PO Box 531  •  Durham,NC 27702  •  Telephone: (919) 419-8311  •  Fax: (919) 419-8315

Friday, April 29, 2005

15 Workers a Day

Today is Worker's Memorial Day, our time to remember the 15 workers who die every day on the job, largely because of dangerous working conditions. The following post from Confined Space is long but worth the read. And as Mother Jones said, "pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living."
On March 23, 2005, a huge explosion ripped through the giant BP Amoco refinery in Texas City, Texas, killing 15 contract workers. Twelve of the workers were in an office trailer located in the middle of the blast zone. As with most workplace fatalities, illnesses and injuries, these deaths were preventable. While a full investigation won’t be completed for many months, it is clear that refinery officials were aware that the process was outdated and hazardous. Refinery officials and the contractor were also aware of the trailer’s hazardous location.

Today, April 28, is Workers Memorial Day. Across the country, workers and labor unions will pause to remember the 15 Texas City employees and the more than 5,500 other workers killed in workplace incidents over the past year. Between 50 and 60 thousand workers perished from work-related illnesses caused by toxic materials like asbestos close to five million suffered injuries and illnesses. The toll is enormous: according to Liberty Mutual, the nation’s largest workers’ compensation insurance company, the direct cost of occupational injury and illness is $1 billion per week, with indirect costs many times higher.

Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act 35 years ago to assure “every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions.” Among the tools given to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) were the authorization “to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards” and the ability to penalize those who break the laws. But instead of making progress in workplace safety over the past several years, the Bush administration has taken the country backwards.

In the workplace safety field, the Bush administration’s aim to make workplace safety issues less “confrontational” is transforming this country from a nation of laws to a nation of fact sheets and web pages.

One of the first actions of the Bush administration was to repeal an OSHA standard that addressed the biggest source of injury facing American workers -- ergonomic hazards. Year after year back, shoulder and wrist disorders make up one-third of all workplace injuries and illnesses. Instead of a standard that would have forced employers to address this workplace epidemic, OSHA substituted voluntary guidelines, along with a new innovation of the Bush administration: the Alliance – a voluntary information sharing partnership between industry associations and OSHA.

Setting up voluntary alliances as a replacement for mandatory standards has become a pattern for the agency and a means to accomplish the long-term goal of President Bush’s corporate supporters – making OSHA irrelevant.

For example, when the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, an independent government agency, recommended in 2002 that OSHA revise a standard to prevent explosions that have killed over 100 workers between 1980 and 2001, OSHA’s only response was a voluntary alliance with the chemical industry.

When a butter flavoring chemical destroyed the lungs of thirty workers at one popcorn plant in Missouri, OSHA formed an alliance with the Popcorn Council instead issuing an emergency standard. The alliance has yet to produce even a fact sheet. This is not an isolated example. OSHA regulates only around 600 out of the thousands of chemicals used in industry, and the vast majority of those standards are based on information more than 40 years old. The only chemical standard close to completion, however, is being done under a court order.

There is nothing wrong with promoting outreach and information sharing. In fact, government agencies should do more of it. But outreach should accompany enforcement, not replace it. Educating drivers about the dangers of drunk driving is important. But education should not replace strict laws that punish drivers found guilty of drunk driving.

OSHA’s penalty structure is another problem. Even when an employer knowingly puts a worker into a dangerous environment that causes his death, the maximum penalty, which OSHA rarely pursues, is 6 months in jail. The penalty for harassing a burro on federal land is one year in jail. In fact, killing fish and crabs draw larger penalties than killing workers. After a chemical tank at a Delaware Motiva refinery exploded in 2001, dissolving a worker in sulfuric acid, OSHA issued a $170,000 fine. But because the acid was released into the atmosphere and the nearby river where it killed thousands of fish and crabs, the Environmental Protection Agency levied a $10 million fine on the company.

Earlier this week, a Brooklyn contractor pleaded guilty to the death of a worker and to cheating workers out of the wages the contractor was supposed to be paying its employees. For killing one worker and injuring others, the employer potentially faces six months in jail, OSHA's maximum penalty. But for committing mail fraud while underpaying its workers (the building was under contract with the Postal Service), the employer faces a possible 20 year jail term.

The purpose of Workers Memorial Day is to “mourn for the dead and fight for the living.” Worthy goals indeed. But forgotten in this motto are the millions injured on the job every year, many of whom are (were) dedicated workers that have been tossed into the garbage by their employers and our country’s disintegrating workers compensation system. Like the families of those killed in the workplace, most of those injured are left to their own devices without anyone to put their plight into a political context, without anyone out there organizing them for change. Confined Space has fallen into the same trap – focusing on the dead (who are easier to find and count than the injured and ill, and who make far sexier stories) – and forgetting about the millions who have lost their livelihoods, lost the useful lives they once lived, and too often have lost their homes and means of support.

The political issues raging in this country – over court appointments, social security, terrorism and the war in Iraq – are important, but they tend to overshadow many of the concerns of the vast majority of people who are not politically engaged. But ask people if they think that workers injured on the job should suffer economically for the rest of their lives, ask people whether the jobs and chemicals should be considered safe until we manage to count the bodies or lungs of people who prove otherwise, ask people whether they think they have the power to make their workplaces safer or whether they think there is a role for laws and government enforcement – and you’ll probably get answers that don’t line up with those who are in power in Washington (or in most state capitals) today. The challenge is to organize them into a potent political force – not just in New York city and Boston, but in Wichita, Kansas, Houston Texas, Boise, Idaho and Atlanta, Georgia.

This is the challenge we face if we are ever again to move forward on workplace safety issues – in Republican or Democratic administrations. And we’re not going to be able to depend excusively on labor unions to get there. They’re too small, they’re too consumed with fighting for survival, and health and safety has not (yet) risen to the level where enough labor leaders see it as one way to build the labor movement. This doesn’t mean that we give up on labor; they’re still the most potent progressive force out there, but it does mean that we can’t depend on them exclusively. Some states have COSH groups, some have injured workers associations and some states have strong, active and aware unions. But they aren’t enough. Unless and until those concerned about workplace safety make strong common cause with other progressive groups – environmentalists, womens rights groups, progressive churches, immigrant organizations and others, ours will be a difficult and ultimately futile struggle.

The American people are ready to listen. A recent poll showed that out of a variety of issues that Americans think Congress should be involved in (endangered species, gun control, gay marriage, steroids in baseball, "Schiavo" type family health cases), "Rules in the workplace that deal with health and safety issues" came out on top.

And I believe you'd get similar answers if you asked a few more questions:

* Do you think that the health effects of chemicals should be understood and the chemicals regulated before or after workers get sick and die from being exposed on the job?

