So it’s the day after President Obama’s inauguration. How’s everyone feeling? I’m still pretty damn excited, though it doesn’t quite feel real yet… I came to political awareness under Bush’s reign; I’m more than eager to see how such awareness might evolve alongside this administrative change.

On this day after, I second Jay Smooth in “Why I’m Happy, Why I’m Not Satisfied”:

Time to get to work! (Or, rather, to continue working, with enthusiasm!).

Refreshingly, it seems the Obama administration agrees. Already, Team Obama has ordered a 120 day halt on the prosecutions of detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

Such a request may not be automatically granted by military judges, and not all defense attorneys agree to such a suspension. But the move is a first step toward closing a detention facility and system of military trials that became a worldwide symbol of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism and its unyielding attitude toward foreign and domestic critics.

The legal maneuver appears designed to provide the Obama administration time to refashion the prosecution system and potentially treat detainees as criminal defendants in federal court or have them face war-crimes charges in military courts-martial. It is also possible that the administration could re-form and relocate the military commissions before resuming trials.

So it might be difficult to foretell direct results, to say the least.

“This is a good step in the right direction, although we still think that the unconditional withdrawal of all charges and shutting down this tainted system is warranted,” said Jamil Dakwar, director of the human rights program at the American Civil Liberties Union. “The president’s order leaves open the option of this discredited system remaining in existence.”

Jamil Dakwar is right, of course. This action is not nearly enough. However, I don’t believe that the urgency and necessity of successive steps distracts from the urgency and necessity of this first one. I commend it!

President Obama has acknowledged in recent interviews that shutting the facility is likely to be prolonged an complex. And the administration now faces a number of potentially daunting challenges to following through on the president’s campaign promise. Obama is expected to sign an executive order soon that will lay out in detail his plan to empty the facility.

I look forward to learning all about it.

Posted under Politics

Hundreds of laid-off factory workers are organized and protesting in Chicago. They have occupied the Republic Windows and Doors factory where they worked and plan to remain there until they receive what’s theirs–vacation and severance pay.

Union leaders say the company failed to give workers the 60 days’ notice required by federal law, and that its bank, Bank of America, barred Republic from paying for the 60-day period or for vacations. The leaders also criticized a Wall Street bailout they say is leaving laborers behind.

“We’re doing something we haven’t done since the 1930s, so we’re trying to make it work,” declared Leah Fried, an organizer with the United Electrical Workers.

From the New York Times:

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said from the shuttered plant that he would talk to fellow senators about reminding banks that taxpayer dollars are not for dividends or executive salaries.

”We have been sending billions of dollars to banks like Bank of America and the reason we have sent them the money is to tell them that they had to loan this money out to companies just like Republic so that we can keep these companies in business and not lose these jobs here in the United States,” he said.

The governor, meanwhile, said the state plans to pursue a court injunction Tuesday to make sure federal law is followed in giving workers benefits. And state Attorney General Lisa Madigan was investigating the company.

Nezua at The Unapologetic Mexican writes a little about “how this type of strike has long been a function of Latin American worker solidarity” and also points out some of the ways that The New York Times coverage of the story quietly continues to change (their first on-line publication noted that “Most of the factory’s workers are Hispanic.”) Hmm.

In a positive turn of events, Obama has expressed support for the workers.

Posted under Economy, Politics

Via The Ethicurean, here’s a short but interesting segment from NPR about the rural U.S. and what a new administration can and should do for the people that live there. Though rural reform is often thought to be all about new agricultural policies, the rural U.S. needs that and more.

“Reality … for most rural people is that farming is not how we make our living,” says Dee Davis of the Center for Rural Strategies, a Kentucky-based group that tries to attract attention to rural issues. “You’ve only got about 1 percent of rural America making their primary living on the farm. So what’s important is to think about those other 99 percent and what’s possible for them.”

Many rural Americans are challenged by a rural economy that tanked sooner and deeper than the nation’s economy. Thousands of rural manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. High energy prices have made food and long commutes more expensive. And most rural places are losing population.

So while quick agricultural reform is an increasingly urgent necessity, it must be implemented alongside others as well to have a significant and long-lasting effect on rural communities.

