Posts

Posted on

New Edition of “The Socialist” Magazine

Another season, another publication. I am the “guest editor” of the September-October issue of “The Socialist,” the magazine of the Socialist Party USA.

This issue features an essay from David McReynolds defending the “troops out now” position. Barbara Garson takes on Paul Wolfowitz and other free market “true believers” at the World Bank. B. Guise documents the decades-long love affair between ExxonMobil and G.W. Bush. Eric Chester returns to Santo Domingo, forty years after the popular uprising against United States’ domination. And I republish my requim for Si Gerson.

There’s more in the pages. The issue will hit the stands in two weeks. You might as well subscribe to the magazine. It’s not like you can count on running into me these days.

Posted on

The End of Easy Oil

There’s lots of hand-wringing over the totally-surprising rise in gas prices in the press (I mean, who would have ever predicted that rising demand and limited supply would cause price increases?). USA Today unwittingly finds a silver lining:

As she folds clothes at a Laundromat near her home in San Pablo, Calif., Thamara Morales, 30, counts up the ways high gas prices have changed her life…Trips to Wal-Mart are out. The closest one is about 15 miles away. Just to get there and back costs more than she might save by going.

Yes, this might hurt Wal-Mart. It will also hurt the sales of behemoth SUVs and minivans, and certainly discourages the construction of more pre-fab “exurban” communities. This particular American Way of Life – a two car garage in an enormous shack in a white bread suburb of nowhere in the desert, an hour-long commute to an office park, and endless driving to work, school, mall – has always been a selfish, environmentally destructive waste of resources. Soon, it may not even be affordable.

Frankly, gas prices have been too low, for too long, subsidized by the federal government’s investment in research and oil reserves. This has allowed Americans to wastefully consume without regard for the planet or even the finite nature of the resource that we are exhausting. (The Times magazine had a good article on the diminishing returns for oil production this Sunday.)

So, as much as the recent spike in gas prices hurts (and, as a car owner who needs his car for work, I know), it is good that it forces us to begin to confront our extreme dependence on oil now, before it’s too late.

I, of course, advocate a massive program of affordable housing construction in our major cities, as well as huge investments in railroad infrastructure within those cities, and between those cities and their immediate suburbs. And, yes, we should recycle and invest in alternative energy and all the other things that the hippies call for. But big cities are probably the greenest solution for our large populations, and we should begin to prepare for the inevitable migration back to the cities that will result from expensive gas.

Posted on

The Column That Never Was

The column that I was hired to write for a certain Queens weekly has been canceled before the first piece was even published. That piece, a critical look at the fall-out from Congressman Greg Meeks’ support for CAFTA, did not appear in this past Thursday’s issue, although an editorial lavishing praise on the Congressman for his championing of banks over people, was featured rather prominently.

I called to find out what happened, and was told the next day that Rep. Meeks had called the newspaper to complain about the previous post that appeared on this blarg. That’s all, she wrote.

The managing editor – who hired me – explained over and over that “integrity” is really important to the paper, and that I had really crossed a line by posting the Congressman’s voicemail message to me, without explaining that I had called him first. Of course, I explained that I hadn’t called him, and that that’s what made his personal phone call to me so noteworthy, and odd. She explained that she hadn’t actually read the piece so much as glanced at it over the shoulder of the publisher, who was livid about the whole affair. (The publisher, it should be noted, was hectoring me about how labor’s position on CAFTA was “illiberal” within seconds of my being hired and explaining my first column.) She also hadn’t read the actual submitted column itself.

Again explaining how “ethics” were so important to this paper, she asked me if I understood their position. I said, well, no, I didn’t, really, since nothing was misrepresented on my website or in the column (neither of which, again, she had read), to which she finally answered something along the lines of “well, I guess you’re just not a good fit for this paper.”

This, finally, was an answer I could accept. This is a paper that does not endorse candidates, that takes no strong positions on controversial matters (aside from that perennial controversy of curbing one’s dog). This is a paper that wants opinion writers who have no strong opinions. That’s me out, comrades.