* Do you think that 6 months in jail is an appropriate punishment for an employer who knowingly violates the law, putting a worker into a job where he is killed?

* Do you think that OSHA standards that protect employees from exposure to dangerous chemicals should be based on the most recent scientific information, or information that was gathered forty years ago?

* Do you think that public employees who fix your roads, work in your sewage treatment plants, care for the mentally ill, put out our fires and guard our most dangerous criminals should have the same guarantee of a safe workplace that private sector employees doing the same work have?

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

Finally, with more than 50,000 workers dying each year from work-related accidents and illnesses, with millions suffering injuries, with workers in the U.S. now working more hours than workers in most of Western Europe and Japan more than one quarter of workers in the mining, manufacturing and wholesale trade industries working more than 40 hours per week, and with mounting evidence that these conditions cause elevated levels of psychological stress, increased exposure to physical hazards and more repetitive stress problems, as well as other serious health problems like heart attacks -- with all of these problems increasing in American workplaces, with the labor movement spiraling into oblivion, why are we, on this Workers Memorial Day, worrying about whether the AFL-CIO is going to abolish its health and safety department? Why can't we seem to understand that the conditions people work under are among the strongest issues on which to build a labor movement that actually shows that it cares about what people actually do at work -- between 9:00 and 5:00 or between 5:00 and 1:00, or between 1:00 and 9:00.

These are the thoughts I'm having this Workers Memorial Day -- and they aren't happy ones.

Posted by Jordan Barab at April 28, 2005 08:20 AM
posted by Chris Kromm at 3:30 PM | Email this post

U.S. Poll: "Get Out of Iraq"

Anti-war progressive activists are routinely denounced by the media, pundits, and others -- including Democratic leaders -- for taking a position that the U.S. should get out of Iraq.

But a recent Gallup poll shows this may not be such a radical viewpoint after all. Before President Bush's press conference last night, Gallup asked 1,003 people what advice they would give Bush if they had the chance. According to the Washington Post:
If they could, topic one would be the war in Iraq. Consider this finding: Among Democrats, the top two things they would say to Bush are "get out of Iraq" and "you're doing a bad job." The top two things independents would say are "get out of Iraq" and "leave Social Security alone." The top two things Republicans would say are "you're doing a good job" -- and "get out of Iraq."
See a common theme?
posted by Chris Kromm at 1:25 PM | Email this post

Good Times for Big Oil

As we've noted before, these may be tough times for regular folks filling up at the pump -- but things couldn't be better for Big Oil. Here are the first quarter earnings announced by the leading energy oligopolies:
Exxon/Mobile: Up 44%
BP: Up 35%
Shell: Up 42%
Unocal: Up 69%
Marathon: Up 26%
Why the fattening wallets? Isn't it because of tight supply?

A quick visit to the Energy Department's This Week in Petroleum website tells you what the oil companies are paying for crude oil, and what the spot market price is (for those incidental users who don't or can't buy under long term contract). You'll note there's about a $10/bbl differential.

So the gasoline prices are not high because the oil companies are paying high prices for crude oil. The gasoline prices are high because the oil company shareholders want higher dividends.

(Thanks to JM)
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:44 AM | Email this post

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Symbols and Substance: Confederate Flags, Jim Crow Laws, and Voter IDs

Georgia’s Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue, who swept to office on a wave of white outrage over disrespect of the Confederate flag, today signed a bill that would finally repeal discriminatory laws left over from the fight against civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. The laws had been designed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling against school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education; taken together, they essentially allowed white-only public schools to be reconstituted as “private” schools using state money, resources, and buildings. The old laws hadn’t been enforced for years.

The Confederate state flag Perdue was defending had the same purpose and vintage as the anti-desegregation laws he has belatedly repealed. The flag, far from being an artifact of the state’s Civil War heritage, was introduced in 1956 (in a bill cosponsored by a man named Jefferson Lee Davis) as an act of defiance against the civil rights movement. It replaced the state’s original flag, a version of the first Confederate national flag (the “Stars and Bars”), with a banner incorporating the much more familiar (and inflammatory) “Southern Cross” of the Confederate battle flag (a blue St. Andrew’s cross with white stars against a red background).

In 2001 Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes replaced the anti-civil rights flag with a blue flag that did include, in detail, a tiny representation of the previous flag; when Barnes, U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, and other Democrats were swept out of office by white backlash in 2002, Perdue brokered a compromise that resulted in a flag strongly reminiscent of the original state flag (but not the controversial Southern Cross). (Click here for more details about Georgia’s various state flags.)

Meanwhile, Perdue, as Chris pointed out yesterday, has also signed into law a bill requiring voters to show government-issued photo IDs, a requirement that could result in discrimination against minorities, the poor, and the elderly, all of whom are less likely to have such identification.

“It is ironic and significant that the governor signed the infamous HB 244, the most discriminatory voting law in the 21st Century, before he repealed the unenforceable Jim Crow laws,” said Senate Minority Leader Robert Brown (D-Macon). Before it goes into effect, the law has to be vetted by the federal government to make sure it doesn’t violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
posted by gary ashwill at 2:43 PM | Email this post

Betrayal

The Memphis Flyer denounces the five Tennessee Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy “reform” bill (a “Christmas gift” to credit card companies, according to one opponent) as betrayers of their party’s New Deal heritage:
As various judges and experts in bankruptcy law had warned in testimony before Congress, the new law will impose hardships on families afflicted by catastrophic financial crisis resulting from illness, layoffs, and other unexpected loss of income. These are, in fact, the chief reasons for most personal-bankruptcy filings, and the new law strips away the meager protections that had previously offered middle- and low-income Americans some shelter.
posted by gary ashwill at 2:36 PM | Email this post

Keeping Out the Terrorists

The AP reports:
About 300 Mexican women taking part in a worldwide relay march were stopped by U.S. border officials when they tried to cross to the U.S. side of an international bridge to meet their American counterparts Wednesday.

Participants in the World March of Women were stopped by U.S. border and customs officials at the Lerdo international bridge linking El Paso with Ciudad Juarez.

Some pushing and shoving ensued after the women approached the U.S. side and agents told them they could not cross because the bridge was not designed for foot traffic.
Ciudad Juarez has become notorious in recent years for the unsolved murders of hundreds of women, mostly workers in maquiladoras, so the handoff at this point was designed to be symbolic of world solidarity with the city’s women.