“Internet access is not just for watching YouTube. It’s an instrument of commerce and education,” Kozikowski says.

In fact, rural areas lag behind cities and suburbs in access to broadband, making economic growth more difficult. Kozikowski also wants attention given to the basic infrastructure of asphalt and concrete. “Bringing us into the age of technology for new commerce and educational opportunity doesn’t mean anything if you can’t bring your product across a safe road or bridge.”

Both moves would help “overcome the friction of distance. Or overcome the costs that are associated with distance to these locations,” as Gimpel puts it. He wants the new administration to recognize something else fundamental about rural life: “Key to the rural economy really is the notion of self-employment. Self-employment is much higher in rural America than it is anywhere else,” he says.

Davis also points out that there are many exciting possibilities for incorporating rural areas into new economic recovery plans for the entire country, focusing mainly on their potential for growing renewable energies systems and economies.

“We don’t have to think of rural as a deficit. We can think of it as a strength,” Davis says. “We can think of it as the way to begin to reimagine our economy.”

Can, and should.

Posted under Economy, Politics

First, apologies for neglecting my duties here at Revolutionary Act last week; I was busy with school stuff and family visits. But on to more important things…

Last week, The Rolling Stone published an article on the Wall Street bailout by an author I think is always well worth the read: Naomi Klein. Klein examines the deals made in the immediate aftermath of the U.S.’ most recent economic disaster and contextualizes them. She points out that the orchestration of the bailout is fundamentally the same as that of the Iraq War and its “rebuilding.” Both adhere to the rules of the Shock Doctrine and allow private contractors to profit from the crises they’ve helped to create*. Again, even if you think you already understand how the meltdown came to be, what’s at stake, and why it will take a long, long time to see real results, I recommend always taking what Naomi Klein has to say into consideration. An excerpt:

It didn’t have to be this way. Five days before Paulson struck his deal with the banks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown negotiated a similar bailout — only he extracted meaningful guarantees for taxpayers: voting rights at the banks, seats on their boards, 12 percent in annual dividend payments to the government, a suspension of dividend payments to shareholders, restrictions on executive bonuses, and a legal requirement that the banks lend money to homeowners and small businesses.

In sharp contrast, this is what U.S. taxpayers received: no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just five percent in dividend payouts to the government, while shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What’s more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives — all before taxpayers are paid back.

And a question:

This raises an interesting point: Has the Treasury partially nationalized the private banks, as we have been told? Or is it the other way around? Is it Treasury that has been partially privatized by Wall Street, its massive rescue plan now entirely in the hands of a private bank it is directly subsidizing?

Read the rest here.

*Read her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism if you can and haven’t already!

Posted under Economy, Politics

It seems strange to me now, on the eve of this election, to post about anything but. At the same time, there’s not much I still feel like saying about it. I made my decision long ago, and have already voted. I’m glad to be able to claim this election as the first I’ve been old enough to vote in.

The following information should serve as a reminder to those who have not yet voted and are doing some last minute preparation: Make sure you know what you’re doing and what your voting rights are! Don’t get turned away from the polls tomorrow!

Visit this state-by-state ACLU know-your-rights guide, complete with printable and informative Voter Empowerment cards and other resources.

From the second Action Alert issued by the Voter Suppression Wiki (via Pam’s House Blend):

BEFORE YOU GO TO VOTE confirm polling location: not always same as primary / caucus location. Check @ http://govote.org print out voting rights: know phone numbers, rules, etc. Check out http://bit.ly/print-voting-rights save election protection numbers in your cell: 866-OUR-VOTE / 866-687-8683 Espanol 888-VE-Y-VOTA / 888-839-8682 Asian languages: 800-966-5946 get the information for Twitter Vote Report and other ways of reporting your experience check weather note nearby public bathrooms

VOTING DAY PACKING LIST

• avoid political buttons or campaign-related clothing
• bring I.D. just in case — see your state’s ID requirements here

(for yourself or others)…

• bottled water. snacks
• umbrella / trash: bags in case of rain.
• sweater / jacket: in case of cold or to cover campaign clothing
• folding chairs: for the tired, the injured, the elders
• camera: to document fraud or simply history. share with Video The Vote or YouTube’s Video Your Vote project.

