Save Our Troops....Jobs

Forget Red Fridays.
Forget the Yellow Ribbons.

If you really want to support our troops
sign this petition.

Canadian reservists frequently volunteer to serve our country in extended overseas missions. Unfortunately our country--with the exception of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia--does not recognize their sacrifice and some reservists return home only to face the unemployment line.

This situation is simply not fair to the men and women who put their lives on the line for their fellow Canadians.

Therefore we believe it's long overdue for the Canadian government to enact federal legislation that will protect the jobs of reservists who volunteer to serve in extended overseas missions.

While politicians in Toronto and Calgary get into a kerfuffle over posting yellow ribbons on municipal vehicles, they overlook the little fact that there is no Job Protection for Reservists in their provinces. Nor across Canada.

The Canadian reservist, unlike his American counterpart or a pregnant mother, has almost no protection for his job, so that he will usually be taking a big risk employment-wise when he serves his country.

Certain Officers and NCMs of The Royal Montreal Regiment

You can lose your life or body parts in Kandahar, Darfur, or Haiti, or where-ever Canadian Armed Forces are deployed, even at air shows. And to add insult to injury, if you survive, you can also end up losing your job on your return from active duty.

Shame! Shame! Shame! as they say in the House.

Of course prior to Harpers War most reservists and recruits viewed the Canadian Armed Forces as a job, either part time or full time, a career as it was pushed then; there was no life like it. But Harper changed all that. Now they can sign up and fight and if they don't get killed can return to the unemployment line.

Of course labour standards are a provincial responsibility and should be amended, as should Federal legislation. But the fact remains that we should not have to regulate business in the capitalist market place according to the right wing. But once again that fallacy falls flat. Like their much vaunted 'Family Values'.

Major Noseworthy joined our reserve forces in good faith, seeking to do his bit for Canada as a part-time soldier. He answered the call dutifully when asked to go to Afghanistan and fight for peace in that country. But his employer did not have the same sense of duty to Major Noseworthy or Canada for than matter.

In addition to being an army reservist, Major Noseworthy was also the manager at Humber Motors Ford in Stephenville, Newfoundland. That was until he went to Afghanistan and Humber Ford — a firm that claims to be family friendly — refused him a leave of absence to serve his country. Major Noseworthy was dismissed, leaving him to return from his tour of duty and join the line up for Employment Insurance.

And why is there no federal legislation to protect these soldiers?

Jump back to November. That’s when Lt.

-Gen. Andrew Leslie told the House of Commons defense committee that to complete the mission in Afghanistan the Canadian military would have to draw on more of the country’s 18,000 reservists.

At the time Leslie said the military was trying to persuade about 1,500 of them to sign on for two to three years of military duty.

How many of those reservists have, or will have, to quit their jobs to help the country complete its mission?

The federal government was quick to put reserve soldiers in danger by sending them to Afghanistan; the least they can do is ensure they have a job to come home to. Is that too much to ask?

As for employers who require reservists to quit before heading overseas, it’s time to do the right thing. Don’t simply give lip service to supporting the troops, actually do it. If you have a reservist working for you, at the very least grant them a leave of absence if they are willing to put their life on the line for this country.

The only value the working class has in creating capitalism is either as wage slaves or canon fodder.

The Canadian Forces Liaison Council, a group of business people who volunteer to support Canada’s reservists, say this country’s voluntary approach to job protections has worked well.

So the council’s volunteers must have cringed at news earlier this month that a reservist in Newfoundland came back from six long months in Afghanistan to unemployment.

Newfoundland, like Alberta, is among the majority of provinces which extend no job protections to reservists. Meanwhile, reservists are in high demand to fulfil Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan.

But even with service an option for reservists, it’s clear job protections should also be legislated.

That even a single soldier who has served the nation on a potentially deadly mission wind up on the unemployment line for his/her efforts is a national shame.

Surely a call for political action on this front should command more attention than the push for politicians to put ribbon decals on publicly funded bumpers.

Here! Here! As they say in the House.

H/T to Another Point of View for drawing my attention to My Blahg's latest efforts.



SEE:

Kandahar

Afghanistan

War





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values,

Say No To Capital Punishment

Two little words this morning prove why Capital Punishment, murder by the state , is never justified.

Steven Truscott.