Maquiladoras, factories in special tax-free zones making goods mostly for export to the U.S., have proliferated greatly since the adoption of NAFTA in 1994 (the murders began in 1993). According to Mother Jones, “more than 60 percent of maquiladora workers are women and girls, many as young as 13 or 14.” (See Lourdes Portillo’s critically-acclaimed documentary about the maquiladora murders, Señorita Extraviada.)
posted by gary ashwill at 1:22 PM | Email this post

Mississippi Sinking?

U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) has slipped a provision into a military spending bill that would grant his state authority to sell or lease mineral rights in the Gulf Islands National Seashore, an offshore national park. The natural gas industry thinks the state could reap $200 million annually from royalties and taxes, while, according to one scientist, “The likelihood of a toxic spill is minimal.” Critics, on the other hand, worry about unsightly offshore drilling platforms or the possibility that massive gas extraction could cause the islands to sink (which is what is happening to Louisiana wetlands). While they might not be submerged, they would be much more vulnerable to storm “wash-over,” where waves sweep completely across the islands.

The state legislature eased the way for drilling by moving authority over the islands from the state Department of Environmental Quality, which opposed drilling, to the Mississippi Development Authority. A 1996 proposal to drill for natural gas off Horn Island had met with strong public disapproval on the Gulf Coast, so this bill moved public hearings from the coast to the state capital, Jackson, making it harder for the people affected to make their voices heard. Even so, local business owners and environmentalists are holding protests in Gulfport.

Of course, it turns out that the politicians who pushed this bill had reaped millions in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry over the past several years, according to the Biloxi Sun Herald:
Oil and gas interests' campaign contributions to state leaders jumped from $345,000 in the 1999 elections to $620,000 in the 2004 elections. Gov. Haley Barbour received more than $320,000 in donations from oil and gas; Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck, $93,000.

Oil and gas contributed relatively large sums to many state lawmakers' campaigns, including many in the South Mississippi delegation, the vast majority of whom voted in favor of last year's changes in state law on oil and gas leases.

From 1999 to 2004, oil and gas businesses donated more than $44,000 to U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., making the industry his eighth top contributor; and $85,000 to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., his sixth top. U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., from '03-'04, received $7,500 from oil and gas, his 14th largest industry contributor.
posted by gary ashwill at 9:19 AM | Email this post

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

States Heighten Obstacles to Voting

Last week, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) signed into law a measure requiring voters to show photo identification before voting. The move was part of a growing trend; lawmakers have introduced such legislation in 25 states, with the legislatures of Indiana and Wisconsin passing similar bills this spring.

20 states now require some form of identification, but Georgia and South Carolina will be the most restrictive, forcing voters to fill out a provisional ballot if they have no picture ID -- a form of voting more easily challenged and disqualified. Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana and South Dakota also require photo ID, but allow voters to sign an affidavit verifying their voter information as an alternative.

Civil rights groups warn that the new measures create more obstacles to voting, a move that will disproportionately affect low-income, minority and elderly voters:
"For disenfranchised populations, particularly minority populations, who have experienced problems in the past, this is another obstacle," said Charlie Mitchell, a [GA] state legislative counsel for the ACLU. "It may not keep a lot of people from the polls. But that's not the point. Even if it keeps some people from the polls, there must be a compelling state interest to restrict anyone's right to vote, and there is no example of this."

"I have been registering voters for over 30 years," said [Warren] Butler [of the GA NAACP], who has driven church members from his parish to the polls. "And when you put something extra out there to cause a person to go another step in order to register or vote, it impedes them and cuts down on the number of people that do vote."
These measures do have a history. As the Institute revealed in an investigation last fall (pdf), the Voting Rights Section at the Department of Justice is now led by conservative ideologues of the "voting integrity" movement, which raises the specter of voter fraud to push for limits on voter participation. This was the impetus behind the DOJ's intervention last November in Ohio and other states to restrict the use of provisional ballots, as well as oppose other reforms that expand the franchise.

The irony is that the right-wing "voting integrity" cause is gaining steam precisely at the time that states are making big advances in technology to maintain and verify voter rolls, which enables election officials to protect against double-voting and other supposed scourges of the democratic process.

These moves to restrict the vote are also happening as the Voting Rights Act comes up for renewal in 2007, a point noted by Jesse Jackson in his call for a voting rights march in Atlanta this coming August.
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:55 AM | Email this post

South Leads in Workers Without Health Coverage

A new study by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation reveals that lack of health insurance isn't just a growing problem for laid off or otherwise unemployed workers. More than 20 million working adults don't have coverage, and in eight states -- clustered in the Sunbelt -- at least one in five working adults is uninsured.

States with the highest rates of workers without uninsurance are Texas (27 percent), New Mexico (23 percent), Louisiana (23 percent), Florida (22 percent), Montana (21 percent), Oklahoma (21 percent), Nevada (20 percent), and Arkansas (20 percent).

That closely matches the rankings for the overall uninsured; the top three are Texas, 30.7 percent; Louisiana, 26.4; and New Mexico, 26 percent.

These numbers are especially startling when you consider that Congress is nearing approval of $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid, the program used by 45 million adults to fill the gaps.

States are also preparing to make cutbacks in state spending on health programs, in part because of the heavy burden placed on them by employers like Wal-Mart that have such low pay and benefits that workers are forced to rely on government assistance.

Our nation's inability to provide basic health coverage for its people is a crisis that is just about to get a lot worse.
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:42 AM | Email this post

The War on Government

Rolling Stone magazine (home of Southern Exposure's former editor and ace investigative reporter, Eric Bates) has a story up about the administration's latest move in its war against government.

Tucked in the spending proposal Bush submitted to Congress is a proposal to create a hand-picked "Sunset Commission," which would be granted power to "review federal programs every ten years and decide whether they should be eliminated."

Rolling Stone's Osha Gary Davidson's spells out the risks:
[T]he commission would enable the Bush administration to achieve what Ronald Reagan only dreamed of: the end of government regulation as we know it. With a simple vote of five commissioners -- many of them likely to be lobbyists and executives from major corporations currently subject to federal oversight -- the president could terminate any program or agency he dislikes. No more Environmental Protection Agency. No more Food and Drug Administration. No more Securities and Exchange Commission.
Whether or not any of these grim possibilities comes to pass, it's shocking that a proposal empowering five president-appointed bureaucrats to eliminate government programs is being seriously considered.

