Friday, October 19, 2012

From The Pen Of Joshua Lawrence Breslin-High Heel Sneakers, Circa 1964


The summer of 1964 we freshly- minted high school graduates ready to face the big bright sun new world that had been laid out for us, and that we felt we could shuffle around at will if things didn’t work out the way we wanted them to, were under the sign, as old Wordsworth’s poem proclaimed, of those who could claim “to be young was very heaven.” More importantly, we were summer of 1964 and freshly-minted eighteen years old and therefore permitted, legally permitted (although “unofficially” we had entered several months earlier under, uh, fictious IDs and other flim-flam moves aided by a couple of dollars greased into friendly and outstretched hands), to enter the“hot spot” teen night club, the Surf Club, over in Ocean City a few miles (important miles to keep away snooping parent knowledge and snooping no-account local kids) away from hometown Old Saco, Maine. Most importantly we were summer of 1964 and soon to be freshly- minted college freshmen which gave us a certain cachet with, well, who else, the girls who flocked to the club in droves looking for, well who else, looking for guys and maybe a bright prospect college freshman guy.

As with all such teen things though, college guys, dead-end hamburger flippers, lifer gas station grease monkeys or short life low-rider bikers, this one summer of 1964 Saturday evening, a July night, that put things in joe college hopes perspective, started off slowly. Slowly meaning the girls were not flocking into the club in droves, those that had entered did not look like they were looking for soon to be freshly-minted college freshmen but rather solid gas station grease monkeys (who at least had the advantage of being able to help fix that old 1957 Desoto that was always dripping oil, and for free. Well, kind of. ). A little later though thing s did pick up once the local legend cover band , The Rockin’ Ramrods, started to warm up for their first set and suddenly the place was filled with girls (and guys too, not with the girls, it was that kind of place, strictly a meet and match place.)

Now part of the reason that things had started slowly was that everybody with any dough and a few connections had brought “the fixings” with them. In twenty- one legal age Maine the Surf Club was strictly, very strictly “no alcohol allowed.” So “the fixings,”meaning alcohol in those days, meant that one and all had spent the early evening out along the seashore boulevard parking lot that stretched from the Surf Club to Seal Rock down at the far end of the Ocean City Beach drinking and getting themselves “rum” brave enough to face the evening. We (my old high school corner boys from Mama’s Pizza Parlor over on Main Street, and me) had done our share of cheap jack Southern Comfort drinking (straight up, not a good idea as I will tell you about some other time) as well but being rookies at this business had come early and had finished up our portions already so we slipped inside the club just a little too early.

Once the band started up though I was rum brave enough to corner a girl
I had been eyeing for a few minutes, and she, I thought, had been eyeing me.
(I told you it was that kind of place, with guys eyeing and girls eyeing in order to live up to that meet and match reputation.) What caught my fuzzy, bleared eye was that she was wearing high-heel sneakers, light blue, that were the minute rage among young women around our way that summer. And that meant that she was hip, hip in a way that guy could think about, or dream think about.

Wouldn’t you know though it just that minute when I asked her for a dance the band started to play Louie, Louie by the Kingsmen, a song that had practically become the national anthem of the Surf Club (and maybe the national anthem of party and teen club hungry, boy and girl hungry, youth everywhere). Now I didn’t (and don’t’) dance particular well but my moves on that song must have impressed Betty enough. After that dance was over and I had said thank you she asked me to come back to her wall (when the music started the walls were where you wanted to be not caught at some hunker-down no eyeing table with your friends) to talk to her. Later, after some feeling out talk to see if we did match (she was going to some school down in Boston, Emerson, I think, to study television production, and I thought that was cool, very cool at the time. And match-worthy) she asked me, if you can believe this, if at intermission I might not like to go with her to her car and have a drink or two to cool off in the seaside summer night. Yes, that summer of 1964.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

UFPJ Action Alert: Tuesday night, did you hear the words peace or immediate withdrawal? I didn't


United for Peace & Justice


Dear UJP Activist,
Tuesday night during the Presidential debate neither candidate mentioned the word peace nor did one of them promise to immediately bring our troops home from Afghanistan. It’s amazing. With the majority of U.S. citizens and even the NY Times who once supported the war calling for an immediate withdrawal, both candidates have decided to ignore the demands of the average American.

This is exactly why we need your support if we are going to solve our economic woes, peace with an economy based on human needs and justice for all members of our society must be part of the public discourse. Your support will make it possible for UFPJ to continue organizing to raise our voices, take a stand, and challenge the U.S. war machine.

