Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Saturday, August 8, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
The Minimum Wage and the Coup in Honduras
The coup in Honduras - and the at best grudging and vacillating
support in Washington for the restoration of President Zelaya - has
thrown into stark relief a fundamental fault line in Latin America and
a moral black hole in U.S. policy toward the region.
What is the minimum wage which a worker shall be paid for a day's labor?
Supporters of the coup have tried to trick Americans into believing that President Zelaya was ousted by the Honduran military because he broke the law. But this is nonsense. A Honduran bishop told Catholic News Service,
So, the argument is being made that Haiti can't afford to raise the minimum wage for workers in the export sector to $5 a day, because if they did Americans would buy clothes and shoes produced in some other countries.
Let me underline this, dear reader. You, as an American consumer, you are being invoked in Haiti as the reason that the minimum wage cannot be raised to $5 a day.
Of course this is nonsense. The overwhelming majority of Americans, along with the overwhelming majority of Haitians and Hondurans, would be absolutely delighted if Haitian and Honduran workers producing clothes for the U.S. market would be paid more. Labor costs are a small fraction of the prices that consumers face. Wages are so low because that yields even more profits for those who already have more money than they can ever spend; the low wage floor is being determined by government policy in Washington, Haiti, Honduras, and elsewhere, not by the desires of consumers. No magic formula of economics determines the minimum wage that can be sustained in Haiti and Honduras. At the margin - whether the minimum wage shall be $3 a day or $5 a day in the export sector in Haiti - it is determined politically.
If you say that the leverage of the U.S. consumer market should be used to support higher wages for poor workers in poor countries, rather than the opposite, you're likely to be told that this is not allowed. This leverage has been allocated to something else. The power of the U.S. market can only be used for things like forcing developing countries to enforce the patents, trademarks, and copyrights of U.S. pharmaceutical companies, software companies, and Hollywood.
Indeed, if you say that we should be supporting efforts to raise the minimum wage in Honduras and Haiti, you'll likely to be accused of "trying to impose American values." But this is a baldfaced lie, the twisted-mirror image of the truth. The majority of Hondurans and the majority of Haitians want the wages of workers producing for export to the United States to be raised. Far from imposing "American values," in Honduras and Haiti, we're imposing Wall Street values, every day, through U.S. government policy, against the wishes and interests of the majority of the population, there and here.
And by its failure to help effectively Latin American efforts restore President Zelaya, the Obama Administration is helping to drive down the minimum wage in Honduras, Haiti, and throughout the world. And the reason that the Obama Administration is, de facto, taking the side of the corrupt and greedy ruling elite in Honduras, is that, as usual, U.S. foreign policy is being determined by Corporate America, not Main Street America, because the power and efforts of Main Street America to affect U.S. foreign policy in Honduras - the U.S. labor movement and its friends, basically - is too weak, compared to the infrastructure and efforts of Corporate America's actions to shape U.S. policy.
Count this too as a casualty of the failure of Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. If the Employee Free Choice Act were law, and more American workers were organized into unions, Main Street would have more power in Washington, and Corporate America wouldn't be calling the shots on U.S. policy towards Honduras.
So, the next time some lying moron invokes "economics" to "explain" to you that the wages of impoverished third world workers who produce for the U.S. market cannot be raised, remember the coup in Honduras, and how Washington sat on its hands while a democratically elected government was punished by greedy elites with a military coup for trying to raise the minimum wage.
What is the minimum wage which a worker shall be paid for a day's labor?
Supporters of the coup have tried to trick Americans into believing that President Zelaya was ousted by the Honduran military because he broke the law. But this is nonsense. A Honduran bishop told Catholic News Service,
"Some say Manuel Zelaya threatened democracy by proposing a constitutional assembly. But the poor of Honduras know that Zelaya raised the minimum salary. That's what they understand. They know he defended the poor by sharing money with mayors and small towns. That's why they are out in the streets closing highways and protesting (to demand Zelaya's return)"This is why the greedy, self-absorbed Honduran elite turned against President Zelaya: because he was pursuing policies in the interests of the majority. The Washington Post noted in mid-July,
To many poor Hondurans, deposed president Manuel "Mel" Zelaya was a trailblazing ally who scrapped school tuitions, raised the minimum wage and took on big business.In a statement condemning support for the coup by U.S. business groups, the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation expressed its concern that under the coup regime, there are
worsening working conditions, and in particular at efforts to claw back a wage increase ordered by President Zelaya six months ago in order to reflect the increased cost of food and other essentials. In reality the increased wage barely covered 90% of basic food needs and less than a third of a living wage covering basic needs such as food, rent, transport, education, and medical care.It's not just in Honduras that raising the minimum wage provoked a coup. In reporting about efforts by Haitian lawmakers this week to raise the minimum wage in Haiti, AP noted:
Former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in 2004, in part after business owners angered by his approval of an increased minimum wage organized opposition against him.This May, the Haitian Parliament approved a proposal to triple the minimum wage to about $5 a day. But President Preval rejected this, saying
the increase should omit workers at factories producing garments for export. Preval said those workers should receive an increase to about $3.What's the argument in Haiti against raising the minimum wage?
