Friday, December 7, 2012

Port of LA Strike Continues for 4th Day




Port of Los Angeles Strike Rolls on as Negotiations Continue
By Brian Sumers, Mercury News
04 December 12
egotiations to end the labor strike at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continued for a fourth consecutive day Sunday, but sources close to the talks said the sides likely were not close to reaching an agreement. | PHOTOS
Reacting to the perceived stalemate, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wrote a letter to both sides Sunday urging them to work around the clock and bring in a government or private mediator to help resolve the issues. The sides have been negotiating, intermittently, since Thursday night.
"The cost is too great to continue down this failed path," Villaraigosa wrote. "Mediation is essential and every available hour must be used."
In broad terms, the key issue remains staffing levels, sources say. Negotiators with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 63 Office Clerical Unit want to protect employment for as many of their members as possible, while management officials want more flexibility to control the number of temporary and full-time office workers they hire.
Many elected officials and retail executives had pushed the sides to negotiate an end to the work stoppage - possibly one that would even put the strike on hold while the sides continued to talk - but a quick resolution may no longer be possible, sources say.
In the meantime, many containers destined for Southern California sit elsewhere - on ships that cannot be serviced in Long Beach or Los Angeles or at other ports on the West Coast and Mexico.
The strike began at midday Tuesday when some members of the Office Clerical Unit - one of the smallest ILWU locals with only about 800 total members - walked off the job at APM Terminals Pacific Ltd., the largest terminal operator at the Port of Los Angeles. It spread on Wednesday, effectively shutting down three of six terminals in Long Beach and seven of eight terminals in Los Angeles after other union members refused to cross the picket lines.
The complex is by far the busiest shipping hub in the United States - Los Angeles is the top port by container traffic, and Long Beach ranks second, according to industry data.
Many members of the Office Clerical Unit, who provide back office and logistics support to most of the major terminal operators, have been working under terms of a set of contracts that expired in June 2010. Union members claim managers at many of the terminal companies have been quietly shifting jobs to lower-wage workers in other states and countries, an accusation denied by the employers. Management negotiators say the new contracts must stop so-called featherbedding - or providing temporary and permanent jobs to workers even when there is no work to perform.
The strike is only affecting terminals where the union has contract disputes, so a Disney Cruise Line ship called Disney Wonder was able to dock without difficulty on Sunday morning, Port of Los Angeles spokesman Phillip Sanfield said.
But the port's focus is cargo containers, the majority of which arrive from Asia on gigantic ships. And Sanfield said port officials are urging both union and management to come to an agreement soon, so the containers can move to warehouses across Southern California and beyond.
"Cargo continues to back up and concern is mounting throughout the worldwide logistics chain," Sanfield said. "We need resolution to prevent further economic damage."
Many logistics industry analysts initially said the strike occurred during a historically weak period for international trade because most retailers have already received their holiday shipments.
But the longer the strike lasts, the deeper the impact on the supply chain, industry experts say. Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy for the National Retail Federation, said in an interview Sunday that it took retailers roughly six months to recover from the impact of a 10-day lockout in 2002 that affected ports throughout the West Coast.
"This shutdown of the ports doesn't just impact the retail industry," Gold said. "You've got manufacturers who are operating just-in-time supply chains, and you've got exports that aren't moving because the ports are shut down. We're in day five. We need it to end now because it's going to take some time to clear through the backups."
The National Retail Federation is one several groups to ask President Barack Obama to wade into the dispute. Under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act governing union-management relations, Obama could invoke an emergency mechanism and ask a federal court to order an 80-day cooling-off period. President George W. Bush used the power during the 2002 lockout.
But Gold said the federation has not heard back from the White House regarding its request, which it delivered by letter, and observers say it is unlikely the president will get involved - at least soon.
Several sources have calculated that the strike is costing the economy more than $1 billion a day, but Jock O'Connell, an international trade economist who studies the shipping industry, said Sunday in an email that the figure is slightly misleading. O'Connell said it will be several weeks before anyone will be able to come up with a good estimate on the true economic cost of the strike.
"That billion-dollar-a-day number wrongly assumes that all of the cargo being delayed or diverted will never be delivered and would have to be entirely written off," O'Connell said. "To be sure, someone in the supply chains will sustain losses because of late deliveries, but nearly all of those goods not being handled right now at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach will eventually reach a market."
The strike's local impact could be greater if shippers decide to bring their goods to other ports in the future, but that also won't be known quickly. Logistics industry experts say no shippers like to send their goods to areas known for trouble, but they acknowledge most North American ports have some reliability issues - whether due to labor unrest, poor infrastructure or bad weather.
East Coast ports have had their own issues recently. The ILWU's East Coast counterpart - the International Longshoremen's Association - recently postponed plans for a strike that could have crippled trade there this fall. And the Port of New York and New Jersey still has not fully recovered from damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy in late October.

