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

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Special Report: From Woolworth's to Wal-Mart

[With the battle over Wal-Mart heating up nation-wide, we're happy to share an article offering a interesting new look on the issue by Facing South/Southern Exposure contributor Jordan Green. Jordan's piece, which appeared in this week's Facing South email newlsetter and YES! Weekly, offers a first-hand look at how the battle is playing out on the ground -- and finds the chief fault line to be what W.E.B. DuBois called "the color line." We hope this piece stimulates discussion and helps progressives better grapple with issues of race and economics in issues like the Wal-Mart campaign. - Eds]

FROM WOOLWORTH'S TO WAL-MART
Economics and the Race Divide in a Southern City


A growing movement is turning up the heat on Wal-Mart, charging the retail giant with short-changing workers and communities. But reporter Jordan Green takes a close-up view of the debate brewing in one North Carolina city -- and finds a deep racial divide

By Jordan Green
Facing South and YES! Weekly

GREENSBORO, N.C. -- On Feb. 1, 1960, four NC A&T University students quietly took seats at the segregated Woolworth’s lunch counter and waited to be served, igniting a black-led movement that spread to the Kress Building and other retail outlets and ultimately resulted in the demolition of segregated public accommodations in Greensboro’s downtown business district. While the sit-ins are now widely celebrated by city leaders, throughout the ’60s the white political establishment alternated between pleas for dialogue and stubborn resistance in its response to black demands for justice.

Fast-forward 45 years, and the same odd marriage of civility and racial tension seems to define city politics. And along with jobs, education and healthcare, consumer choice remains one of the major arenas in the struggle for racial equality. But despite the recent resurgence of downtown, with its thriving nightclubs, restaurants and boutiques, the action has moved out to the residential sections of the Greensboro.

Equitable economic development is now the call in Greensboro, with black elected officials pushing for retail investment to bring jobs and consumer choice to those who live east of US Highway 29, thus freeing residents from driving across town to shop at the Friendly Shopping Center and other retail centers located in majority white residential areas.

Little surprise, then, that the public discourse around local developer Donald Linder’s efforts to bring a Wal-Mart Supercenter to the old Carolina Circle Mall in northeast Greensboro has at times taken on racial overtones.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based retail giant currently has two stores in Greensboro . The company’s Battleground Avenue location is a discount store, while the Wendover Avenue location — with more than 100,000 square feet of floor space for groceries and other amenities — qualifies as a
Supercenter.

When support for Linder’s request for $300,000 in economic incentives for the Wal-Mart project appeared to erode among the white majority of City Council during its July 7 meeting, District 1 Councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small reacted with frustration, invoking the civil rights tactic of the boycott which was successfully used to desegregate city buses in Montgomery, Ala. in 1955.

“If it means you have to stop driving to west Greensboro to shop, to get some economic development, you need to just stop driving there,” she said, to the applause of several northeast Greensboro residents who came before City Council to express their support for the project.

During the public input section of the meeting, one white resident who was opposed to the incentive grant called the site “a black hole” and predicted no major retailer would succeed there.

Linder would end up withdrawing his request for $300,000 — money for the purpose of buying out easement rights from neighboring property owners — after a majority of the City Council, including Mayor Keith Holliday, signaled they wouldn't support it. In a closed-session meeting with the developer the previous month council members had favored the grant to Linder in a 7-2 non-binding vote. When the deal came to light, a wave of public revulsion built on the twin currents of fiscal conservatism and objection to Wal-Mart’s business practices forced elected officials to back away from the deal.

But the deeper fault line in Greensboro's Wal-Mart battle had been revealed, one often overlooked in the growing national debate over the company: race.


"WE REALLY NEED THE DEVELOPMENT"

Greensboro has buzzed with public skepticism over whether the $300,000 incentive grant was really necessary for the Wal-Mart project to succeed and why a company whose net sales reached $285.2 billion in 2004 couldn't contribute the necessary funding to help the local developer clear the hurdle.

“It wasn't Wal-Mart going to the city saying if we don't get the money then we're out of here,” said Glen Wilkins, a spokesman for the retail giant who is based in Atlanta . “What we needed is easement rights to put the store on the property. There was a cost to get those easement rights. We contributed money, the developer contributed some money and then additional money was needed. The developer came up with the money.”

Overall, Wal-Mart plans to invest $25 million in its new superstore, says Ben Brown, assistant city manager for economic development, and Linder plans to invest an additional $25 million on a second phase of the shopping center’s redevelopment to accommodate a home improvement center such as Home Depot or Lowe’s, along with other retail outlets. The combined tax revenue for the city over the next three years could amount to $500,000, he said, adding that the redevelopment project is projected to create 400 jobs.

Strong local support for the Wal-Mart Supercenter has come from Goldie Wells, a community leader active with Concerned Citizens of Northeast Greensboro. At the June meeting she pleaded with city council members to help secure the Wal-Mart deal to bring more economic life to the area.

Earlier this month, she filed as a candidate for the open District 2 seat after Councilwoman Claudette Burroughs-White announced she would not run for reelection.

“I'm just pleased about the prospect of Wal-Mart coming to Greensboro,” she later said. “We really need the development.” When asked to comment on the store’s potential effect on small, independent businesses, she responded: “I really don't want to get into that.”

Toni Graves Henderson, who is also running for the District 2 seat, is also cheering Wal-Mart’s entry into the city’s northeast quadrant.

“We do need more jobs,” she said, “because I hear people say: ‘I need a job; I've been looking for months and months and I can't find one.’ If someone wants to come to Greensboro and offer jobs, I can't be against it.”

Only one District 2 candidate, Ed Whitfield, sounded a cautionary note about the arrival of the big-box store.

“The question of wages, health care, working hours and conditions, a number of issues that employees within Wal-Mart have been raising and sometimes getting fired for — these should be the guiding principles of any economic development initiative,” he said. “I know some people that work for Wal-Mart, and they needed the job, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to fight to improve their conditions there.”

HITCHING TO WAL-MART'S STAR

At the old Carolina Circle Mall, heavy equipment operators for the EME demolition company are steadily knocking down the old concrete hull of the shopping center, leaving acres of land covered with piles of concrete chunks and twisted girders while forlorn-looking metal cross beams jut out from what remains of the skeletal structure.

Just across Cone Boulevard in a strip informally known as "K-Mart Shopping Center" after the abandoned store that once anchored it, small retailers are hitching their fortunes to Wal-Mart’s star.

One of them is Mattress Station owner Kenneth Simmons, a large man who wears a straw hat and an American flag lapel on his shirt. Sitting in front of his store where he chatted with a neighbor on a recent Monday afternoon, he expressed nothing short of elation about the coming of Wal-Mart.

“I'm all for it,” he said. “Ain’ nobody against it here. I don't care about competition. I have a seventy-five percent closing rate, but I just gotta get ‘em in here. We need the traffic. We need to let people know we're not dead around here. You build a Wal-Mart. If it’s a superstore with gas and groceries, it'll be the biggest one in Greensboro.”

Along with the mattress store, the strip includes a Laundromat, a bingo parlor, a Mexican tienda, a nail salon, two barbershops and an African-American art store — enterprises whose specialized markets would seem to insulate them against competition from Wal-Mart.

Other east-side retailers regard Wal-Mart with a sense of foreboding, as farmers once looked upon a gathering storm — with equal measures of gratitude that it will bring much needed rain, and fear that it might wash out the crops altogether. Those who look warily on the arrival of
Wal-Mart are the merchants in the strip malls that dot Summit, East Wendover and Bessemer avenues — shopping centers within the same trade area but outside the new big-box store’s immediate orbit.

