Greater Milwaukee Green Party 

"Be part of the solution"

Home

What's New

Meetings

Events

Issues

Candidates

Volunteer Opportunities

Links

Contacts

Photo Page

Membership

Reading list

Editorials

These articles reflect the opinion of the author and are not endorsed by the Greater Milwaukee Green Party.

Back to editorial index.

Shock “ing” and Awe “ful”
By Robert Miranda

“Shock and awe” is what the President promised the American people about his war. American troops pulverizing the Iraqi “armed forces” and million dollar cruise missiles exploding over Baghdad, and all Washington warmongers can call this bloody mismatch of a war is “shock and awe.”

And the media, yes, that pillar of American freedom and free speech, used by Rumsfeld to promote a one-sided view of the war, packaged as a new form of reality TV, giving stardom to its many reporters “embedded” with American units on the assault, has lost its credibility as an unbiased and independent source of information for this democracy. 

The American viewer is none the wiser for the way the mainstream media is being used for he too is “embedded,” fixed to the television screen, waiting for the latest news report by either Nic Robertson of CNN or Ashley Bansfield of MSNBC (hmmm, I wonder how they'll wear their hair tonight?).

While the American zombie stays fixated to the entertainment provided by the many offbeat and comical conservative hawks (Al Haig), the humor is tempered by the reports of retired generals and colonels, who have taken on the task to be “expert” witnesses in the war.

And, as we are treated to the latest troop movement analysis, the shocking truth regarding the injuries and death of the children of Iraq passes us by like an awful event which as taken place in one of our city streets—and we close the curtain, out of sight, out of mind.

The fanatical rightwing conservatives who have attempted to establish their cause as the true American agenda, have initiated efforts to label anti-war protestors as anti-American and anti-US troops.

To be sure, we must respond to this McCarthy-like campaign, and the media must be held accountable. We must demand that the corporate media must report to the American people, in a fair and balanced way, the true nature of war, and the destruction and death war is causing in Iraq.

The media must not let Bush and Rumsfeld point it to where they believe the news is, the media must be given unfettered access and allowed to report freely the manner in which the war is being fought, and the damage being perpetrated upon the people of Iraq and its costs to the American taxpayer.

Simply dressing like warriors, reporting from battle tanks racing through the desert is not news. What is news is hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families displaced from their homes. What is news is the medical care being given to children, with their faces and hands burned by the massive explosions of our million dollar bombs. 

Where is the indepth analysis regarding the opinion of the world?

How is the public to gain a critical view of this war if it is constantly inundated with a cadre of retired generals and former commanders and allies of this administration?

The rising jingoism in our media is but a step towards helping establish a police state society.

The collateral damage already inflicted upon the Iraqi people can add another victim of this war, that is, the freedom of the press. 

An American press which will never dedicate as much news time as now to report the inability of the Veterans Administration to provide our veterans with medical help and much needed assistance, or report on the children of our neighborhoods in our urban communities suffering from the plight caused by poverty and economic apartheid, or report on the children in Iraq who suffer maiming and illness, and even death because of this war.

Shock “ing” and Awe”ful”.

Looking for a fight
By Jim Weill

Now that President Bush has given his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, it is time to reflect back on the reason why Iraq is soon to be the next victim of US aggression. 

When Bush delivered his State of the Union speech on January 29, 2002, the infamous “axis-of-evil” speech, Iraq was singled out as “flaunt[ing] its hostility toward America”.  Nevermind that Iraq had been relatively quiet for almost four years, you could almost hear the whole world sit up and wonder what the Iraqis had done in recent history to be considered a threat to US security.  This speech set the tone for the last 14 months, with Bush and his Cabinet making speeches vilifying Saddam Hussein to try to drum up support against him.

After the “axis-of-evil” speech, Bush tried to persuade the international community that the war should happen immediately.  Cooler heads eventually prevailed, most notably Colin Powell’s presence in the Bush Cabinet, and the case was presented to the UN first.  But to “convince the UN” that Saddam was a threat to American Security, Congress first gave away its right to declare war in the Resolution on Iraq, which authorized Bush to use force against Iraq should he choose to do so.

At this point, Bush used a lot of speeches to make his case against Iraq.  We heard that “Iraq must be disarmed”, “the Iraqi regime needs to be changed”, “the UN must act or become irrelevant”, and “they tried to kill my dad”.  This last one is probably the initial motivation for all of the talk against Iraq, but tonight we heard Bush’s plea to the Iraqi soldiers:  “Do not destroy oil wells”.  This is perhaps the single most important reason why this war would come eventually, despite Bush’s repeated remarks that “we haven’t made up our minds yet” on going to war with Iraq.

Unfortunately for the world community, there was the small matter of the International Criminal Court which was created to try those individuals who have committed crimes against humanity.  The US refused to sign on unless its citizens were immune from prosecution in the ICC.  Negotiations ensued and the US can enjoy one full year of immunity before being asked to sign on to the full statute of the court.  This gives Bush a few more months to take any action against Iraq, including the “shock and awe” strategy that was leaked to the press, without fear of being tried for any crimes committed by him or our troops in the Middle East.

So now, after arbitrarily setting a March 17^th deadline for the UN to sign on to a new resolution essentially declaring war on Iraq, Bush and his cronies Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar have decided to “go it alone” without bothering to get the rest of the world’s acceptance of their war first doctrine.  The plans to rebuild Iraq include employing up to 60,000 Iraqi soldiers to rebuild infrastructure damaged in the coming conflict.  It’s a great day for America when our leaders are willing to put up so much money to employ so many people in another country when people are still losing their jobs here at home.  Of course, this is the same president who wants to “leave no child behind” while slashing federal education dollars in order to fund his bloodlust for Iraq. 

Life and Death: The United States War Zone
A call for peace, introspection, and reconciliation . . .
Demonstration - APRIL 6th, 2003 2pm Downtown Milwaukee

We must stop the US invasion of Iraq and understand that the violent global actions of the White House are covert extensions of the oppression of poor people, women, and people of color in the United States. The tragic events of 9/11 brought Global war into our borders for the first time since British burned down the United States capitol during the war of 1812. 

Since Christmas Eve 2002, the Bush Administration has stepped up its focused campaign for war in Iraq. In the last 30 days Bush, Cheney, Paul Wolfawitz, Donald Rumpsfeld, and Colin Powell have appeared on every major news program in the United States. Their speeches resemble the mimics of a parrot, sounding like commercials and resembling the tobacco industry's deadly PR campaign, trying to convince the public that war is as good for your health as it is for the economy. The Bush administration has consistently neglected the insanity of its violence, while public pressure has halted the US invasion of Iraq for now.

Meanwhile, corporations profit from this war.

Now, many people in the United States are waking up to the reality of war and the necessity to make peace. The dominant, white, male, heterosexual culture, accustomed to watching war being waged on television, is fascinated by the bright glow of U.S. weapons exploding near civilian centers in Iraq or watching African American men and women chased down by police and "brought to justice," has become nothing more than entertainment. To the culturally privileged and isolated, war is a US right of passage and victory is part of America's evolution.

Meanwhile, this administration has proposed a $6 billion cut to K-12 public education. At a time when our nation's military budget has grown to over $430 billion, such cuts to our educational institutions must be challenged. Because the Bush administration deems war to be more important than the education of our children to this violence we must shout, "Not in our name!"

Meanwhile, neighborhoods where people of color live are called "warzones" and "Little Beirut" and when you step into our schools, they say you have entered the "trenches", where dark-skinned children are called "assassins," "devils," and "criminals" and light skinned children "troubled youth" who are "at risk" and "angst-ridden". 

Meanwhile, corporations profit from this "war".

Silenced are the voices of the 44 million uninsured Americans, forgotten are 1.3 million who fell below the poverty line in 2002, and disregarded are the 2 million who spend their days in prison. Silenced by the corporate media are the tens-of-millions around the world who have taken to the streets in opposition to the White House sanctioned military and corporate domination of the free market world. Missing is the critical analysis by the press who lack the courage and integrity to ask the question "is the policy of the U.S. focused at controlling the world's resources; including Iraqi, Venezuelan, and Afgan oil?

Our community will no longer be silenced. As we grow in our resolve to stop this war we will stand with courage and we will stand with integrity as we ask why must we wage war? We will continue to stand against the war even after our Armed Forces invade Iraq because we are certain that this war is unjust. We are certain that this war is a corporate war waged for the sole purpose of acquiring Iraq's liquid gold, oil.