I hold no ill will towards the paper, although I am annoyed at having been jerked around all summer. I would rather have been rejected from the start, so I could focus my energies on writing for a newspaper that has enough backbone to withstand an angry phone call from an amateurish Congressman, and genuinely wants to drive home to their readers three lanes of political traffic, instead of just the middle of the road.

Posted on

Meeks and CAFTA: Follow the Money

Gregory Meeks is catching well-deserved heat for his support of the Central American Free Trade Agreement – a NAFTA-style trade deal that narrowly passed in Congress last month. Defeating the bill was the top political objective of organized labor this summer, and Meeks was one of only 15 Democratic congressmen to join with Bush and the Republicans in supporting the bill.

Meeks has enjoyed dependable support from labor – over a quarter of all financial contributions to his 2004 re-election came from unions and his name has appeared on the Working Families ballot line for the last three election cycles – but now there are many in the labor movement demanding that he be cut off from any further support. The Working Families party, and many of the city’s labor unions, will be sending mailings to 75,000 union members who live in Meeks’ district, documenting the damage of CAFTA, while fishing for potential candidates to run against Meeks.

“This isn’t about retribution,” claims Brian McLaughlin, president of the one million-member Central Labor Council, but “voters in Queens didn’t elect Greg Meeks to send American jobs abroad.” New York State has lost over 61,000 jobs to overseas plant relocations since NAFTA, according the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and studies indicate that the state could lose another 50,000 after CAFTA.

This isn’t about protectionism, either. We now have ten years of NAFTA to study. Those good jobs that left the US did not translate to equivalent jobs in Mexico. Health care and pensions did not follow those jobs, and the pay was low – even by Mexican standards – and there is no reason to expect a different outcome from CAFTA.

No reasonable person opposes free trade as a concept. Our coffee beans, mangos and maple syrup have to come from somewhere, and people around the world deserve the opportunity to work, make money and support their families. But trade bills like NAFTA and CAFTA only raise the corporate bottom line, not human living standards.

Rep. Meeks recognized these flaws when he cast his “yes” vote on July 27. “Despite the fact that CAFTA is by no means a perfect agreement,” he said, “voting it down was not a valid option because it would not subsequently be replaced by a perfect agreement.” Well, no, but voting it down would have handed the Bush administration a strong rebuke and ensured that any future Central American trade deal incorporate more labor and environmental protections.

As much as Rep. Meeks would like to portray his vote on CAFTA as a profile in courage, the truth is that it was very calculated gamesmanship. In a face-to-face meeting with Brian McLaughlin before the vote, Meeks indicated that he was still on the fence but that he would not cast the deciding vote against labor. With a final vote of 217 to 215, he did just that. Why? Call me cynical, but I think the distinguished gentleman looked at his campaign treasury and saw that Big Business contributed over twice as much money as Big Labor.

Meeks’ biggest campaign contributors are banks and financial firms like Prudential and the Bond Market Association, thanks to his seat on the House Financial Services Committee. The Working Families party is calling on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to remove Meeks from his committee assignment, saying that he has “used [his] committee membership cards to access corporate America’s ATM at the expense of working families.”

It’s a tough line, but we’ll see how long it lasts. The WFP refuses to rule out endorsing Meeks again in 2006.

Greg Meeks is emblematic of the weakness of labor unions operating within the Democratic party, and the moral bankruptcy of the party itself. How can working people depend on a congressman like Greg Meeks to protect their jobs, homes, health and safety when he takes so many legal cash bribes from investment firms and banks that do not have the interests of working families at heart?

What working families need is a political party that is truly independent of corporate interests. The Working Families party was supposed to be a step in that direction, but it has been far too cautious about running independent campaigns and directly challenging bad Democrats. It’s time for the WFP to prove its mettle.

Proudly powered by WordPress