Jerome Robinson, who is 41, moved to Greensboro from Washington , DC decades back to work for Willie’s Music. When the chain store went out of business, he parlayed his knowledge of gospel artists and the music industry supply chain to open J&B Music Connection in the Summit Shopping Center.

He’s counting on that knowledge to effectively defend his market against Wal-Mart, a store known to be a ruthless competitor.

“I sell lots of gospel,” he said. “I have a one-day order special service. A customer can come in and ask for the song and I'll tell them where it is. Somebody local could have something out and it would only be a hit for two weeks. And I have to know what it is.”

He owns a second store in Raleigh , whose customer base he said has been cannibalized by a new Wal-Mart there. He once employed eight people at the Raleigh store but his workforce is now reduced to three. After a three-year lease expires, he said he'll close the store and lay off the
remaining employees.

“I know how they're trying to corner the market,” he said. “They're a one-stop store. People think we're the villain. ‘Why yawl so high?’ I'm only making $2.75 a CD. They don't make money off music. That’s just to get people there to buy other things.”

He expressed the opinion that there should only one Wal-Mart for every metropolitan market, and then in the next breath wondered aloud if Wal-Mart would hire him for his specialized knowledge of gospel music.

Other store owners are considering moving across town to be near the new Wal-Mart. Such is the case with Fashion Avenue , a low-priced clothing store in the same strip with J&B Music Connection.

K. Bassi, the 41-year-old manager at Fashion Avenue ’s Summit Shopping Center location, said he talked to his boss in Durham about the possibility of moving the other store from its current location on South Eugene Street up to the old Carolina Circle Mall to take advantage of the
spillover effect from Wal-Mart.

“They're very competitive,” said Michael Campbell, who owns Cheap Copies of Greensboro at the corner of East Wendover Avenue and US Highway 29, and who is a member of the East Market Street Merchants Association.

“People who are small and Wal-Mart has their product, they might want to consider relocating. Anybody in a two-mile radius who sells clothes or tires, they're going to take a hit.”

A GROWING GIANT WITH GROWING OPPOSITION

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and the largest private employer, portrays itself as a benevolent, home-spun company that provides good jobs, saves customers money and contributes to the well-being of communities.

“Wal-Mart is committed to growing by improving the standard of living for our customers throughout the world,” the company’s 2005 annual report declares.

Throughout Wal-Mart’s Superstores, images of compassionate-looking employees beam down at customers. One featuring an employee named ‘Virginia’ who volunteers as a tutor for something called the ‘Literacy Council’ offers this heart-warming platitude: “Helping to make a difference… We live here too. And we believe good, works.”

But behind the virtuous image, the company is on the defensive against a snowballing number of allegations about destructive, abusive and exploitative business practices that have made it a pariah in some parts of the country.

“They don't pay their workers enough,” New York City Councilwoman Letitia James said. “The fact that a significant number of their employees rely on social services for health care — that’s a problem. We didn't only try to impose conditions on them; we shut them down.”

The New York City Council is currently considering an ordinance that requires retail stores with more than 85,000 square feet to be licensed with the city. Last year, a plan to build the first Wal-Mart in the city unraveled when elected officials and constituents rallied against it.

Wal-Mart’s 2005 annual report devotes a page and a half to legal proceedings currently pending against the corporate giant. Under the heading, “Wage and Hour ‘Off the Clock’ Class Actions,” the report lists a total of 44 cases, including one filed by three former employees in Forsyth County. (The NC Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Forsyth County Superior Court denying the employees class action certification on June 7; the lawyer for the workers said they're trying to decide whether to further appeal).

While claims by former employees that they were locked in and forced to clean stores after clocking out for the night are by now common in press accounts, so too are allegations that Wal-Mart discriminates against its female employees.

Potentially the most damaging lawsuit to the company is Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of all past and present female employees — about 1.6 million women in all— that alleges the company discriminates against women in its promotions, pay, training and job assignments.

US District Court Judge Martin Jenkins, of the northern California district, conferred class-action status on the lawsuit in June 2004. According to his court order, while 65 percent of Wal-Mart’s employees are women, only a third of the company’s management positions are filled by women.

In his court order, he acknowledged the case as the largest class-action lawsuit in history, and noted that the certification took place on the 50th anniversary year of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision — “a reminder,” he said, “of the importance of the courts
in addressing the denial of equal treatment under the law wherever and by whomever it occurs.”

In yet another case, on March 18, the US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced a civil settlement with Wal-Mart concluding its grand jury investigation into whether the company violated federal immigration law in its hiring of third-party contractors who employed illegal immigrants for janitorial services in the company’s stores. Without admitting any wrongdoing, the company agreed to pay $11 million to the government to support investigations by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

That hasn't ended Wal-Mart’s troubles with immigration law. In December 2004, a federal judge in New Jersey ordered that a group of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Poland and Slovakia , among other countries, be given class-action status. Zavala, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores alleges: “Wal-Mart — acting through ostensibly independent maintenance contractors — systematically exploits immigrant labor drawn from the four corners of the earth to clean its thousands of stores, working janitors seven days a week almost every day of the year.” The lawsuit was filed as a racketeering case, alleging that the janitors “worked under Wal-Mart’s
supervision and that, as a matter of economic and practical reality, their employment was directed and controlled by Wal-Mart.”

The negative publicity has been accompanied by rapid growth; the company’s net sales increased 11 percent last year, roughly in line with its expansion the previous year. The company needs to keep building new stores to maintain net sales and operating net income, the annual reports states, and it plans to build 240 to 250 new Supercenters this year like the one slated for the old Carolina Circle Mall. The Supercenters are the most controversial of Wal-Mart’s stores because of their sheer size and the fact that more than 10 percent of their space is taken up by groceries. The sale of groceries creates no tax revenue for cities and the advent of the stores is thought to drive down the wages of nearby grocery workers.

Last year, the city of Los Angeles passed a ‘Superstores Ordinance’ requiring big-box retailers like Wal-Mart to pay for an economic impact report prior to approval by city council for new stores in poor neighborhoods. The City Council based its decision on the recommendations of a
commissioned study known as the Rodino Report that called into question the conventional wisdom on large-scale retail employment.

“It showed that big-box grocery stores moving into urban areas would try to locate in areas where cities had used economic development money to try to create jobs and eliminate blight,” City Councilman Eric Garcetti wrote in a May ‘guest blog’ on the Wal-Mart Watch website. “Since big-box grocery eliminates jobs and creates blight by driving other, better-paying stores out of business, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot to try to bring a Wal-Mart or other superstore into Los Angeles.”

“THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR”

A growing number of cities are concluding that Wal-Mart Supercenters impoverish workers, shift healthcare costs onto local social services and cause poor neighborhoods to further deteriorate. The city council of Los Angeles’s neighbor Inglewood voted to bar Wal-Mart from building a store, and voters subsequently voted down a referendum launched by the big-box retailer to overturn the city council decision. The Rodino Report, which was released in October 2003, lists nine local governments that have banned Wal-Mart outright, ranging from Taos, NM to Oakland, Calif.

Among the report’s findings was that the “lack of health care benefits of many big-box and superstore employees can result in a greater public burden as workers utilize emergency rooms as a major component of their health care.”

Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart’s public relations apparatus hits back hard when charges are leveled that the company’s workers are forced to rely on the public dole for their healthcare, and that the company’s low wages keep workers in poverty.