For some, consider this a warning, for others reassurance, and for many, a statement for unity and compassion while we continue to work for peace and fight for justice. During this critical time, our opposition to the Bush and Co., Inc. war agenda, must be expressed thoroughly and clearly as a humane alternative to the psychopathic mentality of an un-elected head of state and the violence of his corporate allies.

ON APRIL 6th, 2003 WE STAND FOR PEACE! - Demonstration 2pm Downtown Milwaukee
Contact: Education For The People, 414/64-LUCHA, eftp1@netzero.net

Hugo Chavez Moves To End Elitist And Racist Policies
By Robert Miranda

Surviving an attempted coup, which failed after the people took to the streets demanding his return to power, and an aborted nationwide strike led by Venezuela’s corporate and federalist union elite now over, the charismatic leader of the poor is turning his sights on improving the living standards of his people.

But his task will be a daunting one. Indeed, Chavez faces not only a class struggle, but also a racist struggle in a country where those with lighter skin enjoy control of the nation’s resources and those with dark skin make up the majority of the poor.

While efforts to take Chavez out of power continue, one thing is certain, Chavez is clearly the man the majority of the people in this poverty-stricken nation support.

But the support of the people is of little concern for those who are set to oust Chavez. The concern these would-be corporate revolutionaries are most focused on is U.S. economic policies aimed at the country and continued white supremacy.

The US has a vested interest in the internal matters of Venezuela because it is the world's fourth largest oil exporter and the number three oil supplier to the US. The instability in the Middle East, caused by the Bush administration’s rush to engage in war against Iraq, forces the US to seek out other guaranteed sources of oil.

Venezuela, a country dominated by American corporate interests and led by a leader whose country's government is considered "too left wing" by the United States, becomes fertile ground for actions aimed at destabilizing the government in the hopes that Chavez is replaced by a lighter skinned Venezuelan more willing to sell his country’s oil at rock bottom prices.

The general strike that has crippled the country’s economy, supported by both major business and the elite trade union federations, where most of the leaders are lighter skinned, is an example of the growing class and race dynamics that threaten this nation’s future and overall stability.

Chavez was elected in 1998 and again in 2000 with 58% of the vote. Chavez is leading a country where over 80% of the population lives below the poverty line.

His administration has had to deal with class struggle and racist actions being led by this nation’s elite class most of whom is light skinned. The correlation between those who are poor and dark skinned is uncanny. Chavez, who is of black and indigenous origins, is targeted by the more lighter skinned Venezuelans who are by and large more affluent and relate more to their European heritage.

These lighter skinned Venezuelans see Chavez as a threat to their white privilege. The policies he has implemented since his rise to power, policies such as land redistribution for poor farmers, steady increases in the minimum wage and of public sector salaries, and the enrollment of over one million previously excluded students in school, provide darker skinned Venezuelans with opportunities to catch up to the lighter skinned Venezuelans who have for decades enjoyed economic and social supremacy.

In order to continue the campaign to rid his nation of poverty and to destroy white supremacy Chavez will need to continue to implement radical changes, which continue to weaken the power of the racist elite class, while at the same time defend the fundamental rights of the workers and peasants. If he stays the course he is on Chavez will be able to continue to mobilize his social base to defend their gains and to rid his nation of a ruling class that has for decades engaged in economic apartheid. 

The Hypocrisy of Compassionate Conservatism
By Robert Miranda

Jesica Santillan, the teenager who mistakenly received organs at Duke University from a donor with a different blood type, is a sad and tragic case.

That Jesica was able to even get another opportunity to receive a transplant was in itself a miracle. To place blame on her for getting the organs is misguided. She does not make these kinds of decisions. This is a case that should serve as an example to all of us of the harsh realities that face people who are poor and desperate.

Jesica's family, according to news reports, supposedly bought their way into the United States, paying a smuggler to bring them from their small town near Guadalajara, Mexico, so she could get medical care. Besides, 5% of organ donations are set aside for non-citizens.

When she arrived she spent three years on a waiting list for a transplant while neighbors and friends rallied to support her emotionally and financially. Now that is America.

Jesica, clearly not a terrorist or some "evil doer" came to this country to fight for her life. Her family brought her to the one nation in the world they thought could help her live-America.

Jesica lost her fight for life. In life her fight was supported and defended by the people who knew her, and cared and loved her. In death, her fight to live is overshadowed by the rhetoric of conservative nimrods whose only interest is to capitalize politically on the death of this young innocent girl who only wanted to live.

At a time when America is spending billions of dollars to wage a war against an enemy that is only a threat to western petroleum companies, conservative talk radio personalities, i.e., Charlie Sykes, rather than focus anger on the waste of resources going to pay off warlords in Afagnistan, have begun to circle her dead body like sharks.

Each of these conservative talk show cowboys are looking for "a pound of flesh, no more no less," in order to engage in a pathetic campaign to spin her death into political psychobabble aimed at stirring prejudiced views and nationalist anger against a young girl who "wasted organs that could have been used on a citizen."

Conservatives say that "resources are scarce, as the supply of voluntarily donated organs notoriously are, why shouldn't U.S. citizens get top priority? The problem with this statement is that U.S. citizens who are not insured usually end up getting left out in the cold. Some would rather skip the waiting list for donor organs fearing the costs associated with such a procedure being passed on to their relatives. They feel that the burden of paying medical bills should not be put on the entire family.

Talk such as this by these "compassionate conservatives" leaves one with the feeling of disgust. These conservatives are so quick to point out that tax dollars will be spent to cover the costs for young Jesica's treatment-treatment of a young woman who entered this country illegally. Yet they ignore the fact that health care in America continues to be privatized in all sectors—subsidized mind you by the public—further limiting access to decent care for Americans who are unable to afford insurance for health care or medication.

And while "compassionate conservatives" complain about the money spent trying to save this young life, they ignore the billions of dollars our government gives to countries like Turkey as pay off for allowing U.S. forces to use their land for a war against a country that poses no military threat to us. Yes, billions to a nation whose population is 95% opposed to allowing U.S. forces to use their land. U.S. tax dollars going to Turkish generals, business and government officials who clearly are going against the will of the majority of the Turkish people. Billions of dollars to be spent for the purpose of killing Iraqi children and families so that we can feel safe from Saddam and his "weapons of mass destruction."

Tell me, you "compassionate conservative" freaks, how much is it going to cost U.S. taxpayers to rebuild Iraq after British Petroleum and Mobil Corporation have gained control of that nation's oil? Will any Americans have to give up their position on the organ waiting list due to priority of organs needing to be shipped to the victims, soldiers and civilians, in the war with Iraq?

By using the death of a little girl for political gain, America has lost its spiritual soul.

What hypocrisy.

It is interesting to note that, despite deep state budget deficits and scandals that continue to rock the Capitol, legislators still have time to indulge their own paranoid fantasies and to stoke the fears of Wisconsinites about threats that do not exist. That was obvious late last month, as both the Assembly and Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment that supposedly guarantees the right to hunt, fish and trap.

They have not figured out the state budget. They have not approved contracts with unions representing state employees. They have not enacted campaign finance and lobbying reforms that would end the corruption that led to the charging of the former Senate majority leader, the former Assembly speaker and the current Assembly majority leader with felonies. But legislators found time to try to fool most of state's outdoorsmen and women most of the time.

Sen. Dave Zien, R-town of Wheaton, and Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Union Grove, led the crusade to change the state constitution because, in Zien's words, "Michigan just about lost the right to hunt bear." Note the language there: Another state, not Wisconsin, considered - but never actually enacted - a proposal to place restrictions on the hunting of one animal. Thus, in the fevered brains of Zien and Gunderson, Wisconsin's 155-year-old constitution had to be changed.

No backer of the amendment suggested that Wisconsin faces a serious threat to hunting, fishing or trapping. The best that Sen. Russ Decker, D-Schofield, could do was to suggest that a future Legislature might in 15 to 25 years try to remove a right.

Acting to avert that "threat," the Assembly voted 94-3 for the proposed amendment, while the Senate backed it 30-1. Those votes place the amendment on the April 1 state ballot, where it is all but certain to be voted for by the majority of citizens and clipped to the constitution.

At that point, as every legislator and informed citizen knows, everything will be as it was before the process began.

This reality added a comic element to the debate, as legislators who voted for the amendment, such as Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, dismissed it as a "feel good" proposal rendered meaningless by a provision within it that allows "reasonable restrictions" on hunting, fishing and trapping.

Only four legislators - Madison Democrats Terese Berceau and Mark Pocan and Berlin Republican Luther Olsen in the Assembly, and Poplar Democrat Bob Jauch in the Senate - opposed the amendment. "It's a solution in search of a problem," said Berceau. "It's catering to unfounded fears, probably created by the NRA, that someone will take away the right to hunt and fish."