The architect behind the proposal is Clay "Big Man" Johnson, Bush's other right-hand man from Texas. Under then-Governor George Bush, Johnson was put in charge of government appointments in the Lone Star state, where he quickly revealed his preferences in choosing between corporate influence and the public interest:
One of [Johnson's] first acts in Texas was to remove all three members of the state environmental-protection commission and replace them with a former Monsanto executive, an official with the Texas Beef Council and a lawyer for the oil industry. Overnight, a commission widely respected for its impartiality became a "revolving door between the industry lobby and government," says Jim Marston, the senior attorney in Texas for the nonprofit organization Environmental Defense.
posted by Chris Kromm at 8:30 AM | Email this post

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

The Telecom Industry Strikes Back

Last month, Facing South commented on the rise of “wired communities” across the country, as communities set up free or reduced rate city-wide broadband services, including Wi-Fi. We also warned that the telecommunications industry wasn’t exactly pleased about the trend. Well, neither is Texas state legislator Phil King (R-Weatherford), who has introduced a bill to ban city-initiated broadband efforts in Texas. The Austin Chronicle reports:
Telecom providers did not want to compete against municipal broadband initiatives. Said Rep. King, “No business should have to compete with public tax dollars.” The provision generated an outcry among cyber-lobby citizens’ groups and advocates for cities, who argued that the market chases only dollars and therefore cares little about providing services for small or impoverished communities. The digital divide, they were concerned, would grow larger, leaving unwired communities economically vulnerable.
Unsurprisingly, the telecom industry’s right to make a buck trumps the public interest and the ideal of equal access.
posted by gary ashwill at 1:44 PM | Email this post

Big Oil's Dilemma

For those of you scratching your heads at the gas pump, wondering why prices have shot through the roof with little relief in sight, David Sirota has unearthed an interesting story from Fortune magazine.

It turns out that while the oil companies complain of supply shortages and limited refinery capacity, they are making so much money from price gouging that they're not sure what to do with their new-found riches:
Exxon's "soon-to-retire CEO suddenly has a new anxiety: how to spend the windfall wrought by $55-a-barrel oil. By the end of April, Exxon will have a cash hoard of more than $ 25 billion. And if crude prices stay where they are, this geometrically growing bonanza could soon give Exxon more cash on hand than any other U.S. company...the cash is building at a remarkable rate. Each dollar jump in the price of a barrel of oil adds another half billion in earnings. Based on current prices, Exxon is accumulating more than $1 billion a month - even after allocating for dividends, share repurchases, and capital spending. If oil simply stays where it is now, Exxon's cash could approach $40 billion in 12 months. By then [Exxon's CEO] is expected to have handed off the top job--and the headache of what to do with all that cash."
No word yet on the administration's plans to rein in energy industry profiteering.
posted by Chris Kromm at 12:00 PM | Email this post

Change of Heart

Facing South told you last week about South Carolina State Rep. John Graham Altman’s bizarre outburst at a reporter when she asked him why his committee had passed a bill making cockfighting a felony while tabling a bill that would do the same for domestic violence. Among other things, Altman said of domestic violence, which remained a misdemeanor even for second and third offenses:
“There ought not to be a second offense. The woman ought to not be around the man. I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them. And I’ve asked women that and they all tell me the same answer, John Graham you don’t understand. And I say you're right, I don't understand.”
It appears that the ensuing uproar had a chastening effect on Altman (R-Charleston); he’s now the co-sponsor of a revised bill that will increase some penalties for domestic abuse and make third and subsequent offenses felonies. This legislation, says the Columbia State newspaper, is “on an expected fast track to passage.”

Supporters of the bill were effusive about Altman’s change of heart:
“John Graham Altman is the best thing that has ever happened to us,” said Laura Hudson, spokeswoman for the S.C. Victim Assistance Network. “I guess there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. I do believe in redemption.”

***

Some sentences in the revised bill are even tougher than the proposed penalty increases in the original bill, said Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, who again will be the bill’s lead sponsor.

“Without a doubt, this is meaningful,” she said Monday. “I hope the bill will pass as presented. It’s reasonable and more than fair.”
posted by gary ashwill at 11:55 AM | Email this post

Protecting Marriage the Old-Fashioned Way

The Texas House today passed a constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriages and civil unions. The bill was approved by a 101 to 29 vote, barely exceeding the 100 votes necessary to amend the state constitution. The bill next goes to the state senate. If it garners a two-thirds vote there, the amendment will need to be approved by Texas voters.

One Texas legislator, however, had some thoughts on this:
“This amendment is blowing smoke to fuel the hell-fire flames of bigotry,” said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston.

Thompson, 66, an African-American who grew up with segregation, said the legislation reminded her of the time when interracial marriages were illegal.

“When people of my color used to marry someone of Mr. Chisum’s color (white), you’d often find people of my color hanging from a tree. That’s what white people back then did to protect marriage,” Thompson said.
During the Jim Crow era, Texas trailed only Georgia and Mississippi in lynchings, before reformers like Jessie Daniel Ames helped stop the practice. Of course, people weren’t usually lynched for interracial marriage; it was a little difficult to get that far in those days, when whistling at a white woman could be enough to get an African-American man (or a 14-year-old boy) killed by a mob.
posted by gary ashwill at 7:53 AM | Email this post

No "Nuclear Option" for Iraq

Oh, this is rich. Swing State Project via MyDD has the goods on Sen. Johnny Isackson, the new Republican Senator from Georgia. Johnny, you see, is one of the GOP leaders who says he has been touched by God to end the Senate procedure known as the filibuster.

But just last November, Isackson was exclaiming the virtues of the political manuever in the halls of Congress (see the video at MyDD) as a shining symbol of democracy on the march in the new Iraq:
"Don't you fear that the Shi'ites inevitably being in the majority, that you will be overrun? And he says, 'oh no, we have a secret weapon.' Mr. President, this is a Kurdish leader, in the middle of Iraq in the 21st century who said he had a secret weapon. And when asked what it was, he said one word, 'filibuster'" [...]

"It is one of their minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority."
This gets confusing. Does this mean that if the far-right evangelical missionaries make headway in Iraq, they'll aim to ban the filibuster over there as well?
posted by Chris Kromm at 7:00 AM | Email this post

Monday, April 25, 2005

A Nation Behind Bars

The Justice Department has released its latest incarceration figures, revealing that the rush to lock up our nation's population continues at a brisk pace:
Growing at a rate of about 900 inmates each week between mid-2003 and mid-2004, the nation's prisons and jails held 2.1 million people, or one in every 138 U.S. residents, the government reported Sunday.

While the crime rate has fallen over the past decade, the number of people in prison and jail is outpacing the number of inmates released, said the report's co-author, Paige Harrison.

Harrison said the increase can be attributed largely to get-tough policies enacted in the 1980s and 1990s. Among them are mandatory drug sentences, "three-strikes-and-you're-out" laws for repeat offenders, and "truth-in-sentencing" laws that restrict early releases.
As we've noted before, these draconian policies uniquely hurt the South, and where enacted with key backing from "get tough on crime" Democrats (resulting in, among other things, the disenfranchisement of millions of potential Democratic voters).