“When we open up a new store it’s not uncommon to have thousands of people lined up,” said Dan Fogle, a spokesman from Wal-Mart’s home office in Bentonville. “We pay good, competitive wages, with good, competitive benefits in jobs that offer the opportunity for advancement.”

He specifically addressed the health-care question by citing a report commissioned by the company to the Segmentation Company, a Chapel Hill marketing services company. Fogle said the study found that Wal-Mart’s employees have health-care coverage at about the same rate as other retail employees, that 7 percent of the company’s hourly wage employees were enrolled on Medicaid prior to working at the retailer, 5 percent once they joined the company, and 3 percent once they'd been employed for two years.

“We estimate that we've taken 160,000 people off the list of America’s uninsured just by bringing them into our company,” he said. “Thirty percent of people in the survey said they had no healthcare before joining Wal-Mart. Eighty-six percent of Wal-Mart’s hourly-rate employees have health insurance; 56 percent of those through Wal-Mart.”

Asked for a copy of the study to review its methodology, Fogle said Wal-Mart doesn't have the right to distribute it because it’s the property of the Segmentation Company.

Critics like Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., would no doubt take exception to Fogle’s claim that Wal-Mart pays “good, competitive wages.”

A 2004 congressional report by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, over which Miller presides, charges: “Wal-Mart has come to represent the lowest common denominator in the treatment of working people.”

Wal-Mart pays its retail sales workers an average wage of $8.23, said Brown, the assistant city manager for economic development in Greensboro. That’s significantly less than the $10.83 average wage for retail sales workers in the Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem metropolitan statistical area, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average hourly wage paid by Wal-Mart to its cashiers, $7.92 per hour, is 38 cents more than the average for cashiers in the Triad.

Full-time retail workers earning $8.23 per hour and full-time cashiers earning $7.92 would receive an annual income of $16,460 and $15,840, respectively. The same workers on Wal-Mart’s part-time schedule would earn annual incomes of $13,168 and $12,672, respectively — both wage structures below the federal poverty level for a family of three.

Along with healthcare costs and negative wage pressures, the Rodino Report also slammed Wal-Mart for putting other stores out of business and in turn depressing local tax revenue. “Municipal revenues may actually decrease as a result of big-box retailers and superstores,” the report said, because “retail sales may actually decrease due to the big box’s lower prices” and the “negative potential impact on other local retailers may cause local store closures.”

To the contrary, said Wal-Mart spokesman Glen Wilkins, the big-box stores act as an economic stimulus.

“Small businesses tend to thrive around us because we're a general merchandise store,” he said. “Many of these small businesses deal in specialty items. You'll have a karate school, a boutique shop for women’s clothing and a bicycle shop in the same shopping plaza with one of our stores. We get so many calls from small business owners saying, ‘When are you coming here? We want to get near you.’”

In fairness to the Carolina Circle Mall redevelopment project, the Rodino Report states that big-box stores can potentially bring economic benefits when located in ghost malls, finding that “in situations where a big-box retailer or superstore proposes to occupy an existing vacant space in an existing retail mall, the positive impacts may outweigh the negative ones.”

“We really needed a business that created a destination,” Linder said. “That’s the only way we can get that part of the community reinvigorated. The people that just don't like Wal-Mart for sometimes justifiable reasons, didn't look specifically at the needs of this community.”

Rather than ban big-box stores outright as was done in Inglewood , the Rodino Report suggests establishing regulations to mitigate the potentially harmful aspects of big-box stores. The report’s authors recommend imposing higher minimum wage and benefits standards as a way to counteract negative wage pressures created by big-box retailers, and even recommend imposing a ‘promotional fee’ on big-box retailers to pay for a marketing campaign to boost local retailing or requiring big-boxes to provide transportation to other retail outlets.

LABOR ISSUES ON THE AGENDA?

In an interview for this story, Greensboro Mayor Pro Tem Yvonne Johnson said that in the absence of the city offering economic incentives to a company like Wal-Mart to locate here, wages and other labor issues are outside of the City Council’s scope of concern in considering an economic development proposal.

Mayor Keith Holliday added that with the city recovering from the loss of textile, furniture and tobacco jobs in the past 10 years, he believes the city is not in a position to impose the kinds of conditions on big-box stores that have been discussed in Los Angeles and other cities.

“We've been in sort of a crisis mode where we're reaching out in all directions to stabilize our employment,” he said. “Are we at a point where we can discriminate against certain businesses? We have not been at that level to be able to be choosy because we're trying to put out the fire of a five-percent unemployment rate.”

Notwithstanding the fact that Los Angeles is about 15 times the size of Greensboro, the Gate City and the City of Angels compare and contrast in some interesting ways. The two cities’ unemployment rates are virtually identical, with 5.0 percent of Greensboro’s labor force idle and 4.9 percent of Los Angeles ’ labor force out of work. The percentage of families living below the federal poverty level in Greensboro stands at 8.6 percent; Los Angeles’ family poverty rate is nearly double that, suggesting that the need for stable, decent employment is more urgent in
the latter city.

Look around both Greensboro ’s black and white neighborhoods, and with the exception of the traditional ethnic groceries, retail development is trending towards bigger and more sparsely situated stores, often open 24 hours a day to accommodate longer work schedules.

“When I was growing up you used to have a grocery store every couple blocks,” said Brown. “It’s a dilemma for America . But we generally don't make laws to control business aside from ‘don't sell bad meat.’”

But should we? Jerome Robinson, the music store proprietor at the Summit Shopping Center thinks maybe so.

“I feel that we shouldn't let the Wal-Marts keep coming,” he said. “What is it saying? I've been doing this for twenty-four years. I finally have my own business. I really want my kids to be able to do this, but I just don't see much future in it. Everybody’s dream is to own their own business, but one day the only dream will be to work at Wal-Mart.”

Jordan Green is a contributor to Facing South/Southern Exposure and a reporter with YES! Weekly (www.yesweekly.com) in Greensboro, N.C., where this story also appeared. To comment on this story, e-mail Jordan at jordan@yesweekly.com.
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:00 AM | Email this post

Friday, July 29, 2005

Taylor's Alibi Goes South; Other CAFTA Sagas

The saga surrounding Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC) and his missing vote against CAFTA is taking some interesting new turns. Taylor continues to insist that he tried to vote against the trade deal, but that his voting card didn't work.

That's funny, says the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Seems his card worked just fine for 11 other votes on the same day:
Despite being present for 11 votes yesterday, Congressman Charles Taylor was mysteriously absent for the critical vote on the CAFTA trade agreement. With the opportunity to vote for an entire hour, as opposed to the usual 15 minutes, it would be nearly impossible for a member of the United States House of Representatives to be unable to record his vote, as Taylor claims.

Vote that Charles Taylor missed yesterday:

Roll Call #443: CAFTA

Of the 11 votes that Charles Taylor made yesterday:

439, H RES 384, a non-controversial resolution condemning attacks in Egypt

438, H RES 383, a unanimously passed measure supporting women’s rights in Iraq

435, S 45, another unanimous measure to increase access drug addiction treatments
Equally implausible, Josh Marshall argues, is his claim that he didn't realize something had gone wrong with his vote until he after he "got out of the gym" later the following morning. One of the biggest debates of the year, with GOP leadership watching every vote like a hawk? Right.