ACTIVITIES TO PASS THE TIME WAITING IN LINE

• be alert for scams! for example, if somebody suggest you can “vote by phone” to avoid the line, they’re lying — call the hotline to report it
• play six degrees of kevin bacon
• remember favorite campaign moments
• sing civil rights songs
• make up new dances
• meet your neighbors!

FINALLY…

• if you have problems voting, call the hotline numbers (1-866-OUR-VOTE / 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA)
• remember that voting with a provisional ballot is better than not voting at all
• if you are in line when the polls close, you are still allowed to vote

Remember, voting is only the beginning. If you are a voting U.S. citizen, your vote is the least of your civil rights, the least of your political responsibilities. Even as such–your vote is vital.

It’s been quite the campaign season, and I know many of us are eager for an end, for results, for a beginning. So: stay calm. But prepare. Make your effort count.

Posted under Politics

After characterizing Bill Ayers as a domestic terrorist during a recent interview, Palin reveals a despicable double standard in failing to concretely answer the follow-up question “Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?” In fact, she scoffs at the question.

The relevant clip:

Melissa at Shakesville has the transcript.

The clip ends with Palin concluding that “I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to campaign to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.”

Of course, what makes terrorists terrorists is not just that they target such institutions as the Capitol or the Pentagon but that they make their point by spreading fear. And about the destruction of innocent Americans, do women seeking legal medical treatment and their doctors not count in this category? Palin doesn’t seem to think so.* Nor does McCain step in to clarify any discrepancy of view.

This response downplays the real threat posed by anti-choice extremists in this country. It also shows that Palin’s definition of terrorism only encompasses violence enacted on behalf of those ideologies that she disagrees with, and that her position on this issue is pretty extreme itself. I, for one, see the last 8 years as proof that this is a dangerous, failing, and ultimately unacceptable position for anyone with any real sort of political power to stand by.

*Even within the popular conservative anti-choice framework and rhetoric of abortion this thinking makes no sense. What about the innocent fetuses?

Posted under Politics

In this video, via A Blog Around the Clock, Michael Pollan (author of The Botany of Desire, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and In Defense of Food) addresses the president elect about a vital issue that has been mostly ignored throughout this campaign cycle: food. The video is relatively long (almost half an hour), but worth watching in its entirety.

A brief summary:

Michael Pollan argues that the way we produce and distribute food in this country is not only unhealthy, inefficient, and endangered, but that it takes an underestimated toll on many vital systems currently in crisis. Namely the energy, climate change, and health care crises.

Our modern, specialized mono-cropping agricultural system is dependent upon the same cheap fossil fuels that we’re running out of and must be seeking independence from. It results in myriad severe pollutions. As we’ve learned many times in the past few years from wide-scale food scares (e. coli, etc.), mass, centralized production puts consumers at risk. It’s not wise to keep all you’re eggs in one basket… And government subsidies to big, corporate food producers encourage what’s cheapest for them, not what’s good for the average eater.

All of this and rising food costs on top of the recent economic meltdown. And elder generations of farmers are not being replaced.

But the prospect of inescapable doom is countered with possibilities for real reform. This, Pollan explains, will necessarily be an important imperative for the next presidency. Pollan proposes the following actions/shifts:

1. Government rewards for diversified farming–Quit subsidizing corporate monoculture!

2. A return to nurturing animal/plant symbiosis–Re-unite farm animals and crops!

3. Include farming in carbon trading schemes.

4. Organize a strategic grain reserve.

5. Support efforts to recruit farmers–these are the “green-collar jobs” we need, after all.

6. Work to preserve available farmland.

7. Re-regionalize the food system.

8. Move “food culture” away from mindset that food should be quick, cheap, on-demand, or the “cheap energy mind”.*

He’s got some cute ideas for managing the White House itself, too.

(See the video for more detail).

Our food system is an integral part of many others which are failing. Michael Pollan is correct; reforming the food system will be a much bigger deal for the next administration than has previously been suggested.