By enacting this amendment, Olsen said, "We will be lowering the standard on what a right is. I don't think a right is something the state tells you when the right is over and the season is done." Jauch argued that the amendment "demeans and minimizes the constitution."

Jauch, who represents a region where hunting, fishing and trapping are popular activities, spoke truth when he declared, "There is no threat to hunting other than chronic wasting disease. There are more important things we ought to spend time on."

How sad that the vast majority of legislators lacked the common sense - and the respect for the constitution - that Jauch, Berceau, Olsen and Pocan displayed. How embarrassing that, at so significant a time in our state's history, most legislators are still determined to waste their time, and ours, on debates that do not matter about an amendment that will not change a thing. 

Our state legislators have proposed an amendment to our constitution. In the past, the constitution has been amended to give women and African Americans the right to vote. This amendment gives people the right to hunt, fish and trap Wisconsin wildlife.  

Hunting is not a basic right any more than the right to drive a car or to practice the medical profession. All three of these activities require that the participant apply for and obtain a license in order to legally practice them. At the present time, I am unaware of denial of any hunters’ rights throughout the state, and the entire country, as well.  Actually, hunters can kill a greater number of species now than they have in the past. In Wisconsin, the most recent species added to the list of wildlife eligible to be slaughtered by hunters was the American crow. The one species that has yet to be added to this list is the mourning dove, our state bird of peace. The decision as to whether or not to add the mourning dove has been held up pending a decision by the courts. In the meantime, hunters still have a season to kill over thirty species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. A coyote can be killed any day of the year, in any number, except during gun deer season. There’s even a special youth deer hunt for 12-15 year olds.

Given that the opportunity for hunting is both widespread and already well established, why do we need to change the state constitution that established rights for everyone, not just for a few, over 150 years ago?  The answer to that question is that we don’t need to and we shouldn’t.  The current proposal to change the state constitution gives a special interest group a ‘right’ that they already have and demeans the original intent of the constitution. What next? An amendment for the right to operate an ATV or a jet ski?  

For some, consider this a warning, for others reassurance, and for many, a statement of solidarity and compassion while we continue to work for peace and fight for justice.  During this critical time, our opposition to the Bush and Co., Inc. war must be expressed thoroughly and clearly as a humane alternative to the psychopathic mentality of an un-elected head of state and his unaccountable corporate criminals.

The passage of the 2001 USA Patriot Act intended to turn an otherwise critically thinking public in to a heard of sheep who are being sheared in order to weave the wool that the Bush Administration and their corporate sponsors will use to cover our eyes.  The War on Terrorism (2000), the Department of Homeland Security (2002), and the Total Information Awareness program (2003) are like those American Flag stickers placed securely over the mouths of the people-qua sheep. 

Muffled are the voices of the 44 million uninsured Americans, forgotten are 1.3 million who fell below the poverty line in 2002, and disregarded are the 2 million who spend their days in prison.  Silenced are the tens-of-millions around the world who have taken to the streets in opposition to the White House sanctioned military and corporate domination of the free market world aimed at controlling the world’s resources; yes including Iraqi, Venezuelan, and Afgan oil. 

Since Christmas Eve 2002, the Bush Administration has stepped up its focused campaign for war in Iraq.  In the last 30 days Bush, Cheney, Paul Wolfawitz, Donald Rumpsfeld, and Colin Powell have appeared on every major news program in the United States.  Their speeches resemble the mimics of a parrot, sounding like commercials and resembling the tobacco industry’s deadly PR campaign, trying to convince the public that war is as good for your health.

Meanwhile, this administration has proposed a $6 billion cut to K-12 public education.  This is at a time when our nation’s military budget has grown to over $430 billion.  To this violence we must shout, “Not in our name!”

These men, the Bush Corporation, all acting in the best interests of white supremacy and corporate hegemony, alternate their calls for war with strategically-placed scare ads that prey on public fear.  On Feb. 7 the country was put on code Orange the second-highest alert from the government and only the second time we have been put on code Orange since 9/11. 

Ironically, code Orange happened the same day that the public discovered that the “top secret” evidence that Colin Powell had presented to the United Nations to indict Iraq and insight a war came from a poorly plagerized, out-dated research paper written by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a post graduate student from Monterey California (NYT 2/8/03).  Could this explain why Bush and Co. have been targeting and unjustly detaining international students?  It is certainly no “smoking gun” to justify war in Iraq. 

One could imagine Baby Bush and his playmate, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, spending hours cutting and pasting paragraphs from Mr. Al-Marashi’s research while flipping quarters to see which corporation will get the largest percentage of Iraq’s oil reserves.  This resembles the sickness of US foreign policy that sees oil-rich countries as a playground for US corporations to control the extraction and the export of the country’s resources.  Clearly modern-day colonization at its most insidious. 

One such corporation taking stock of what is happening is Dick Cheney’s Halliburton.  According to the Financial Times of London, between September 1998 and last winter, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw $23.8 million of business contracts for the sale of oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which helped rebuild Iraq's war-damaged petroleum-production infrastructure. The combined value of these contracts exceeded those of any other US company doing business with Baghdad.

With Cheney at the helm since 1995, Halliburton quickly grew into America's number-one oil-services company, the fifth-largest military contractor, and the biggest nonunion employer in the nation. Although Cheney claimed that the U.S. government "had absolutely nothing to do" with his firm's meteoric financial success, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times indicate that U.S. officials helped Halliburton secure major contracts in Asia and Africa. Halliburton now does business in 130 countries and employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide.  Its 1999 income was a cool $15 billion (Excerpt from Truthout).

Understanding in this chaotic global crisis that has been fueled by the pernicious actions of those who occupy the White House will happen on the streets because the mainstream US corporate media refuses to tell the truth.  We have an opportunity to stop US war in Iraq.  We also have an opportunity to stop the Bush Administration’s destruction of public education, privatization of health care, and an economic stimulus package that supports those who profit off of prisons, environmental destruction, and war. 

The Bush Administration and its corporate allies are waging war inside and outside of the US borders.  The war at home has attacked our civil liberties, detained, jailed, and imprisoned people of color by the thousands.  Additionally this domestic war has dismantled welfare programs, public housing, public education, and the rights of immigrant workers.

The war abroad has cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people from Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, just to name a few.  These wars are a continuation and in some cases an escalation of the attack on our communities in the name of US foreign and domestic polices that serve the corporate elite. 

I finish with Nelson Mandela’s comments on the current Bush Administration:

"One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

How long?

STUDENT LOANS ARE FOR SUCKERS

NEW YORK--Five years ago, I wrote a story called "College Is For Suckers." I argued that the costs of tuition, dorms and fees had risen so high that the additional income you'd earn as a college graduate---compared to going straight to work after high school--wouldn't make up for the massive student loan debts you'd acquire.

The magazine that ran my piece is no more. Both books that published it are out of print. But the problem of crippling student loan debt has gotten worse.

The pre-bankrupting of America's best and brightest, the young men and women who attend private colleges and public universities, is one of our nation's enduring, quiet scandals. Momentarily breaking the silence was a Jan. 28 New York Times profile of young adults who, because of their student loans, are forced to choose jobs solely based on pay. Margot Miles, a legal secretary who borrowed $25,000 to attend UPenn, wants to go to law school but "just can't imagine taking out any more loans." Anisa Brophy, an aspiring cartoonist, ran up a $70,000 tab attending Wilson College in Pennsylvania. Even Connie Chavez, whose $10,000 student loan Hofstra bill doesn't seem so bad, "has virtually given up on her dream of going to business school."

These kids will not take low-paying jobs teaching in the inner cities. They won't join the Peace Corps. If they find themselves with a few extra hours here and there, they won't volunteer at a homeless shelter--they'll take a second job. When young people defer their dreams, when options vanish, America loses.

Average tuition and fees at a private college or university is $18,000 and rising at twice the inflation rate. Meanwhile, what students call "real" financial aid--grants and scholarships, not loans--keeps falling. The result is two-fold. The Rand Corporation estimates that 6 million Americans will be "priced out of the system" over the next two decades. And for those who bite the bullet, more students than ever (46 percent in 1990, 70 percent in 2000) end up taking out college loans.

The U.S. college industry churns out about a million newly-minted graduates every year. On average, they owe $27,600 to creditors they can't shake even by declaring bankruptcy. Depending on the type of loan, a typical 21-year-old faces a minimum monthly payment of from $350 to $420 for the next ten years. Anisa Brophy, the would-be cartoonist, is in for at least $880 a month. If debtees have trouble paying, they can apply for a temporary deferment, but the interest keeps piling on.

