national
slogan, “United We Stand,” MnNLG President Roxanne O'Rell insisted that
sentiment must be followed by “Behind what?”
Like its national counterpart, the state bills expand law enforcement powers. Wiretaps,
surveillance and searches could be done on nominal “suspicion,” in secret and
with little oversight to prevent abuse.
“What is the value added by Minnesota adopting this legislation?” asked Ziad
Amra of the Arab Anti-Defamation League. “Without this current legislation, Minnesota
was the only state to capture one of these terrorists prior to Sept. 11.”
The main bill HF2909, authored by Rep, Rick Stanek (R-Maple Grove), a 19-year veteran
police officer, creates a definition of “terrorism” that critics charge is
“broad, vague and dangerous.” O’Rell and others observed that the First
Amendment was under fire, with even peaceful rallies such as theirs at risk: those not
immediately complying with “orders to disperse” could be charged with
“terrorism.” Currently, such acts are petty misdemeanors, often dropped. Police
would also be able to amass “political files,” secretly, which could be kept for
five years. During and after the anti-animal genetic engineering protests, it appears
Minneapolis police were already attempting to do this.
“These laws serve only two purposes. One is to stifle free speech and silence all
dissent,” warned O'Rell. Addressing “political files,” she concluded,
“this is nothing less than the creation of a Minnesota secret political police, a
concept repugnant to our nation and our Constitution. It legitimizes the same repressive
political surveillance used against Martin Luther King and others—whose only
‘crime’ was to speak out against the current political line.”
Immigrants, non-citizen residents and foreign students come under increased scrutiny. Amra
noted special ID proposed for immigrants asking, “Why not an armband? I thought we
were past that.” Colleges and universities would be put in the role of probation
officers, keeping tabs on foreign students. Civil liberties emphasized that these
surveillance measures can be directed at people who’ve committed no crime. Even on
“liberal” Minnesota Public Radio talk shows, most callers reflect a
misconception that only “non-citizens” are targeted.
“Remember if my phone is wired, everybody associated [is wiretapped],” said Omar
Jamal, attorney-activist with Somali Advocated for Justice Center,” If I shake hands
with you today, you’re targeted the next morning.”
Jamal described levels of fear in his community, causing some Somalis to consider moving
to other states.
Coalition partner, Communities United Against Police Brutality, helped heighten debate
about “racial profiling” last year, but fears the practice will be encoded into
law.
“On Sept. 11 we stood united in death,” said longtime civil rights attorney
Keith Ellison, “but, on our streets across the nation, we don’t stand united
when it comes to the color of your skin. Would this legislation have stopped Timothy
McVeigh?”
Rep. Stanek is not a new player in the “racial-profiling” debate: he blocked
growing outcry about the practice with passage of his “voluntary data
collection” bill last year. Community organizers charged that Stanek’s bill was
an empty gesture that left the problem unaddressed and abusive officers unaccountable.
CUAPB fears Stanek’s “anti-terrorism” bill intensifies racial profiling.
“The irony of this bill against terrorism is that the bill terrorizes people!”
Jamal quietly underscored.
Another bill, the Health Emergency Act, grants the governor power to quarantine people for
60 days and take their property without appeal. It includes immunization by force, raising
concerns about untested “bio-terrorism vaccines,” already refused by some U.S.
soldiers now facing court-martials for not cooperating. What ultimate powers the governor
will be given remains unclear. However, naturally, Bush and Ashcroft continue to issue
“executive orders,” without congressional or judicial restraints.
The coalition urges citizens to write, call and e-mail legislators and not as O’Rell
put it, “sign a blank check.” Lobbying commenced after the rally with CUAPB
cofounder Michelle Gross making a pointed analogy from her career as a nurse.
She suggested that the legislators are opportunistic, trying to slip in their agenda, much
like opportunists at the scene of an emergency who try to steal the watch off the victim.
She asked, “Are some [legislators] going to stand up, take leadership and resist
these moves on our civil liberties when it’s not popular?”
Another State Capitol rally is planned for Thurs. Feb. 28, 5:30 p.m. Call
612-805-6457. |
|
|
The Bush administration is on a war frenzy. The events of Sept. 11 have
provided an excuse for the United States to carry out war anywhere in the world.
While the war in Afghanistan was held up as an effort to “get those responsible for
Sept. 11,” no one is arguing that the next targets had anything to do with Sept. 11.
Bush’s January State of the Union address amounted to a declaration of war against
what Bush called the “axis of evil.”
The countries that Bush chose to identify as evil are Iraq, Iran and North Korea,
countries that don’t even have much to do with each other. The only commonality is
that they have not adapted themselves to the world as “globalized” with U.S.
economic blueprints.
For the Bush Administration and most of the mainstream press, the question of whether to
carry out a military attack beyond Afghanistan is not an issue. High from its sense of
victory in Afghanistan, the question for the U.S. hawks is no longer if the United States
should go to war, but what country should be next?
Since Sept. 11 the United States has not only conducted the war in Afghanistan, but has
dispatched the first of what is reported to be 650 U.S. troops to the Philippines.
Iraq appears to be the next big target.
The London Guardian reported on Feb. 14 that, “The Pentagon and CIA have begun
preparations for an assault on Iraq involving up to 200,000 U.S. troops that is likely to
be launched later this year with the aim of removing Saddam Hussein from power.”
Vice President Richard Cheney announced plans for a trip to meet with the heads of state
of 11 Arab and Middle Eastern countries. Speculation is that Cheney will engage in
disciplining those who may not be enthusiastic about a Gulf War II.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Feb. 13 that, “While the mission’s purpose
has been portrayed publicly as sounding out Middle Eastern leaders on Iraq policy, Cheney
in fact will tell them that the United States intends to get rid of Hussein and his
regime, several top Bush aides said.”
The paper went on to report that Bush aides said that Cheney is not going to “beg for
support.” Cheney is “going to inform them that the President’s decision has
been made and will be carried out, and if they want some input into how and when it’s
carried out, now’s the time for them to speak up.”
Cheney will also leave his press entourage behind in Washington, or perhaps, some other
undisclosed location. That way, of course, no embarrassing questions about Enron will need
to be ducked while Cheney lines up support for the next big oil war.
Anti-war and peace groups in the Twin Cities have continued to organize against the war
moves by the U.S.
Two events are planned this week.
On Thurs., Feb. 21, Mayday Books is continuing with its “Next Target Forum
Series,” with a look at U.S. policy in Somalia. Speaking will be Omar Jamal,
Executive Director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center and August Nimtz, Professor of
Political Science at the U of M. The forum will start at 7:30 p.m. at Mayday, 301 Cedar
Avenue South in Minneapolis.
On Sat., Feb. 23, the Coalition Against the War is planning an anti-war bannering and
rally at noon at Hennepin and Lagoon in the Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis. The
protest is being organized under the call of “No New Targets—Stop U.S. War Moves
Around the World.”
The coalition issued a statement that says in part, “In his saber rattling State of
the Union address President Bush described an ‘axis of evil,’ identifying Iraq,
Iran and North Korea as the main targets of U.S. war planners. In addition, many other
countries are potential targets, including Yemen, Somalia, Colombia and others. To pay for
this war the Bush administration wants to slash funding for human needs such as housing
and health care to spend billions for the war drive.”
The statement continues, “The U.S. government is using the events of Sept. 11 as a
blank check for war. These war moves have nothing to do with ‘fighting
terrorism,’ and everything to do with imposing U.S. economic and political domination
around the world.” pulse
|
The issue of voting rights of convicted felons has
received attention recently at both the local and national level. On Feb. 5, the Hennepin
County Board recommended that the state legislature restore the voting rights of persons
convicted of a felony who are on probation or whose sentences do not include
incarceration. Minnesota State Law includes among those ineligible to vote “Any
individual (a) Convicted of treason or any felony whose civil rights have not been
restored.” Persons convicted of a felony must complete their sentences and then apply
to the state for the restoration of their voting rights.
The U.S. Senate considered an amendment on Feb. 14 that would have allowed felons who had
finished their sentences to regain the right to vote in federal elections. Although
Minnesota Senators Wellstone and Dayton both voted in favor of the proposed amendment, it
was ultimately defeated 63 to 31.
The issue of felon disenfranchisement has important local implications given the recent
findings of the African-American Men Project, a study conducted by Hennepin County which
found that 44 percent of African-American males between ages 18-30 in the county were
arrested and booked into jail in the year 2000. Previously, a 2001 study by the Council on
Crime and Justice found that in 1997 the ratio of African Americans to whites in state
prison was 25 to 1. Discussion of felon voting rights is often focused on these sorts of
disparities. “In light of the high percentage of African-American men with criminal
convictions, exclusionary legislation continues to deny voting rights to blacks in
disproportionate numbers,” writes St. Mary’s School of Law (TX) professor Nora
Demleitner.
Felon disenfranchisement has a history dating back to Greek and Roman times, to the roots
of Western society, when the notion of “civil death” was a common form of
punishment whereby the offender was in effect removed from civic life. In colonial times,
the tradition continued as a part of English common law in the form of
“attainder” rules which kept persons from retaining their civil rights after
conviction in criminal court.
Following the Civil War, the Reconstruction era saw several southern states adopt felon
disenfranchisement rules in order to create legal grounds for barring blacks from voting,
according to an essay by Virginia E Hench in Case Western Reserve Law Review (1998). Hench
cites national statistics similar to those mentioned above and points out that felon
disenfranchisement eliminates not only the rights of persons convicted of crimes, but has
a negative impact on the “bloc” voting strength of racial groups most
disproportionately affected. “This stark reality necessarily depletes a minority
community’s voting strength over time,” writes Hench. “For this reason the
effects of the intentional discrimination that originally motivated felon
disenfranchisement still linger.”
The disenfranchisement of felony offenders came under sharp criticism in the late 1950s
from a broad coalition of justice and law enforcement groups, according to an article
written by Demleitner for the Minnesota Law Review (April, 2000). In an era when
rehabilitation was seen as a viable possibility for serious offenders, critics of
disenfranchisement laws included the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
the American Law Institute. “In [the groups] eyes, disenfranchisement excluded
offenders from society and thus increased the likelihood of recidivism,” writes
Demleitner.
Richard L. Lippke, a professor of philosophy and religion at James Madison University
(VA), says that a shift away from the notion of rehabilitation led to what he
characterizes as the “incarceration binge” of the 1980s. Logical arguments in
favor of disenfranchising felons stem from the retribution/deterrent school of criminal
punishment, says Lippke. However, many legal observers question the validity of this
approach. “If the threat of imprisonment with all of its attendant terrors and
degradations is not sufficient to deter serious offenders, then it stretches credulity to
argue that adding disenfranchisement will suddenly do the trick,” writes Lippke in
Law and Philosophy (Nov., 2001).
Lippke contends that the populations most dramatically affected by disenfranchisement laws
are those that are most at risk to begin with. “The picture of many (but by no means
all) actual criminal offenders that emerges is one of individuals who are already at the
margins of civil and political society.[Given these realities] their disenfranchisement
can plausibly be viewed not as the first step toward rendering them civil and political
outcasts, but as one of the final steps in doing so,” writes Lippke.
With the amendment to the federal voting law soundly defeated, it remains to be seen
whether the state legislature will follow the recommendations of the Hennepin County
Board. If it does, persons who have been stripped of their right to vote in Minnesota may
soon have those rights restored. pulse
|
|