Michigan GOP Ram Through Anti-Union Law




Michigan Republicans Pass 'Right to Work' for Less Bills Without Hearings or Input from Residents


Michigan Republicans Pass 'Right to Work' for Less Legislation Without Hearings or Input from Residents
Chris Savage is a Michigan-based political writer and owner of Eclectablog. You also can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and President Barack Obama spoke out against "right to work" for less legislation yesterday. These types of laws reduce wages and benefits for working families. 
Two days ago, I reported that Michigan Republicans, along with Gov. Rick Snyder, were planning on making Michigan the nation’s 24th “right to work” for Less (RTWFL) state by the end of the year. The timetable was, apparently, far more aggressive than that. The very next day after Snyder announced RTWFL was “on the table,” he held a joint press conference with House Speaker Jase Bolger and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville saying that he was asking for the legislation to be passed and that he would sign it into law.
“I do not view this as something against the unions,” Snyder said. Rather, he went on, it’s about “workers [having] the right to choose who they associate with.”
What happened next must have set a new record for the speed at which the Michigan legislature gets bills passed. By the end of the day, both the Senate and the House vacated existing “placeholder” bills, dropped in new RTWFL language and passed a total of three bills—two in the Senate and another in the House. No committee hearings. No floor debate. The Democrats could do virtually nothing as the Republicans steamrolled the bills through without any formal public input whatsoever.
A procedural speed bump put in place by Democrats delayed moving the Senate bills to the House by one day and there is a mandatory five-day waiting period before the House can take action. This allows union-supporting citizens to express their disdain for these new laws, just as they did on Thursday as thousands of Michiganders descended on the capitol building. In the onslaught of this informal public input, House Speaker Bolger locked down the capitol building. Tempers flared, protestors were maced and it took a court order requested by the Democrats to get the building opened again.
The bills include a $1 million  appropriation. Michigan law precludes citizen referendums to overturn laws with appropriations, so not only was there no opportunity for public input before the bills were voted on, there will be none afterwards, as well.
Michigan AFL-CIO President Karla Swift told me, “Today was a dark day for democracy in Michigan. The people were shut out of their own capitol so that lawmakers could better serve corporate special interests. But working people in this state are resilient, and will keep fighting until their voices are heard.”
Michigan Democratic Party chair Mark Brewer was a bit more gloomy. Referring to the role multimillionaire Dick Devos played in the RTWFL legislative action, he issued a statement saying, “The Tea Party takeover of the Michigan GOP is officially complete. Snyder, Bolger and Richardville have shown they are nothing more than puppets for Dick DeVos.” DeVos is reported to have assured Republicans that if they faced recall, he would bankroll their fight against it. He’s reported to have threatened to withhold campaign donations from the same lawmakers if they didn’t vote to pass the bills.
I spoke to a number of union members who were in Lansing yesterday. Katie Oppenheim, a nurse and Michigan Nurses Association member, said, “What can I say? It is a sad day in Michigan—in so many ways. As a nurse and union member, I fear for the safety of patients and nurses. Through collective bargaining, we have been able to negotiate adequate staffing, adequate rest periods and safety equipment. I think the corporate mentality will completely take over.”
Rick Catherman, a teacher and Michigan Education Association (MEA) member from Chelsea, wrote me after an exhausting day, much of which was spent outside in the freezing cold, waiting to be allowed back into the capitol building. It was a “Day of ‘The Big D’s,'” he wrote—“Democrats, Demonstrators, Disappointment, Disgust and Determination! For the state Democrats, it was a day of disappointment and disgust with their colleagues for rushing this damaging legislation through with no committee meetings or testimony, or opportunity for input from citizens of Michigan. Union workers, however, were determined demonstrators."
Catherman continued:
It was great to see state leaders standing with the demonstrators. Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, MEA president Steve Cook, Karla Swift, UAW president Bob King, along with current state representatives and senators—all were there with us.
The energy in the capitol building from demonstrators was amazing–teachers standing with nurses, auto workers and service and food workers, all standing up for the citizens of Michigan. Nurses standing up for their patients, teachers standing up for our students. It was amazing.
Christine Barry, owner of the state blog Blogging for Michigan, reflected on the day’s events in light of our state’s important place in the labor movement.
My great-grandfather and my uncle were in the hole, my other uncle was in Little Fisher and my grandma and grandpa were on the outside,” she said, referring to significant labor protests in Michigan labor history. “We already fought this battle. We fought this battle with door hinges and water hoses and broomsticks and rolling pins. We were beaten and shot at and we were hungry and cold. We faced down the National Guard and the company police and we won the right to unionize our work. We have union shops because we earned them, and no corporate hack is going to take them away and call it freedom.
One of the biggest ironies — or, perhaps, hypocrisies — of yesterday’s action is the language used by Gov. Snyder and Republicans as they justified what they did. They referred repeatedly to “choice” and “freedom.” However, on the very same day, the House passed incredibly regressive anti-Choice legislation limiting women’s access to reproductive and abortion services and also a committee passed a replacement bill for the now-repealed Emergency Manager law, an anti-democratic law that disenfranchises local communities and takes away their voice in elected government. These are odd ways to celebrate “choice” and “freedom.”
Michiganders are tough and resilient. It’s only through highly gerrymandered state House and Senate districts that Republicans are able to have such complete control over our state legislature. Michigan elected President Barack Obama by a 10-point margin last month and sent Democrat Debbie Stabenow back to the U.S. Senate by an even wider margin. In 2014 and beyond, those who betrayed Michigan’s labor legacy are sure to pay the price politically. What is done can be undone and so it shall be.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