The debate has fueled unrest across the impoverished Caribbean nation, with some critics arguing that an increase would hurt plans to fight widespread unemployment by creating jobs in factories that produce clothing for export to the United States.There are the magic words I search for in these articles, often buried at the bottom: "United States."
So, the argument is being made that Haiti can't afford to raise the minimum wage for workers in the export sector to $5 a day, because if they did Americans would buy clothes and shoes produced in some other countries.
Let me underline this, dear reader. You, as an American consumer, you are being invoked in Haiti as the reason that the minimum wage cannot be raised to $5 a day.
Of course this is nonsense. The overwhelming majority of Americans, along with the overwhelming majority of Haitians and Hondurans, would be absolutely delighted if Haitian and Honduran workers producing clothes for the U.S. market would be paid more. Labor costs are a small fraction of the prices that consumers face. Wages are so low because that yields even more profits for those who already have more money than they can ever spend; the low wage floor is being determined by government policy in Washington, Haiti, Honduras, and elsewhere, not by the desires of consumers. No magic formula of economics determines the minimum wage that can be sustained in Haiti and Honduras. At the margin - whether the minimum wage shall be $3 a day or $5 a day in the export sector in Haiti - it is determined politically.
If you say that the leverage of the U.S. consumer market should be used to support higher wages for poor workers in poor countries, rather than the opposite, you're likely to be told that this is not allowed. This leverage has been allocated to something else. The power of the U.S. market can only be used for things like forcing developing countries to enforce the patents, trademarks, and copyrights of U.S. pharmaceutical companies, software companies, and Hollywood.
Indeed, if you say that we should be supporting efforts to raise the minimum wage in Honduras and Haiti, you'll likely to be accused of "trying to impose American values." But this is a baldfaced lie, the twisted-mirror image of the truth. The majority of Hondurans and the majority of Haitians want the wages of workers producing for export to the United States to be raised. Far from imposing "American values," in Honduras and Haiti, we're imposing Wall Street values, every day, through U.S. government policy, against the wishes and interests of the majority of the population, there and here.
And by its failure to help effectively Latin American efforts restore President Zelaya, the Obama Administration is helping to drive down the minimum wage in Honduras, Haiti, and throughout the world. And the reason that the Obama Administration is, de facto, taking the side of the corrupt and greedy ruling elite in Honduras, is that, as usual, U.S. foreign policy is being determined by Corporate America, not Main Street America, because the power and efforts of Main Street America to affect U.S. foreign policy in Honduras - the U.S. labor movement and its friends, basically - is too weak, compared to the infrastructure and efforts of Corporate America's actions to shape U.S. policy.
Count this too as a casualty of the failure of Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. If the Employee Free Choice Act were law, and more American workers were organized into unions, Main Street would have more power in Washington, and Corporate America wouldn't be calling the shots on U.S. policy towards Honduras.
So, the next time some lying moron invokes "economics" to "explain" to you that the wages of impoverished third world workers who produce for the U.S. market cannot be raised, remember the coup in Honduras, and how Washington sat on its hands while a democratically elected government was punished by greedy elites with a military coup for trying to raise the minimum wage.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
38 Comments so far
Show AllGood article: However, for all you commenters that get your education from the University of Fox Propaganda, I'll summarize your expected analysis to this article before-hand:
"Chavez, Chavez, Chavez, Chavez!
Simply by using this name association, you are relieved of having to make a well thought out analysis.
If one were to take into consideration that the only true 'Democracy' that the USA has ever known was/is in the form of "Labor Unions" one would be forced to ask the rhetorical question; why aren't there more people who are members of "Labor Unions" in the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"? The minimum wage in the USA is 'below' a 'livable wage', and their recent 'raise' was as laughable as the previous amount.