Another disturbing trend noted in the report: the continued growth of for-profit prisons, which now house over 98,000 inmates -- including 13.7% of all federal prisoners -- despite a troubling history of cost-overruns, ethical lapses, cutting corners, and other dangerous habits (see here.)

The fight for a fairer, better justice system should be front and center in a progressive agenda. Three of my favorite groups working towards this end are Families Against Mandatory Minimums, The Sentencing Project, and the Southern Center for Human Rights. As for fighting for-profit prisons, our friends at Grassroots Leadership (in a campaign co-launched with the Institute for Southern Studies in 2000) are still leading the charge.
posted by Chris Kromm at 8:28 AM | Email this post

Friday, April 22, 2005

Down and Out on the Right

One would think that with the conservative right controlling the White House, Congress, and the Judiciary; holding 29 governorships; and having the ideological allegiance of most of corporate America, they would feel in pretty good shape.

But alas, they don't feel victorious -- they feel besieged. From today's St. Peterburg Times, we learn this pitiful tale of oppression and woe from Florida:
TALLAHASSEE - From his seat on a key education committee, Rep. Dennis Baxley helps shape the budget of every public university in Florida.

But when he appeared Thursday before the state's university presidents, Baxley portrayed himself as a victim.

"I have not come with a set of demands," he said in a soft voice. "I have come with a burden."

The Ocala Republican told the presidents he has been humiliated for his conservative views. He showed them a cartoon published in the University of Florida student newspaper that depicted a naked Baxley crawling behind a monkey in the evolutionary chain.
What? Free thinking and political dissent on a college campus? Things have clearly gotten out of hand, and Baxley wants the Florida university system to do something about it -- specifically, listen to that model of rational thought and fair-mindedness, David Horowitz:
Baxley's request: Protect conservatives like him from ridicule by the "liberal elite" on Florida campuses.

Baxley's bill has become a part of a national debate over whether university faculties are hotbeds of radicalism. Before filing his bill, Baxley consulted conservative activist David Horowitz, who is pushing similar legislation in other states.
The notion that campuses are hotbeds of bomb-throwing students and "tenured radicals" -- a tired recycling of the "political correctness" scare of the early 1990s -- is, of course, a bit out of touch with reality. Universities and colleges only look left-wing because the rest of the culture has moved so far to the right, and they're one of the few places where balance still exists (and where progressives can still express their views on the job).

Florida's leaders of higher education seem to sense this. As the story notes, "The presidents nodded politely, but didn't agree to do anything specific."
posted by Chris Kromm at 3:22 PM | Email this post

Earth Day's Demise?

In covering Earth Day activities today, the online magazine Grist makes a compelling point:
Today, on the eve of the 35th anniversary of the first Earth Day, the House of Representatives is voting on, and widely expected to pass, a grossly porkified energy bill that would dole out billions in subsidies to fossil-fuel industries, shortchange alternative-energy and efficiency initiatives, and indemnify makers of the gasoline additive MTBE against liability for groundwater contamination. And this time the bill may actually have a chance of passing in the Senate, perhaps as early as next month, after years of stalemate.

This and other dismal news rolling off Capitol Hill of late would seem good reason to make Earth Day 2005 a revolt, not a celebration. Yet when Muckraker searched high and low for organizers of big, spirited, on-the-ground protests, we found little resembling the kind of mutiny the current political moment would seem to demand.
Meteor Blades over at DKos asks a similar question, surveying Earth Day's 35-year history: "Are We Getting Anywhere?"

It is shocking that at a time when many environmental threats are coming to a head -- global warming comes to mind -- environmental issues are so far off the public radar. They barely registered in the 2004 presidential debate. What a far cry from the early 1970s, when a crooked right-winger like Nixon was slamming through legislation for clean air and water, and an Environmental Protection Agency to make them reality.

When I was on the national staff of the Student Environmental Action Coalition in the early 1990s, environmentalism was going through its first revival since 1970. A big factor was our ability to use environmental justice issues to connect to the everyday lives of African-American, Latino and poor white communities, especially in the South.

If environmentalism is to have another renaissance, it will again have to figure out how to make inroads into new communities and make environmentalism everybody's issue. It shouldn't be too hard. Do you think hunters and fishers like battling mercury-polluted waters and logged-out forests? That families enjoy having to keep their kids and grandparents inside on a sunny day because of high-risk "ozone days"?

We just have to find issues that cut across the old lines, reach out to people and make our case ... and as Grist suggests, turn up the heat.
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:43 AM | Email this post

Students Getting More Liberal

"The number of US university students who hold traditional liberal views increased sharply over the past year, pushed by excitement over the 2004 election and dissatisfaction with George W. Bush's foreign policy."

That's the conclusion of a national poll by Harvard University released earlier this week. Among other findings:

*** The largest group of respondents (36 percent) called themselves independent, while 33 percent said they were Democrats and 28 percent Republicans.

*** 43 percent of college students fell in the liberal category -- supportive of health insurance and abortion rights while opposing Mr. Bush's foreign policy, up 11 percentage points from one year ago.

*** Some 14 per cent of college students were described as traditional conservatives and 21 per cent as religious centrists.

*** Support for the war in Iraq has dropped markedly, from 65 per cent in April 2003 to 44 per cent today.

Seems like the pendulum has definitely changed direction, although we're still a ways from 1971, when 11% of students identified as "radical or far left."
posted by Chris Kromm at 9:22 AM | Email this post

$300,000,000,000.00 and Counting

Today's Associated Press reports that the Senate's "overwhelmingly approval" yesterday of $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if approved by the House and President, "would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion."

It's a staggering amount of money, a price tag for operations in two countries that in real dollars is bigger than the entire annual defense budget (already too high) during the Clinton years.

Last week, the New York Times ran a damning story about the "reconstruction" costs of the war. Of the meager $18.4 billion allocated by Congress for water, schools, electricity and other needs, the administration has diverted $4.8 billion for other uses, mostly for escalating security costs.

"Reconstruction" has been largely chimerical: of the $18 billion Congress approved, only two-thirds has been committed to actual projects, and only $4.2 billion has been disbursed for work completed. Of 81 planned water projects, all but 13 have been defunded.

Yet somehow, contractors like Halliburton seem to be doing just fine.
posted by Chris Kromm at 8:30 AM | Email this post

Bush's Polluted Photo-Op

The Raleigh News & Observer follows up on our post yesterday about President Bush's Earth Day photo-op at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park today:
Spring wildflowers and dogwoods are just blooming in the Smokies. Yet nature guide Erik Plakanis already has warned hikers about exerting themselves at high elevations because of bad air.