As for the other no-show for the CAFTA vote, Virginia's Jo Ann David (R), here's her excuse:
A spokesman for Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., the only other non-voting Republican, said she would have voted against CAFTA but was on her way to her district to attend a Boy Scout Jamboree event, which was ultimately canceled because of weather.
The non-Jamboree was to be held at Fort A.P. Hill, which is right near Bowling Green, Virginia, just south of Fredericksburg -- 75 miles from D.C. Even if Davis decided to hang around the building until 10 p.m. in the vain hope that her beloved Scouts might show up after all, she should have had plenty of time to make the CAFTA vote, which was scheduled for midnight.

For more on the arm-twisting and deal-making it took to pass CAFTA, this piece in today's NY Times relates the stories of Rep. Coble (NC) and Rep. Foley (FL). Foley "staunchly opposed the pact" but ultimately caved when "Republican leaders ... made it clear that they would punish the sugar industry [a supporter of Foley] in the next farm bill if they managed to defeat the trade pact."
posted by Chris Kromm at 7:53 AM | Email this post

Facing South: Big Energy and Wal-Mart

Our latest Facing South email newsletter is out, spreading like kudzu to thousands of email inboxes across the world. If you're not already on the list, sign up now using the form to the right. It's free!

To give you a taste, here's the always-popular Institute Index from this issue:
INSTITUTE INDEX - Negative Energy

Cost of the "Energy Bill" Congress plans to pass this week: $80 billion

Amount inserted by Speaker Tom DeLay, after conference discussion had closed, for an oil project in his district: $1.5 billion

Amount included in bill for "risk insurance" for nuclear power plants: $2 billion

Amount included for a study of "irradiated fuel": $250,000

Number of Congress members who admitted to knowing what this was after they approved the bill in committee: 0

Total subsidies to industry in the bill, mostly to oil, gas, coal and ethanol interests: $11.6 billion

Amount given by energy industry to political campaigns since 2000: $85.5 million
Think Progress has the latest on the $1.5 billion for energy interests in his district that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) snuck into the bill. Republicans insist there was nothing untoward about the deal, but a dispatch from yesterday's Houston Business Journal reveals that this last-minute piece of pork was no accident:
The final draft of the energy bill expected to be approved this weekend by House and Senate negotiators contains a research funding provision long awaited by a Sugar Land energy consortium…The Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center has been counting on this source of funding ever since it was established two years ago…In 2003, the consortium was awarded $31 million in state economic development funds, but that funding later evaporated under regulations that stymied the consortium’s access to the money. The TEC has been basically on hold since then, waiting and hoping for federal funding to revive its mission.
Also in the latest Facing South newsletter: "From Woolworth to Wal-Mart," Southern Exposure reporter Jordan Green's excellent first-hand account of how the politics of race are playing out in the battle over Wal-Mart in the fast-growing Southern city of Greensboro, N.C. It's a great piece of reporting, and reveals a critical issue that the growing Wal-Mart accountability movement needs to grapple with. (If you don't already get the newsletter, we'll be posting the piece online soon.)
posted by Chris Kromm at 7:05 AM | Email this post

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Gas Prices Are Hell -- Unless You're Exxon

Oil companies will tell you that they're jacking up prices because of tightening supplies. But when it comes time to announce quarterly earnings, they can't stop themselves from revealing the truth and boasting about the billions in profits they're raking in:
Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, reported a 32 percent increase in second-quarter profits as it reaped the benefits of soaring oil and natural gas prices.

The strong second quarter enabled Exxon Mobil to produce a record $15.5 billion in net income, or $2.42 per share, for the first six months. That 38 percent boost is up $4.2 billion, or $1.71 a share, from the first six months of 2004.

Not only has it surpassed last year's two-quarter mark. Exxon is just $1.5 billion off its three-quarter performance from last year. If Exxon continues at this pace, it could record more than $30 billion in net income; last year it netted $25.3 billion.

"They made a lot of money last year, but now they are printing it," [analyst Fadel] Gheit said.
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:50 PM | Email this post

CAFTA Aftermath

Pundits and advocates are now surveying the CAFTA carnage, and it's not pretty. Tales of brutal arm-twisting and last-minute favors -- especially in the 47-minute period when the House had to suspend debate as GOP leaders "convinced" waverers -- abound.

A curious story about the vote also popped up today: Rep. Charles Taylor, Republican member of the North Carolina delegation that resoundingly voted against CAFTA, was recorded as a "no vote." But according to a statement put out by his office today, he was actually a "nay":
I voted NO on the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) in the vote last night. I informed the Majority Leader and the Appropriations Chairman I was voting no, as I had informed my constituents I was voting no. Rep. Howard Coble and I voted "no" together. Due to an error, my "no" vote did not record on the voting machine. The Clerk's computer logs verified that I had attempted to vote, but it did not show my "nay". I am re-inserting my "No" vote in the record. But even with my NO vote re-inserted, the bill still passed.
Sounds like more than your usual post-vote pack-pedaling, I believe him. (UPDATE: After Josh's converstation with Rep. Coble, I may have to change my mind.)

We also mis-tallied a vote from the Southern delegation, failing to give credit to Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-VA), who was the 11th Southern Republican to oppose the deal.
posted by Chris Kromm at 2:17 PM | Email this post

CAFTA Drama Shakes the South

Since CAFTA passed the House by just one vote this morning -- 217-215 -- you can point to any one of the "ayes" as the "deciding vote." But as we predicted yesterday, the most gripping drama was in the South, where enough Southern Reps were big enough question marks that they could effectively extort dozens of last-minute deals in return for their votes. The Southern textile belt was critical, says the New York Times:
In a crucial breakthrough, White House officials and Republican leaders were able to win support from about half of the Republican lawmakers from textile-producing states like Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
In fact, Bloomberg reports that the deal was in danger of being scuttled -- requiring a crucial 40-minute Tony Soprano session with one reluctant Southern Republican:
In the end a 40-minute delay in the vote was broken after the Republican leadership convinced Representative Robin Hayes of North Carolina to switch his vote to yes.

"Unfortunately, as with past trade votes, Republican leadership held the roll open for an hour and twisted arms,'' said Representative Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who led Democratic opposition to the agreement. "They got people to break their commitments and go back on their word."
Other news accounts relate that "there were reports that wavering [Southern Republicans] were courted with promises of projects in their districts." No surprise there -- just like Clinton did with NAFTA, they used the carrot and the stick (causing the righteous Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, to yell on the House floor at the time, "This is obscene!"). Let's hope Hayes got something good.

Yet 27 Republicans stuck to their guns, and 10 of the Republicans who voted against CAFTA were from the South: Capito (WV), Coble (NC), Foxx (NC), Goode (VA), Jinda (LA), Jones (NC), Mack (FL), McHenry (NC), Norwood (GA) and Paul (TX). (Note the North Carolina delegation's solid rejection, which was joined by all the state's Democrats.) In addition, the two who didn't vote -- essentially "no" votes -- were from the South, Reps. Davis (VA) and Taylor (NC).

Bush and the GOP leadership may have had to fight hard to win over half of the Southern Republican delegation in the textile belt, but they didn't have to lift a finger for the other Southerners central to this drama: Southern Democrats.

Eight out of the 15 Dems who cast their lot with this dubious corporate-written trade pact were from the South. Here's the list of CAFTA supporters in the House from the "party of opposition":
Melissa Bean (IL)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Norm Dicks (WA)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
William Jefferson (LA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Greg Meeks (NY)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
Solomon Ortiz (TX)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Vic Snyder (AR)
John Tanner (TN)
Ed Towns (NY)
There was no political reason for these votes. None were in danger of losing their seats from an anti-CAFTA vote.