Take that into consideration with the recent 'grass roots movement' to derail Health care reform, once more for 'big Business'-- (which only represents less than 1% of the entire population) at the direct expense of the majority. One can only come to the conclusion that the Americans, as a rule and as a 'whole', would rather be 'slaves' to the Plutocratic Oligarchy that has been their true form of government from the beginning.
And, to emphasise this they support the same every where they go.
So now the USA is falling apart. Their society is controlled by the 'media' which is controlled by 'Big Business'---and the population who is loathe to question authority----simply do what they are 'directed'. The USA economy is in a shambles and is falling apart in every segment. They cannot win the illegal wars they start. They shed innocent blood in response to innocent blood being shed on their 'precious soil'--which they stole from others after shedding their innocent blood.
There is not enough room here to list the many contradictions that the USA represents to the world; but seem to be over looked or outright ignored by the Americans.
How much longer the world will tolerate the USA is sheer speculation; but the world has lost all patience with them, and their days are numbered.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
bligh4
If you think that labor unions are a "true democracy" then you don't know much about their history in this country. They are as full of non-democratic elites and criminal elements as any other seat of power-here and elsewhere.
That said, the president is the president-he should have been impeached and let the people decide-not the military.
If you are referring to the internal politics of unions, you are mostly correct. Except, for some tiny independent unions like the UE and the IWW, and brief periods of democratization in some of the larger unions, the rule has been one of cronyism.
But The unions certainly had a huge role in the democratization of labor markets themselves. In a unionized workplace, the owners cannot arbitrarily determine the price of a person's labor and working conditions, the workers have a say too through their stronger bargaining position. Unfortunately, this is becoming far less true as more union bosses like Stern (SEIU) and Carey (Teamsters) make inside deals with employers. In particular, the virtual end of the ability to strike has been disastrous. This is ultimately only bargaining weapon the workers have.
Well now 'your on', 'bligh4',
Before you start, please remember to use 'citations' when 'giving me history lessons', when you quote 'some authority' you will need to be more specific.
While your at it; I will allow your 'own personal definition of 'Democracy'---if it strays from the 'accepted definition' (which for most americans actually means something else anyway). And you may wish to consider that just about 'anything' has a 'different definition in America' than it does elsewhere, this formula would certainly apply to "Labor Unions" ---
Taking into consideration your reply above, I am sure that you are highly knowledgeable concerning Honduran Politics and History, I could use 'some enlightenment' in that area.
I thought that 'non-democratic elites and criminal elements' were 'synonymous'.
Please elaborate that aspect as well for me.
Thanks,-----
PS.
Please do some research on this, but Howard Zinn mentions in several of his very highly regarded books that. The ' American founding Fathers' (they didn't have any 'founding mothers') sent the "Indian Agent" for Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin to the Iroquois Nation and his time with them is where the concept of the early US System, received its master plan/pattern. The Iroquois Confederacy actually HAD 'Founding Mothers' but the 'Americans' disregarded that aspect.
Please when you are giving a Native American a 'speech on Democracy', try to keep in mind that the Native American People as a whole, practiced Democracy at least one thousand years before Rome. It was only recently that we were introduced to something entirely alien to our concept of Democracy/freedom/liberty etc.
It appears to have not been as good a 'plan' as those who imposed it upon us---since it seems to be falling apart around their heads 'these days'.
As for elites, and criminals, 'we' have kept 'our word' after signing treaties not to 'wage war' against the USA----it is unfortunate that in a Democracy like that in the USA, the 'criminal acts' of their government, in regards to honoring the 'nations' words in treaties are not within their control----or you would have mentioned how 'terrible it is that your country does not keep its word, like a Democracy should'. Does this mean that the 'people have spoken'? Was your voice one of them---in a Democracy?
No need to actually answer that last question, your silence is your consent---or it should be in a Democracy; shouln't it?
bligh4
Well, Native son, I never claimed to be an expert on Honduran politics- Maybe you are, but I doubt it. I am part native american myself, as is my wife, and will not try to defend the U.S. for breaking treaties with various tribes in the past. You seem to allude to the fact that I participated in the democratic voting for non complience in those treaties- Sorry, born about a hundred years too late.
I will say that the U.S. was hardly unique in the treatment of the indiginous population. I have heard the story of the Iroquois confederacy and think there may be some truth to it, but doubt highly that it was as central to the idea of the founders as the writings of Locke, Voltaire and others. Also, most native american societies were organized as "chiefdoms", an unelected position.