For fifty years he awaited justice, while the justice system failed him and Lynne Harper the victim of a brutal rape murder. This morning the Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted him.

Acquittal, but not innocence, likely for Truscott

Sentenced to death in 1959 for the murder of a 12-year-old, there is no avenue for the Canadian legal system to declare him innocent

The real sexual predator who brutally raped and murdered Lyn escaped justice, while Truscott suffered from a justice system that saw him as their best bet for conviction and would not be deterred by facts to the contrary.

Fifty years, the life of a man, to appeal an injustice, resulted finally in justice being served. Truscott is an excellent case for why capital punishment is never justified, it is an irreversible judgment.

No other crime in Canada has divided public opinion as much as the tragic story of the June 9, 1959, murder of 12-year-old Lynne Harper, for which Truscott, then 14, was ultimately convicted. He was the youngest person ever sentenced to death in Canada (his death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment). Still protesting his innocence, he began serving his sentence. His appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

Public opinion ran passionately in favour of his guilt. Pierre Berton had written a sympathetic verse in this very paper a week after the trial and later said he had never known a more violent response to any column he had ever written.

He was called "a sob sister for a monster" and callers expressed the hope that his own daughter would soon be raped. Yet, seven years later, the tide of opinion shifted spectacularly.

The public came to believe that Steven's trial suffered from serious deficiencies, questionable expert testimony and unfairness to the accused. The case was discussed everywhere, including the House of Commons. All because of Isabel LeBourdais, who had published The Trial of Steven Truscott in March 1966. The book was a passionate, emotional defence of Steven Truscott and a scathing denunciation of his trial. She was named woman of the year by The Canadian Press.

Isabel LeBourdais, whose book raised questions about the Truscott investigation, talks with Steven Truscott in 1968 outside Collins Bay Penitentiary.

The doubts raised by the book and the language in which these doubts were framed struck a nerve deep in the Canadian consciousness. As a result of the book, the minister of justice, for the first time in Canadian history, directed a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada as to the propriety of the conviction. It is also the first time in which that court heard live testimony.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on May 4, 1967, but doubts remained. Justice Emmett Hall, one of the most eminent judges of the court, wrote a powerful, passionate and stinging dissent and would have directed a new trial. He sharply criticized the conduct of the Crown. An already inflamed public, he said, was further inflamed by the Crown's improper suggestions and the trial judge's improper charge to the jury. Many Canadians believed that of the nine judges on the Supreme Court, only Justice Hall got it right.

Because of the Truscott Case capital punishment in Canada was reconsidered and eventually removed from the criminal code.

Canada banned the death penalty because of fears about wrongful convictions, concerns about the state taking the lives of individuals, and uncertainty about the death penalty's role as a deterrent for crime.

The case of Steven Truscott, who was just 14 years old when convicted of a murder that many continue to believe he did not commit, was a significant impetus (although certainly not the only one) toward the abolishment of capital punishment.

The return to having Capital Punishment in the criminal code is a platform from the old Reform Party that is the base of the Harper Conservatives. And it came up in the Conservative Leadership race.

Tony Clement declared that he believes that capital punishment should be an option for extreme cases. "My personal view is that in the case of serial killers and murderers of police officers, for instance, that it would be appropriate in those circumstances". -- Tony Clement

This decision should bury that forever. But if it doesn't then my reply to the Law and Order right wingers who endlessly lobby for state murder, will forever remain two little words; Steven Truscott.

The first private bill calling for abolition of the death penalty was introduced in 1914. In 1954, rape was removed from capital offenses. In 1956, a parliamentary committee recommended exempting juvenile offenders from the death penalty, providing expert counsel at all stages of the proceedings and the institution of mandatory appeals in capital cases.

Between 1954 and 1963, a private member's bill was introduced in each parliamentary session calling for abolition of the death penalty. The first major debate on the issue took place in the House of Commons in 1966. Following a lengthy and emotional debate, the government introduced and passed Bill C-168, which limited capital murder to the killing of on-duty police officers and prison guards.

Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

The overall conviction rate for first-degree murder doubled in the decade following abolition (from under 10% to approximately 20%), suggesting that Canadian juries are more willing to convict for murder now that they are not compelled to make life-and-death decisions.