Why do people borrow so much at such an early age? The College Board claims that college grads earn $1 million more during their lifetimes than those with high-school degrees. And most half-decent jobs--positions in corporate offices, not just professional occupations like law and medicine--require that you have a college degree just to be considered.

You may be thinking: tough bananas. This is America. If you're stupid enough to borrow more dough than the average Joe pays for a house to listen to men with bad beards expound on Proust, it's your own overeducated fault that you're stuck with the bills. So what if 17-year-olds don't know jack about loan indentures, future salaries, or what they want to do for a living?

But that's horse manure.

As more and more employers require college degrees, more and more people will seek them. During the age of advancing globalization, national leaders say, Americans need more education to compete. Moreover, student loans are big business. Citibank's Student Loan Marketing Association, which holds outstanding student loans totaling $21 billion, recently announced that it turned a profit of $176 million last year, a 30 percent increase over 2001.

Student loan debt has become even more burdensome as the U.S. enters its third consecutive year of recession. Fifty-nine percent of degreed job seekers have been looking for work for at least three months, some for as long as a year. "Job seekers frustrated by last year's tough market have low expectations about this year's job market," says Michael Caggiano of the TrueCareers jobs board.

If and when they find a job, the pay isn't all that great. The National Association of Colleges and Employers says that average starting salaries for the Class of 2002 range from $27,000 for political science majors to $51,000 for computer programmers. Around $35,000 is the national norm.

After taxes, that works out to about $2,000 a month--the rent on a tiny apartment in a borderline neighborhood in New York or San Francisco. When a fifth of your paycheck goes to student loans, it's hard to afford a car, much less purchase a first home. Economists looking for explanations for declining sales of big-ticket items might start here.

College tuition is free or nominal in most industrialized, and many Third World, countries. The United States' insistence that students assume huge debts to pay for their college education is unusual enough that the Chinese government included it in its 2001 report of American human rights violations.

Until the U.S. joins the civilized world, our big-spending government can make things easier on twentysomething graduates by abolishing the student loan industry.

Eliminating the debt racket wouldn't be difficult. Calling off the invasion of Iraq, for instance, would save an estimated $200 billion---that's six years of fiscally emancipated youth right there. Eliminating last year's $1.5 trillion tax cut--money that would have gone to rich people who won't miss it--would pay off everyone's student loans for the next 50 years.

At age 39, I'm just $400 away from paying off my last student loan. Nonetheless, I could use the break.

Maybe one day we will live in a world that is truly colorblind. But until then, we must continue to rise to the challenge before us and always stand against racists who would destroy our collective hope for peace, unity and justice.

TOTALLY IDIOTIC AMERICANS

The Right to Privacy Dies with a Whimper

NEW YORK--The official seal of the Pentagon's new Total Information Awareness Office (TIA) bears a spooky eye above a pyramid--you know the one, it's on the back of the one-dollar bill--peering at the globe. The fact that the TIA was quietly funded under the auspices of the bill creating the new Department of Homeland Security suggests that its mission is a vital part of the war on terrorism. But Europe and Asia, the two main continents of the eastern hemisphere, which appear on the TIA logo, are not in fact its principal targets.

You are.

Rear Admiral John Poindexter, the scandal-scarred Iran-Contra figure who heads the $62.9 million "data mining" operation for the Defense Department, says that the TIA's mission is "to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists--and decipher their plans--and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."

Sounds like a magnificent idea. So why do such unusual allies as the American Civil Liberties Union, The New York Times, William Safire and Republican senator Charles Grassley say it's dangerous?

According to the TIA's website (www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm), Poindexter's new office will "develop architectures for a large-scale counter-terrorism database, for system elements associated with database population, and for integrating algorithms and mixed-initiative analytical tools...invent new algorithms for mining, combining, and [refining]...revolutionary new models, algorithms, methods, tools, and techniques for analyzing and correlating information in the database to derive actionable intelligence."

In English: Total Information Awareness will use sophisticated computer-modeling programs to search every database they can get their hands on. They'll scan credit card receipts, bank statements, ATM purchases, Web "cookies," school transcripts, medical files, property deeds, magazine subscriptions, airline manifests, addresses--even veterinary records. The TIA believes that knowing if and when Fluffy got spayed--and whether your son stopped torturing Fluffy after you put him on Ritalin--will help the military stop terrorists before they strike.

Most of this raw data is already available to businesses trying to market their products. The TIA represents the first full-scale attempt by a government agency--the Department of Defense--to collect and analyze that information. "There has obviously been a growing problem within the private sector over collection of information for targeted marketing," says David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "What's different now is the government is putting major resources into getting access to privately collected data."

Critics are understandably anxious that the TIA is merely the Bush Administration's latest effort to emulate the most unsavory aspects of Soviet society. "If the Pentagon has its way, every American--from the Nebraskan farmer to the Wall Street banker--will find themselves under the accusatory cyber-state of an all-powerful national security apparatus," warns Laura Murphy of the ACLU.

Is Poindexter more interested in digging up dirt on Bush's political foes than fighting Islamist terrorism? Should we believe him when he says that he respects the Fourth Amendment?

Short of running a TIA profile on the man, there's no way to know whether he's hoping to turn the United States into a police state. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the TIA plans to respect our privacy rights and that it won't yield to the temptation to use its findings to smear political opponents.

Even if Poindexter and his domestic spying operation means well--and that's a big if--the TIA is a classic case of fighting your last battle all over again.

Like Attorney General John Ashcroft's Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information Prevention System)--the Orwellian Justice Department program that asks cable installers, postal workers and meter readers to turn in their customers if they see any suspicious behavior--the TIA assumes that the next big attack will be committed by members of Arab "sleeper cells" living in the United States. Why do we assume this? Because that is what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

Presuming there will be an exact replay of Sept. 11 has led to long security lines at airports and no screenings whatsoever at train stations and bus depots. Which targets would you go after if you were a terrorist?

As proven by their ability to elude arrest, Osama bin Laden and his allies are no fools. As Al Qaeda operatives plot their next attack against the United States, they will exploit the weaknesses we aren't aware of or have chosen to ignore. Another plane hijacking is unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future. So are strikes carried out by illegal-immigrant operatives with a fondness for strip joints living in the United States. Terrorists are opportunists, not serial killers predictably utilizing identical methods for each act.

Whatever you least expect: expect.

Since most of the data the TIA analyzes relates to loyal American citizens, Total Information Awareness creates the potential for abuse of governmental power on an unprecedented scale. Because it won't track the most likely future terrorists--people who live in, for example, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia--it's a waste of money that furthers the illusion that our government is protecting us.

Since Sept. 11, George W. Bush has asked us to trade our precious freedoms for a little security. The TIA forces Americans to sacrifice privacy for nothing.

Representatives of these institutions are more concerned with protecting their bottom line than ensuring that the county has ample revenues, which secure community stability while meeting the needs of the elderly and of working families.

Walker's plans for a part-time Board of Supervisors, outsourcing county responsibilities, and cutting funds for youth, child, and family services are textbook privatization strategies designed to meet the fiscal budgets and entrepreneurial endeavors of chief executive officers of the business special interests who have no desire to see public money spent on human needs. Walker gently terms this strategy "public/private partnerships." For urban Milwaukee, these polices maintain unemployment low wage work in Milwaukee's North and South side while a few well entrenched special interest companies and projects receive full funding and attention.

In 1996, under the direction of then County Excessive Ament, and chaired by James H. Keys of Johnson Controls Inc., Milwaukee County created the "Commission for the 21st Century" report which laid out an extensive plan to privatize the county's services and management. Walker has described this plan a "good blueprint for county government."

According to the document, "The county should create an atmosphere for change throughout every department. Managers should be looking for opportunities for more entrepreneurial solutions. County government services may be out-sourced or privatized, and others need new levels of accountability." In essence, county government has become nothing more than a brokerage firm for business special interest. This direction leaves working families vulnerable, labor unions within county government in peril, and the elderly and poor without resources.

Simply put, privatization seeks to maximize profit and efficiency in a given sector of the economy. When applied to public services and democratic governmental processes, privatization has a record of shortchanging the public.

A glaring example of this is the privatization of welfare, known in Wisconsin as the W2 (Wisconsin Works) program. The W2 program placed welfare under a privatization model, creating an emphasis toward maximizing profit while attempting to provide an adequate service. Since W2 passed in 1996, its numerous failures including agency largesse, an inability to reduce poverty, and over-sanctioning of African Americans and Latinos are testimony to the failures of private/public partnerships based on a commitment of county officials to shift funding to meet the entrepreneurial focus of the 1996 plan and fulfill business special interest requests for more public contracts.