As far as Labor Unions, you need only look to one of the largest-the Teamsters- to see that corruption, cronyism, and elitism has infected Unions in the past. I never said they were not a good idea, only that they were subject to the same laws of human nature.
I would say that being a Native American makes you no better, or worse, than anyone else on this board for arriving at the truth.
have a nice day.
"Part Native American"---which part?
Left foot, or Right eye?---or----Rectum?
"The US was hardly unique in its treatment of indigenous people"---but wait, the USA promotes itself as 'unique' in ALL things, (and when 'Jesus comes back', he is going to 'land' right here in the USA----------)the USA holds its self up as an example for those who would emulate them, while at the same time, the world laughs at them, their arrogance, their duplicity, and then when they need some money; they just kiss a little 'US ass' and the Americans throw lots of money to them. Stroke that massive ego, and the USA ejaculates 'cash'.
"Chiefdom"---that would depend upon the tribe and once again you show your massive 'tonnage of ignorance' (that can be forgiven, since the L-Foot or R-eye must assuredly be over powered by those 'other parts'.----) But I suppose that GWBush made it to the 'presidency twice' from his many talents and skills---and most of all his most 'highly developed' communication skills and his high degree of intellect. I am sure this is a result of his attendance at TWO highly regarded US institutions of "hire lernin"-----------he certainly put all those privileges to 'good use'.
I asked in the first response to you for citations---(didn't actually expect them)
but they are lacking--especially when you mention the 'teamsters'-- corruption, cronyism, elietism* then you 'float over' to "Locke and Voltaire"---but which works are YOU referring to?(* you might wish to consult with a 'dictionary' on the word 'elitism' and its definition)
Then there is that "participated in the democratic voting for non compliance with those treaties"---you were born too late----but once again your 'constitution' clearly states that those 'treaties are supreme law'----no amount of 'voting' would have anything to do with the process. And once again, you show your ignorance.
This is common with so many Americans, your entire education process was/is infiltrated with propaganda and misinformation precisely so that you will not question 'what you were taught'. This is an old and well polished tool that the 'leaders' of humanity have devised over the millenia; it is easier to control an ignorant mass of your population if you are in control of their information/education.
But there is still hope for YOU.
STUDY THE FACTS. Ignorance does not have to be 'terminal'----but the one who suffers from it most often is unaware of it, until they (he/she/a nation) make a point to seek the facts; and then make the needed changes which result with the introduction of 'information'.
Try reading Howard Zinn's " A People's History of the United States"------------
then Dale Van Every's "Disinherited"---or Vine Deloria Jr's, " The Nations Within"--
Thanks,
Good Luck.
bligh4
Well Native Son, You can reference Howard Zinn all day long-still doesn't make you right. I prefer to do my own research and reading- thank you.
Since you obviously hold citizenship somewhere, I would be interested in which paragon of a country that is.
As far as "rectum" , I guess it takes one to know one.
If I understand you correctly, because I live in a country with a two hundred year old constitution- I voted for it. I don't even know what to say about this one.
Read Locke and Voltaire yourself, I don't have the time or inclination to educate you on the subject.
Regards
bligh4
Native, does that mean that I could "choose" to be African American or Korean-American?
Your concept of only belonging to a group if you think in the "approved" fashion for that group is singularly racist in nature. Who does the approving, You?
Have a good day.
bligh4
You go for it brother. I now understand that "racism" is anyone that disagrees with you. Good luck with the "Whitey's", what do you call African-Americans?
have a nice day
Nativeson - i have also read of the democratic practice among native indians ..and was amazed at how the white "viewpoint" concerning "democracy" actually suppressed that after realizing at the outset that it was hardly an "original" concept BY westerners and that "consensus" was already a living, organic reality and way of life among the Native Indians.
and yet the settlers couldn't help themselves:
while painting the Natives as "savages and bloodthirsty" in history - it was the westerners and white settlers that were the greatest practitioners of bloodthirstiness. ...riding along with unbelievable thievery and rapaciousness of culture, life, land and futures.
a Native Indian saying that I read sums up the invading "culture":
"GOLD -- it is the metal that makes the white man go mad".
UNIONS ARE VASTLY LESS CORRUPT THAN AMERICAN CORPORATIONS.
Why? Because union presidents have to be elected by the membership, one person one vote, whereas corporate boards are elected one DOLLAR one vote. If you have a million shares you get a million times the influence; and workers have no say at all unless there is a union.