All of Canada's national political parties formally oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty, with the exception of the Reform Party which supports a binding national referendum on the issue.

The debate over capital punishment was renewed once again in 1984. There was a free vote in the House of Commons on the topic in 1987. Supporters of capital punishment narrowly lost the vote, 148 to 127. The Bill to reintroduce capital punishment came from Conservative backbencher Gordon Taylor. Taylor initially introduced the Bill to reinstate capital punishment for Clifford Olson in 1986 but the Speaker of the House refused the Bill, as a law cannot be passed relating to a specific person. Taylor therefore changed the Bill to cover all those convicted of first degree murder and mass murders. In the end though, the Bill was not successful.

The debate concerning capital punishment is far from over, and it is an issue that is not likely to end in the near future. For now though, the debate seems to be dormant. Yet at a time when Canadians are demanding that criminals be held accountable for their actions and that justice be put back into the justice system, it is not likely that the call for the reinstatement of capital punishment will ever go away. Poll after poll shows that Canadians support the use of capital punishment in certain circumstances, but the political will is simply not there. The recent acts of terrorism in the United States might spur a renewed call for capital punishment, even if only for terrorist murders.

In 1976, capital punishment was removed from Canada's Criminal Code. After years of debate, Parliament decided that capital punishment was not an appropriate penalty. The reasons for this decision were due to the possibility of wrongful convictions, concerns about the state taking the lives of individuals, and uncertainty as to the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.

• In 1961, legislation was passed which reclassified murder into capital and non-capital offences. Capital murder referred to planned or deliberate murder, murder that occurred during the course of other violent crimes, or the murder of a police officer or prison guard. At this time, only capital murder was punishable by death.
• On December 10, 1962, Arthur Lucas and Robert Turpin were the last people to be executed in Canada.
• In 1967, a bill was passed that placed a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, except in cases involving the murder of a police officer or corrections officer.
• On July 14, 1976, with the exception of certain offences under the National Defence Act, the death penalty was abolished in Canada. The bill, C-84, passed by a narrow margin on a free vote.
• In 1987, a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote was in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty, 148 to127.
• In 1998, Parliament removed the death penalty with the passing of An Act to Amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 1998 c. 35.
• In Canada, the abolition of the death penalty is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice. Canada has played a key role in denouncing the use of capital punishment at the international level.
• The Supreme Court of Canada has held that prior to extraditing an individual for a capital crime, Canada must seek assurances, save in exceptional circumstances from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be applied.

SEE:

Saddam and the CIA

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Ontario Court of Appeal, Truscott, capital-punishment, Canada, crime, death penalty, Lynne Harper, acquittal, justice,

Gonzo

With the exit of Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales had no reason to stay on and impede investigations into Rove's alleged role the political firings of Justice Department attorneys.

Gonzales Quits After Months of Turmoil Over Firings

And with both of them gone their is no one left to talk to Congress.

``Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House.'' - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

``The resignation of Alberto Gonzales had become inevitable. His situation was a distraction to the Department of Justice and its attempt to carry out its important duties.'' - Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

Under the Gonzales regime Sacco and Vanzetti may not have been hanged for political reasons but they would most certainly have ended up in Gitmo , incommunicado without habeas corpus, while their relatives phones would be tapped illegally.

Covering up for the White House political firings in his department was seen as unimportant, something to sweep under the carpet. And yet it became his petard.

``I don't think he would have ever had to resign until they were able to hang the U.S. attorneys' firings around his neck ... To me, it could all be written off to miscommunication and bad judgment and probably could have been forgiven until they made a conscious decision to be willing to throw some of the U.S. attorneys under the bus.'' - Fired Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins.

Priceless.

Shortly afterward, Mr. Bush acknowledged the resignation and defended Gonzales as a man unfairly vilified by his critics.

"It is sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person is impeded from doing important work because his good name has been dragged through the mud for political reasons," said Bush.

But in the end President Bush may have been Gonzales's lone defender. The Attorney General's halting explanations to Congress of controversial actions, such as the mass firing of US attorneys last year, lost him the support of many lawmakers. Some accused him of outright lies. Even many in the GOP thought he seemed to be in over his head.

``I have said for a long time that I thought the president would be best served if the attorney general resigned so I think it's the right thing to do.'' - Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Republican presidential candidate.