5th Day of ILWU Strike

Port of Los Angeles Strike Rolls on as Negotiations Continue
By Brian Sumers, Mercury News
04 December 12
egotiations to end the labor strike at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continued for a fourth consecutive day Sunday, but sources close to the talks said the sides likely were not close to reaching an agreement. | PHOTOS
Reacting to the perceived stalemate, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wrote a letter to both sides Sunday urging them to work around the clock and bring in a government or private mediator to help resolve the issues. The sides have been negotiating, intermittently, since Thursday night.
"The cost is too great to continue down this failed path," Villaraigosa wrote. "Mediation is essential and every available hour must be used."
In broad terms, the key issue remains staffing levels, sources say. Negotiators with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 63 Office Clerical Unit want to protect employment for as many of their members as possible, while management officials want more flexibility to control the number of temporary and full-time office workers they hire.
Many elected officials and retail executives had pushed the sides to negotiate an end to the work stoppage - possibly one that would even put the strike on hold while the sides continued to talk - but a quick resolution may no longer be possible, sources say.
In the meantime, many containers destined for Southern California sit elsewhere - on ships that cannot be serviced in Long Beach or Los Angeles or at other ports on the West Coast and Mexico.
The strike began at midday Tuesday when some members of the Office Clerical Unit - one of the smallest ILWU locals with only about 800 total members - walked off the job at APM Terminals Pacific Ltd., the largest terminal operator at the Port of Los Angeles. It spread on Wednesday, effectively shutting down three of six terminals in Long Beach and seven of eight terminals in Los Angeles after other union members refused to cross the picket lines.
The complex is by far the busiest shipping hub in the United States - Los Angeles is the top port by container traffic, and Long Beach ranks second, according to industry data.
Many members of the Office Clerical Unit, who provide back office and logistics support to most of the major terminal operators, have been working under terms of a set of contracts that expired in June 2010. Union members claim managers at many of the terminal companies have been quietly shifting jobs to lower-wage workers in other states and countries, an accusation denied by the employers. Management negotiators say the new contracts must stop so-called featherbedding - or providing temporary and permanent jobs to workers even when there is no work to perform.
The strike is only affecting terminals where the union has contract disputes, so a Disney Cruise Line ship called Disney Wonder was able to dock without difficulty on Sunday morning, Port of Los Angeles spokesman Phillip Sanfield said.
But the port's focus is cargo containers, the majority of which arrive from Asia on gigantic ships. And Sanfield said port officials are urging both union and management to come to an agreement soon, so the containers can move to warehouses across Southern California and beyond.
"Cargo continues to back up and concern is mounting throughout the worldwide logistics chain," Sanfield said. "We need resolution to prevent further economic damage."
Many logistics industry analysts initially said the strike occurred during a historically weak period for international trade because most retailers have already received their holiday shipments.
But the longer the strike lasts, the deeper the impact on the supply chain, industry experts say. Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy for the National Retail Federation, said in an interview Sunday that it took retailers roughly six months to recover from the impact of a 10-day lockout in 2002 that affected ports throughout the West Coast.
"This shutdown of the ports doesn't just impact the retail industry," Gold said. "You've got manufacturers who are operating just-in-time supply chains, and you've got exports that aren't moving because the ports are shut down. We're in day five. We need it to end now because it's going to take some time to clear through the backups."
The National Retail Federation is one several groups to ask President Barack Obama to wade into the dispute. Under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act governing union-management relations, Obama could invoke an emergency mechanism and ask a federal court to order an 80-day cooling-off period. President George W. Bush used the power during the 2002 lockout.
But Gold said the federation has not heard back from the White House regarding its request, which it delivered by letter, and observers say it is unlikely the president will get involved - at least soon.
Several sources have calculated that the strike is costing the economy more than $1 billion a day, but Jock O'Connell, an international trade economist who studies the shipping industry, said Sunday in an email that the figure is slightly misleading. O'Connell said it will be several weeks before anyone will be able to come up with a good estimate on the true economic cost of the strike.
"That billion-dollar-a-day number wrongly assumes that all of the cargo being delayed or diverted will never be delivered and would have to be entirely written off," O'Connell said. "To be sure, someone in the supply chains will sustain losses because of late deliveries, but nearly all of those goods not being handled right now at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach will eventually reach a market."
The strike's local impact could be greater if shippers decide to bring their goods to other ports in the future, but that also won't be known quickly. Logistics industry experts say no shippers like to send their goods to areas known for trouble, but they acknowledge most North American ports have some reliability issues - whether due to labor unrest, poor infrastructure or bad weather.
East Coast ports have had their own issues recently. The ILWU's East Coast counterpart - the International Longshoremen's Association - recently postponed plans for a strike that could have crippled trade there this fall. And the Port of New York and New Jersey still has not fully recovered from damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy in late October.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