Union labor earns a lot more money than non-union, which is why, despite media propaganda, a majority of workers want unions, and can't get them because of the corruption of the BOSSES. Workers fired for organizing, elections put off for years - all ignored by the boss controlled NLRB. And "free trade" which allows our jobs to be shipped of to Haiti and Honduras and China, where the workers are prevented from organizing by US backed dictators. A pro-worker foreign policy would raise tariffs for countries which suppress unions and democracy.
When unions are corrupt it is because the leadership is collaborating with the corporations. We need an entirely new labor movement in this country, an organizing drive equivalent to that of the CIO in the thirties.
Meanwhile in Honduras, the unions are in the lead in protesting the new dictatorship. We can support them best by organizing here.
" He took on big business". This quote from the Washington Post says it all!
And something Mr. Solomon could have brought up is the little corporate lie that "higher wages mean more expensive goods" argument.
Basic market economics dictate that the price of a good and a particular cost to produce it, most of the time, have very little to do with each other. A manufacturer does not calculate the costs to make a good, add a few percent for profit, then sell at at that price. The manufacturer ruthlessly seeks to make the good as cheaply as possible, then sell it, through a vast array of marketing tricks and deceptions, at as high a price as possible.
This is especially true when one considers the real way a good gets to the consumer is that the owner of the "brand" ruthlessly searches for the cheapest, obscure, third-world sweatshop-source for the good to attach their logo - forcing them in a race to the bottom. It then, through multi-$billions spent on advertising, sells that logo at the highest price it can. The role of the labor costs to the ultimate price in the local "target" store are zero.
Phil Knight didn't become the one of the richest people on the planet by selling goods as cheaply as labor costs would allow. And never forget that the misery of the Honduran and hatian worker is, and always will be, an inevitable product of free markets.
Your analysis is correct. Prices are set on the basis of "what the market will bear" and has nothing to do with cost of production. Through the class struggle, wages are always kept to a bear minimum, as labour power itself under capitalism is also a commodity.
"If you say that the leverage of the U.S. consumer market should be used to support higher wages for poor workers in poor countries, rather than the opposite, you're likely to be told that this is not allowed. This leverage has been allocated to something else. The power of the U.S. market can only be used for things like forcing developing countries to enforce the patents, trademarks, and copyrights of U.S. pharmaceutical companies, software companies, and Hollywood."
Good point, and good article.
This coup was organized by Chiquita and Dole and their congressional toadies. I'll never buy anything from any of them again.
I'm with you on that one. Let's each try to get a few others to understand, get on board and talk about this with people we know.
Joe
Chiquita's coup in Gautemala cost 200,000 MAYANS THEIR LIVES.
AG Holder defended Chiquita against charges they hired death squads to break strikes in Columbia.
Don't forget the human rights atrocities of Coca Cola.
The book "Supermob" by Gus Russo sheds some interesting light on what happened to our unions.
Check out the talk hosted by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now on the Honduras coup:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/7/honduras
She interviewed Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton's former sex-scandal lawyer and a school chum of Hillary Clinton's, along with historian Greg Grandin.
Davis is in the pay of Honduran business owners and wants Zelaya to be out of power. He tries to weasel around it even being called a coup. At one point, Grandin brings up the minimum wage issue as a reason for the coup, but Davis just responds with disgust.
I know there are a lot of Clinton fans writing here on Common Dreams, but you need to check out this interview. Recall that it was Hillary Clinton that called Zelaya "reckless," and ever since that time, U.S. policy has moved to support the coup.
It may be supposition, but there seems to be a Clinton connection to the coup. Of course, Obama say's he bears the responsibility. But then again, Obama says a lot of things.
-TIA
Excellent post. Amy Goodman and Greg Grandin tried valiantly to have an honest debate and were given the run around by Lanny Davis.
I thought it was interesting that Lanny Davis repeatedly, invoked his "liberal" status as a way to find common ground with Greg Grandin. Whenever I hear the word Liberal (outside of talking about ice cream), a little voice in my head says: "remember, Thomas Freidman is a Liberal." Then I caution myself to be on guard. "With friends like these..."
First of all, I confess to an absolutely unprovable assumption that I nevertheless believe to be true: from the point at which Obama and Hillary knew they would run for the presidency, the Obama camp and the Clintonistas worked out contingencies for every outcome.
This is not to imply that their campaigns were "fixed" or phony, or that the squawks about the Michigan and Florida primaries were faked. I just think that they established a "pragmatic" partnership so that each had a role and responsibilities regardless of who won and who lost.