SEE:

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
George W Bush, Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove,

Them and Us

According to King Stephen the Conservatives don't have time for protesters. Which we knew.

And the reason is that he claims protesters are not ordinary Canadians, or in this case Quebecois, but a new profession. Basically a 'rent a crowd'. They are not Canadians or Quebecois like you and me or the Conservatives.

"Dear friends, remember always that this is how we can measure our progress as a political movement: bring true results, work for the well-being of families and taxpayers, for truckers, the cashier, the retired person, the salesman, the farmer, the entrepreneur--for people who work hard, and who don't have the time to protest, or have the money to hire protestors.

But who support their families--Quebeckers of the middle class, the enlarged middle class, who were largely ignored for too long, by the political class.

The Conservatives saw them, the Conservatives heard them, the Conservatives have understood them, because we are they [i.e. the middle class]."

Gee someone tell that to the professional protesters at the Fraser Institute, of which Jason Kenney, Rob Anders and Ezra Levant are graduates of. Or the professional protesters of the NCC Lobby, which Harper once spokesman of. Or the professional protesters of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Or the professional protesters opposed to the Wheat Board. Or the professional protesters at REAL Women. Or the professional protesters who demand Childcare Choice. Or the professional protesters who lobby for traditional marriage. Or the professional protesters who oppose Native Rights and Land Claims. Or the professional protesters of the Canadian Medical Association. Or the professional protesters who celebrate Red Friday.

Apparently they are no longer welcome in Harpers New Conservative Party of the 'enlarged middle class'.

Harper defines this mythical class as; 'truckers, the cashier, the retired person, the salesman, the farmer, the entrepreneur'. Now other than the the retired person and the cashier; who is a wage slave, the rest are gainfully defined as 'self employed' which is the classic definition of middle class; self employed professionals. Who were once called the petit-bourgeoisie

After liberal ideologue Daniel Bell declared the end of class war, sociologists defined the middle class as the great American melting pot which included blue collar workers, white collar workers, service workers, professionals and the self employed.

It was not based on the Marxist defined 'relations to the means of production', but on their salaries. No one was working class anymore, that was passe instead we all became a nation of the great unwashed 'middle class' we were now all 'consumers', not producers.

Now given that one would think with all those protesters who makeup the Conservative Party base, that Harper would have enlarged his middle class to include professional protesters and those who have the time and money to hire them. What he is saying is that the hard working Canadians and Quebecois who oppose him are simply in the pay of.....whom? Commies? Trade Unions? Maude Barlow?

In true animal farm fashion he has defined some protesters as more Conservative than others. They are the Special Interests. 'Them' to Harpers 'Us'.

Of course what he really is saying is that by his definition Thomas D'Aquino and his clique of Canada's CEO's are not a special interest group, but the mass of folks who protested last weekend at summit in Montebello are.

We have heard it all before, the protesters are 'commie dupes', and their fellow travelers in the media and blogosphere are 'nattering nabobs of negativity'.

And typical of right wing populism Harper again appeals to being one of the people; "because we are they" ignoring the political reality that his Party is not only a Minority Government but a minority political view amongst Canadians and Canadien's.



SEE:

The Peasants Are Revolting!

Police Black Block

Day In Wonderland

Jelly Bean Summit


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
contientalism, integration, economic integration, Canada, Stephen Harper, Quebec, NAFTA, SPP, North American Union, capitalism, labour, left, left nationalism, Quebec, Canada, labour, environmentalists, union, labor, police agents, QPP, RCMP,

Steel Merger

US Steel to buy Stelco for $1.1bn

This was the merger the Steelworkers union was looking for. And how much it was facilitated by the USW President Leo Gerard, who is from Canada, well that's anyone's guess. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean.

It's just good fortune that they both share the same union. A union that practices and advocates for mergers and acquisitions.

SEE:

Mittal Plays Monopoly

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Leo Gerard, Steelworkers, Untied Steelworkers Union, Amicus, 
General Transportation Workers Union, Mittal, Mergers, Canada, Stelco, US Steel, 
Free Trade, job cuts, layoffs,

Canada
Steel
Dofasco
Mittal
ThyssenKrupp
Arcelor
Monopoly Capitalism

Atlantic Alberta Accord

Alberta and Atlantic Canada share an accord. The Federal NDP have gained in the polls in both provinces. This is an interesting poll result for the NDP in Alberta. It is the first time they have been in second place in the polls.

The Conservatives are continuing their free-fall in Atlantic Canada, taking only 13.9% of the vote compared to the Liberals 49.2%, the NDP’s 23.9% and the Greens’ 13.1%. These fortunes are mirrored in Alberta where the Liberals find themselves at 12.6%, marginally ahead of the Greens at 12.1%. The Conservatives lead that province with 52.1% of decided voters with the NDP in second place at 23.2%.

Which bodes well for my prediction of the impact a provincial election in Alberta would have on Federal Conservatives. The concern about the 'out of towners' impacting on Stelmach's regime has not been missed by the man himself.

"We've had over 500,000 new Albertans move to the province within the last six years."

SEE:

Williams Out Deals Stelmach

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Stephen Harper, Harper, NCC, Reform Party, Conservatives, Conservative Party, politics, Government, PM, Ottawa, Canada,Harper
Canada, politics, Conservative, parliament,
Harper, Government, Conservatives,Canada, poll, Conservative, parliament,
Canada, equalization, royalties,
F Harper, Government, Conservatives,Province,
Alberta, Premier, Ed Stelmach, PC, Calgary, Party of Calgary, politics, leadership, Conservatives, Edmonton, One Party State,History, Politics, Economics,leadership, politics, PC,
Alberta, MLA, Progressive Conservatives,Red Tories, politics,NDP

US Troops Out Of Iraq April 2008

Despite the White House refusal to accept the Democrats call for troop withdrawals to begin no later than April 2008, the reality is they will begin then. And it is not congress that has set that date, but the Pentagon.

MR. RUSSERT: Tom Ricks and Michael Gordon, you cover the Pentagon, both in an extraordinary way. You’ve heard all the testimony, all the reports that the military is being strained terribly by the war in Iraq. Do you expect that there will be significant troop withdrawals recommended by the leadership in the Pentagon for 2008?

MR. RICKS: Yes. If things go beautifully, better than expected, you’ll see troop drawdowns beginning by April of next year. If things go horribly, you know, much worse than they are now, you’re going to see troop drawdowns beginning in April of next year. They’re going to come down by about one brigade, say about 5,000 troops a month, from April to October of next year.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Tom Ricks , April 2008, USA, economy, Republicans, war, cost of war, Iraq, Democrats, military, Pentagon, troop withdrawal, Bush, White House, economics, troops out, ,

Military Industrial Complex

The most significant pronouncement of the 1960's which literally created a new perspective on Post War America for the radical Left and Right. And it is not only relevant today but continues to be the basis for a coherent oppositional critique of the neo-con agenda of American Empire and American Exceptionalism.

The irony is that the those on the New Left like the SDS accepted Eisenhower's assessment of the dangers and used as a critique of American State Capitalism while those from the Old Left embraced it during the cold war as 'anti-Stalinists', and became the founders of the Neo-Con movement in America today.

It was the SDS that inspired the emergence of the libertarian left and the left libertarian critique of this model of State Capitalism.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

EISENHOWER: SOLDIER OF PEACE

HE was a soldier who loathed war.

He was a politician who abhorred politics. He was a hero who despised heroics. Yet there was nothing inconsistent about Dwight David Eisenhower. As much as any other American of today or yesterday, he was the storybook American. A man of luminous integrity and decency, of steadfast courage and conscience, he embodied in his wide smile, high ideals and down-to-earth speech all the virtues of a simpler and more serene America.

In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Eisenhower's challenge from 40 years ago is more relevant today than ever, and he seemed to know it would be. ''Down the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.... Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.'' Such words are rare in Washington today, but tomorrow their echo can still be heard.

Mega-contractors such as Halliburton and Bechtel supply the government with brawn. But the biggest, most powerful of the "body shops"—SAIC, which employs 44,000 people and took in $8 billion last year—sells brainpower, including a lot of the "expertise" behind the Iraq war.

The War Business

And so, for the private contractors that increasingly make up the infrastructure of our armed forces, fortune has arisen from tragedy. During the first Iraq war, in 1991, one in a hundred American personnel was employed by a private contractor. In the second Iraq war, that ratio is closer to one in ten. The Washing ton Post reports that as much as one third of the rapidly expanding cost of the Iraq war is going into private U.S. bank accounts.

The original point of this massive outflow of federal dollars was to save money. In Donald Rumsfeld's vision, privatization would bring the unbending discipline of the marketplace to bear on war itself. In 1995, well before his return to Washington, Rumsfeld presented to America his "Thoughts from the Business World on Downsizing Government," a monograph informed by his experience as both a White House chief of staff and defense secretary (under Gerald Ford) and a CEO of two large American corporations (General Instrument Corp. and G. D. Searle). "Government programs are effectively insulated from the rigors of the marketplace, and therefore are denied the possibility of failure," he wrote. "Sometimes, nothing short of outright privatization can restore the discipline of a bottom line."

Eisenhower's Farewell Warning Was Meant For Our Time

To be sure, there isn't really such a corporation: the Omnivore Group, as it might be called. But if there were such a company—and, mind you, there isn't—it might look a lot like the largest government contractor you've never heard of: a company known simply by the nondescript initials SAIC (for Science Applications International Corporation), initials that are always spoken letter by letter rather than formed into a pronounceable acronym. SAIC maintains its headquarters in San Diego, but its center of gravity is in Washington, D.C. With a workforce of 44,000, it is the size of a full-fledged government agency—in fact, it is larger than the departments of Labor, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development combined. Its anonymous glass-and-steel Washington office—a gleaming corporate box like any other—lies in northern Virginia, not far from the headquarters of the C.I.A., whose byways it knows quite well. (More than half of SAIC's employees have security clearances.) SAIC has been awarded more individual government contracts than any other private company in America. The contracts number not in the dozens or scores or hundreds but in the thousands: SAIC currently holds some 9,000 active federal contracts in all. More than a hundred of them are worth upwards of $10 million apiece. Two of them are worth more than $1 billion. The company's annual revenues, almost all of which come from the federal government, approached $8 billion in the 2006 fiscal year, and they are continuing to climb. SAIC's goal is to reach as much as $12 billion in revenues by 2008. As for the financial yardstick that really gets Wall Street's attention—profitability—SAIC beats the S&P 500 average. Last year ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, posted a return on revenue of 11 percent. For SAIC the figure was 11.9 percent. If "contract backlog" is any measure—that is, contracts negotiated and pending—the future seems assured. The backlog stands at $13.6 billion. That's one and a half times more than the backlog at KBR Inc., a subsidiary of the far better known government contractor once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Halliburton Company.

It is a simple fact of life these days that, owing to a deliberate decision to downsize government, Washington can operate only by paying private companies to perform a wide range of functions. To get some idea of the scale: contractors absorb the taxes paid by everyone in America with incomes under $100,000. In other words, more than 90 percent of all taxpayers might as well remit everything they owe directly to SAIC or some other contractor rather than to the IRS. In Washington these companies go by the generic name "body shops"—they supply flesh-and-blood human beings to do the specialized work that government agencies no longer can. Often they do this work outside the public eye, and with little official oversight—even if it involves the most sensitive matters of national security. The Founding Fathers may have argued eloquently for a government of laws, not of men, but what we've got instead is a government of body shops.

Port Huron Statement

of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962

The Military-Industrial Complex. The most spectacular and important creation of the authoritarian and oligopolistic structure of economic decision-making in America is the institution called "the military industrial complex" by former President Eisenhower, the powerful congruence of interest and structure among military and business elites which affects so much of our development and destiny. Not only is ours the first generation to live with the possibility of world-wide cataclysm -- it is the first to experience the actual social preparation for cataclysm, the general militarization of American society. In 1948 Congress established Universal Military Training, the first peacetime conscription. The military became a permanent institution. Four years earlier, General Motor's Charles E. Wilson had heralded the creation of what he called the "permanent war economy," the continuous use of military spending as a solution to economic problems unsolved before the post-war boom, most notably the problem of the seventeen million jobless after eight years of the New Deal. This has left a "hidden crisis" in the allocation of resources by the American economy.

Since our childhood these two trends -- the rise of the military and the installation of a defense-based economy -- have grown fantastically. The Department of Defense, ironically the world's largest single organization, is worth $160 billion, owns 32 million acres of America and employs half the 7.5 million persons directly dependent on the military for subsistence, has an $11 billion payroll which is larger than the net annual income of all American corporations. Defense spending in the Eisenhower era totaled $350 billions and President Kennedy entered office pledged to go even beyond the present defense allocation of sixty cents from every public dollar spent. Except for a war-induced boom immediately after "our side" bombed Hiroshima, American economic prosperity has coincided with a growing dependence on military outlay -- from 1941 to 1959 America's Gross National Product of $5.25 trillion included $700 billion in goods and services purchased for the defense effort, about one-seventh of the accumulated GNP. This pattern has included the steady concentration of military spending among a few corporations. In 1961, 86 percent of Defense Department contracts were awarded without competition. The ordnance industry of 100,000 people is completely engaged in military work; in the aircraft industry, 94 percent of 750,000 workers are linked to the war economy; shipbuilding, radio and communications equipment industries commit forty percent of their work to defense; iron and steel, petroleum, metal-stamping and machine shop products, motors and generators, tools and hardware, copper, aluminum and machine tools industries all devote at least 10 percent of their work to the same cause.

The intermingling of Big Military and Big Industry is evidenced in the 1,400 former officers working for the 100 corporations who received nearly all the $21 billion spent in procurement by the Defense Department in 1961. The overlap is most poignantly clear in the case of General Dynamics, the company which received the best 1961 contracts, employed the most retired officers (187), and is directed by a former Secretary of the Army. A Fortune magazine profile of General Dynamics said: "The unique group of men who run Dynamics are only incidentally in rivalry with other U.S. manufacturers, with many of whom they actually act in concert. Their chief competitor is the USSR. The core of General Dynamics corporate philosophy is the conviction that national defense is a more or less permanent business." Little has changed since Wilson's proud declaration of the Permanent War Economy back in the 1944 days when the top 200 corporations possessed 80 percent of all active prime war-supply contracts.

The Return of the SDS


During the late 1960s, when students all over American were practicing direct democracy on campus by waging massive student strikes and taking over their university buildings, the three essays collected here for the first time were among the most widely read pieces of student radical literature. Their author, Carl Davidson, was national vice-president and inter-organizational secretary of the SDS. Starting from the sociologists' conclusion that modern universities are "knowledge factories" designed to serve the Military Industrial Complex, Davidson, in these essays, explored various analogies and connections between students and the working class and outlined a theory of student syndicalism that characterized a critical phase in the development of SDS. Drawing not only on classical Marxism but also on IWW and anarcho-syndicalist ideas as well as on newer revolutionary currents such as the Dutch Provos and French Situationists, these writings were among the most original and influential documents of the American New Left in its dynamic first decade, and remain an unexcelled "how-to" manual for insurgent students seeking to gain some measure of control over their lives. In a new afterward, the author situates the rise of student syndicalism in its historic context, while reflecting on the meaning of these writings for today.

The SDS of the sixties had its roots in the League for Industrial Democracy, a socialist organization with credentials. The League included Norman Thomas, Upton Sinclair, and Jack London. In the early 1960’s the youth branch of the league clashed with the old establishment and created Students for a Democratic Society. In the early sixties SDS was small, and disorganized because of an understandable aversion to centralization and a belief in localized participatory democracy. SDS involved itself in the civil rights movement and quickly grew. The strength of the SDS, and probably the reason it grew so quickly was that it had no official ideological line. It was certainly radical, but it made no policy naming it Anarchist, Marxist-Leninist, Democratic Socialist, or anything else. Instead it incorporated all of these, and the liberal students too. By creating unity among radicals in general where factionalism once existed the SDS became the biggest, most effective, and most known radical organization of its time.

Especially notable was the preference for community organizing among SDSers. Though many of these campaigns weren’t successful in accomplishing their goals, the idea was the right one. Any radical student organization must be an organization of action, of union organizing, and of protest organizing. Because these actions were so visible, they further contributed to SDS’ growing numbers, and as the organization grew they began to implement all the right actions that gained public attention and in some cases real change. The SDS organized boycotts, direct action, civil disobedience, and also did teach-ins and propagated ideas of class-consciousness. At its height the SDS was able to organize huge marches on Washington, and even gained the qualification of a true radical organization: interference by the FBI.

The American Student Movement of the 1930s

The modern American Student movement began in the 1930s, when the National Student League joined with the Student League for Industrial Democracy to form the American Student Union (ASU). During its peak years, from spring 1936 to spring 1939, the movement mobilized at least 500,000 college students (about half the American student body) in annual one-hour strikes against war. The movement also organized students on behalf of an extensive reform agenda, which included federal aid to education, government job programs for youth, abolition of the compulsory Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), academic freedom, racial equality, and collective bargaining rights.

The Student League for Industrial Democracy was the student affiliate of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID).

There were two distinct groups called the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID) in two different periods - one existed from 1931 until 1935, the other existed from 1945 until 1960.

The first SLID was formed when radical student members of LID left in 1931 and formed the New York Student League (which was renamed the National Student League a year later). In response to this new group, LID formed SLID in 1931. SLID existed until December of 1935 when, like the student members of LID in 1931, it became too radical for LID, and split off from LID. SLID joined with the National Student League (NSL) when it split from LID, with SLID and NSL combining to form the American Student Union.

The reincarnation of SLID is the more well-known one. In 1945, LID decided to recreate SLID. SLID was a small and fairly moribund group throughout the 1940's and 1950's, much like LID which now was more liberal and anti-communist than socialist. In 1960, SLID renamed itself Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) so as to have a more wide appeal among college students. SDS would become the largest and most influential left-wing student group in American history.

League for Industrial Democracy (or LID)

At Port Huron, Tom Hayden clashed with Irving Howe and Michael Harrington over perceived potential for totalitarianism. Hayden said, "While the draft Port Huron Statement included a strong denunciation of the Soviet Union, it wasn’t enough for LID leaders like Michael Harrington. They wanted absolute clarity, for example, that the United States was blameless for the nuclear arms race...In truth, they seemed threatened by the independence of the new wave of student activism..."

By 1965, SDS had totally divorced itself from the LID, and it became a publishing front for the followers of Max Shachtman, who had dominated the organization since the late 1950s. To this day, the post office box of the Shachtmanite legacy group Social Democrats USA is held under the name League for Industrial Democracy.

League for Industrial Democracy (LID)

"The league was established in 1905 to educate students and other members of society about socialist principles of democracy and labor. Over the years it lost its progressive orientation and by the 1950s became involved with the CIA in efforts to combat communism." Now dominated by anticommunists, its board is composed primarily of neoconservatives associated with the Social Democrats USA and the international institutes of the AFL-CIO.

"Included among LID ranks are Sol Chaikin, Eric Chenowith, William Doherty, Evelyn Dubrow, Larry Dugan, Jr., Norman Hill, David Jessup, John T. Joyce, Tom Kahn, Jay Mazur, Joyce Miller, Albert Shanker, Donald Slaiman, John T. Sweeney, and Lynn R. Williams. Penn Kemble and Roy Godson, a specialist in labor and intelligence theory, are also LID directors. The league received a NED grant in 1985 "for a study on the interrelationship between democratic trade unions and political parties, with special emphasis on socialist and social democratic parties, to examine their attitudes toward U.S. labor, foreign-policy, [and] economic issues.""

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Fukuyama, Schactman, Burnham, Iraq, neo-conservatives, CCNY, America, Right=wingt, conservatives, War, Bush, Trotskyism, Rothabard, Argorism, Libertarian,
Schactman, Burnham, neo-conservatives,, Fourth International, Trotsky, Trotskyists, Trotskyite, Trotskyism, neo-conservatives,
CLR James, Marxism, Trotskyism, Caribbean, Pan-Africanism, radicals, The Black Jacobin's, cricket, writers, Marxists, socialists, black, black history month,state capitalism, USSR, Russia, Trotsky, Fourth International, Lenin, Anarchism, Anarchist, Bureaucratic Collectivism, Schactman, CLR James, Rosa Luxemburg, Time, 1931, Soviet Union, Bolsheviks, OttoR uhle, Council Communists, Left Communists, David Horowitz, Linda Kimball, Trotsky, Trotskyism, Neo-con, Frontpage, Ramparts, Gramsci, Marx, Goebbels, War on Christianity, Culture War, New Right, conservatives, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, McCarthyism, New Left, gay rights, schools, academics, conspiracy theories, reds under the bed, anti-communism,