1000s Protest WALMART in So. California


1,000 Protest Wal-Mart Job Practices

in Southern California

By Karen Robes Meeks and Tracy Manzer, Staff Writers

Click photo to enlarge
11/23/12 - Alfonso Luna holds a sign to show support for workers at the Walmart store in...
PARAMOUNT, So. Cal. -- Holding signs and chanting for better treatment of workers, nearly 1,000 demonstrators converged in the parking lot of Wal-Mart on Friday - creating a chaotic scene on what has traditionally been the busiest shopping day of the year. | Photos: Walmart workers protest, strike and get arrestedNine protesters were arrested for refusing to leave the middle of Lakewood Boulevard during a workers' rights demonstration, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
Deputies ordered the protesters who flooded the parking lot to disperse after they spilled on to Lakewood and Century boulevards,
11/23/12 - Reitired pastor William P. Miller of the United Methodist Church was arrested for civil disobedience along with 8 others. Workers at the Walmart store in Paramount were some of many throughout Southern California that walked off their jobs today on Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year as part of a nationwide union-organized protest. After a peaceful march where organizers broke the line to allow customers in and out of the store, 9 were arrested in a display of civil disobedience for refusing to exit the street. Photo by Brittany Murray / Staff Photographer
blocking traffic.Most of the protesters - many of them wearing lime green shirts that read "How the 1% Hurts the 99%" - stepped onto the sidewalk.
Martha Sellers, who has worked as a cashier at the Wal-Mart in Paramount for nine years, was among 17 co-workers who walked out of work early Friday.
"Sometimes you're on the register for three hours or four hours without a break. We just keep getting, `Do this, do that,"' she said. "So it's time for Wal-Mart to stand up and say, `OK, we're doing wrong.' I'm protesting to make them acknowledge that they're doing us wrong. It's time."
She and others stood by, chanting and throwing flowers onto the street as deputies arrested nine protesters who remained sitting in the southbound lanes of Lakewood Boulevard.
The arrests were peaceful. The protesters were booked at the sheriff's Lakewood Station on suspicion of refusing to disperse, a misdemeanor.
The protests, organized by United Food & Commercial Workers union, began about 5a.m. Friday. Organizers said about 50 people walked off the job at five Wal-Mart stores across Southern California, including Wal-Marts in Duarte and two in Los Angeles.
Protesters, several members of
A Walmart protestor is arrested Friday near the Paramount store by Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies. (Brittany Murray/Staff Photographer)
the clergy and other supporters later gathered for a news conference in the parking lot of the 14501 Lakewood Blvd. store, many arriving in three buses. Several protesters carried signs that read, "Live Better, Invest in People," and "Can you live on $8 an hour?"Wal-Mart workers have been speaking out nationwide about "take-home pay so low that many workers' families have to rely on public assistance just to stay afloat," "understaffing that is keeping workers from receiving sufficient hours and hurts customer service" and safety issues, according to the group Making Change at Walmart.
However, Wal-Mart officials say that most of the people at the event weren't employees but union supporters.
Steven V. Restivo, Wal-Mart's senior director of community affairs, said Wal-Mart's "pay and benefits plans are as good as or better than our retail competitors, including those that are unionized."
He added that the company received 5 million job applications this year.
Wal-Mart has 250,000 employees who have worked for the company for more than 10 years, according to Restivo, and the retailer promoted 165,000 hourly employees last year.
In response to the UFCW's protests, Bill Simon, Wal-Mart U.S. president and chief executive officer, said in a written statement: "Only 26 protests occurred at stores last night and many of them did not include any Walmart associates."
Wal-Mart did not experience the walk-offs that were promised by the UFCW, according to the company.
"We estimate that less than 50 associates participated in the protest nationwide. In fact, this year, roughly the same number of associates missed their scheduled shift as last year," Simon said.
About 40 deputies and officers were deployed at Friday's protests, including Lakewood sheriff's station deputies, the Sheriff's Special Response Team, motorcycles, a helicopter, and Downey Police Department officers directing traffic for the nearby city of Downey.
Sgt. Dale Ryken said law enforcement agencies have been monitoring Internet activity that revealed protesters were looking for volunteers to get arrested at Friday's rally for refusal to disperse.
Momentum has indeed been building toward the Black Friday protest since Oct. 4, when the first group of workers went on strike in Pico Rivera, said Elizabeth Brennan, communications director of Warehouse Workers United.
"We're really been building to this major day to talk with consumers and get the attention of Wal-Mart to try to address some of these concerns that workers are talking about in terms of being retaliated against when they stand up about trying to work full time, get better wages, affordable health care," she said.
Although representatives from Wal-Mart U.S. touted record Black Friday events with larger crowds than last year, shoppers who were inside the Paramount store said it seemed empty and quiet inside.
"It wasn't really crowded," said South Gate resident Steve Alvizo. "We saw (the protest) when we parked. We just wanted to look at the deals, but there's not really any deals."
Alvizo said he will likely not return to Wal-Mart because of the protests.
"I think they deserve better pay than they are getting," he said.
Shoppers were almost evenly divided on whether they would cross a picket line, or a rally, outside a Wal-Mart, though the vast majority of people agreed workers earning less than $10 an hour without benefits had a right to be frustrated.
"I think the protest is a typical union ploy," said Mark White. "I understand the point of the employees, but I don't like getting unions involved. They should go get a job somewhere that pays better. ... If they aren't educated well enough, or trained, that's their responsibility."
Sellers, who works at the Paramount Wal-Mart, said she earns more than $8 an hour, but said it's not enough.
"I do make $13 an hour but I can barely make my rent," she said. "Now the scary part comes tomorrow when I go back to work."