I expect that Edwards was part of the mix, at least until he was deemed out of the running-- and whatever future might have been considered melted away after Edwards stepped on his prick.
I'm not naïve to the fact that political parties exist, in part, to do just such planning. I just think that, Hillary and Barack being who they are-- corporate lawyers-- they had much more of a "pre-nup" than was disclosed publicly.
Once Obama clinched the nomination, he began importing Clintonista neoliberal hawks en masse into his administration-- just as he effectively outsourced the US treasury to Goldman-Sachs banksters.
That's my take on the players. The participation of the Clintonistas in such disproportion-- which was applauded by the chattering class as nominee Obama wisely "strengthening the Party"-- suggests that Hillary might have something close to carte blanche in foreign policy-making.
But whether Hillary herself "sets" foreign policy is moot. The US under Obama is, unsurprisingly by now, continuing the settled policy of our imperialist, capitalist government of opposing any political trends in this hemisphere that mitigate against US and transnational corporate interests.
It's really the continuation of the economic and class struggle that animated the Cold War-- the latest "corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, which the US government has always liberally contstrued as providing legal authority for any and every unilateral incursion by the US into the affairs of nations south of the Rio Grande.
Zelaya is to the present US maladministration what Daniel Ortega was to Ronald Reagan.
It's premature to accuse the US of directly fomenting this coup, although such actions are entirely consistent with the history of the CIA and other US state security agencies. But it's been clear since the beginning that Obama was praising the coup with faint damns.
At first I thought that Obama might be applying "community organizer" techniques to Honduras; if the players couldn't work it out, he'd invite them all up to the White House to down a refreshing brewski and clear the air. But then it became clearer that this was a calculated equivocation with an increasingly apparent chilliness towards Zelaya.
And now that Clintonista weasel Lanny Davis is publicly and openly repudiating Zelaya, after Hillary chided Zelaya as "reckless", there's no doubt that the Obama maladministration is hoping to see Zelaya shut down permanently.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Good points, Servant. I like the "gentleman's agreement" idea. Let's continue going down this speculative path.
I think it's quite noteworthy that Washington D.C. bigwigs, like Lanny Davis, can openly take the side of the coup leaders. Is it a chance for Davis to make money and still be in accord with the Clintons?
For instance, it might be tougher for Davis to have Osama bin Laden as his client, although I'm sure bin Laden could pay his fee. Why are Honduran "business" leaders an acceptable client?
I don't mean to belabor the possible Clinton coup connection. I think the Clintons have a track record of defending business owners everywhere from greater equality with labor. Hillary was on the board of union-busting Walmart. Bill negotiated tough loan terms with President Aristide of Haiti, who tried to help the poor in his country. (Later, Aristide gets kidnapped under Bush in much the same way as Zelaya.)
I agree that this Davis matter pales before the larger class and capitalism issues. If it wasn't the Clintons tacitly supporting abductions of heads of states, it'd be some other Democrat or Republican leader doing the same. I just bring this up because of the deep love for the Clintons found among Common Dreams commenters. They need to see things for what they are, especially in these small moments of ugliness so clearly revealed.
-TIA
I watched the interview with Lanny Davis also, and I have to say this corrupt and crooked attorney is an example of what is wrong with American foreign policy. He was arrogant and perjorative to Amy, to say the least. His fancy rhetoric and half truths were a joke. Talk about an ugly American! The man is the epitome of casuistry. He could care less about the truth and the poor people in Honduras, $$$$ is what motivates him.
Lets look at the truth. Businessmen will pocket the difference if the wages remain low. Business people do not pass savings onto consumers. They charge what the market will accept. So if the minimum wage raises it will not effect the price of the garment in the U.S., but it will effect the profits of the businessmen. No American should purchase anything from a company paying an unlivable wage.
The Chavez chanting and the rap about Zelaya attemtping to use the non-binding encuesta are all part of the oligarchy's propaganda campaign. At first, the oligarchs claimed that Zelaya signed for his own resignation. It was such a lie, it isn't brought up anymore.
The trouble with living in a country where an oligarchy has established itself is that reforms needed by the majority become almost impossible...as you may have noticed in the US.
When an oligarchy comes to power force, fraud, double standards, spin, deception, lies, sloganeering (without the benefit of the thought process), social regression, corruption, the erosion of human rights, and increasing social brutalization become the norms.
We are observing something in Honduras that is slowly becoming something we are increasingly seeing emerge in the US: rule by oligarchy!
balakirev:
that is the name of a great russian composer too who wrote wonderful music.
You got it, babes.