We call upon Milwaukee County Government to reinvent itself as a government for the people. We ask the board to denounce Walker's budget as a false people's budget that seeks to meet the needs and demands of the MMAC and other special interest business groups. We urge the County Board to fulfill its responsibility to ensure that the budget is fair and just in order to continue providing living wage jobs and supporting the needy. The Board must commit to providing stability to all communities. Supervisors should have the courage to press for equality in taxation and to demand that business special interest organizations pay their fair share of taxes so that the burden of taxation does not fall entirely on Milwaukee's homeowners. The Board should review how it taxes large corporations so that it can begin to create a more just and fair form of taxation. This should be seen as an opportunity to achieve a just county budget.

Respectfully Submitted,
Matt D. Nelson, Executive Director, Education For The People

Corporate imperialism, arguably, is the practice of a large corporation, or transnational corporation, working in concert with other multinational corporations—entrenched in some of the world’s most powerful economies –engaged in efforts to influence and manipulate world governments into enacting laws which protect and guarantee them access into new world markets.

These corporations, once unable to effectively sway, globally and locally, markets once hostile to them, use the power of governments with strong economies to help them win over the cooperation of governments of underdeveloped nations. By using the influence of those nations that control most of the world’s trade, transnational corporations are able to indirectly force governments of underdeveloped nations to open up their markets, so that they can raid them without fear of competition or foreign government regulations. Those governments that refuse to give up their economic independence, face isolation or military threats by the world’s most powerful economies.

With the changing of the global economy, powerful transnational corporations seek to gain favor with once unreceptive nations, for the ultimate goal of controlling global trade, development and investments in underdeveloped countries. To maximize profits and trade corporate imperialists manipulate economies and the political stability of underdeveloped nations. The end result is the enslavement of underdeveloped national governments that are politically, militarily and economically unable to compete and defend themselves.

Imperialism has always, since the dawn of trade, been a means that enriches and empowers the capitalist and bureaucratic classes of the world. As these corporate imperialists continue their campaign to dominate world democracies, insurrection, rebellions and revolution within these countries proliferate in response.

Using the vast and far reaching influences of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Chief Executive Officers (CEO’s), acting as Generals, map out strategic plans and draft blueprints designed to act out the hostile takeover of the raw untapped resources of underdeveloped nations controlled by authoritarian governments friendly to the corporate imperialist institutions of the West.

It is impossible to be free while dependent on the power of another. If nations are dependent on foreign corporations, then that nation has to do what the corporation wants them to do if the nation in question wants those corporate jobs to stay where they are. To be self-governing under capitalism, a community or nation must be economically independent.

The unyielding growth of corporate power over nation-states has proven itself to be the single most destructive force to democracy. It is without question a threat to civil liberties and world stability. Corporate rule has taken control of most mechanisms of accountability—boards of directors, state and federal regulatory agencies and legislatures—and has at its disposal the military might of national governments it has colonized economically.

Rise up against corporate imperialism.

War and Civil Liberties
By Robert Miranda

America was established as a constitutional democracy, governed by laws guaranteeing those accused of crimes due process, the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, and the right to have legal counsel.

Immediately after September 11th John Ashcroft issued a decree permitting federal officers to wiretap pretty much anyone for almost any reason, and to detain people for extended periods of time without filing charges. The Bush administration took measures a step further when the President signed an emergency order allowing non-citizens suspected of terrorism to be tried in military tribunals.

The actions of Attorney General Ashcroft and the President of the United States goes against this country’s strong support of international human rights for all people, and the rule of law with respect to judicial rights for human beings.

The Bush Administration’s campaign to implement policy to try non-citizens in military tribunals closed to public scrutiny, where normal rules of civilian justice will not apply, where defendants can be sentenced to death without unanimity and where there is no right to appeal the sentence to a higher court, is a threat to our civil liberties and our democratic principals.

The President reminds us constantly that we are in a war. That the usual rules do not apply. Fair enough. But what worries me is this administration's penchant for overstepping legislative procedures that have been part of our democracy in the name of national security. And when critics rise up to question these initiatives, the Attorney General, on many occasions, representing this administration, has tried to intimidate critics by pointing them out as unpatriotic. This is disturbing.

Ashcroft tells Americans to report on their neighbors, to watch out for suspicious people and to be vigilant in their neighborhood.

But how will this call for vigilance affect the rights of legal aliens living in the U.S.? For example, a middle-eastern man, living here legally, owns a motel, and one day, out of the blue, boot jacketed government agents raid his motel and arrest him. He is whisked away in a government vehicle and is charged with harboring a suspected terrorist. When the owner of the motel asks for an explanation of the charge placed upon him he is told, a man who once stayed in the motel for a while and took the owner out for a beer was a member of Al Queda.

Because the owner of the motel is guilty by association he is taken to a military jail rather than being placed in custody at the local police station. The motel owner is taken by plane to a military holding area where he can't easily access counsel and can't see his family. He is then tried in the military court, and if two-thirds of the officers find him guilty, he's sentenced — possibly to death. This is military justice, void of all civil and constitutional adherences and rights.

The Administration’s resolve to secure the homeland must be balanced. The need to be secure against the ever-present danger of terrorism must be pursued with wisdom and not emotion. It must ensure against Americans losing our treasured civil liberties, it must recognize that opposition to federal policies is an important part of our Democratic process, and it must listen with an open mind to the many critics of its plans.

Standing against efforts of intimidation by high-level public officials must be challenged. Public dissent against extreme measures such as the Patriot Act should be done on a continuous basis and without fear. To protect our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and standing strong against selecting one group of people as less deserving of internationally agreed upon civil rights merely because of a shared nationality or religion with terrorists is wrong and will never be tolerated. 

Free to disagree, this is the root of the American dream.
 

Radical conservatism grows with Hispanic support
By Robert Miranda
of the Greater Milwaukee Green Party

Tom Ridge, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich, John Ashcroft, and Pat Buchanan are but a few leading conservatives who identify with the right wing of the Republican Party. These men form part of the base that holds up the radical conservative empire of his majesty, George W. Bush, aka “Shrub.”

Molly Ivins, co-Author of the book, “Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush,” refers to his political career as a shrub because the son of Bush Sr. never established a long history in politics, his political résumé is a little light. Because his political experience is somewhat limited, Bush is a politician with elementary ability, thus a shrub in the world political arena.

Nevertheless, Bush’s supporters defend his simplistic political notions because they fully sympathize with the ideological stance of the radical right. In fact, the radical right only supports Bush because he’s closer to their radical views than any Democrat or Green.

However, Bush does benefit from the radical conservative movement. His budget priorities are motivated by the radical right wing influence in the Republican Party, which is committed to weakening government and cutting funds for social programming and services. His support of corporate welfare projects holds true the constant mantra “beware corporate rule”.

The radical right has deep roots in the American political tradition. It must be taken seriously because they are in many ways all around us, and today, more than ever; their views have reached beyond their core of devoted activists and not too surprisingly a large portion of the general public and political institutions.

Conservatives courting the Hispanic voter

The Republican Party has made it a political priority to reach out into the Hispanic community, and with good reason. According to Census 2000 the nations Hispanic population has grown to 35.3 million. Hispanics comprised 12.5 percent of the nation's total population. (This does not include the 3.8 million Hispanic residents of Puerto Rico.)

The Census goes on to say that the real median income of Hispanic households in 2000 reached, $33,455—the highest ever recorded. The rate of Hispanic homeownership also increased to about 46 percent, this is up from 42 percent in 1990. This data however is used as part of the radical rights mantra when it addresses the notions of equity in the country. This data is misleading and does not reflect the whole of the Latino community.

The growing economic and political power of the Hispanic community is turning heads at the highest levels of the conservative movement. The Bush family has opened the doors to this community over the years and it appears that the Republican Party has finally caught on. However, once again the only ones benefiting from this attention are those Hispanics who have the means and economic resources to advocate the duplicity of the right wing.

However, Hispanics who support the conservative political agenda must understand the true underbelly of the conservative movement. Latinos view the conservative political philosophy as the corner stone of family values and patriotism. While these notions are core to the American way of life, Hispanics must move past the obfuscation of the conservative philosophy and raise the curtain to reveal the true OZ.