Three days of unhealthy air so far this month equals the number of ozone alert days in the Smokies for all of last year. And ozone season has just begun.

"It's discouraging, really discouraging," said Plakanis, who doesn't take hikers out on high ozone days because of the risk of respiratory harm. "It gives the lining of your lungs something akin to a sunburn."

Famed for its natural bluish mists, the Smokies are gaining notoriety for an unnatural white haze that often reduces the famous 100-mile views to less than 20 miles in summer.

The question is, will the cameras be able to get a good visual on Bush through all that haze, made worse by the adminisration's evisceration of the Clean Air Act?

UPDATE: Our friend South Knox Bubba is on the case in Knoxville, closer to where the action is.

posted by Chris Kromm at 7:05 AM | Email this post

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Bush Does Earth Day

The White House has announced that President Bush will be celebrating Earth Day tomorrow with a visit to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, a location no doubt chosen for its perceived seclusion from environmental activists who may call into question the administration's alarming environmental record.

Bush's fly-in photo-op will be especially ironic given that Great Smoky is the most polluted park in the country, a sad fact for the 800-square-mile preserve that is home to more tree species (130) than all of Northern Europe, and one of the country's most beloved parks.

As the decidedly non-alarmist National Parks Conservation Association points out, the park's richly diverse ecosystem faces a number of threats:
Acid deposition: The Smokies suffer from some of the worst acid-deposition problems in North America. Clouds blanketing the sensitive spruce-fir forests found on Clingmans Dome, the highest peak in the Smokies, are often as acidic as vinegar. On average, rainfall in the park is five to ten times more acidic than normal rainwater.

Degraded scenic vistas: The spectacular overlooks for which this park is known are severely impaired by human-generated polluted haze. Under natural conditions, views extended for more than 100 miles. Because of air pollution, however, park visitors can expect to see only 25 miles on average.

Ozone pollution:
Great Smoky has the highest ozone exposure at levels harmful to plants of any national park in America. Thirty plant species in the park show signs of damage from ozone pollution, including black cherry and yellow poplar. In addition, on more than 175 days since 1998 ozone levels at the park were hazardous to human health.

Mercury pollution:
Scientists are concerned about possible levels of mercury deposition, and recently began monitoring this toxic pollutant in Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
The Bush Administration would make all of these problems substantially worse.
The Sierra Club gives this overview of Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative":
Mercury is a dangerous toxin that threatens people and wildlife as a pollutant from coal-fired power plants. The EPA estimates that enforcement of existing toxic air pollution protections in the Clean Air Act will limit mercury pollution to 5 tons per year by 2008. The Bush Administration’s plan weakens the limit to 26 tons per year by 2010 – allowing 520 percent more mercury pollution.

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is a major contributor to smog that is linked to asthma and lung disease. Current Clean Air Act programs could result in NOx pollution levels of about 1.25 million tons by 2010. But the Bush plan calls for loosening the cap on NOx pollution to 2.1 million tons by 2008 – effectively allowing 68 percent more NOx pollution.

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) is the major contributor acid rain and soot. Clean Air Act programs could reduce SO2 pollution levels to 2 million tons by 2012. The Bush Administration plan weakens protections to allow 4.5 million tons of SO2 by 2010 – allowing a staggering 225 percent more SO2 pollution.

By the 15th year of the Bush plan: 450,000 more tons of NOx, one million more tons of SO2, and 9.5 more tons of mercury would be allowed than under strong enforcement of existing Clean Air Act programs.

The Bush plan creates a loophole exempting power plants from being held accountable to the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) standards and from being required to install cleanup technology.

"Clear Skies" delays the enforcement of public health standards for smog and soot until the end of 2015.

The Bush plan restricts the power of states to call for an end to pollution from upwind sources in other states. The plan prohibits any petitions of this sort from even being implemented before 2012.
The focus of Bush's visit to Great Smoky will be to honor the 2,000 some volunteers who have given their time to the park. The park sure needs them -- in a report last year, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees blasted the administration for slashing the budget of park staff and thus threatening the once-revered park system. Among their findings:
Budgets were down at eight of the 12 parks; employee levels were reduced at all of the parks; six of the 12 parks already have or will cut visitor center hours; all six of the surveyed historic parks will allow key facilities to further deteriorate without needed maintenance; nine of the 12 parks have made cuts that will result in a reduced experience for visitors; and, most surprisingly, some parks are even cutting vital law enforcement positions needed to protect visitors and natural resources.
Unfortunately for Bush, his visit won't escape scrutiny: the Canary Coalition, Appalachian Voices, the Western North Carolina Alliance, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and other organizations in North Carolina and Tennessee are coordinating a protest to greet him upon arrival.
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:13 AM | Email this post

Does Conservativism Spread Like Kudzu?

The Census Bureau is predicting that by 2035 or so the South will be the nation’s most populous region. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution lets fly with the clichés:
Look out, y’all! Within three decades, nearly four in every 10 Americans will be Southerners, the Census Bureau estimates in a report to be released today.

It's a demographic shift already well under way that has seen Southern symbols such as Cajun food and NASCAR go nationwide — and brought to the South scores of newcomers who are establishing their own cultural touchstones.

Growing like kudzu, the South is expected to have a population of about 143.3 million in 2030. In percentage terms, that means 39.4 percent of the U.S. population will live in the South. With another quarter in the West, that leaves just over a third in the once dominant Midwest and Northeast.
Nor did they forget the political clichés:
“This is probably good news for Republicans,” said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta.

For more than a century after Reconstruction, the term “Solid South” referred to the region's Democratic loyalties. But entering the 21st century, the South is solidly in the GOP camp, and its growing clout has been vital in establishing the current GOP dominance in Washington.

“That's the big historical switch,” said Black. “It has changed American politics.”

Adding population faster than other regions, the South is picking up congressional seats and presidential electoral votes, explained Black. “It means that the Democrats can't afford to position themselves in ways that alienate themselves from Southerners.”
Literally speaking, of course a national party couldn’t alienate a region with nearly 40 percent of the country’s population. But what Black really means is that the Democrats must become more conservative, since everyone knows the South is a conservative region, and if it’s growing, that means conservative politics will continue to be on the upswing. It’s the same logic that proclaimed Bush to be on the leading edge of American politics because he won most of the fastest-growing counties in the last election.

By this logic, migrants from the blue-state Rust Belt will morph into red staters upon crossing the Mason-Dixon Line. No doubt that happens, like newcomers to Texas who within three months are sporting ten-gallon hats, ostentatious drawls, and belt buckles the size of the state.

But consider three of the most important sources of this population shift: retirees, who aren’t likely to change their political orientation just because they’ve moved; African Americans, who are in the early stages of reversing the twentieth-century Great Migration to Northern industrial cities; and Latinos (probably the fastest-growing population group in the South).

The influx of new people into the region will almost certainly have an impact on its political and cultural profile (which, to be fair, the Journal-Constitution article does concede). So it would be a mistake to assume that a growing South necessarily means a more conservative country -- just as it is a mistake always to identify “the South” as white, evangelical, and right-wing.
posted by gary ashwill at 9:14 AM | Email this post

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

SC House: Cockfighting=Bad; Domestic Violence=Whatever

Really not much to say about this latest news out of South Carolina:
The State House took up two pieces of legislation this week aimed at protecting two different groups. Up for debate was cracking down on gamecock fighting and protecting victims of domestic violence .

A bill protecting cocks passed through the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. John Graham Altman (R-Dist. 119-Charleston) was in favor of the gamecock bill, "I was all for that. Cockfighting reminds me of the Roman circus [sic], coliseum."

A bill advocates say would protect victims against batterers was tabled, killing it for the year. Rep. Altman is on the committee that looked at the domestic violence bill, "I think this bill is probably drafted out of an abundance of ignorance."

Both cockfighting and domestic violence are currently misdemeanor crimes, punishable by 30 days in jail. If the bill passes, cockfighting will become a felony, punishable by five years in jail. Domestic violence crimes will remain a misdemeanor.

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D-Dist. 66-Orangeburg) says of the two bills, "What we have said by the actions of the Judiciary Committee is we aren't going to create a felony if you beat your wife, partner. But now, if you've got some cockfighting going on, whoa! Wait a minute."
The news story goes on to run through a disturbing exchange between the reporter and Rep. Altman, who calls the journalist "not very bright" and insists that "if you don't understand the difference ... between trying to ban the savage practice of watching chickens trying to kill each other and protecting people rights in CDV statutes, I'll never be able to explain it to you in a 100 years ma'am."
posted by Chris Kromm at 2:00 PM | Email this post

The Pope, Catholics and Southern Politics

The blogosphere quickly erupted over yesterday's news that the Vatican had tapped conservative German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to be the next shepherd of the global Catholic flock.

While right-wingers like those at The Corner started popping the champagne, progressives have been largely outraged, noting Ratzinger's hardline stances on abortion and gays, his crackdown on liberal dissidents and liberation theologins, his failure to act on priest child abuse, and his overall orthodox views on the church and its role in the world. (There was also his little intervention in the 2004 U.S. presidential elections, when he instructed Catholic voters that they "would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil" if they voted for a pro-choice candidate.)

My take, as someone raised into left-leaning Catholicism (and schooled by some very subversive nuns), is roughly similar to a BBC analysis I heard last night: Ratzinger largely represents continuity with the previous pontiff, not a radical departure to be celebrated or dreaded. For those who think the church hasn't lived up to its potential, Salon's headline today seems to get it about right: "The Church Will Continue to Suffer."

But just like John Paul II, Ratzinger will also provide openings. He shared the former Pope's disdain for pre-emptive war, speaking out clearly against the Iraq invasion. Our friend Nathan Newman also notes that even Ratzinger's opposition to liberation theology didn't put him on the side of corporate greed, at least in the realm of doctrine. In his major statement on the "lib theo" trend, he went out of his way to say:
The warning against the serious deviations of some "theologies of liberation" must not be taken as some kind of approval, even indirect, of those who keep the poor in misery, who profit from that misery, who notice it while doing nothing about it, or who remain indifferent to it. The Church, guided by the Gospel of mercy and by the love for mankind, hears the cry for justice and intends to respond to it with all her might.
How will this play out in the South? It's a little-known fact that Catholicism is one of the fastest-growing religions (if not the fastest) in the U.S. South, and the Pope's direction of the church could have a major impact on Southern politics.

Clifford Grammich of the Glenmary Research Center has the numbers:
The American Catholic Church has seen a considerable shift from the Northeast and North Central states toward the South and West. In 1971, the West and South were home to 29 percent of American Catholics; today, more than 43 percent are in these two regions. In 1971, the South had 6.5 million Catholics; in 2000, this number had grown 89 percent to 12.3 million. By contrast, the total population of the South grew from an estimated 64.5 million in 1971 to 100.2 million in 2000, or 55 percent. The more rapid increase in Southern Catholic numbers means Southern Catholics have increased from 10.1 percent of the total population in 1971 to 12.3 percent in 2000.
Southern Baptists still rule, but their growth rate is smaller. One out of eight Southerners now identify as Catholic.

What's driving the increase? Latino immigration and an influx of retirees and young professionals from elsewhere in the U.S. have been the biggest factors. In turn, the churches these newcomers helped build have attracted home-grown converts.

But in terms of the politics of Southern Catholics, the influence appears to be the other way around. As journalist Tim Padget reports,
[T]hese southern Catholics, "influenced in no small degree by their morally hard-line Protestant neighbors, as well as the strong piety of Latin America," are practicing a more conservative faith than Catholics in many other parts of the U.S. Fr. Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, South Carolina, told Padgett that the Protestant influence has also led to something he calls "evangelical Catholicism."
Conservatives see much opportunity in these developments, as U.S. Catholicism gravitates towards "red states," adapting to their conservative climate and emphasizing the right-leaning currents of the faith.

Yet Southern Catholics must still grapple with the church's forceful teachings on war, the death penalty (still popular in the South), and economic justice (including the right to join unions -- not popular in the South, at least among the elite).

Pope Benedict XVI has great potential to determine how the rising tide of Catholicism will affect the Southern political landscape. The course he sets for Catholics will help determine whether the church grows as a conservative or progressive force in the region.
posted by Chris Kromm at 12:32 PM | Email this post

Texas Lawmakers Aim to Prohibit Gay Foster Parents

Today's Progress Report tells the story:
The Texas State House "tentatively approved legislation that would prohibit homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents." The measure, which passed by a vote of 81-58, was added on to a fuller bill intended to "revamp the state's Child Protective Services agency." The amendment was introduced by conservative Rep. Robert Talton, who claimed, "It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual."

Though the bill that passed through the state Senate "does not include the ban on gay foster parents," final approval for the bill comes on Wednesday. The executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas responded to the prejudiced amendment by stating, "Mr. Talton has taken aim at the (gay and lesbian) community of Texas and thousands of children are now caught in the cross hairs."
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:12 AM | Email this post

Workers' Earnings Continue Decline

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports today that real average weekly earnings dropped 0.3 percent in March. This was the second month of decline -- real earnings dropped .3% in February as well -- putting the annual rate of decline at 3.6%.