He was the father of the mighty handful. His influence touched Russian music until very recently.
What is so cool about Balakirev is the fact he took years to complete many of his major works. (He would stop a composition in order to help younger composers with compositional problems or he would organize concerts for new composers, etc.) So when you listen to his music, you transverse stylistic changes and evolving compositional maturity in one composition. It makes him extremely interesting to listen to.
One of the many discussions that would have been promoted by the non-binding encuesta was directed at military immunity for crimes against humanity.
Many of today's Honduran military bosses were directly or indirectly involved with Batallion 3-16. This was Honduras' death squad during the 1980s; it was organized, partially, by Negroponte.
If the oligarchical constitution of 1982 was finally faced with democratic input, the discussion about military immunity would have opened an unwelcome can of worms for these people.
Meanwhile, back at the Hamptons:
The 2010 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Grand Sport at a Glance
Engine: 8.0-liter, quad-turbo, W-16 with 1,001 hp and 922 lb-ft of torque.
Transmission: 7-speed dual clutch.
Speed: 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds.
Gas mileage per gallon: 8 city; 14 highway.
Price as tested: $2.1 million.
Best feature: The mind-bending speed.
Worst feature: Trying to justify the equally mind-bending price.
Target buyer: A Master of the Universe.
Master of the mother fuckers is more like it. And the people that drive cars like this are the ones that complain about union corruption and overly demanding workers. Prison is too good for these Bugatti drivers.
Meanwhile, back at the Hamptons:
The 2010 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Grand Sport at a Glance
Engine: 8.0-liter, quad-turbo, W-16 with 1,001 hp and 922 lb-ft of torque.
Transmission: 7-speed dual clutch.
Speed: 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds.
Gas mileage per gallon: 8 city; 14 highway.
Price as tested: $2.1 million.
Best feature: The mind-bending speed.
Worst feature: Trying to justify the equally mind-bending price.
Target buyer: A Master of the Universe.
Master of the mother fuckers is more like it. And the people that drive cars like this are the ones that complain about union corruption and overly demanding workers. Prison is too good for these Bugatti drivers.
I volunteered for Obama in the 2008 campaign and I have to say that I am quite disappointed by his efforts in regard to Honduras and health care reform so far.
I sincerely hope that he understands that progressive will not unite behind him in 2012 if he fails to deliver on his campaign promises.
I, for one, supported Nader in 2000 and 2004 and thus I won't have any qualms in deserting the Democratic party in 2012 if Obama and the Democratic congress do not pass a strong health care bill that covers everyone and that makes it affordable for everyone.
I would also suggest that Democrats, and especially Rahm Emanuel, watch Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from Monday, August 3rd. That's, in a nutshell, where I and many other progressive stand.
I haven't completely lost hope yet, but if the moneyed and reactionary interests in Washington embodied by senators like Max Baucus and Dick Lugar are more powerful than the plight of the poor across the hemisphere, then the only solution is to create a true alternative to the left of the now centrist Democratic party in order to balance the extremely reactionary Republicans and level the playing field.
Politicjock -- i just can not understand one thing about american leadership:
how it is that they can not possibly be BLIND to the fact that so many americans (never mind other countries, if that is what they feel) -- are suffering needlessly - and yet deserve none of it --
and YET - right up to obama - they BETRAY americans - again and again and again.
i mean -- these industries, the business community especially as it is dictated to by "big business", politicians, official institutions representing the US "governance"...
don't they see that apart from most of them (the big powers) eventually also needlessly being undermined by their own shortsighted principles and actions and policies - the american PEOPLE - like people everywhere deserve no LESS than honest, fair and respectful treatment because that is where the power of the big businesses come from also?....and that if they changed their mentality from exploiting their fellow ordinary americans - endlessly sucking blood from ordinary americans - and gave ordinary americans what is their DUE -
the USA would not only be as prosperous as any of their wildest dreams , or anyone's, would be - BUT be TRULY trusted, admired and not feared, by the entire world...and that as a result - it benefits US "business" just as much if not more so?.
they waste and betray the hopes, the kindness, the sincerity and generous spirit of most ordinary americans JUST LIKE YOU.
this is so sad.
considering history, present realities of nations on wages, economics etc....
if one were to consider , assume a premise:
the being the nation with the most power, wealth, economy, INFLUENCE and control or dictate for several generations ...the USA is by definition the ONE country that has basically imposed and defined what "economics" "should be" throughout the world.