City News Service contributed to this story.
karen.robes@presstelegram.com562-714-2088, twitter/com/KarenMeeksPT

Monday, November 19, 2012

Rove Conspired to Steal Election


Karl Rove Loses Election After Being Checkmated By Cyber Sleuths?

By CL - Posted on 15 November 2012
Last month, we offered a million dollar reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone who rigged a federal election on November 6th.  We urged computer experts to contact us with information about any election manipulation of the tabulation results. 
We Received A Letter
On November 12th, we received a letter from “The Protectors,” apparently a group of white hat cyber sleuths, mentioning our reward and stating that two months ago, they began monitoring the “digital traffic of one Karl Rove, a disrespecter of the Rule of Law, knowing that he claimed to be Kingmaker while grifting vast wealth from barons who gladly handed him gold to anoint another King while looking the other way.” 
“The Protectors” said that they had identified the digital structure of Rove’s operation and of ORCA, a Republican get out the vote software application.  After finding open “doors” in the systems, they created a “password protected firewall” called “The Great Oz,” and installed it on servers that Rove planned to use on election night to re-route and change election results “from three states.” 
The letter indicated that “ORCA Killer” was launched at 10am EST and “The Great Oz” at 8pm EST on November 6th.    “The Protectors” watched as ORCA crashed and failed throughout Election Day.  They watched as Rove’s computer techs tried 105 times to penetrate “The Great Oz” using different means and passwords. 
Finally, they issued the following warning to Mr. Rove: don’t do it again or they would turn over the evidence to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
We are not in a position to vouch for the contents of this letter anymore than we can vouch for the video by Anonymous warning Karl Rove not to rig the election.  However, we can analyze that content under the prism of Mr. Rove’s history and facts over the past few weeks.  We do so in the hope that this will lead to an investigation of Mr. Rove’s entire operation ala General David Petraeus.  In that spirit, we provided this information to the FBI prior to publication, and followed up after publication.  For years, we have campaigned for a complete investigation of Mr. Rove. And we have provided extensive legal memos and evidence to the FBI to support such an investigation.  
We urge others who have information to about election tampering or other criminal violations by Mr. Rove, including violations of campaign finance laws, to provide that evidence to the FBI.  We also urge people who gave money to Mr. Rove and his organizations to contact the FBI if they were misled, promised things that did not happen, or were otherwise defrauded. 
Rove’s Background And Election Night Meltdown
Karl Rove has a history of rigging elections going back several decades, including in 2004 when he orchestrated a man-in-the-middle attack to change the votes from Ohio.
In 2012, Mr. Rove’s SuperPacs raised and spent hundreds of millions on behalf of GOP candidates.  He courted billionaires and promised them that his candidates would win.
Days before the 2012 election, Mr. Rove predicted a strong Romney win. His spinners lionized him in articles that portrayed him as invincible. 

On election night, Mr. Rove worked the three states that held the key to the election – Ohio, Florida and Virginia.  But when he tried to access the Ohio election website, he kept getting error messages.

 