Radical Conservatives

The term "the radical political right," speaks about those who are entrenched within the most extreme right-wing views of the American political spectrum, they include, for example, neo-Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, skinheads, the Posse Comitatus movement, the World Church of the Creator, Christian Identity, Odin worshippers, and the so-called "militia" groups. 

As America moves away from the political middle and closer to the radical right-wing elements of the conservative movement, the political influence of these groups grows within the conservative political agenda.

Now I don’t mean to imply that Hispanic support for president Bush is that far to the right, but I will argue that he does benefit from the votes and influence of these groups members and sympathizers who are committed hard-core fanatics against leftist political campaigns and liberal political notions.

Conservative beliefs

Hispanics who profess their political views to be conservative believe in accountability and equal protection of the law. They believe that “no individual, company or industry—not a multinational corporation, not even the President of the United States—should be above the law. Power must not buy immunity.”

Conservative politics are frequently associated with a sense of morality and faith; their economic philosophy is that markets separate the weak from the strong, good products and services from bad. “The consuming public—exercising informed market choices and legal rights—indeed should decide which companies succeed.”

Conservatives generally oppose "big government" federal regulation of matters historically managed by the states and oppose government intrusion within private sector fiscal matters—especially when it comes to paying its CEO huge salaries. In addition, conservatives resist high taxes and oppose private individuals or companies being able to dump their irresponsible economic and business decisions onto the public “tab.”

Conservative hypocrisy

What conservatives have managed to do in the last decade is this; they have managed to weaken laws that regulate the agricultural industry, the manufacturing industry, and laws that protect the environment and worker’s rights. In fact, these radical changes have made it harder for the law to hold an individual, company or industry – and a multinational corporation, or even the President of the United States, accountable for breaking the law. 

Some Hispanics will argue that Democrats have supported these changes as well, sure they did. It was rammed down the throats of the liberals who had no backbone to fight back, ultimately surrendering to the conservative campaign for political self-preservation. So what! It does not change the fact that the conservative belief is based on laws that have no teeth. Conservatives can bark all they want about corporate accountability and fighting to protect the earth and ending discrimination because in the end, they know that the laws they helped establish present no real threat to those who they consider their political base—the rich, the extremist right wing and corporate elite of this nation.

The conservatives have created for their political movement access into unlimited business opportunities though public sector contracting initiatives. Government contracting is an open market for CEO’s who are political supporters and friends of conservative political networks. Rubbing elbows help achieve profit goals, and when profits are up Republican campaign coffers are up as well.

Fundamentally the conservative economic belief: government shouldn't set private sector salaries, allowed corporations the opportunity to pay its CEOs millions in salaries: Apple computer’s Steve Jobs' 2000 compensation was $775 million; H. Silverman of Cendant, $251 million; L. Gerstner of IBM, $240 million; and United Health Group (HMO) CEO William McGuire's compensation package was $412 million. (source: Lou Dobbs, Moneyline)

The disparity between the salary of the CEO and that of the common worker is beyond belief. The millions CEO’s are paid is not enough:  they demand without shame that corporations also pay for their housing, transportation and travel expenses, clothing and home groceries. And while the CEO is fattened up, the Hispanic middle class begins to feel the pinch. Gone is the revenue to pay for Hispanic middle managers; gone is the revenue to pay for Hispanic professionals who have spent thousands educating themselves for the chance to be part of the middle class; gone is the opportunity to broaden Hispanic social and economic upward mobility.

Look at the salaries earned by executives managing organizations for the needy and one comes away from the whole thing amazed and surprised that such destructive culture is taking hold in institutions that should focus on meeting the social needs of a poor community. 

Indeed, "welfare reform," for example, gave conservatives the ability and opportunity to shift tax dollars out of the public sector—where every penny was spent on human needs and social programming and administrative costs and staff salaries—into private sector institutions where the entrepreneurial culture is entrenched and corporations, rather than help the poor and elderly, profit from their misery. The payola for privatizing welfare is radical conservative support in the form of political cash contributions by the CEOs of these for profit and “non-profit” contracted welfare organizations. The ultimate covert beneficiary being the radical right-wing within the Republican Party. 

With growing economic and political power comes growing influence for the radical conservatives. In time, this influence will push the Republican Party farther to the right, where ultimately the Party will employ political initiatives similar to those implemented by the NAZI Third Reich.

Don’t let the radical conservative movement grow. Stop Bush! Vote against conservative radicalism. The future is ours.

Apology, My Foot!
By Robert Miranda

The Milwaukee police raid at El Rey last week, which was conducted for the purpose of "executing search warrants for prescription antibiotics they suspected were being sold over the counter at the stores," was heavy handed and an example of elementary tactical planning. 

While many Latino leaders agree that the laws of our land must be enforced, the manner in which this police raid was handled needs to be addressed. Something must be said because what we have witnessed is a clear indication of substandard leadership, which lacks diplomacy, tact and civic understanding and respect for neighborhood traditions and institutions.

The Milwaukee police chief should have handled this situation differently; in addition, I for one feel that Latino police officers who when off duty spend time in the community engaging in social events that promote community concerns and needs should have advised the chief to do so.

Clearly, this raid was a public relations disaster. But, it also speaks volumes about what is taking place in the health care industry as well.

Police raid part of training?

The chief’s decision to have his troops enter El Rey with guns drawn was uncalled for. Nothing he says can change the fact that he had no proof or any real hard fact to believe that the customers, staff and management at the store presented a threat to the lives of his officers. The Chief had no compassion nor did he display concern for the customers he placed at risk. His intelligence units should have provided him a risk assessment, which would clearly state whether or not the store posed any real risk to life, and if they didn’t, then they were negligent.

Chief Jones could have raided these stores at an hour when not that many people were around, like right before opening when only staff was present. The raid placed civilians in the store at risk because with all the weapons being pointed at whatever, the chance for accidental discharge was great. A ricochet of an errant bullet causes just as much damage to human flesh as a bullet that is fired at an intended target.

The Chief says his decision was based on strict policy adherence, but he also should admit that this raid was a training tool for his department.

Why was the decision made to raid EL Rey in this manner? One reason could be that Jones used this low-risk raid as a training opportunity for his department. This should cause us concern because the police should not be allowed to use entire civilian communities as urban assault training centers. If the Chief seeks to provide his troops with real life or death situations, the best training he can give his department is actual raids at real drug houses. The only thing he proved at El Rey is that he’s his own worst enemy, by making these kinds of decisions, the Chief only fans the flames of resentment towards him and his authority.

If affording his department a training opportunity was a factor for having this raid approved, then that was a very poor reason to do so. 

A service to relieve pain

While the sales of drugs taking place at El Rey may have been illegal, it needs to be stressed that this business took a risk in order to help a segment of the community obtain drugs that heal rather than provide drugs that kill. There are health care experts who say that these drugs could adversely affect people's health later in life, nevertheless the fact remains, people are desperate and will spend what little money they have to obtain medication to find relief from pain.

Many of America's poor and elderly are feeling the crunch and burden of an industry that has lost control of its costs. This industry has allowed drug prices to spiral skyward, beyond the affordability of our elderly and poor. 

Many Americans travel to Canada to buy cheaper drugs, or go to places like El Rey where they trust that the medication is good and the prices are fair.

Illegal? Well, I'll leave that up to the courts.

What is very telling about this whole affair is what poor people are willing to do to find a cure for their illnesses. Free market policies in the health care industry are hurting our most vulnerable populations. The poor and the elderly are being squeezed out of every cent they have by the increased costs for medication, leaving little money for other living essentials. 

In the final analysis, should people who work all their lives be forced to choose between sustenance and buying drugs in order to be pain free or to relieve other ailments?

Chief Jones demands an apology from people who he says criticized him for this decision, yeah, right! Don’t hold your breath, Jones.

Does President Bush Think That America Is In A Stupor?

By Robert Miranda

Speaking before an audience of more than 1,000 at the Klotsche Center on the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee campus, Bush, acting in his role as Commander-in-Chief, pumped up the crowed with his usual war on terrorism theme-before emphasizing his plans to engage in a crusade to turn the economy around.

Using the calamity that was 911 as his bully pulpit, Bush praised and spoke of the heroics displayed by passengers of flight 93, the airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers in the airplane decided to take on the terrorists in an act to reclaim it. He hailed them as heroes and promised the crowed that he is committed to getting rid of all evildoers, wherever they might be. 

After pumping up the crowd around his resolve to continue the war on terrorism, an opening act that is certain to be part of the Bush campaign in the future, Bush then spoke about the economy and the problems afflicting it. Chastising America's corporate chief executives, Bush made it known that he was going to hold them accountable for their corruption. 

Bush was smooth. He had everyone feeling good about being an American and he had most of the people in attendance excited about the fact that our military was kicking ass all over the world, as part of our pay back campaign for what those terrorists did to us on 911.

Yes, sir. Them evildoers got no place to run and no place to hide. Bush was masterful. You can just see the pride and feel the exhilaration as he looked at the crowed and bellowed, "Out of the evil done to America is going to come some incredible good."

Sure! And out of this unstable economy poor people are going to be able to get rich and rich people are going to invest in America without asking big brother  for handouts.

Give me a break!

Raising nationalist notions and pumping American jingoism in order to get Americans on board to wage war against an unseen enemy is one thing, keeping an economy going is another.

Bush told the crowd that he came away from his economic forum in Waco, Texas "confident about our economic future, but not content with the progress we are making."

Bush attempted to relieve concerns about the economy when he cited positive economic trends, low inflation and strong consumer spending. And true to the right-wing mantra Bush, a staunch supporter of supply side economics, blamed Congress for "excessive spending," while at the same time vigorously pushing more tax cuts, which critics say might be playing a role in slowing the economy.

Yep! Bush was smooth. He may have caused some folks in the crowd to succumb to his I love America, fight the terrorist theme, but one thing is certain, his talk about the economy was phony, absurd and smelled of dung. 

I wonder. Does Bush honestly think that everyone in this country believes every word he says? Does he think that we're all religious right wing corporate fanatics ready to follow him into a stupor brought on by an excessive intake of his con?

Bush In Denial About Economy

Bush's simplistic and elementary effort to raise our resolve to fight for freedom and then turn around and tell us in the same breath that freedom's economy faces tough times ahead, is akin to the captain of the Titanic assuring passengers that they are passengers of an unsinkable ship and that they should all go back to sleep.

The president has yet to offer any ideas for new programs to repair the economy, the government's $2.1 trillion annual budget is partially paralyzed by the over $430 billion pumped into the military budget-a budget that offers no real returns for our investment.

Stock prices have become unstable, dropping 206.43 to close one day only to bounce back 240 points plus makes investors very distrustful. 

Simultaneously, American Airlines, the world's biggest airline, said it would lay off 7,000 workers. In addition, most of American Airlines' competitors have also announced deep job cuts. Not to mention IBM is cutting approximately 15,600 jobs, primarily in its services division and microelectronics division, the company reported this to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 Communications component maker Agere Systems, a spinoff of Lucent Technologies based in Allentown, Pennsylvania, said it would attempt to cut its losses in a lackluster telecommunications market by eliminating more than a third of its work force-about 4,000 jobs. These announcements and many others like them were made on Tuesday this week. 

Moreover, lets not forget the corporate bankruptcies taking place at a record pace by mega corporations like Enron, WorldCom and Tyco. Thousands of jobs lost here as well. So what silver lining is Bush looking at?

Bush is in denial about the economy, acknowledging that the economy is fundamentally flawed is the first step towards recovery. The second step towards economic recovery is to remove Bush from office, come next presidential election.

Corporate CEO’s Deserve Prison Time 
By Robert Miranda 

In testimony to the U.S. Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan blamed an “infectious greed” among corporate managers for the problems afflicting corporations and investor confidence. According to The New York Times, Greenspan said incentives in the form of stock options encouraged chief executives to inflate their earning statements. “It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously,” Greenspan said. 

In May alone, the Dow Jones industrial average has fallen almost 17%, from 9946.22 to close at 8264.39 one Friday, and the Nasdaq Composite Index, which contains many once high-flying technology companies, has fallen more than 25%, from 1688.23 to 1262.12 on that same day in May. Clearly investor confidence is wavering. 

Is it any wonder a crisis in investor confidence is dragging the market to new lows? And, if you’re surprised by what has taken place then you have obviously ignored the warning signs that have for decades slapped our elected officials and civic leaders in the face. Not since the savings and loans scandal of the mid 1980’s has this nation ever engaged in real national debate about corporate greed and civic responsibility. Now, almost a decade and a half later we are face to face with the very issues that shape our livelihood—indeed, our national economic security. 

The spectacle of looking at a once-respected chief executive sitting in front of a congressional committee explaining the failures of his multibillion-dollar business.  

In addition, to the seemingly endless fall of one giant conglomerate after another verify arguments made by many economists and corporate watchdog groups warning us of the fact that many of these corporations have been cooking the books for years. Now that Enron and WorldCom have filed bankruptcy and several other major corporations are about to follow, the only question left to ask is when are any of these crooks going to prison? 

When are we going to see some of these crooks being led out of an office by police in handcuffs like prominent Wall Street businessman Robert Freeman, when he was arrested and handcuffed in his Goldman Sachs office and charged with insider trading in the Ivan Boesky case, one of the biggest corporate crimes of the 1980’s. Boesky, in the book, “Takeover: The New Wall Street Warriors: The Men, The Money, The Impact,” addresses UC Berkeley business school students, and at the end of his speech says, ”Greed is alright, by the way. I want you to know that I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself." 

Such mantra has polluted the credibility of corporate America. With such philosophy raining supreme in the minds of corporate CEO’s, is it any wonder indeed our business establishment is crumbling?

The presence of crime has for years been part of the arena of the swashbuckling corporate raider, the ruthless arbitrager and prophesizing junk-bond king. And, during the 1980s, where boardrooms of major corporations, for the most part, seemed to be sanctuaries of integrity, chief executives today find their hallowed rooms filled with complaints from victims of fraud and corporate predators.  

The recent spectacle of chief executives under investigation: Kenneth Lay at Enron, WorldCom and now Martha Stewart, have added to concerns of institutional stability. Is anything free of corruption in America?  

The Catholic Church is tainted with scandals of priest molesting children. Government is in constant disarray and now Corporate America is becoming part of a growing trend of institutional self-destruction. 

Laws For The “Little People” Only

Over the years I've written about corporations and their corruption. In some cases I was fascinated about some of the issues because the participants are usually so wealthy. I mean think about it, there's no rational financial motive for a Dennis Kozlowski, the now-disgraced CEO of Tyco, worth over $200 million on sales of his stock alone, having Tyco buy him an $18 million apartment on Fifth Avenue when he could easily have bought it himself.

Nevertheless, here’s one probable explanation as to why CEO’s like Kozlowski feel they can steal from their investors, and that is that most chief executives don't believe they're bound by the laws and rules that apply to the "little people." I call that the Leona Helmsley syndrome.

You remember Leona Helmsley? She’s one of America’s most celebrated well-to-do convicted felons. Remember when Leona Helmsley was being targeted for cheating on her taxes and in a brash and pompous way gave a ridiculous quote to the media that laws should only apply to the “little people.” Well, apparently there are many others at that level of society infected with the Leona Helmsley syndrome. Unfortunately, we’re not seeing more of them being carted off to prison.

HOMELAND SECURITY MY FOOT
By Robert Miranda


What a whopper of a smoke and mirror campaign George W. and Tom Ridge, and the rest of those scaredy-cat right-wing lunatics have concocted against the American people.

The biggest scheme—or should I say scam—being perpetrated by our appointed president comes in the form of the homeland security initiative designed to place all of our nation’s security and defense agencies under one government domain. 

You guessed it. The responsibilities for securing our nation from terrorists will fall under the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. It kind of leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that we now have an internal security force ready and able to enforce our laws and security at a moment’s notice. 

It also leaves one with the feeling that we just made a 360-degree turn back to the Stone Age.  

What a crock of cow dung! This House Select Committee on Homeland Security is nothing more than a modified version of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities established by Congress in 1938. HUAC is most noted for going on a witch hunt looking for communists in Hollywood. The HUAC, as it was commonly called, is known infamously for creating the notorious “blacklist,” which carried the names of some of Hollywood’s most influential people, accusing them of being communists. 

But HUAC has nothing on what King “W” has in store for us. The House Select Committee on Homeland Security, which he is creating with the help of both political parties, will be even worse than HUAC. Moving to establish an agency within the federal government that would place roughly 100 domestic security operations into a new Department of Homeland Security should raise concerns. 

Here’s what is wrong with this initiative. First, Bush is going against his own party line about big government. Centralizing all these security agencies into one big bureaucracy goes against the Republican Party and the right-wing line. Think about it, the public over the past decade was constantly inundated with the need to decentralize public institutions. The Home Security Department appears hypocritical because it centralizes all law enforcement and antiterrorist agencies into one department.  

Second, increasing security and establishing this department threatens future funding for social agencies that provide services to the needy. This is very disturbing because the lack of federal funding for social service institutions will proliferate, as the need to increase funding for the Homeland Security Department becomes priority.  