In fact, given that all of the Southern states they represent have been ones that have suffered greatly from past "free trade" deals, this could have been a great way to appeal to blue-collar and middle-class voters. Here's how many jobs have been lost to NAFTA in their states -- and these are just numbers up until April 2001, before the Bush recession displaced thousands more workers made vulnerable by NAFTA and other pacts:
Arkansas: 9,829 jobs lost from NAFTA, 1993-2000
Louisiana: 6,613 jobs lost
Tennessee: 25,000 jobs lost
Texas: 41,067 jobs lost
Virginia: 16,758
Also, none of these Democrats are exactly fighting for their political lives. Inspired by David Sirota, an analysis of their 2004 election margins reveals that all of the Southern Democrats who voted for CAFTA got into office with over 55% of the vote -- a virtual landslide.

So these Democrats unnecessarily voted for an undemocratic, corporate-written global investment deal guaranteed to alienate hundreds of thousands of working families in the South -- just the people Democrats need to win over if they hope to have any future in the region.

What to do with these people? Sirota has some ideas.
posted by Chris Kromm at 9:12 AM | Email this post

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Welcome ...

Eschaton visitors. Make yourself at home. And if you like, sign up (over there to the right) for our free email newsletter offering a progressive take on news, trends and issues in the South.

For those who emailed me for more background on CAFTA, you might start here and here.

White House arm-twisting (and money-for-pet-projects-in-your-district-dangling) for votes on CAFTA is now in full force. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) -- from the upstate district around Spartanburg, in the heart of the textile belt ravaged by NAFTA -- is the latest to succumb.
posted by Chris Kromm at 1:00 PM | Email this post

South Key to CAFTA Vote; DLC Out of Touch?

As Congress gears up for a vote tonight on the Central American Free Trade Agreement -- with Texas Rep. Tom DeLay promising a win -- the heart of the fight is in the U.S. South. As the Raleigh News & Observer reported on Monday, the region just isn't going for it:
The lack of support [for CAFTA] in the GOP-leaning textile belt, the industrial area that stretches across the Piedmont from Virginia to Alabama, is a major reason the administration is having difficulty collecting enough votes in the House for CAFTA to pass.
For example, listen to the words of Rep. Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones (R-NC), who -- despite Bush's pro-CAFTA photo op in North Carolina earlier this month -- is standing strong in his anti-corporate trade deal stance:
In a press conference yesterday on Capitol Hill, Third District Representative Walter B. Jones joined Republican Members of Congress to speak out against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

"CAFTA is not going to help the people of Central America, and it certainly won’t help those American workers who will lose their jobs," Jones said. "If CAFTA becomes the law of the land, this country is setting itself up to become a second-rate manufacturing country."

"The American people are looking to us—Republicans and Democrats—to draw the line in the sand and save American jobs," Jones said.
The rest of North Carolina's Congressional bipartisan delegation is similarly skeptical. As the N&O reported, "Bush can count on the vote of only one of North Carolina's 13 members of Congress -- Republican Sue Myrick of Charlotte -- to ratify the trade agreement" -- and there's even talk that she's sweating the political fallout.

It's notable that two of the three other Republicans who joined Rep. Jones for his press conference yesterday were also from the South:
Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Virgil Goode (R-VA). Other Southern states have lots of question marks.

That's odd -- I thought one of the big claims to fame of the rabidly pro-CAFTA Democratic Leadership Council is that they knew the right issues for making inroads into the South. Guess all that time lunching with D.C. lobbyists has put them a little out of touch with public sentiment down here.
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:40 AM | Email this post

CEO Greed: Bad for Business

There's been a small flurry of stories lately about skyrocketing pay among corporate execs. The New York Times, for example, recently reported that the average corporate CEO made $9.84 million in 2004. You can find out more about the issue here.

The way corporate boards shower obscene riches on CEO's is an incestuous racket and one that our leaders in Washington have fought any attempts to scrutinize -- even as they refuse to inch up the minimum wage for working stiffs by a measeley $1 an hour.

The standard excuse given for the outlandish sums of money forked over to CEO's while the wages of working people stagnate is that the head honchos are being rewarded for good performance.

Unfortunately for the rich and famous -- or at least the rich -- a new study by Moody's Investors Service finds that these staggering sums of wealth aren't only morally dubious, they also correlate with bad business behavior:
Companies that sweeten executive compensation with unusually large bonuses or options plans tend to have deeper and more frequent credit downgrades and higher bond-default rates than those that don't offer such plum packages, according to a Moody's Investors Service report.
The numbers clearly don't lie:
Moody's found that of the 43 companies rated "B3" or higher that defaulted between 1993 and 2003, 22 offered their CEOs much-larger-than-expected bonuses or stock-option grants or both at least once. Of the 214 that experienced large downgrades -- that is, three or more ratings notches within 12 months -- CEO compensation was higher than expected in 140 cases. Some 50 of those finished in the top 10% for plan generosity across their industries.
I don't see elected officials from either party lifting the banner for greater scrutiny of executive compensation and its threats to the economy. But isn't this something a broad section of the public could get behind?
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:48 AM | Email this post

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Southern Baptists Defend America

In 2004 the Southern Baptist Convention withdrew from the World Baptist Alliance (which it helped to found in 1905), accusing the loose global federation of anti-American bias and (even worse) liberalism. The Louisville Courier-Journal found a few Kentucky Baptists who don’t agree with the SBC, and plan to attend the Alliance’s conference for its 100th anniversary:
“We looked at the same information and came to a very different conclusion,” said the Rev. Leslie Hollon, pastor of St. Matthews Baptist Church. He is among 12 members of his church heading to the conference.

“Given our dangerous world conditions, a unified Christian witness among Baptists is more important than ever,” Hollon said, adding that the alliance also will show solidarity with Great Britain in the wake of the July 7 terrorist bombings in London.
The rupture between the SBC and the global organization was the culmination of years of tension, as Southern Baptists grew increasingly critical of the “anti-capitalist,” “anti-American,” and “gay-friendly” World Baptist Alliance. According to the Washington Post,

[Alliance general secretary Denton] Lotz said the charge of anti-Americanism resulted from his visits to Cuba in 1988 and 2002, which he said were aimed at persuading Fidel Castro to allow the importation of Bibles and to grant more freedom to churches.
But the real kicker, according to Lotz, came in July 2003 when the Alliance admitted the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a group of moderate former Southern Baptists who split off from the SBC in 1991. The über-patriotic SBC couldn’t handle the acceptance of a group of fellow American Baptists. “Right after that,” Lotz told the Post, “the Southern Baptist leadership said, ‘If they're in, we’re out.’”
posted by gary ashwill at 9:43 AM | Email this post

Preventing Cancer in the South

Here’s one reason why it’s good that TennCare is at least continuing to cover women with cervical cancer. Most of the 4,000 almost entirely preventable deaths from this condition in the U.S. each year occur in the South. From the AP (via the Houston Chronicle):
Virtually all deaths from cervical cancer are preventable, yet the disease will kill almost 4,000 women in this country this year. Frustrated scientists know who most of them will be: black women in the South, Hispanics along the Texas-Mexico border, white women in Appalachia and the rural Northeast, Vietnamese immigrants.

Efforts are under way to reach those women, including a $25 million federal program poised to let communities recruit volunteers — average women who speak their patients’ language and can engender trust — to push Pap testing and shepherd the newly diagnosed through an often-baffling medical system.

It’s work made more urgent by the discovery that excess cervical cancer is a red flag for other health disparities: The same localities also have too-high rates of breast and colorectal cancer, strokes and infant mortality.
posted by gary ashwill at 7:54 AM | Email this post

War is Hell -- Unless You're Halliburton

In case you missed it: in this time of shared sacrifice for war, Halliburton announced last Friday (pdf) that subsidiary KBR's quarterly revenues from Government and Infrastructure work increased 284 percent from 2004 to 2005.