Finally, immediately after Ohio was called for President Obama around 11:30 EST, Mr. Rove appeared on FOX News to dispute the call, saying the election there is far from settled and the call was “premature.”
Fox News’s Chris Wallace said the Romney campaign does "not believe Ohio is in the Obama camp,” noting that he got an email from a top Romney aide who said the campaign disagrees with the network’s call. He then asked Rove if he believed Ohio has been settled.
“No, I don’t,” Rove said.
“I think this is premature,” he added. “We’ve got a quarter of the vote. Now remember, here is the thing about Ohio. A third of the vote or more is cast early and is won overwhelmingly by the Democrats. It’s counted first and then you count the election day and the question is, by the time you finish counting the election day does it overcome that early advantage that Democrats have built up in early voting, particularly in Cuyahoga County.”
Rove said the network needs to be “careful about calling things when we have like 991 votes separating the two candidates and a quarter of the vote yet to count. Even if they have made it on the basis of select precincts, I’d be very cautious about intruding in this process. 
The Failure Of ORCA On Election Day
The Rove/Romney coalition created Project Orca, which was supposed to enable poll watchers to record voter names on their smart phones, by listening for names as voters checked in. This would give the campaign real-time turnout data, so they could redirect GOTV resources throughout the day where it was most needed. They recruited 37,000 swing state volunteers for this. 
According to various sources, however, ORCA totally failed on Election Day: PIN numbers and passwords did not work, reset tools failed, customer support was ineffective and unavailable, Comcast shut down access for fear of a DDOS attack, and the system crashed and had trouble re-booting. “At one point during Election Day, the system had malfunctioned so badly that desperate volunteers wondered if the program had been hacked.”
Anonymous Warned Rove Prior To The Election
Two weeks prior to the November 6th election, the hacktivist group Anonymous posted a video warning Karl Rove not to rig the election. 

They told Mr. Rove that he was being watched and that if he attempted to rig the election, he would be stopped.  That video went viral in just days.
The Letter From “The Protectors”
The letter we received just days after the election ties together all the information set forth above about the digital difficulties faced by Karl Rove and the GOP on November 6th.

·         Karl Rove’s digital architecture surrounding the election was identified and compromised by cyber sleuths in a way that denied him the ability to manipulate election results;
·         Project Orca was not secure and had numerous flaws that were exploited to ensure failure;
·         Karl Rove was focused on three states—Ohio, Virginia and Florida;
·         “Orca Killer” was launched early in the day resulting in failures starting in the morning;
·         “The Great Oz” was launched at 8pm, just as polls closed on the East Coast;
·         The Ohio Secretary of State results were inaccessible to Mr. Rove after 8pm;
·         Mr. Rove disputed the call for Ohio, and told FOX News that it was “premature” as he kept trying to access the results;
·         Mr. Rove, Mitt Romney, the GOP, its billionaires, and its talking heads were all “convinced” up to the last minute that Mr. Romney would win, some even saying “by a landslide;”
·         Prior to the election, Anonymous warned Mr. Rove that it had identified his digital structure and was watching for any manipulations;
·         Mr. Romney and the GOP leadership were “shell shocked” when President Obama won the election.
The Upshot Of All This
Apparently, “The Protectors” were able to completely thwart Karl Rove’s attempts to manipulate this election by employing a firewall to stop man-in-the-middle tabulation attacks and improper transfers of tabulation data.  Moreover, apparently, they were able to pinpoint and exploit flaws and structural weaknesses in Project Orca that caused a cascading of problems and subsequent catastrophic failure.  Apparently, there was some connection between Mr. Rove and Project Orca, and they were probably both plugged into the same voter database.
Lessons Learned And Our Position
At VR, we have spent the past decade exposing flaws in the election process, especially the use of electronic voting, secret software and cyber attacks on tabulation systems.  Princeton computer scientists, Argonne Laboratories experts, GOP insiders and even the CIA have shown that electronic election manipulation is both possible and occurring.
Based on our experience and the supporting evidence, we take the letter from “The Protectors” at face value.  Karl Rove had the means, motive, experience and opportunity to do whatever it took to win the election for his clients.  If he, in fact, intended to use improper and illegal means to digitally manipulate the election, and white hat cyber sleuths who stopped it discovered that, then that is a good thing.  We hope that those cyber sleuths will provide that evidence to the FBI, post it publicly or send it to us to do so.
One thing that is not clear from the letter is the relationship between the cyber manipulation and Project Orca.  Were they both part of Karl Rove’s scheme?  Were they using the overlapping servers or databases?  Did “The Great Oz” automatically cause problems for Project Orca?  Did Mr. Rove plan to use the data from “Project Orca” to help the cyber manipulation scheme succeed?  We would like to know the answers to these questions so we can more fully understand the legal and moral implications of “Orca Killer.” 
As far as lessons learned, we are hopeful that those who have been skeptical and opposed to greater security in elections will now get on board in a bipartisan manner to, as President Obama said, “fix” the broken election system.  We are hopeful that billionaires, SuperPacs and politicians will see, as governments in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere have seen, that a few dedicated cyber sleuths can protect democracy from corrupt power brokers by thwarting electoral crimes. We are hopeful that everyone will see Karl Rove for what he is – a scammer who can’t win without cheating and manipulating election results. 