THIS INCLUDES its habitual, generations-long meddling in the affairs of regions to impose its "economic model" -- and also by THAT definition is at the centre of what are often the "isolation" of countries economically and politically towards this goal - for at least a hundred years now.
IMO - it follows that - with this fact , NO other country has been responsible, through its "economics" impositions :through the manipulation of the dollar (while accusing others of it) , through militarism, through politics, through sanctions and other threats and under-handed actions , for what is a general global "low wage" regime.
to be sure there are always oligarchs in any country and at any time in history.
but NONE of these would have gained such POWER over the MAJORITY of their own countrymen - had the USA NOT been BEHIND the support for their power.
China - for example, a communist nation by politics, for whatever the value of that is, is often cited as an example of "slave labor wages"......
and YET -- it was with the USA meddling , along with the British empire and other rival empires of the west that from at least a hundred years ago - CHINA's OWN prosperity historically was undermined - in order to OPEN HER up as a market of CHEAP labor by the west, LED by the USA (attested TO by General Smedley Butler in the 1920-s 1930s)
result? it became COMMUNIST as a response and DEFENSE against western imperialism - and THEN ISOLATED by the west - led by the USA - so that it ceased to function openly with other nations - forcing it, in a sense, to have a backward economy that naturally included "low wages" since the country's previous prosperity and natural evolution to become one of the world's most prosperous modern nations - in keeping with its great size and historical prosperity (which, by the way was the envy of the west for centuries), had already been "meddled with" .
the fact that the Communist takeover in China produced - along with Russia and Cuba , produced the only countries that have SUCCESSFULLY REPELLED western imperialism , which itself - historically, everyone now knows - NEVER had any "benevolent intentions" as the west claimed repeatedly -
only gave impetus for the USA - as the leading and then remaining superpower to impose "sanctions" and isolation - using threats of "sanctions" AGAINST weaker countries that dared "trade" with these isolated nations, and of course "allies" , so long as these countries and others REFUSED to BOW to US dictates .
and YET when CHINA DID open up - the FIRST thing that US businesses wanted was the CONTINUATION of the cheap labor system - that had become china's legacy as a result mainly of the isolation, the communist response against imperialism that kept china very limited in its role to become prosperous or continue to be
HAD the WEST -led by the usa - NEVER interfered or meddled in its internal affairs.
THAT is just one example, using what is and has always been one of the most significant great nations in the history of the world.
but that example belongs to a PATTERN of US impositions towards the SAME result: cheap labor, cheap resources, "OPEN markets"...
brought upon the latin american nations, africa, asia .
therefore - to borrow a remarks by the Asiatimesonline writer - Henry CK Liu , in his analysis and historical review of "monetarism and Dollar hegemony" :
"THE USA is the Head of the Global Monetary Manipulation Snake".......
a variant in terms of Cheap Labor is:
"THE USA is the Head of the Global Cheap Labor Snake".
the coup in Honduras , the increased militarization of Colombia under guise of "drug war" to "oversee" latin america and use Colombia as a political, economic and military "outpost" , the fomenting of insurrections in latin america to keep it from moving "left" and away from the USA's decidedly "rightwing" economics, the "color revolutions" in the caucasus and littoral countries around russia, the historical "isolation" of china for generations, the support for rightwing oligarchies elsewhere
are all designed to serve the USA's OWN "low wage" economics .
after all - that IS being applied to the majority of Americans themselves. it follows that this is exactly what the USA has always tried to "export"...calling it "freedom and democracy and free market".....
Wow, you have a knack for fiction.
Zelaya broke constitutional laws by trying to get himself elected in an unauthorized election and was removed from office and replaced by another red party (socialist party) official.
The min wage increase happened almost a year before his removal. He just got a little power hungry with backing from his drug trafficking buddy, Hugo Chavez. Within weeks of Zelaya's removal, six cargo planes loaded with drugs and weapons bound for the USA from Venezuela were boarded and confiscated by the Honduran military. Before his removal, these planes had a free pass to refuel and continue.
How do I know these things? I've lived here five years, run a children's home and two of those children have since joined the Honduran Air Force and were part of the boarding parties. My wife, four children and I are Americans just trying to help in a very poor nation.
Corruption is a way of life in Honduras and we hope to change that, but the USA didn't do any favors by pressuring the Hondurans to ignore their own constitution.
Yes, the min wage hurts big business, but it also hurts people here trying to raise and educate the children that the country has forgotten. We cannot take in more children because we don't have the funds now that our expenses have been doubled via min wage increases.