After the election, neither a President Obama nor Romney should believe it is worth the political risk to start a new war with Iran, Syria or any other nation. Whoever is president must end the

Veterans For Peace
(UFPJ member group) member and Vietnam War veteran Mike Hastle is arrested at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza in NY City during an Oct 7th vigil marking 11 years of war in Afghanistan
war in Afghanistan and bring the troops, the military advisors, and the private contractors home. We must maintain pressure to redirect U.S. foreign policy and our economy away from constant war, and towards peace and global community building. This is the challenge we face. UFPJ’S new organizing brochure details our campaigns, committees and strategies for carrying our peace and justice work forward. YOUR SUPPORT will help us move these initiatives forward.

UFPJ makes it possible for peace and justice activists – like you – to raise your voice, take a stand, and challenge the U.S. war machine. The Iran Pledge of Resistance that UFPJ initiated has thousands of supporters. To oppose U.S. militarism and move from our current War Economy to a Justice Economy, we must confront the corporate power behind the war machine and change the culture of our nation. Your donation to UFPJ will help keep the momentum of the Pledge growing and it will support new campaigns our members want.

We are counting on your participation and commitment, and your support.

Thank you for all you do!
Michael T. McPhearson
National Coordiator

Venezuelean elections 2012

Chávez defeats the right

www.socialistworld.net, 10/10/2012
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI

But socialist policies needed.
Tony Saunois, Caracas
Thousands flocked to Miraflores, the Presidential Palace in Caracas, Sunday night (October 7) to celebrate the victory of Hugo Chávez in Sunday’s presidential election. In scenes reminiscent of the defeat of the right-wing coup in 2002, soldiers from the presidential guard waved flags from the roof top of the palace while other soldiers joined workers, youth, the unemployed and others who came to the city centre to celebrate the defeat of the right-wing candidate, Henrique Capriles.


The victory of Chávez, his fifth electoral victory since 1998, has inflicted yet another defeat on Venezuela’s right wing and is welcomed by the CWI and its Venezuelan section, Socialismo Revolucionario, together with workers and socialists internationally. A victory of the right wing would have resulted in an attack on the Venezuelan working class, a rolling back of the reform programme and a political offensive by the ruling class nationally and internationally, celebrating another defeat for ‘socialism’. A massive turnout of over 80% – up from 75% in 2006 – the highest in decades, reflected the political and class polarisation which continues to grip Venezuelan society.
With over 98% of the votes counted, Chávez had won 8,133,952, 55.25%, compared to 6,498,527, 44.14%, for wealthy businessman Capriles. Chávez won in 20 of Venezuela’s 24 federal states. If he completes this mandate for another six years, Chávez will have been in power for two decades in total. He will become the longest serving Venezuelan President since Juan Vincente Gomez who ruled from 1908 until 1935! The difference is that Chávez has been elected with mass support, as opposed to the dictatorship of Gomez. Capitalist politicians and leaders of the former workers’ parties in Europe and other continents must look with envy at Chávez’s continued electoral victories and ability to mobilise millions of supporters. Certainly, no other political leader in recent elections has had the ability to repeatedly attract millions to election rallies or be greeted by such crowds celebrating his victory.

Right-wing campaign’s populist character

This election campaign has been presented in Venezuela as ‘historic’, one that will determine the future of the country and as a choice between ‘two distinct models’. However, such a choice was not reflected in Chávez arguing during the campaign for a clear socialist programme to break with capitalism. Neither did he advocate such an alternative in his address to the crowd which greeted him outside Miraflores.
The election campaign reflected important aspects and new features of the struggle that have unfolded in Venezuela during the last fourteen years following Chávez’s first victory.
One of the most significant features of the election was the character of the right-wing campaign. The effect of the policies and struggles of the last fourteen years has left powerful support for radical social policies and, to an extent, the general idea of ‘socialism’, which is now deep in the popular political consciousness.
Reflecting the radicalised left political consciousness that is now dominant in Venezuelan society, Capriles was compelled to present his programme in a populist manner that masked his real right-wing neo-liberal agenda. This represents a significant change in the strategy of the right wing.
Capriles’s propaganda and speeches attempted to address the plight of the poor and promised to defend a welfare state. He argued he would not dismantle all the ‘missions’, the reform programme introduced by Chávez in health and education. He called for the defence of ‘independent’ trade unions and tried to win the support of public sector workers by promising to end the obligatory attendance at Chávez rallies and protests, which is a major source of discontent. Capriles energetically crisscrossed the country – attempting to portray himself as a ‘radical’ new youthful figure as opposed to the older ‘tired’ figure of Chávez in order to win the youth vote. He had some success in this.
The real programme of the right was to be found buried in its material where it argued for reduced state intervention and an increased role for private investment in the economy. In the failed 2002 coup, Capriles was implicated in the right-wing assault on the Cuban embassy. Had the right wing secured a victory in this election, a Capriles government would have attempted to roll back the reform programmes of the Chávez governments and introduce more neo-liberal measures.
This change in the right wing’s propaganda is a reflection of the real balance of political forces at this stage. Capriles was compelled to rein in the extreme right. To have unleashed the forces of the far right or to have argued explicitly for more right-wing neo-liberal policies would only have resulted in a bigger defeat for Capriles.