Friday, November 16, 2012

Obama Won, Now Let's Change the System


Obama Won. Now Let’s Change the System

Posted: 11/16/2012 12:03 Despite President Obama’s important, even landmark, accomplishments , by the time November 6 arrived many Americans were disappointed with his first term. They expected him to be a “transformational” president who would, somehow, single-handedly, change Washington’s political culture. When their hopes were dashed, many blamed Obama rather than the corporate plutocrats’ stranglehold on Congress — especially (but not only) on the Republicans, who acted like sock puppets for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, opposing every proposal to tax the wealthy and regulate corporations as a “job killer,” and insisting that their top priority was to make Obama a one-term president.
Given the power of the Chamber, Wall Street banks, the insurance industry, the oil lobby and the drug companies, it is remarkable that Obama managed to enact the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and tough new standards on auto fuel efficiency and electric plant emissions. Voters rewarded Obama with a second term, defeated many business-backed candidates and ballot measures (like California’s anti-union Proposition 32), and voted in favor of living wages and same-sex marriage in several cities and states.
Despite these victories, the major contours of American politics remain intact. The nation’s extreme concentration of wealth still gives businesses and billionaires outsized political influence. Corporate campaign contributions and lobbyists tilt the political playing field so much that ordinary citizens often feel their votes and voices don’t count. When plutocrats dominate our politics, ordinary people feel powerless and paralyzed. The United States ranks number one in low voter turnout. Even in this year’s hotly contested elections, paradoxically (but understandably), the people least likely to vote — the poor, the jobless, the young — are those who need government the most, and who, if they did vote, would tend to favor liberals and Democrats.
However skilled Obama is as a politician — and despite the presence of many principled progressives and liberals in Congress — we cannot expect Congress to enact more than modest reforms until we tame the corporate plutocrats’ power. Ultimately, we need to change the system that ensnares even the most progressive politicians in its web.
Most Americans agree. Although Obama and Mitt Romney each received roughly half the popular votes on Tuesday, America is not an evenly divided nation. When it comes to public opinion on major issues, polls reveal that the majority of Americans actually have liberal or progressive views. That is, they think that big business (especially Wall Street) has too much political influence, money plays too big a role in our political system, and the very rich pay too little in taxes. They also believe that government should protect consumers, the environment and workers from corporate abuse, that Congress should raise the minimum wage so that full-time workers don’t live in poverty and that programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance and food stamps are needed to protect people from economic hardship and insecurity.
In a healthy democracy, majority opinions should translate into public policy. But the voices of the majority of Americans often get drowned out by the influence of corporate America and billionaires. These are the (mostly) men who run the 100 largest Banks and Corporations, direct the nation’s major business lobby groups, sponsor the major conservative foundations and think tanks and even fund the Tea Party. They are not the richest one percent; they are the wealthiest tip of the one-hundredth of one percent. Numerically, they include no more than 10,000 people, although a much smaller number comprise what sociologists call the “inner circle” of the power elite. In this new Gilded Age of widening equality, they represent an American plutocracy.
It would be nice to believe that each American citizen has an equal voice in our political system — the consensus idea of “one person, one vote” — but the reality is very different. True, business power brokers like Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs), David Koch (the conservative billionaire who owns Koch Industries and who contributions millions to right-wing candidates and causes) and Michael Duke (Walmart’s CEO) each have only one vote. But their money — as individuals and as heads of major corporations — speaks louder than their votes. For example, the six heirs of Walmart founder Sam Walton have nearly as much wealth ($90 billion) as the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined, and deploy their riches on behalf of a variety of conservative causes. In the last two decades, the Walton family has spent nearly $5.1 million on federal elections, almost all of it to Republicans, while the Walmart Corporation PAC has spread millions in campaign cash to both Republicans and moderate Democrats.
How can we inject more democracy into our society?
We hope that in his second term, Obama will be bolder. He should diversify his White House inner circle of economic advisors and cabinet appointments to include more progressive voices, not just those who reflect business and banking. He should use his bully-pulpit to focus public attention on the outsized influence of the Chamber and other corporate lobby groups. He should be willing to deflect their attacks, as FDR did when he said “I welcome their hatred,” referring to the forces of “organized money.” As he did during his 2008 campaign, but stopped doing once he took office, Obama should encourage the organizers and activists who are challenging corporate power, recognizing that their ability to agitate and mobilize ordinary Americans can help him be a more effective president. LBJ understood this inside-outside dynamic, when he embraced the civil rights movement — adopting its “we shall overcome” motto in a 1965 speech to Congress — and took on the segregationists in his own party.
We’d like to see more of the Barack Obama who showed up on December. 6, 2011, at a high school in Osawatomie, Kansas, echoing the themes of the then-burgeoning Occupy Wall Street movement. There, he said:
Just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger… even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty. Now, it’s a simple theory… But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.
We expect progressives in Congress — including newly-elected Senators Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin – not only to take leadership on key issues, but also to work closely with movements fighting for social, economic and environmental justice and sustainability.