*I find it hard to fully reconcile this one as a core tenet considering the implications that it has for people who are poor and don’t have the luxury of time for things like the slow-food movement etc., but that’s another post, I think…

Posted under Economy, Politics

The other day, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry and got rid of their civil union law. This makes Connecticut the third state to legalize same-sex marriages. However, this ruling is slightly different than the previous two states’ (California and Massachusetts) in that it not only legalized gay marriage but also declared that civil unions violate the equal protection clause of their state constitution.

The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions.

Though I believe that civil unions have been beneficial and important to many committed couples, they are not a sufficient separate-but-equal alternative to marriage regardless of the legal benefits conferred by them. Justices Palmer, Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz, and Lubbie Harper got it right when they agreed that “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not.” (The former=marriage. The latter=civil unions.) But also for this reason, I think that both the option to marry and the option to obtain civil unions should be and remain available to all committed couples.

Many, many things about the recent Biden/Palin vice presidential debate saddened me, not the least of which is that neither of the two main parties in the country is ready to attribute more value to equal respect for all citizens (this includes sharing the word marriage; favoring respectful treatment for all over the hoarding of language and value systems which disparage particular groups of them) than to hurtful notions of tradition and to ideologies of hatred and fear. Patience is not always a virtue!

But: slowly, steadily, the LGBT community and allies are gaining ground.

Posted under Politics, Sexuality

Last week, Louisiana state representative John LaBruzzo suggested that economic disparity and crisis might be lessened by the sterilization of the poor who, he must believe, are a burden on the U.S. economic system and should be scapegoated for a crisis of corporations.

LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government. He said he is gathering statistics now.

Though it’s reported that the program LaBruzzo is considering might include vasectomies for men “to avoid charges of gender discrimination,” his primary target is women, to whom he would offer $1,000 to undergo tubal ligation. However:

It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.

So it’s not fewer children he wants on behalf of North Americans, it’s less children born to poor women, primarily women of color. Bad economic policy is not an apt cover for this sort of discrimination.

Now, my point is not only to point fingers at this one guy. Taken from a response written by the Women’s Health and Justice Initiative and the New Orlean’s Women’s Health Clinic and posted at Elle, Phd, LaBruzzo’s plan is but one example of the injustices that spring from the overlapping ideologies and culturally integrated practices of: eugenics, reproductive violence, sterilization abuse, devaluation of poor women’s sexuality and motherhood (and fatherhood, I would add), and other classic -ism’s.

Even if sterilization is voluntary, POVERTY IS NOT! Poverty, economic insecurity, and lack of sustainable livelihood can cause a woman to consider this aggressive sterilization incentive a viable option.

LaBruzzo talks about poverty as though it were an infectious disease—a though poor people will eventually make everyone poor—rather than a condition people are condemned to by Louisiana’s lack of investment in education, employment, affordable housing, and quality health care programs, services, and resources…

We are basically witnessing a two front war against poor and working class black communities right now. On one hand, we have the Bush administration fighting to push an economic corporate welfare bailout plan to save Wall Street, and on the other, we have an elected official blaming the bodies and reproductive decisions of poor black women for the social conditions caused by corporate greed.

Read the whole thing.

Story via Womanist Musings.

Also, more on blaming people of color for the economic meltdown of late at Feministe.

Posted under Economy, Politics

Hey! Emily here. I’m a student in NYC, from New Mexico. As Daisy already mentioned in her introduction, I blog with her at Our Descent Into Madness. I used to write/rant about politics fairly regularly, but it’s been a while. Long enough that much of my worldview and general approach has changed since then (at least I hope it’s matured), and continues to do so. I’m curious myself to see how another go at political blogging and analysis reflects this.

In school I’m studying a wide array of subjects before settling into a major next semester; presumably a ‘Social Inquiry’ major. This area of study may encompass many aspects of politics, cultural studies, sociology and…

In other words, I go to a school that allows for much flexibility here. So far, I’m mostly interested in studying the ways in which people organize to implement transformative, structural change and the forces which impede their success; how domination works on a large scale, and how it must be countered on behalf of those pursuing justice. Both in theory and in practice. Broadly speaking, of course. I spread my interest thin, as I’m sure you’ll see through my regularly scheduled Monday posting.

I’m flattered to have been invited to contribute to Revolutionary Act and am eager to see where this experience will lead.

Hello, new online community!

Posted under Site Information