As the BLS notes, "A 0.3 percent increase in average hourly earnings was more than offset by a 0.6 percent increase in the Consumer Price Index."

Industries where workers are losing the most ground: Construction, Utilities, Goods-Producing, and Manufacturing (all industries more highly concentrated in the South).

(Thanks to reader GF for the heads-up)
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:23 AM | Email this post

Tom DeLay (Hearts) "Frivolous Lawsuits"

Another one for the Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) files: according to a new report from the Environmental Working Group, Tom DeLay and his family filed a $15 million defective product lawsuit in 1990 -- the very type of lawsuit he is now seeking to restrict on Capitol Hill. As EWG reports,
The family sued under a theory that a coupler manufactured and distributed by Midcap Bearing Corporation and Lovejoy, Inc. was defective and caused the trolley to lose control. This is exactly the legal theory that DeLay has sought to prohibit communities from using to clean up drinking water contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE, manufactured by major oil and chemical companies in his district.
Last month, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America noted DeLay's hypocrisy, as well as that of his Senate compatriot Rick Santorum (R-PA), who supported his wife’s medical malpractice suit seeking damages in excess of what Santorum’s medical malpractice bill would allow:
"We don’t resent Rep. DeLay or Sen. Santorum for seeking justice in the courts. Any fellow human being has compassion for a family that loses a father too young, or a woman facing a life of pain and disability. DeLay and Santorum were both represented by trial lawyers.

For them to now demagogue against victims and the trial lawyers who helped their families in order to further the radical agenda of their corporate contributors is insulting to the pain and suffering of victims, including their own family members."
posted by Chris Kromm at 9:44 AM | Email this post

Edwards Takes Lead on Right to Organize

In case you're not on his email list, here's an excerpt of a message former Senator and VP candidate John Edwards sent me (and millions of others) yesterday via his new One America Committee, announcing his leadership in pushing the Employee Free Choice Act to protect a worker's right to organize:
As I have been traveling across the country looking at ways to help families escape poverty and join the middle class, I have seen time and time again that joining a union is one of the best ways to lift people out of poverty. Americans in unions earn 27% more than Americans not in unions.

Today, Congress is introducing bipartisan legislation to restore a worker's right to organize. The Employee Free Choice Act would make it harder for employers to prevent workers from joining a union.

All too often, America's workers face harassment and intimidation when they try to join a union. They work hard for our country, but our laws aren't working for them. This important legislation would change our laws so that workers - not employers - can decide whether to start a union.

Please help America's workers by contacting your Senators and U.S. Representative and asking them to cosponsor this critical legislation immediately.
The main features of the legislation are 1) to toughen punishment for violating workers rights to organize a union, 2) require employers to recognize unions immediately upon a majority of workers signing cards asking for recognition, and 3) provide binding arbitration for first contracts when bargaining comes to an impass.

On the House side, 109 members have signed as co-sponsors to a similar bill. This is a good start, but where are the rest of the Democrats? As for Republicans, Sen. Arlen Specter is on board, but as Nathan Newman asks, what about the rest of them who claim to stand with labor?

Whatever the legislation's chances, this is a fundamental human rights issue. Lawmakers need to take a stand.
posted by Chris Kromm at 8:22 AM | Email this post

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Mother Tongue

A Mexican woman in Lebanon, Tenn., could lose custody of her 11-year-old daughter permanently because she (the mother) doesn’t speak English. According to the AP, last October county juvenile court judge Barry Tatum warned Felipa Berrera, who speaks Mixtec, a Mexican indigenous language, that if she doesn’t learn English, “she's running the risk of losing any connection — legally, morally and physically — with her daughter forever.”

Her daughter accused Berrera of hitting her and pulling on her ear, which is the real basis of the custody case (although one might note that elsewhere in the South corporal punishment is considered fine and dandy). But Judge Tatum seems to think that Berrera’s English-language skills are more relevant to her suitability as a parent. He had originally ordered Berrera to appear in court yesterday to be quizzed by him, only in English, on her job and family life, but postponed it at the last minute, pending an appeal.
“Termination of parental rights has nothing to do with what language you speak at home,” [Nashville civil rights attorney Jerry] Gonzalez said. “You can be a deaf mute and speak nothing but sign language. That doesn't mean you lose your child.”

Tatum, who hears child abuse and neglect cases, also has been in trouble with Tennessee immigrant and civil rights advocacy groups about similar learn-English-or-else orders to immigrant women in Lebanon, a Nashville suburb that has seen its foreign-born population grow significantly in the last several years.
This case highlights problems faced by speakers of indigenous American languages in smaller Southern communities. If you speak Spanish only, you’re in bad enough shape some places; but if you don’t even speak Spanish, you can find yourself in real trouble.

Just look at U.S. press coverage, which seems quite baffled by her language, Mixtec. It’s referred to several times as a “dialect,” reporters appearing to vaguely suppose it a dialect of Spanish. In fact, Mixtec (a.k.a. Mixteco or Mixtecan) is a language, not a dialect (yes, which word you use matters); there are more than 400,000 Mixtec speakers in Mexico, mostly in Oaxaca, the source of many migrant workers in the U.S.

In the Tennessean we find this puzzling statement: “Just 0.9% of Wilson County’s population — about 750 people — listed an Indo-European language other than Spanish as being spoken in their home in the 2000 U.S. Census.”

Pssst: Mixteco is NOT an Indo-European language; it’s an indigenous American tongue, unrelated to Spanish. English, however, like Spanish, IS Indo-European.
posted by gary ashwill at 1:52 PM | Email this post

Chipping Away

The Florida state legislature is trying to limit access to abortion under the guise of making it safer. According to the St. Petersburg Times, legislators want to impose expensive, time-wasting bureaucratic requirements on clinics that perform second-trimester abortions (about half of Florida’s 60 clinics), “rules clearly written by bureaucrats, not health professionals”:
The sponsors claim the rules are needed to improve safety, but there is no indication safety is a problem. More than 91,000 abortions took place last year in Florida, yet over the last 10 years there have been fewer than 75 complaints logged with the state against clinics. Only four of those were deemed valid.

As Rep. Nancy Detert, a Venice Republican, charged, if the Legislature really wanted to protect women's health it would address plastic surgery centers, not abortion clinics. “We actually have people dying from plastic surgery breast augmentation with the wrong anesthetics,” Detert said during a floor debate. “Your bill targets one particular industry.”
Another provision, which the Times notes is unconstitutional, would require that girls younger than 16 must notify a parent if they intend to have an abortion, even if they are victims of sexual abuse