A serious warning

Despite the welcome victory of Chávez the voting in this election is also a warning, from which important lessons need to be drawn in order to prevent a possible future right-wing victory. While Chávez’s percentage of the total vote fell by 7.6 percentage points compared to the last election in 2006, Capriles increased the right’s share by 7.2 percentage points. On an increased turnout Chávez increased his actual vote by 824,872, but Capriles increased the vote of the right by 2,206,061. This represents a serious warning. Apart from the referendum on constitutional reform in 2007, this was the lowest percentage vote for Chávez in any election.
The right has been increasing its vote at each election, reflecting a creeping, slow-motion counter-revolution. But support for radical left policies remains dominant at this stage and the masses, including some sections who this time voted for the right, are opposed to any attempt to revert back to the old order that existed prior to Chávez coming to power.
However, the failure to break with capitalism and introduce a genuine socialist programme with democratic control and management by the working class and all those exploited by capitalism, is allowing the right to exploit the growing discontent and frustration due to the worsening social conditions, corruption and inefficiency that accompanies the growing Chávista bureaucracy and the government’s top-down bureaucratic approach, which the CWI has consistently warned about and opposed.
The largest percentage of the vote ever won so far by Chávez was in the 2006 election when he took 62% of the vote. Significantly, this was also Chávez’s most radical campaign when the question of ‘socialism’ was dominant and to the fore in the campaign. At that time, there was a revolutionary development following the defeated right-wing coup attempt and 2002-03 bosses’ lockout. However, since that victory, rather than advancing through the introduction of a programme to break with capitalism and introduce a real system of democratic workers’ control and management, the revolutionary process has stalled and been in retreat.
The government has increasingly collaborated with the ruling class and sought to reach agreement with it; hence its policy of ‘national reconciliation’ and agreements struck with the employers’ federation. This, together with the emergence of those who have grown rich on the backs of the Chávez movement – the ‘boli-bourgeoisie’ – inevitably resulted in growing discontent and protests against the government.


Reforms & despair in the poorest barrios

Moreover, the response of the government to the global economic capitalist crisis which began in 2007 has not been to drive forward with a programme to break with capitalism but to move in the opposite direction and seek to appease it by moving to the right. Increased tax concessions since then have been given to multinational companies. The national oil company PDVSA, which has financed the ‘missions’ reform programme, has cut its budget to them by nearly 30%.
There has also been increased repression against workers and others who have taken strike action in recent years. Workers in the public sector are subject to the Law of Security Defence of the Nation. This allows for the banning of strikes and even protests in the public sector. The state police in the city of Barcelona killed two workers’ leaders at the Mitsubishi car factory; the governor of this state is a Chávista. Workers at Toyota suffered the same fate.
Despite the popular reform policies of the ‘missions’, which have aided millions in their health, education and other programmes, catastrophic social conditions remain in the poorest ‘barrios’ and show little sign of improving. These have been the breeding ground for a dramatic rise in crime, brutal violence and kidnappings to extract money from the families of victims. Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world: the government’s official figure was 19,000 deaths in 2011. This is almost certainly an under-estimate of the scale of this slaughter.
Venezuela is currently one of the most violent countries in the world. In one predominantly wealthy district near Caracas, El Hatillo, 70 kidnappings have occurred so far this year! The experience of CWI members is typical. One CWI member living in a barrio arrived at a meeting the day before the election to tell of the shooting of his brother-in-law the night before. Another told of the shooting of their landlord. Others speak of work colleagues being kidnapped. Another spoke of withdrawing money from a bank for work, only to be robbed five minutes later by armed youth on a motorcycle who had been texted of the cash withdrawal by bank clerks, who then take a cut of the money. Such attacks make the lives of the poor and the middle class a state of almost permanent anxiety and even fear.
The housing situation remains desperate especially in the poorest barrios. The government, in the run-up to the election, launched a rushed housing programme, claiming to have built over 200,000 new dwellings. Many people question these figures. Many who saw their shacks washed away by heavy rain in 2010 remain in refuges. Here, conditions can be so bad that even massacres of the occupants have taken place by other occupants or the drug cartels which operate in the barrios. Yet what is being constructed are in reality new ghettos: tiny apartments in blocks with no facilities, built on any piece of empty land or land that has been expropriated. One new development is isolated with one road in and one road out at least an hour’s drive away from the nearest metro.
Corruption, lack of democratic planning and control and inadequate building techniques have often meant cracks have appeared in the blocks even before they are occupied!
These conditions are the potential breeding ground for armed gangs of young people driven into violent robberies and kidnappings in order to survive. They are also the breeding ground of discontent, which the right wing can build upon or could lead to demoralisation and apathy towards the government. This is already developing and was evident in the campaign.


Minimal reference to socialism

The Chávez campaign during this election was to the right of the campaign fought in 2006. It was shortly after this that Chávez proposed the launch of the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) as a ‘revolutionary party’. Chávez made references to Trotsky, the permanent revolution and the transitional programme. He spoke of building a ‘fifth international’ of ‘left parties’. But in this election, none of that was evident. Reference to socialism was minimal until the last week of the campaign. Instead, the main slogan of Chávez was “Chávez the heart of the fatherland”. It assumed a very nationalistic character with promises to develop the ‘fatherland’. The election was highly personalised in both camps. While the main avenues of Caracas were full at the closing rally, it was noticeable that the placards simply featured Chávez and the ‘Fatherland’ with no political content. Absent were the banners of the PSUV or the trade unions. Many workers wore shirts from the companies they worked for and often said they were there because they were ‘obliged’ to by their employers.
While many enthusiastically rallied to Chávez as their only hope and fearing the right, some were simply mobilised around chanting for ‘Chávez and fatherland’, with no content.


These features reflect the lack of an independent organised political force of the workers and the poor, which the CWI has commented on in previous articles. This, and the bureaucratic top-down approach of the government, has seriously weakened the movement right from its earliest period, something of which the CWI has consistently warned. This top-down approach was again reflected during the election campaign. On two occasions when Chávez spoke in mass meetings in states, some chanted “Chávez yes, but not ...”, referring to the imposed Chávista candidates for the forthcoming state elections in December. Chávez responded by saying if the imposed candidates were rejected then they also must reject Chávez!
The lack of a democratic independent workers’ movement is one of the biggest weaknesses and greatest dangers. It has already allowed the right wing to make gains and advances. If the working class, youth and poor do not build a democratic independent organised force, the threat of the right and advance of the counter-revolution will grow. It cannot be ruled out that the right wing will make gains in December’s regional elections given the rottenness of some of the Chávista candidates.
Unfortunately, following his victory, Chávez, when speaking to his supporters, gave no indication of taking steps to overthrow capitalism. He offered dialogue and debate to the opposition. “We are all brothers of the fatherland,” he thundered after praising the opposition for accepting the result. He spoke of building one united Venezuela. Both sides towards the end of the campaign emphasised this same point. As the polls closed, there was a barrage of television propaganda from both sides appealing for peace, unity and reconciliation. Both Chávez and Capriles urged ‘calm’ and ‘tranquillity’, evidently fearing that polarisation could result in clashes and some kind of social explosion.


‘Mixed economy’ or break with capitalism?

As Chávez greeted the crowd after his victory, he made two passing references to socialism. However, these were drowned in pronouncements of “Viva Bolivar! Viva La Patria! Viva Venezuela!” During the campaign he argued that the ‘socialism’ of the Soviet Union had failed and a new type is needed in the 21st century. But this was not a rejection of the former totalitarian Stalinist regime that masqueraded as socialism, in favour of advocating a programme of workers’ democracy. Chávez’s policies illustrate that what he means by this ‘new type’ is a ‘mixed economy’ combining capitalism with state intervention and reforms. The reforms which the CWI supported are now being rolled back and cut. They could only be maintained and strengthened on the basis of breaking with capitalism and introducing a democratic socialist plan of the economy.
Capriles is clearly biding his time and now intends to consolidate his base following the election campaign. Chávez is set to continue with his policies of conciliation and working with those sections of the ruling class which are prepared to collaborate with him. Such a policy will increasingly bring his government into collision with workers and the poor. Social discontent will increase. It is urgent that an independent democratic socialist workers’ movement is built with a programme to break with capitalism. If this is not done, then alongside growing social disintegration and alienation will develop the threat from the right.
The deepening global capitalist economic crisis will have a heavy impact on Venezuela. A significant fall in the price of oil, Venezuela’s main export worth $60 billion last year, would threaten to undermine Chávez’s policies. It cannot be excluded that Chávez could be driven back towards the left and introduce more radical measures that encroach on capitalism. However, this is far from certain and would not, on their own, represent a socialist transformation. To break with capitalism and build a real democratic socialist alternative still needs the urgent construction of an independent, democratic and politically conscious workers’ socialist movement.
Program Information
Peace groups mark 11th Anniversary of War
Action/Event
Nancy Murray, Pat Scanlon and others
chuck u. rosina
Around 200 people rally at Park St. Boston on the 11th anniversary of America's longest war.
Speakers:
Marylin Levin (United National Anti-War Coalition)
Nancy Murray (Boston Coalition for Palestine)
Al Johnson (Vets for Peace)
Shawn (Iranian guy)
Prof Kavah (another Iran guy - American Iranian Friendship League)
Pat Scanlon (Vets for Peace)
Lynn Mesa (Chelsea Uniting)

Produced by:
Susan McLucas

Recorded by:
Susan McLucas
Michael Borkson

Edited by:
Chuck U. Rosina
@ W Bla3 Medford, MA
see credits

Anti-Afghan/Iran War Rally, Boston Download Program Podcast
Peace groups mark 11th Anniversary of War
00:10:36English2012-10-07
Boston, MA
View Script
1 00:10:36 128Kbps mp3
(15MB) Stereo
11Download File...
What is Expose AIPAC?
Expose AIPAC is a three-day summit being held to coincide with the AIPAC National Summit occurring October 13-15 in Boston.
We are convening the summit in order to expose the corrupt practices of the political lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the broader Israel lobby of which it is a part. Over the course of these three days we will hold a people’s forum with noted activists, public intellectuals, and policymakers to discuss AIPAC’s corrupting influence over American foreign policy and domestic politics along with a day of defiance and speaking out within earshot of the AIPAC National Summit.

Exposing AIPAC: Video 1 of 2

Exposing AIPAC: Video 2 of 2


Time to Pack Up



After more than a decade of having American blood spilled in Afghanistan, with nearly six years lost to President George W. Bush’s disastrous indifference, it is time for United States forces to leave Afghanistan on a schedule dictated only by the security of the troops. It should not take more than a year. The United States will not achieve even President Obama’s narrowing goals, and prolonging the war will only do more harm.


Multimedia



Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. said on Friday that “we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, period. There is no ifs, ands or buts.” Mr. Obama indicated earlier that this could mean the end of 2014. Either way, two more years of combat, two more years of sending the 1 percent of Americans serving in uniform to die and be wounded, is too long.
Administration officials say they will not consider a secure “logistical withdrawal,” but they offer no hope of achieving broad governance and security goals. And the only final mission we know of, to provide security for a 2014 Afghan election, seems dubious at best and more likely will only lend American approval to a thoroughly corrupt political system.
*
This conclusion represents a change on our part. The war in Afghanistan had powerful support at the outset, including ours, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
After Mr. Bush’s years of neglect, we believed that a new president, Barack Obama, was doing the right thing by at least making an effort. He set goals that made sense: first, a counterinsurgency campaign, stepped-up attacks on Al Qaeda, then an attempt to demolish the Taliban’s military power, promote democratic governance in Kabul and build an Afghan Army capable of exerting control over the country.
But it is now clear that if there ever was a chance of “victory” in Afghanistan, it evaporated when American troops went off to fight the pointless war in Iraq. While some progress has been made, the idea of fully realizing broader democratic and security aims simply grows more elusive. Meanwhile, more than 2,000 American troops have died in this war, more than 50 of them recently in growing attacks by Afghan forces, and many thousands more have been maimed. The war has now cost upward of $500 billion.
Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, said at the debate on Thursday: “We don’t want to lose the gains we’ve gotten. We want to make sure that the Taliban doesn’t come back in.”
More fighting will not consolidate the modest gains made by this war, and there seems little chance of guaranteeing that the Taliban do not “come back in,” at least in the provinces where they have never truly been dislodged. Last month, militants struck a heavily fortified NATO base. Officials say the Pakistan-based Haqqani network is behind many of the attacks on Americans.
Americans are desperate to see the war end and the 68,000 remaining troops come home. President Obama has not tasked military commanders with recommending a pace for the withdrawal until after the election. He and the coalition partners have committed to remain engaged in Afghanistan after 2014 at reduced levels, which could involve 15,000 or more American troops to carry out specialized training and special operations. Mr. Obama, or Mitt Romney if he wins, will have a hard time convincing Americans that makes sense — let alone Afghans. The military may yet ask for tens of thousands more troops, which would be a serious mistake.
To increase the odds for a more manageable transition and avert an economic collapse, the United States and other major donors have pledged $16 billion in economic aid through 2015. That is a commitment worth keeping, but the United States and its allies have tried nation building in Afghanistan, at least for the last four years. It is not working.
*
The task is to pack up without leaving behind arms that terrorists want and cannot easily find elsewhere (like Stinger missiles) or high-tech equipment (like Predator drones) that can be reverse engineered by Pakistan or other potential foes. The military can blow those things up if it must.


After more than a decade of having American blood spilled in Afghanistan, with nearly six years lost to President George W. Bush’s disastrous indifference, it is time for United States forces to leave Afghanistan on a schedule dictated only by the security of the troops. It should not take more than a year. The United States will not achieve even President Obama’s narrowing goals, and prolonging the war will only do more harm.
Multimedia
Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. said on Friday that “we are leaving Afghanistan in 2014, period. There is no ifs, ands or buts.” Mr. Obama indicated earlier that this could mean the end of 2014. Either way, two more years of combat, two more years of sending the 1 percent of Americans serving in uniform to die and be wounded, is too long.
Administration officials say they will not consider a secure “logistical withdrawal,” but they offer no hope of achieving broad governance and security goals. And the only final mission we know of, to provide security for a 2014 Afghan election, seems dubious at best and more likely will only lend American approval to a thoroughly corrupt political system.
*
This conclusion represents a change on our part. The war in Afghanistan had powerful support at the outset, including ours, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
After Mr. Bush’s years of neglect, we believed that a new president, Barack Obama, was doing the right thing by at least making an effort. He set goals that made sense: first, a counterinsurgency campaign, stepped-up attacks on Al Qaeda, then an attempt to demolish the Taliban’s military power, promote democratic governance in Kabul and build an Afghan Army capable of exerting control over the country.
But it is now clear that if there ever was a chance of “victory” in Afghanistan, it evaporated when American troops went off to fight the pointless war in Iraq. While some progress has been made, the idea of fully realizing broader democratic and security aims simply grows more elusive. Meanwhile, more than 2,000 American troops have died in this war, more than 50 of them recently in growing attacks by Afghan forces, and many thousands more have been maimed. The war has now cost upward of $500 billion.
Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, said at the debate on Thursday: “We don’t want to lose the gains we’ve gotten. We want to make sure that the Taliban doesn’t come back in.”
More fighting will not consolidate the modest gains made by this war, and there seems little chance of guaranteeing that the Taliban do not “come back in,” at least in the provinces where they have never truly been dislodged. Last month, militants struck a heavily fortified NATO base. Officials say the Pakistan-based Haqqani network is behind many of the attacks on Americans.
Americans are desperate to see the war end and the 68,000 remaining troops come home. President Obama has not tasked military commanders with recommending a pace for the withdrawal until after the election. He and the coalition partners have committed to remain engaged in Afghanistan after 2014 at reduced levels, which could involve 15,000 or more American troops to carry out specialized training and special operations. Mr. Obama, or Mitt Romney if he wins, will have a hard time convincing Americans that makes sense — let alone Afghans. The military may yet ask for tens of thousands more troops, which would be a serious mistake.
To increase the odds for a more manageable transition and avert an economic collapse, the United States and other major donors have pledged $16 billion in economic aid through 2015. That is a commitment worth keeping, but the United States and its allies have tried nation building in Afghanistan, at least for the last four years. It is not working.
*
The task is to pack up without leaving behind arms that terrorists want and cannot easily find elsewhere (like Stinger missiles) or high-tech equipment (like Predator drones) that can be reverse engineered by Pakistan or other potential foes. The military can blow those things up if it must.

(Page 3 of 3)
Mr. Obama wants to use American troops to provide logistical assistance and security at the elections. There were real threats to voters’ lives in the first post-Taliban elections, but the real threat to democracy is from corruption, not bombs. Mr. Karzai stole the last election, and he got away with it with American forces in place. After giving him 10 years and lots of money, things keep going in the wrong direction. Why would this now change?
Multimedia
RELATIONS WITH PAKISTAN After some bitter disputes, Pakistan began cooperating with the United States again in June by reopening a critical supply route to Afghanistan. American officials say the Pakistanis may have decided that sowing chaos in Afghanistan by supporting Taliban proxies is not in their interest after all. This could be wishful thinking. Last week, the Pentagon blamed the Pakistani-backed Haqqani network for some of the recent “green on blue” attacks. Islamabad’s collusion with the Taliban and other extremist groups is the biggest threat to Afghan stability.
The United States has a huge interest in a less destructive Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country of 170 million that supports jihad in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Indian cities. But there is reason to argue that America’s leverage with Pakistan on security matters is limited by its need for Pakistani bases, border crossings and intelligence on the Taliban.
If tens of thousands of American troops were removed from landlocked Afghanistan, that might actually allow the United States to hang tougher with Islamabad. Pakistan officials might not listen, but at least the United States could be more honest about what the Pakistanis were doing to worsen the threat of terrorism and insurgency.
*
We are not arguing that everything will work out well after the United States leaves Afghanistan. It will not. The Taliban will take over parts of the Pashtun south, where they will brutalize women and trample their rights. Warlords will go on stealing. Afghanistan will still be the world’s second-poorest country. Al Qaeda may make inroads, but since 9/11 it has established itself in Yemen and many other countries.
America’s global interests suffer when it is mired in unwinnable wars in distant regions. Dwight Eisenhower helped the country’s position in the world by leaving Korea; Richard Nixon by leaving Vietnam; President Obama by leaving Iraq.
None of these places became Jeffersonian democracies. But the United States was better off for leaving. Post-American Afghanistan is likely to be more presentable than North Korea, less presentable than Iraq and perhaps about the same as Vietnam. But it fits the same pattern of damaging stalemate. We need to exit as soon as we safely can.


Event with Chicago Teachers Union Leader

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 3:30pm to 5:15pm

Location

Wheatley 4-147, UMass Boston
Dorchester, MA
The Chicago Teachers' Strike: The preparation for the strike, the demands of the strike, and the lessons of the strike in the light of the Presidential Election
with Carol Caref, Area A Vice President from the Chicago Teachers' Union
Carol Caref taught math in Chicago for 25 years, and was a new teacher during the strike of 1987. She was a founding member of the Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE), which won the CTU election in 2010 and moved the union toward a transparent, member-driven, fighting
organization. Carol joined the CTU staff in July, 2010, as co-coordinator of the Quest Center, which is the union's professional development arm. In that capacity, she was the main author of the booklet, The Schools Chicago's Students Deserve, credited with helping to solidify parent support for CTU and lead members towards a vision of the union as an agent for change in education policy. As an elected member of the CTU Executive Board, in the capacity of Area A Vice President, Carol served on the strike leadership team. During the recent strike, she helped craft the organizing strategy and make decisions regarding the many questions and details surrounding day to day strike operations.
---------
The easiest access is from the South parking lot. (parking is $6.00); Boston teachers can park at the BTU hall, then take the shuttle bus at JFK stop to UMass.
Directions to the room at UMass Boston: Take the elevator nearest the boat landing to the fourth floor, then turn right. You will enter the Malcolm X room, with a skylight. Turn right again, go through 2 sets of glass doors. After that, the Dean's Conference room will be on your right.

Fight Rape Culture!
Fight Capitalism!
For a Socialist Future without Sexism

This Wendesday, Oct. 17th
7 pm Start
The NEW Encuentro Cinco (e5)
9 Hamilton Place, Suite 2a
Around the Corner from the Park Street T Station
Near the Orpheum Theater

This past Saturday, over 200 people took to the streets of Boston to protest against rape culture. This vital discussion Wednesday will address the connections between sexism and capitalism as well as the urgent need for a working-class women's movement.
Here's a recent article on socialistalternative.org exploring the attacks on women's rights and the socialist program to fight back: http://socialistalternative.org/news/article16.php?id=1929
You are receiving this email because you have signed
up on the Socialist Alternative mailing list.

Exit Afghanistan Now: Support the Budget for All - Brown Bag Lunch Vigil

When: Wednesday, October 17, 2012, 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm
Where: Downstairs from Sen. John Kerry's office • corner of Cambridge & New Chardon Streets, Boston • Bowdoin or Government Center T • Boston
Vote Yes on Budget for AllThe New York Times came out for rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan in an October 14 editorial. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has done the same in several recent debates.
What about Senator Kerry? Will he continue to support two more years of conflict followed by a further 10 years of residual occupation, as the Administration proposes? Or will he support a rapid end to the war?
11 years after the US attack on Afghanistan, 73,000 US troops remain there. Bring the troops home now - not in 2024 as the Administration proposes.
The Budget for All Referendum will allow one million Massachusetts voters to say they want the troops OUT of Afghanistan NOW. Let's get the word out about the Budget for All and send a message to Sen. Kerry at a Brown Bag Lunch Vigil.
Join us -- and tell us in advance that you'll be there, so we can put your name on the letter! Register to attend at http://justicewithpeace.org/bblv-register
Sponsored by Massachusetts Peace Action, UJP Afghanistan/Pakistan Task Force, Veterans for Peace, and Progressive Democrats of America
CIW, allies join forces in Miami to protest Publix, School of the Americas, in support of human rights!

More Publix actions in the pipeline...
All too many CIW members came to this country years ago fleeing widespread political oppression in their home countries at the hands of military dictators and their subordinates who had one thing in common -- they were trained at the School of the Americas (SOA), an infamous military training facility located at Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia. The SOA boasts a long track record of graduates responsible for brutal human rights violations in CIW member home countries including Haiti, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Because of this deep connection, and because the struggle for human rights is without borders, the CIW has joined with members of the School of the Americas Watch (SOAW) for nearly a decade in their untiring efforts to end human rights abuses throughout Latin America. This past weekend in Miami was no exception...
For photos and a report about the action, visit the CIW website today!

Jobs with Justice
FacebookTwitterFlickrYouTube

Today, Walmart workers are making history. We need to shine a light on their courageous strike.
Forward this message to everyone you know and make sure this moment is not forgotten.
Receiving this message from a friend? Sign up to stay in the loop on what’s up with workers at Walmart.
John,
WOW. For the first time in the 50 years of the corporation, Walmart associates went on strike at several stores in Pico Rivera, California, to protest the company’s illegal attempts to silence them.
Today’s historic strike is the latest in a flood of recent worker-led protests in the Walmart supply chain. From its suppliers to its warehouses to the stores themselves, workers at Walmart are fed up with being silenced:
  • In June, a brave group of guest workers went on strike to expose forced labor at Walmart supplier C.J.’s Seafood in Louisiana. After a failed effort to cover it up, Walmart ultimately suspended its contract with the supplier and was fined nearly $250,000.
  • In September, warehouse workers in the Inland Empire in California went on strike after some of these workers were suspended for bringing their concerns to management.
  • A few days later, warehouse workers in Elwood, Illinois, went on strike to protest illegal retaliation from Walmart when several workers were fired two days after bringing a lawsuit against the company for non-payment for all hours worked, paying less than the minimum wage, and non-payment of overtime worked.
The momentum is building across the country as workers take a stand against the largest employer in the world whose practices are lowering job standards in industries across the globe. We’re ready to step up our campaign to improve working conditions for Walmart workers across the supply chain – but we can’t do it without you.
Please forward this message to your friends, family, and co-workers and encourage them to join us at this critical moment.
When workers stand up, we should all stand up. We can’t let Walmart punish workers that bring concerns to management. Forward this message to everyone you know today.
Thanks for your continued support of these courageous workers,
Jobs with Justice
P.S. Check out this great article explaining why today’s strike is so significant.
i

Jill Stein Arrested Before Hofstra Debate, Campaign Reports (VIDEO)

Posted: Updated: 10/17/2012 2:30 am
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested outside of Hofstra University on Tuesday after she attempted to enter the debate grounds.
According to Stein's campaign press statement, Stein and running mate Cheri Honkala joined supporters outside the Hofstra campus at 2 p.m., where Stein declared: "We are here to bring the courage of those excluded from our politics to this mock debate, this mockery of democracy." When they started to walk onto the debate grounds, they were stopped by police officers, and then the two women sat down on the ground.
Student-run news organization Long Island Report posted a video of Stein and Honkala sitting, with an officer arguing, "You're blocking traffic." After Honkala stated, "We want to practice our first amendment rights," the police can been seen removing the women from the ground and leading them away.
According to the campaign, Stein and Honkala were then arrested. Press contact Glenn Turner confirmed to HuffPost that Stein was arrested and as of early Tuesday evening was still in jail, charged with disorderly conduct.
Earlier in the day, Stein told Philadelphia Weekly that despite some butterflies in the stomach, "We are prepared to be arrested in the service of democracy and a future that serves us all.”
Stein advocates have been upset over her exclusion from the main debates. According to Politico, "The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates stipulates that a candidate must garner at least 15 percent in national polls in order to participate."
Stein's supporters have expressed disillusionment with mainstream candidates, while many environmentalists have grown frustrated over the "climate silence" permeating much of the campaign season.
As HuffPost blogger Carl Gibson wrote:
Jill Stein is a candidate that the other 90 million of us can get excited about. Picture the populist candidate Barack Obama once was in 2008, minus the financial support from Wall Street banks and oil companies, and the fawning coverage from mainstream media outlets. In her Green New Deal, she's vowing to end drone strikes, tightly regulate Wall Street, halt all government-funded construction of fossil fuel-dependent projects, and end all foreign wars and occupations.

According to the campaign, Stein is expected to be listed on 85% of the ballots, and is planning to participate in an upcoming debate with Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson.
Also on HuffPost:
Loading Slideshow...
Polls: Obama vs. Romney
1 of 18