According to Halliburton executives, "[t]he increase primarily resulted from positive developments related to LogCAP award fees," "LogCAP" being the no-bid contract Halliburton received, as Southern Exposure first revealed in December 2001, for logistics support in the "war on terror." And they've been making a killing on it ever since.

Visit our friends at Halliburton Watch for more info. Will our "fiscally conservative" leaders be taking steps soon to rein in war profiteering and the squandering of billions of taxpayer dollars?
posted by Chris Kromm at 7:48 AM | Email this post

Monday, July 25, 2005

Another Famous Texas Bicyclist for Peace

Left I on the News points us to this surprising quote from a Texan well-liked around the world:
"The biggest downside to a war in Iraq is what you could do with that money. What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change.

"Polls say people are much more afraid of cancer than of a plane flying into their house or a bomb or any other form of terrorism. It is a priority for the American public."

- Lance Armstrong, speaking after his victory yesterday in the Tour de France
Quite a statement for someone thrust into the world sports limelight. Although something tells me this particular quote isn't going to get a lot of play in the media.
posted by Chris Kromm at 12:50 PM | Email this post

Have-Nots v. Have-Nots

One predictable consequence of Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen’s deep cuts in the state’s TennCare health insurance program for the poor and uninsured: because the program still covers women with cervical cancer and Tennesseans under 21, a 52-year-old man who recently lost his TennCare prescription coverage is accusing the state of age and sex discrimination. His name is David Atchison, he suffers from “nerve damage that leaves him in constant pain,” and without coverage his medications cost over a thousand dollars a month. Lawyers say he has no case, because there's no law requiring the state to cover anybody, let alone everybody.

Some now appear quite happy that the debate, instead of centering on why it’s so difficult for our affluent society to look after those who can’t afford to look after themselves, is now focused on whether and why TennCare discriminates: whether 18-to-21-year-olds are really “children,” as the program calls them; whether cervical cancer is worse than prostate cancer; who deserves coverage more, kids or the elderly. The idea seems to be: throw the people a few crumbs, and they’ll scratch each other’s eyes out scrambling after them.
posted by gary ashwill at 8:55 AM | Email this post

The AFL-CIO Debate and the South

Here at Facing South, we haven't commented much on the massive upheavals in the AFL-CIO, which are now playing out in the labor federation's convention in Chicago, starting today. Yesterday, the Change To Win coalition of insurgents, led by Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union, announced they were boycotting the gathering, which marks the beginning of the final chapter of the AFL-CIO as we know it.

Make no mistake -- the implications of these events, especially for labor in the South, are potentially huge. Perhaps more than any region, there's a desperate need for a new vision for labor in the South, one that grapples with a host of difficult challenges: the decimation of textiles and other staples of the old manufacturing economy, a hostile anti-union climate, the rise of new immigrant populations, persistent poverty and underdevelopment in the African-American "black belt," and so on.

A labor movement which takes the call to "Organize the South" seriously would be an historic and welcome development -- over the last 50 years, there have only been two concerted, broad-scale efforts to organize in the region: Operation Dixie, the CIO's massive post-WWII drive, and the late-60s/early-70s insurgencies by the United Mine Workers (think "Harlan County, USA") and textile workers ("Norma Rae"), both of which the Institute was intimately involved in. Any attempt to revitalize labor in the South will have to use innovative approaches and find new points of leverage in the union-hostile region, which requires resources and a willingness to take risks not in abundant supply in the movement today.

Back to Chicago: There's a lot of commentary floating around about the split and the convention, and it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaffe. Making things more difficult is the fact that many of the commentators have a dog in the fight (not necessarily a bad thing -- I've worked off and on with union campaigns over the last 12 years, and definitely have an opinion -- but it does mean it's hard to get the full picture).

One good piece I ran across this morning is by Kim Fellner, who worked for 17 years at SEIU and was also the founding director of the National Organizer's Alliance. She advocates for change in the AFL-CIO, but also feels the current debate is missing the bigger picture:
[M]ost of us progressive labor folks think a shake-up is long overdue. But there's a nagging unease on all sides about the terms and tenor of the debate. The sound bites never get much beyond "blah, blah, blah, blah, organize, blah blah blah, blah change." And the skirmishing is all about mathematics: How much money for organizing? How many international unions should there be? What percentage of dues should go to the Federation?

But the numbers obscure the bigger questions at the heart of our struggle: Organize how? Change how? What kind of labor movement do we envision? How will it make the world more equitable for the most number of people? And what are we willing to sacrifice in order achieve it?
Good questions, and ones that have special relevance in the South. Read the whole piece for more good questions, as well as good analysis and history.
posted by Chris Kromm at 8:22 AM | Email this post

Friday, July 22, 2005

Friday Film Blogging: Hearts and Minds

[This week's silver screen coverage from our friend David Fellerath, film critic at the Independent Weekly]

The death of William Westmoreland earlier this week was little noted in these days of heat, Karl Rove, heat, John Roberts and more heat. But back in his day – which is before my own – General Westmoreland was a widely reviled figure in the antiwar movement of the 1960s, and, after the seismic shock of the Tet Offensive of 1968, he lost the support of the Washington establishment as well.

Perhaps it tells us something about the healing power of time that few commentators have seen fit to comment on his legacy. Or perhaps it tells us how deeply he has fallen into history’s eclipse.

For those who have joined this planet in recent decades, Westmoreland was a brightly shining star of the U.S. Army who met his Little Big Horn as the architect of some of the most bone-headed and homicidal policies of the U.S. military effort in Vietnam. Arthur Schlesinger, in fact, called Westmoreland “our most disastrous general since Custer.” Here’s the New York Times obit, which is worth a read.

I take particular note of Westmoreland’s death in a South Carolina nursing home because he plays a supporting role in Hearts and Minds, Peter Davis’ classic Vietnam documentary that examines the policy justifications, the official lying and the horrific effects of war on soldiers and Vietnamese alike. Westmoreland appears on several occasions, the last to tell us that “Oriental people” don’t value human life they way we do. Mercilessly, Davis intersperses these astonishing comments with images of sobbing Vietnamese villagers at gravesides.

Hearts and Minds is a grueling, intense and vitally important film. Unfortunately, it remains all too relevant to the predicament we face today. Near the film’s end, Davis asks a guilt-stricken bomber pilot what we’ve learned from the Vietnam adventure. Probably nothing, the pilot responds.

With the sponsorship of the Independent Weekly, I’ve organized a series of screenings of Hearts and Minds around the Triangle. Onetime Vietnam journalist Perry Deane Young will introduce the film in Chapel Hill. All other screenings will feature a post-film appearance by author and 25-year Army veteran Stan Goff.

For more on Hearts and Minds, go here.

Sunday, July 24: Chapel Hill; Carolina Theater @ 12:30 p.m.
Monday, July 25: Durham; Carolina Theatre @ 7 and 9:30 p.m.
Tuesday, July 26: Cary; Galaxy Cinema @ 7 p.m.
Wednesday, July 27: Raleigh; Colony Theater @ 7 p.m.

-- DAVID FELLERATH
posted by Chris Kromm at 3:36 PM | Email this post

What's a Scandal?