But the responsibility for making change falls primarily on grassroots activists. After all the votes are counted, Republicans are likely to control the House by a 234 to 201 margin. Significant legislative reforms will require activists to persuade at least 17 Republicans to vote with the Democrats (while keeping every Democrat in the fold). Unions, community organizers, enviros, women’s groups and other activists should target the increased number of House Republicans who narrowly squeaked to victory on November 6 in “swing” districts and could be vulnerable to defeat in two years. These groups should mobilize voters and public opinion to insist that these Republicans (as well as moderate Democrats in “swing” districts, too) side with ordinary people, not Wall Street, the oil industry, and the Chamber of Commerce. If their campaign war chests were filled with corporate cash, activists should force them to answer: Which side are you on?
In other words, during Obama’s second term, activists need to be bolder and more audacious, like the women’s suffragists, before them. A central task for progressive leaders, organizations and activists during the next four years (and beyond) is to expose the agenda and power grab of billionaires and corporate plutocrats. Only visible and consistent action will create political space — and pressure — for Obama and Congress to act on behalf of the majority of Americans.
We saw this strategy work in Obama’s first term. For example, in 2009 and early 2010, Obama’s health care reform proposal looked dead-on-arrival until activists began organizing protests at insurance company headquarters and at the homes of industry CEOs, drawing attention to their outrageous profits and compensation, and giving voice to the victims of the industry’s abusive practices, such as denying insurance coverage to people with illnesses. The protests catalyzed media coverage, strengthened Obama’s resolve, and pushed some moderate Democrats to reluctantly vote for reform.
During Obama’s second term, activists, immigration and education reformers and community organizing activists needs to keep the heat on big business, using protest, civil disobedience, lawsuits, boycotts and other strategies to keep these issues in the public mind and keep the heat on Congress to enact needed changes on such pressing issues as raising the minimum wage, the epidemic of foreclosures and “underwater” home prices, student debt, fair taxation, the fiscal crises of cities and states, immigration reform and the nation’s inadequate response to global warming. Each of these issues has broad majority support, policy solutions and burgeoning grassroots movements behind them.
But the efforts of issue-oriented movements would be much, much easier if we could change the system that puts so many hurdles in the way of making our country a healthier democracy.
Specifically, we need three kinds of structural “mobilizing” reforms that will dramatically level the political playing field, weaken the power of the corporate plutocracy and strengthen the voices of ordinary Americans.
1. Campaign finance reform that levels the playing field between billionaire money and ordinary people.
Candidates for president and Congress this year raised more than $6 billion in campaign contributions. Ultimately, America must eliminate the corrosive impact of money in politics. But until a more liberal Supreme Court reverses course on several conservative rulings that consider corporate money a form of “free speech” (such as Buckley v. Valeo and Citizen’s United), we need stepping stone reforms that start leveling the playing field.
Legislation now pending before Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act, would provide public funding to House and Senate candidates who get their support from large numbers of small donors instead of wealthy contributors, bundlers or lobbyists. The bill’s lead sponsors in the House are Rep. John Larson (D-CT), Walter Jones (R-NC), and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and in the Senate is Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL).
A number of states have passed “clean elections” laws that reduce the influence of private campaign cash in favor of public funding, but courts have ruled several of them out of existence. In New York, reform activists and Gov. Andrew Cuomo are backing a public financing bill modeled after a successful law in New York City.
2. Voting reform to make it easy to register and to vote .
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) are sponsoring the Voter Empowerment Act that would make voter registration easy and simple, and thus increase voter turnout. It would make Election Day Registration the law of the land as currently exists in Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Wyoming. According to Demos, a nonprofit, non-partisan think tank, voter turnout in these states has historically exceeded turnout in other states by 10 to 12 percentage points.
We should also mobilize to make it easier to vote by turning Election Day into a national holiday and require accessible early voting in every state. No one should have wait in line for several hours to cast their vote.
3. Labor law reform that gives workers the real freedom to join unions so there are grassroots organizations that can challenge corporate power.
Throughout the last century and even today, unions have been the most effective vehicle to successfully challenge corporate power. The labor movement has been a significant engine of social and economic reform, responsible for Social Security, the minimum wage, the 8-hour-day, unemployment insurance, workplace safety laws and funding for public K-12 and higher education.
Today, however, only 11.8 percent of the workforce is unionized, despite the fact that more than half of all non-management employees tell pollsters they would like a union in their workplaces. The reason for this huge disparity is that employers routinely violate the law by firing and demoting workers who demonstrate their support for union organizing drives. Employers get away with this because penalties are too small to deter these abusive practices.
We need to update our Labor Laws to give workers a real voice on the job by setting real, deterrent-sized penalties and fines and enforceable remedies for employers who violate workers’ rights to organize.
As the great abolitionist Frederick Douglas noted, without protest there is no progress. We need to focus on immediate issues that improve people’s lives, but we also need to build support for system-changing reforms that will give ordinary Americans a stronger voice in our democracy.
Peter Dreier, who teaches politics at Occidental College, is the author of The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame, published by Nation Books in July. Donald Cohen is the director of the Cry Wolf Project, a nonprofit research network that identifies and exposes misleading rhetoric about the economy, regulation and government. An earlier version of this article appeared in The Nation magazine.
Follow Peter Dreier on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdreier