The most recent electoral banter around King takes place within the collective amnesia about his views, especially his later views focusing on issues dogging us to this day: racism and poverty, prisoners and war. To the detriment of our political process, we forget that King’s views came about at least in part as a response to a black political milieu defined not just by white racism, but by the wealth of spirited action and the intellectual perspective provided by millions of people, thousands of organizations and other, less-requited political stars – Angela Davis, the Black Panthers and their combination of service and calls to militancy; Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam and their own brand of self-determination; Stokely Carmichael and the more militant students of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. These and many others influenced and pressured King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the 1960s.

…

This climate has benefited Barack Obama, who speaks more skillfully than any other candidate to a still mostly white electorate that is largely unwilling to deal collectively with issues of race and racism beyond the platitudes one hears during official celebrations of King. Obama’s King-like cadences and charisma give us that semi-religious feeling that goes with being part of a social change movement -only without a social change movement.

Even though a majority is now against the war, most of us are still left out or alienated from the anti-war movement. War is an issue that affects everyone, and working people pay the biggest price. How then can we build an inclusive movement that is accessible by working people?

What do we want instead of endless war, and how do we plan to get there? How can we build a movement that empower individuals instead of asking folks to follow marching orders?

I don’t want another good-intentioned person to hand me a flyer that details the Bush regime’s war crimes–I know these by heart now. I don’t want to go to another anti-war meeting that makes me feel like I’m in high school all over again–where I have to be quiet while the leader tells us what to think and do. I don’t want to go to another demonstration that treats it’s participants as just additional bodies to hold signs and in the end leaves us feeling more isolated and alone. I know this isn’t everyone’s experience with the anti-war movement, but I have a feeling that I am not alone.

It is clear that the peace movement is falling way short of what it could and what it must accomplish. I think we need honest discussion on how we can build a movement that can really end this war, and not just that but discussion on how to build a movement that can go further and start to address peoples needs by winning change in all aspects of life.

State bureaucrats don’t want Grady to close, but instead they want to transfer the board from public hands to a non-profit. Of course, they promise that Grady will still continue to serve the uninsured.

Activists groups, like Jobs with Justice and the Rainbow Coalition, are working hard to keep Grady public. Whether they, along with other concerned citizens are able to stop this takeover will likely determine whether the uninsured in Atlanta will continue to receive emergency care (without accumulating unsurmountable debt), but just the fact that residents are forced to struggle to have a say in this decision is indicative of the state of democracy in this society. If Grady is a public hospital, funded and controlled by public resources, shouldn’t it be up to citizens to decide what happens to Grady? If there are a significant number of citizens in Atlanta or Georgia that were interested in privatizing Grady, then perhaps a referendum would be in order.

That’s not how democracy functions in the United States. Instead, government and corporate beauracts set an agenda that pleases corporate interests. Democracy happens when outraged citizens organize and take to the streets in protest, and sometimes they win a measure of control over decisions. When protest is the only option, institutional democracy is broken. Everyone knows it’s broken though.

Viewing Grady as a crisis in democracy may give activists the best shot of saving the public hospital. Activists in favor of keeping Grady public seem to focus their battle over the issue of whether or not Grady should be kept public (they argue that we must fight to keep it public). But this stance actually pretends that citizens have a say in the decision.

Perhaps the more important question to raise is who should decide what to do with Grady? Should it be the people who have used and might at one point use Grady, the the people who work there, and the taxpayers that fund this hospital? Or, should the fate of the hospital be decided in a “secret meeting” by “the Grady board, the Fulton County Commission, the offices of the governor and lieutenant governor, the religious community and the corporate world.”

Everyone knows it’s the latter group that will make the important decisions. It is no surprise then that the AJC reports that “consensus is growing for the idea of putting daily Grady operations under the auspices of a non-profit corporation.” This statement is true if you disregard Atlanta citizens and just look at the relevant opinions, that is the opinions of the decision makers.

Advocates of keeping Grady public should not just defend the hospital’s current structure, but instead should organize around the idea that we can win real democratic institutions that give people authentic control over resources like Grady. It’s not enough to just fight the corporate takeover, we need to replace the system that would encourage such a takeover.

State senator Kasim Reed explains the situation a little more succinctly, “Everyone understands that he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Of course, Reed has no problem with this situation as the AJC explains thats he thinks “seats on the board should be distributed, proportionately, among the institutions that end up financing the new Grady.” Therein lies the true essence of American democracy: one dollar, one vote.

First off, the resolution makes it easier for unions to get started. The legislation will change current law so that workers need only to get a majority to request union representation. Currently, an employer can require a secret election even in the case that a majority of workers request a union.

Also, the act will further protect workers from being fired or otherwise mistreated for organizing. The resolution adds some enforcement measures to the protection already instituted by the National Labor Relations Act.

The National Labor Relations Board cited that over 20,000 workers per year from 1993-2003 were “illegally fired, demoted, laid off, suspended without pay, or denied work by their employers as a result of the workers’ union activity.” These actions do more than suppress the organizing activities of 20,000 workers. The real value is in the intimidation factor that sends a powerful message to countless other workers who might be interested in protecting their rights. Organize and you will pay for it.

There is no need to repeat here the dire state of unions in America and the resulting effects this low union membership has on wages, benefits, human rights, and other indicators. These observations have already been well documented elsewhere.

Unions are the worst enemy of big business, and Bush is sure to score points with the corporate crowd for resisting this legislation.

This legislation, or the veto of this legislation, will have real effects on workers and all Americans. Those who care about workers rights will be sure to push for the passage of this act, as part of a larger struggle to win real change for workers everywhere.

The Times’ emphasis on this attack being the first in years rewrites the record of recent events from last summer when Israel directly attacked hundreds of civilians. These attacks include the types of crimes that the Times reported on August 3, 2006:

On a mountain road just south of here, a convoy of Lebanese villagers was fleeing north shortly after the war began. They had heard Israeli soldiers telling them to evacuate. Suddenly, a rocket struck a pickup truck full of people. Twenty-one people were killed, more than half of them children.

The Times goes on to explain that “Israel said it believed the convoy was transporting rockets.” Apparently Israel’s admission of a belief is sufficient evidence for these journalists as the title of the article, “Civilians Lose As Fighters Slip Into Fog of War,” reveals which party the Times thinks is really to blame.

According to the same report, Israel’s attacks were not limited to rural villages: “In Beirut…the scale of destruction in the southern Shiite suburbs is breathtaking.” In the suburbs of Beirut, the United Nations estimated that at least 2,500 housing units were destroyed and twice as many damaged. The damage against Beirut and the rest of the country is too extensive to discuss here, but several human rights organizations have begun to assess the destruction.

To say that the recent attacks in Beirut were the first directed against civilians in 15 years is a brazen lie that defies countless pages of evidence documented by human rights organizations over the past year. Including the fact that at least a third of the civilians Israel killed in Lebanon last summer, were caused by bombs dropped in areas where there was no evidence of Hezbollah forces.

The New York Times and the rest of the corporate media refuses to see attacks carried out by the United States and our allies as acts of terrorism. The Times understands that America and Israel may slip up, and sometimes there is collateral damage, but viewing our attacks in the same light as those we label terrorists is simply unthinkable. Although the thought is never seriously entertained, they quickly dismiss any notion of such an idea in favor of repeating rhetoric that explains the true intentions of our attacks.

Hitler, as well as virtually every other state criminal, professed nothing but good intentions as he carried out the most hideous crimes in history. Americans, who already recognize that politics is a game played between elites in their own interests, will do well to look past the meaningless rhetoric of our leaders and take an honest look at their actions.

Lt. Ehren Watada was the first officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, he argued his case based on legal and moral grounds:

“It is my duty as a commissioned officer in the United States army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the constitution. Not to those who issue unlawful orders. I stand before you today because it is my job to serve and protect American soldiers and innocent Iraqis who have no voice. It is my conclusion that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong, but also a breach of American law.”

He concluded that the Iraq war violated the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Act, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles. He rightfully labeled the invasion of Iraq as a “war of aggression” as defined in the Nuremberg Principles. Furthermore, Watada adhered to the Nuremberg Principles which require soldiers to disobey illegal orders.

For following supreme international law, Lt. Watada may now face up to six years in prison on the grounds of refusing orders and speaking out against the war. Earlier this year, a judge ruled that Watada could not present his defense based on the Nuremberg Principles because the legality of the war is a “nonjusticiable political question.”

The court martial of Lt. Watada which started Monday is sure to gather the military a lot of negative publicity. Evidently, the need to instill fear in those soldiers already committed to service outweighs the negative effect this press will have on recruitment. The military commanders must certainly be weary of a greater military resistance to the war, given how unpopular it is among the troops.

Americans have an obligation to stand up for Lt. Watada. We don’t live in a police state, and dissidents should not be thrown in jail, regardless of whether they are part of the military.

The IISS said that we must go beyond leaflets that spread the good news of U.S. occupation like those that explain “we are here to help” or “life is getting better.” IISS explains to policymakers who may be out of touch, “In reality, life may not be getting better and in the eyes of the target audience the military presence could be contributing to the problem.”

At least in Iraq, this explanation is a giant understatement. Life is certainly horrible there and shows no signs of getting better. The International Medical Corps (IMC) reported that over a half million Iraqis were displaced last year, while the UN estimates that in total 1.7 million are internally displaced while 2 million have fled the country completely. Although many left the country before the U.S. invasion, IMC notes that “the pace of those fleeing is accelerating at a dramatic rate. Since last November alone, the number of those displaced has jumped by 43%.”

The Inter Press Service reported on conditions in Iraq last December, noting that “everyone agrees that the situation now is worse than ever”

“I wish I could flee to any Third World country and work in garbage collection rather than stay here and live like a frightened rat,” Adel Mohammed Aziz, a teacher from Baghdad, told IPS. “We are all living in fear for our lives; death chases us all around.” …

The body count has increased to a minimum of 100 a day, with most killed after monstrous torture.

“We cannot go to work, cannot go to pray in our mosques, and cannot send our children to schools,” young mother Um Rheem from the Shaab quarter in Baghdad told IPS. “Many Sunni men have been killed by Shia death squads who have the full support of the government and Americans.”…

“We cannot open our shops for more than three to four hours a day,” a carpet seller on the volatile Rasheed Street told IPS. “Many of my colleagues have been abducted for ransom or killed for sectarian reasons on the way to work. We expect death every minute.”

The economic disaster is now an emergency. More than 5 million Iraqis are living below the poverty line, close to half of them in desperate conditions, according to a government study.

As a result, it is not surprising to anyone that simple-minded messages about how the U.S. is going to save the day aren’t very convincing.

It is well known by now that the vast majority of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave and furthermore that over half of Iraqis support insurgent attacks against American forces. Likewise, convincing the Iraqis that we are there for their benefit is a lost cause. A few months after we invaded, Gallup reported that 1% of Iraqis believe the U.S. invaded to “establish democracy,” while 5% believed the invasion was intended to “assist Iraqi people.”

Policymakers and analysts such as the IISS rightfully see these opinions as a big problem. Like any good imperial strategist, they suggest the solution is not to listen to and obey the wishes of Iraqis but rather to change their opinions. They said that the military must begin to “incorporate so called ‘influence activities’ as an integral part of pre-deployment preparation for complex warfare missions.”

As an example, they point out that “using ‘body count’ as a measure of effect has a very different impact within the area of operations than it does with a home audience. While boasting about our killing our enemies may raise morale at home, “in the theater of operations…every publicly announced kill delivering more willing recruits to the cause” of the insurgents.” It may be difficult for American leaders to grasp why the locals would not be encouraged by advances in our noble mission.

If the United States follows the advice of the IISS, we will step up our propaganda war in Afghanistan and Iraq. In places where the results of our aggression are so vividly horrific, it will surely take a much greater effort to influence the minds of the population than it does here in America.

Americans with concern for democracy and the sovereignty of other nations will be interested in the opinions of Iraqis and other victims. They likely believe that Iraqi wishes should be respected not influenced with “psychological warfare.” For different reasons, those interested in controlling the most strategically important region in the world may also be concerned with the thoughts of the victims, but only to the extent that those attitudes might hinder America’s imperial strategy.

It is clear that the Democrats, Republicans, and think-tanks like the IISS are not actually interested in such notions as democracy and freedom, while they continue to debate the best way to complete the mission, refusing to question the legitimacy of our invasion.

Many of those who oppose the war in America recognize it that was an illegal, unjust invasion carried out for self-serving reasons. Furthermore, many Americans will continue to demand that we obey the wishes of the victims and end our occupation of Iraq.

From 1994 to 2002 the fast track authority was not in effect. Bush successfully regained the authority by pushing through the 2002 Trade Act by a narrow margin in 2002 (215-212 in the House). The legislation expires on July 1st, 2006, unless Bush is able to renew it.

It is important to understand the intended purpose of the fast track authority. Why would the President want to negotiate a trade agreement without allowing input from Congress?

First, Bush is trying to combat the “least hospitable environment for trade liberalization in recent memory” where “57 percent of Americans believe that trade destroys more jobs than it creates” and as a result American popular support for free trade agreements is even lower than European support for free trade. Congress is at least indirectly responsive to these public opinions.

For example, the America public might want guarantees that jobs are not going to go overseas with the next trade agreement. With fast track authority, the President doesn’t have to worry about these concerns because the agreements are done behind closed doors. By the time the signed deal goes to Congress for approval, legislators are likely to approve the deal even if they have some reservations.

With fast track authority, the trade agreements can be negotiated with virtually no regard to any democratic interests, as if the actual terms of the agreement didn’t affect people. This gives the President power to leverage deals in the interests of the United States, meaning the interests of those who own and run the country.

In return for increased corporate profits Bush will sacrifice labor and environmental interests. That entails more of the same for neoliberal globalization, meaning removing jobs and driving down wages both at home and abroad. It also means outsourcing pollution and other environmental problems to poor countries.

There is a lot at stake for free trade agreements. Last year the Doha Rounds, the WTO talks, fell through when developing nations got tired of being bullied around by the great economic powers. It is critical for Bush to save the next round of negotiations. There is a lot at stake for U.S. corporate interests.

For starters, free trade agreements allows unrestricted access for U.S. corporations to foreign markets. But not only are corporations allowed access to sell to foreign consumers, they are also given free reign to force their propaganda on foreign consumers to convince them that they need their products. This means whole new markets of impressionable consumers to buy useless products they don’t need or even really want.

Free trade also means using protectionist measures likes subsidizing American agribusiness to dominate foreign agriculture markets. And if our subsidized agriculture aren’t enough to completely flood a country’s markets, we will force genetically modified seeds on them to destroy their indigenous crops and create permanent dependencies on our agribusinesses.

This is the current reality of so-called free trade agreements like NAFTA. The economic “masters of the universe” are looking to keep the profits flowing into the right hands.

An alternative to fast track trade authority would be allowing real participation in the negotiation of the trade agreements by those who are actually affected. That means the farmers at home and abroad, the factory workers who will lose their job, the sweatshop workers, the local citizens who will have their water and air polluted, and everyone else who is impacted but unable to buy influence.

A trade deal that takes these parties into account would create an agreement that is much more fair, and would be positive for those actually involved. On the other hand, as long as globalization and trade are simply tools of the powerful few, they will continue to be used to exploit the rest of the world, producing horrendous results.

Once again, it is not known whether the attacks were successful at killing the “suspected terrorist targets.”

The Pentagon and the media will judge success or failure based on whether or not these “high-value target” suspects were killed. Failure means wasted effort and money. Success means making ground in the war on terror.

A more honest judgement might consider the fact that the strikes violate international law and kill innocent civilians. One might also question why the U.S. military has a license to kill anyone it suspects of terrorism.

How much different is an air raid in rural Somalia and an Al-Qaeda car bomb? Neither offender even attempts to offer a legitimate reason for attacking it’s victims, most of whom are innocent civilians. In the eyes of the victims and honest observers both are acts of terrorism.

So the War on Terror, in the Orwellian sense of the term, continues to be exactly what one would expect: a war of terror directed by the strongest military in the world against some of the poorest and most oppressed people in the world.

Recently, the two most publicized bid announcements have come from Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is easy to compare their respective positions on the war since they are essentially the same. Obama is introducing a bill to cap troop levels at the level they were at on January 10th, while Clinton has submitted a similar proposal that will cap troop levels to their January 10th mark.

Obama calls for “gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces,” while failing to mention a hard deadline in an effort to “protect American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos.” He calls on Congress to act now to “prevent even more mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end.”

Clinton says she doesn’t support cutting funding for the war, but instead will support “cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions.” On the other hand, we need more troops and military funding in Afghanistan whose government is “committed to promoting national interests over sectarian ones, is making tangible progress in governance,” and “sincerely wants more US help” unlike Iraq. The gist of her stance is that we should recognize that Iraq is a failed attempt at creating a U.S. client state, but meanwhile in Afghanistan we still have a chance to salvage some form of effective control.

John Edwards takes a similar though slightly stronger position. “You have to actually have the courage to stop the escalation. And the way Congress can stop the escalation is by not funding the escalation.” Again, he opposes the troop “surge,” thinks the war was a mistake, and we should withdrawal within some undisclosed time frame. On his own presidential campaign website the only issue that might pertain to Iraq is labeled as “Restoring America’s Moral Standing in the World.” Since he isn’t currently in office, no one can be quite sure what type of restoration Edwards has in mind.

One of the early favorites for the Republican race is John McCain. There isn’t much to say here, since McCain supports the surge. He plays his role well in using fear to shape public opinion, nothing, “If we leave Iraq, I am convinced that al-Qaida and terrorist organizations will want to follow us home.”

Dennis Kucinich is perhaps the only Democratic presidential hopeful who is pushing for cutting funding for the war and an immediate exit from Iraq. He is a cosponor of H.R. 508 that calls for withdrawal within six months in addition to paying millions to help restore Iraq. Unlike the other candidates, Kucinich actually represents the majority of the Democratic voter base who prefer a timetable for withdrawal.

Although it is uncertain who the Green Party candidate will be, if the party’s history and stated platform is any indicator of the future then any Green candidate will certainly be for the immediate end of the war.

The goal of anti-war activists should not necessarily be limited to promoting the handful of peace candidates, but instead we must work to create a climate where it is impossible for any presidential hopeful to support continued war.