What does and doesn't make a political scandal is always fascinating to watch. For the last two generations, the benchmark for public office misdeeds has been Watergate, as evidenced by the fact that "-gate" is attached to every act of malfeasance that comes down the pike. Given the horrors of Vietnam and other crimes committed by the Nixon crew, a bungled burglary struck most progressives at the time as the least of the nation's problems -- but they were willing to take it, since it's the only thing that seemed to stick.

That's what seems to be happening with the Rove/Plame affair, which Democrats are seizing on not only because someone in the White House broke the law, but also because it's the only charge against the Bush administration that appears to be getting any traction. Probably an added bonus is that it allows progressives to position themselves as hawks, concerned about how the White House has "endangered national security."

Of course, it's a double-edged sword, and one those on the left should handle carefully. I'm sure many of those now leading the charge against Bush and Rove are old-time progressives who would have welcomed "leaks" that exposed "operatives" involved in the illegal brutality of Reagan's wars against Central America, or indeed proxies for the wars on dissent at home and self-determination abroad during Nixon's reign.

There's also the problem that focusing merely on the scandals that are politically expedient -- a revenge-inspired press leak today, an affair with the house nanny tomorrow? -- by definition pulls progressives off message.

For example, I still believe that one of the biggest scandals today -- and one that makes sense to make an issue of strategically AND because of its substance -- is the looting of billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers and the Iraqi people through war profiteering.

From the over $8 billion robbed from Iraq's government coffers, to the billions shoveled from the American public to Halliburton and other well-connected corporations, war profiteering draws out all that's wrong in the halls of government today: the subservience of human needs to corporate interests; cronyism, greed and mismanagement; unshared sacrifice in a time of war; the less-than-pure motives and operation of the U.S. mission in Iraq. It's all there, and could be easily transformed into a blockbuster scandal if progressives put their mind to it.

Indeed, maybe the issues that rampant war profiteering raises are so deep and fundamental that it doesn't constitute "scandal" material in the traditional sense. But there's still a high outrage factor, and the fact that it addresses the core issues we care about should make it all the better an issue for progressives to focus on.

By the way, for a good overview of the never-ending Halliburton scandal, check out Jeffrey St. Clair's excellent overview last week.
posted by Chris Kromm at 10:42 AM | Email this post

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Roberts v. Florida Voters

I agree with Max Sawicky and others that Roberts isn't a defeatable nominee for the Supreme Court. Rolling out a laundry list of somewhat conservative positions he took in various cases isn't going to amount to a killer bill of particulars that will convince the public that he's unfit for the bench.

However, I also agree with Max that Roberts' dubious role in the 2000 Florida election scandal bears "ventilation," as reported in today's LA Times:
As the 2000 presidential recount battle raged in Florida, a Washington lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. traveled to Tallahassee, the state capital, to dispense legal advice.

He operated in the shadows at least some of those 37 days, never signing a legal brief and rarely making an appearance at the makeshift headquarters for George W. Bush's legal team...

Republican lawyers who worked on the recount said Wednesday that Roberts advised Gov. Jeb Bush on the role that the governor and the Florida Legislature might play in the recount battle. At the time, when GOP officials feared that Democrat Al Gore might win a recount battle in court, Republican state lawmakers were devising a plan to use their constitutional power to assign the state's electoral votes to George W. Bush -- a proposal criticized by Democrats.
So his studied legal opinion was that the state of Florida should bypass the will of voters and have the GOP-dominated legislature decide who won the presidency? That's a bit ... disturbing.
posted by Chris Kromm at 1:40 PM | Email this post

Roberts v. West Virginia Citizens

I have to agree with writers Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair: the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court has the feeling of an anti-climax.

One can sense the confusion reigning among liberal and conservative activists who, after amassing a $20 million warchest and digging in for a protracted confirmation battle, seem unclear about what to do with this solidly right-wing judge whose confirmation appears imminent.

Democratic leaders are focused on his abortion stance, although from what we can gather from Roberts' thin resume, his allegiance is primarily to corporate America, not the Christian right. Cockburn and St. Clair offer this telling story about Roberts' ties to Big Coal, which Roberts points to as one of the highlights of his career:
Roberts' record may be opaque when it comes to Roe v Wade but on corporate issues it's as clear as daylight. When he was deputy solicitor general he ran the government's case when the Supreme Court issued what was probably the most devastating ruling on environmental issues in the last generation. This was the Lujan v National Wildlife Federation decision in 1990. It tightly restricted the doctrine of "standing" which gives environmentalists the right to challenge destructive practices on federal lands.

It would be hard for Roberts to argue that he was just doing his job as a government lawyer. Returning to private practice from the Solicitor General's office, he was swiftly picked as counsel by the National Mining Association, which had noted his victory in the Lujan decision. On behalf of the coal companies Roberts wrote a legal brief arguing that local citizens in West Virginia had no right to bring lawsuits challenging the most destructive form of mining ever devised, mountain-top removal. Later, going through confirmation to the Appeals Court, Roberts was asked what had been his most significant cases in private practice. In his response he proudly highlighted his work for the coal companies.
posted by Chris Kromm at 7:50 AM | Email this post

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

A Fond Farewell to SKB

I'll add to the growing list of eulogies for South Knox Bubba, one of the best Southern bloggers, who "powered down" his popular Tennessee blog this week for reasons still unclear (an email someone claims to have received from SKB suggested that it had "started to feel too much like work").

I'm sure there's some way to view cached versions of his blog, which was a regular stop for me and many others of the progressive persuasion (and more who weren't). If you can figure out how, please share so we can all take a trip down memory lane and savor one last time SKB's gentle wit and wisdom (not to mention his fine bird photography).

SKB is/was a true blogger's blogger, eager to build community, quick to give credit, and always interested in offering a hand up to those new to the blogging scene. He was one of the first to give a warm review to Facing South when we launched last February.

I hope he changes his mind and hops back in the blog saddle soon. Until then -- anyone want to help me convince him to guest-blog for Facing South?

UPDATE: Just to be clear: SKB himself didn't pass away, just his blog. Although since the blog is gone, is the "SKB" persona gone as well? There's a conundrum of blog metaphysics for ya.
posted by Chris Kromm at 11:00 AM | Email this post

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Solidarity Forever

From an exchange during the testimony of Klansman Virgil Griffin at the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings (unofficially transcribed at Chewie World Order; this excerpt is unedited):

Did you ever work in the textile mills?

VG: Yes I have.

Would you describe where you worked and when?

VG: Well, I worked in a bunch of textile mills last one was J.P. Stevens in Stanley, Dobbs [?] Spinning.

Could you describe for the Commission the working conditions there?

VG: Pretty good working conditions.

Does the Klan have any opinion or thoughts on union organization?

VG: I belonged to the union one time. I worked [?], I belonged to the union. Sure as hell wasn’t no Communists comin’ in there with us. Not then. I thought the union, um... I liked it pretty good under the union. I tried to organize it in the mill. I tried to organize J.P. Stevens. I asked the Communist – uh, the union rep to come down there. You sure you not in with the Communist Party? I said no, I don’t wanna be in no Communist Party. They had better benefits. I don’t have a thing against the union.

What are your thoughts on African-Americans and non-African Americans being in the same union?

VG: Do what? I didn’t hear that.

OK, what is the Klan’s position on having both African-American and white people in the same union?

VG: Well, if you’re gonna have a union, they gonna be in there together. Blacks was in the union I was in. Hey man, I worked around blacks all my life, don’t be sayin’ this is the first day I seen a black. I grew up on a farm picked cotton with ‘em, played with ‘em.

Mr. Griffin, are you presently a member of the Ku Klux Klan?

VG: Yes I am. Will be until I die. I’m Imperial Wizard of Cleveland Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, I’m over several states.
posted by gary ashwill at 3:20 PM | Email this post

Please Enlighten Us

Maybe somebody else can explain what this gesture is supposed to mean. From the Birmingham News:
Alabama’s attorney general said he will wear an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet until state lawmakers pass legislation requiring the devices’ use by those convicted of sex crimes against children.

Troy King was fitted with the bracelet Monday afternoon in Columbiana after proposing a tougher law to monitor sex offenders.
So, is it sort of like a hunger strike, to pressure legislators into passing the bill more quickly in order to alleviate his suffering? Is it so voters can monitor his whereabouts to reassure themselves he’s doing his job? Is it some kind of metaphorical statement that he would feel as guilty as a pedophile if he doesn’t get this bill through the legislature?

I just think it’s a little odd that for a publicity stunt he’d put himself in the position of being punished in the way he wants to punish others -- as if a proponent of capital punishment strapped himself into an electric chair until a death penalty bill was passed.
posted by gary ashwill at 10:34 AM | Email this post

Supreme Court Split among Conservatives?

Pam’s House Blend has the latest on the rapidly emerging favorite for O’Connor’s Supreme Court spot, Edith Brown Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans. She’s no centrist, but there might be a little discontent on the right if she’s the one. From the AP (via the New Orleans Times-Picayune):
Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement has eased fears among some abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court “has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion” and that “the law is settled in that regard.”

Still, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that Clement's record raises “seriously troubling” questions about her commitment to protecting personal freedom. “Unless she was able to put those concerns to rest in Senate hearings, pro-choice Americans would oppose her nomination,” Keenan said.
posted by gary ashwill at 10:05 AM | Email this post

Monday, July 18, 2005

Minutemen in Tennessee

From the AP (via the Birmingham News):
A volunteer movement that vows to guard America from a wave of illegal immigration has spread from the dusty U.S.-Mexican border to the verdant hollows of Appalachia.

At least 40 anti-immigration groups have popped up nationally, inspired by the Minuteman Project that rallied hundreds this year to patrol the Mexican border in Arizona.

“It's like O'Leary's cow has kicked over the lantern. The fire has just started now,” said Carl “Two Feathers” Whitaker, an American Indian activist and perennial gubernatorial candidate who runs the Tennessee Volunteer Minutemen, aimed at exposing those who employ illegals.
While there’s nobody in the U.S. who has quite the same perspective as Native Americans on the notion of “illegal immigration,” Whitaker is perhaps going after the wrong people here: Latinos are of course a lot more likely to be Native American themselves than their U.S. employers are. (His own credentials as an indigenous person are apparently in doubt as well.)

Meanwhile, a spokesman for Fatherland Homeland Security continues that agency’s mission of injecting creepy quasi-fascist vocabulary into our political discourse while not really disavowing vigilantism: “Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland.”

Oh, and there’s this:
A group leading patrols of the California border urged volunteers to bring baseball bats, mace, pepper spray and machetes to patrol the border. They backed off the recommendation, but insisted on another weapon when they started patrols Saturday: guns.
posted by gary ashwill at 9:34 AM | Email this post

Immigration Sting

Immigration enforcers conducted a little sting operation here in North Carolina last week:
The 48 immigrants thought they were attending mandatory safety training by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. But it was not until they showed up to the meeting in Goldsboro, N.C., last week that they discovered they had been summoned for an altogether different reason.

Federal immigration officials had posted fliers telling immigrant workers for several subcontractors at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro that they had to attend a safety meeting. There was no meeting, however; instead there was a sting operation in which immigration officials arrested 48 people on charges that they were illegal immigrants from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador and Ukraine.

The action had one branch of the federal government speaking out against another. The United States Labor Department as well as North Carolina's Labor Department on Friday criticized the sting, suggesting that it would make immigrant workers distrust safety officials just when safety agencies across the nation are stepping up efforts to reduce the disproportionately high injury rate among Hispanic workers.
A spokesman for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement proved adept at changing the subject: "For many years we have used undercover techniques in drug investigations, arms investigations and money-laundering investigations.” Well, the point isn’t that you can’t use “undercover techniques,” but specifically that it’s a dangerous precedent to destroy trust in people responsible for making sure workplaces are safe. And these weren’t gun-toting drug lords and arms dealers, but air-conditioning repairmen and construction workers.

Much to everyone’s shock, he went on to play the terrorism card:
“We believe it is a very serious vulnerability when there are illegal aliens working at Air Force bases, nuclear power plants, chemical plants and airports. They have access to some of the most sensitive work sites in the U.S. Our job is to take actions to immediately remove them from positions where they can do harm.”
Something else that caught my eye later in the story was the case of Felipe Bravo, an immigrant from Mexico City who came to the meeting, got arrested, but was later released when he proved he was an American citizen. Isn’t it a little frightening that somebody can be presumed a non-citizen, arrested, and held until he proves his citizenship? If you were in jail and had to prove your citizenship, what would you do? What if he weren’t a recent immigrant and didn’t have his naturalization papers handy, or weren’t an immigrant at all and didn’t have any in the first place? What documents are accepted as proving citizenship--and how many of us would be able to get hold of them easily?

Of course, being (for example) a white person not named “Felipe Bravo” would generally enable one to avoid such situations. But not all of us have this luxury.
posted by gary ashwill at 9:02 AM | Email this post

Friday, July 15, 2005

NC Workers: Not Buying CAFTA

As I write, the president is jetting towards North Carolina again, this time to fluff up sagging support for CAFTA. What is it with Bush and adjacent Southern states? First it was the sojourn to a remote (read: no protesters) location in the Smoky Mountains on Earth Day to celebrate the undermining of air pollution laws. Then Fort Bragg last month, to tell 700 silent soldiers how great the Iraq war is going.

Today Bush returns for a photo op in Gaston County, deep in North Carolina manufacturing territory. If, like the Smokies and Fort Bragg, this seems an odd setting to extoll the virtues of footloose factories and "low road" development taken by global corporations, it is. The Carolinas, led by steep losses in textiles and furniture production, have lost over 200,000 jobs in the last five years, decimating dozens of rural towns.

So one can understand the lack of enthusiasm among working folks in the Carolina foothills and piedmont for another trade pact giving the green light to the corporate search for cheaper labor, as reported in today's Raleigh News & Observer:
For ex-mill workers retooling their skills at Richmond Community College, the latest free trade pact up for congressional approval boils down to one thing:

More lost jobs of the very kind they used to have.

"That's right -- more plants will be closing," said Beverly Chenoweth, 49, who lives in nearby Rockingham. She spent most of her working life in textile mills and just lost her last stopgap job when the local Winn-Dixie grocery closed.

Mention the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which President Bush will pitch during a speech today at Gaston College near Charlotte, and Kathy Keys thinks of the promises of an earlier free trade deal, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"You get tired of getting lied to," said Keys, 38, who lost her mill job when a Rockingham hosiery factory shut down in 1993, the same year NAFTA was signed into law. "It was supposed to help us, then they shut us down."
Welcome to the wonders of "free trade," so loved by free market conservatives, D.C.'s liberal elite and a disturbingly large share of the "progressive" blogosphere.

The devastation wrought by corporate-written trade deals in countless Southern towns provides one of the biggest openings progressives will ever have to show which side they're on: big business or working families.

At this stage, a sizable share of Democrats are poised to utterly squander this opportunity, and cast their lot with the powerful. And people wonder why they're the minority party.
posted by Chris Kromm at 9:57 AM | Email this post