Third, Bush is calling upon all citizens to basically spy on each other. His plan calls on people to report suspicious looking people, or if you’re some professional plumber, report on suspicious homes that one might have been doing some work in. For example, say that you are a plumber and you overhear some family members sympathizing with the Palestinian people. Of course, this statement causes the well-meaning patriot to report to the Department of Homeland Security what he witnessed and heard.  

Lo and behold, guess who comes knocking on your door because they want to talk to you. You guessed it, the real “MEN IN BLACK.”  

"The wretched of this earth, residents of the slums of Caracas, whose
suffering is the ugly secret of the glossy US Empire, came in their thousands,
in from the countryside, down from the hills around Caracas, and with loyalist
soldiers they took Venezuela back from the hands of what the CIA boys like to
call 'civil society', and all we can say is this is how the current worldwide
empire of lies will end: by just such actions of the ordinary, wonderful, decent
people of this world, God bless them."   -- anonymous

Viva President Hugo Chavez: Venezuela’s Democracy Prevails
By Robert Miranda

The aggressive anti-democratic coup, which ousted the legitimately elected Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, was defeated. The United States, at the start, rather than condemn the rebellion of the military as illegitimate, only stated that what had occurred was brought on by President Chavez and his administration’s policies. Now that Hugo Chavez is back in power, the Administration of George W. Bush comes across as being uninformed and unprepared.  

Clearly, the turn of events in Venezuela have caused embarrassment to the Bush administration and, in turn, raises question about U.S. ability to analyze foreign policy based on the principles of democracy, and not on the needs and opportunities that give rise and power to free market forces. 

The Bush administration, which continues to show no regret or disapproval of the Venezuelan military’s effort to oust the country's elected president last week, appealed Sunday for the restoration of "the essential elements" of democracy, after Hugo Chavez reclaimed his office. However, when the military took control, no such appeal was offered by the Bush administration. 

The people of Venezuela voted in 1998 and elected President Chavez to be their leader. Military and corporate leaders of Venezuela thought that they could undermine the people’s will by removing Chavez from power. The United States government did not react accordingly against this coup, which had obvious undertones of being a coup led by a small band of profiteers and ambitious profit hungry senior military leaders. 

The military commanders, and the majority of corporate executives of oil-rich Venezuela who forced Chavez out of power, forced this coup in an effort to end state control of the oil reserves of this nation. Without question this coup was spearheaded by corporate executives seeking control of Venezuela's oil, the most precious natural resource that nation has to trade on the world market. 

The military Generals who appointed Chavez's successor, Pedro Carmona, have committed treason against their country and have betrayed the people of Venezuela, in the name of profit and free market rule. By going against the will of the people they have shown that their loyalty rests in the hands of those who are trying to steal Venezuela's oil and place its control in the hands of global corporate cartels, rather than keep the people of Venezuela as the controlling party. 

Indeed, the plutocratic government of Carmona, had not Chavez been restored to power, was about to play a significant role in the oil markets of the world, and Bush knew that it was in the United States’ best economic interest to not condemn this corporate-led rebellion. 

Being the number 3 supplier of oil to the United States, Venezuela, without question, would have initiated efforts to increase oil production to help offset any future oil embargos or oil price increases caused by the turmoil in the Middle East. Such actions could adversely affect the U.S. economy, and Bush, who is losing our domestic economic policy battle, would have to fight two major political fronts, the fight against terrorism and the fight to keep the economy strong, a task that is as daunting as it is difficult, which is why the U.S. did not react harshly against Venezuelan corporate and military leaders engaged in this anti-democracy campaign. 

The United States, rather than be consistent in promoting the fundamental ideals of freedom, justice and liberty, opted to support profiteers and privateers, and global corporations who, without question, are seeking to privatize Venezuela’s oil. 

The people of Venezuela, by the tens of thousands, came forward and demanded the release of their elected representative. Junior military leaders opposing the treasonous efforts of senior military leaders joined the people in a counter rebellion, which ultimately brought Chavez from military confinement, restoring him to power, and in the end, preserving their democracy. 

In the final analysis, the Bush administration’s policy on the coup failed democracy. Bush did not support democracy, and he went against the legitimate government of Hugo Chavez. Bush went against the will of the Venezuelan people, opting instead to go with the will of the global corporate oil cartels who have been frustrated and thwarted by Chavez’s ability to prevent them from taking control of his country’s oil. 

For the people of Venezuela, maintaining control of their natural resources ensures freedom and shared wealth. In a land surrounded by natural abundance, President Hugo Chavez is making certain that his nation’s resources will benefit his people, and not the investment bankers and investors of the global market cartel. 

Rise Up! 

by Robert Miranda

“The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” 
                         -Thomas Paine

Americans value their liberty. They respect the institutions of freedom, and they marvel at the impact our democracy has made upon the rest of the world. We are a nation comprised of immigrants and native-Americans, who have evolved under western culture. We are a nation built on the blood and sweat of Black slaves and White indentured servants. We are a nation whose land mass extends from the Appalachian Mountains of the east coast through the western planes and Mountains of Aztlan. 

We are Americans, defenders of democracy, and advocates of fair play! 

While the rest of America inhales the air of freedom, Milwaukee County is busy polluting that air by emitting autocratic smog, that rancid stench of despotic arrogance. 

That stench of arrogance was extra strong on Monday, March 11, 2002, when two Milwaukee County Supervisors, Robert Krug and Daniel Diliberti, released their foul order of authoritarian air onto the floor of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the Milwaukee County Supervisors. Voting to support a measure that would move to help reduce the size of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, Krug and Diliberti charged forward, dragging down with them the notion of fair representation and justice. 

Clearly, Dan Diliberti and Robert Krug are aware of the fact that:

1) Reducing the size of the Board of Supervisors is antidemocratic, since it threatens to reduce representation for communities of color.

2) Reducing the size of the Board violates a redistricting plan submitted by a Latino and African-American coalition in 2001, that was accepted by members of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors. The plan increased the chances of having another African American supervisory district, and gave the Latino community future representation on the Board. By maintaining the Board at 25 seats, the plan provided a super-majority Latino district (12th at 65 percent) and a second Latino-influence district (8th at 30 percent). Reduction of the size of the Board would terminate this hard-fought campaign to increase representation for communities of color.

3) Reducing the size of the Board opens the door to more privatization of public services, since it reduces effective representation.

4) Reducing the size of the County Board does nothing to correct the abuse of power that created the pension scandal. Hence the plan to reduce the number of seats should not be used to appease politically charged special interest groups seeking to hold County Supervisors responsible for the pension scandal.

5) Reducing the size of the Board of Supervisors is not cost effective. In fact, increasing the population of those districts increases the need for additional staff and resources. The cost of election campaigns would also increase in larger districts created by reducing the number of seats.

Indeed, that stench of arrogance swirling around the Milwaukee County Board, once overshadowed by the gluttony of its powerful chief executive, now looms menacing and ever so threatening to justice and liberty.

Ignoring their sacred duty to advance the fundamental ideals of democracy, Supervisors Krug and Diliberti led the campaign to reduce the size of Milwaukee County Supervisor seats, over the objections of many people who came to the board to speak against such reduction. During a recent meeting of the Intergovernmental Relations Committee, Krug and Diliberti proceeded to trample over the voices of the people.

Diliberti and Krug, in their unique arrogant little way, have ignored the people. They ignored the common sense alternatives proposed by their colleagues. Such bold and foolhardy display of power only reaffirms the belief that in going against the community, Daniel Diliberti and Robert Krug have exposed their allegiance to the big business leaders of Milwaukee, who seek only to weaken government, and to remove the voices of the people. 

Organize!

Preventing A Hostile Right-Wing Takeover of County Government

Written and Prepared By Robert Miranda
For The Greater Milwaukee Green Party
Edited By Sue Ruggles

February 13, 2002

"There is looming up a new and dark power...the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economic conquest only, but for political power...For the first time really in our politics, money is taking the field as an organized power. It is unscrupulous, arrogant, and overbearing...The question will arise and arise in your day...which shall rule wealth or [people]; which shall lead money or intellect; who shall fill public stations educated and patriotic [people], or the feudal serfs of corporate capital."

--Chief Justice Ryan of the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressing the UW Law Class of 1873

The corporate quest for absolute power no longer lurks in the shadows, but is now out in the open. It is a well-orchestrated campaign to weaken our democracy and take over our government. We find ourselves today in the midst of a political battle for power and control being waged by corporations and their political allies.

In the past month, we have witnessed what se