The Washington Post considers the divide between Bush’s democratic rhetoric and his policy reality:

Some of the administration’s allies in the war against terrorism — including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan — are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin’s dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well. Bush’s speech “brought to a high level the gap between the rhetoric and reality in U.S. foreign policy,” said Thomas Carothers, co-author of a new book, “Uncharted Journey: Promoting Democracy in the Middle East.”

I got some skepticism from my family after we saw The Incredibles when I said I enjoyed it but I didn’t like the politics. But it really was the most conservative movie I think I’ve seen since S.W.A.T.. What’s interesting is the way it turns the liberal paradigm of a super hero film like Spiderman 2 on its head. In Spiderman the basic conflict is one extraordinarily powerful man’s struggle to resist, and then comes to terms with the great responsibility that comes with his great power. His exercise of great power for just ends is critical in facing down society’s great enemy: A creature seeking to consolidate all power for itself, at the expense of the most vulnerable members of society.

In The Incredibles, the victims are not the powerless, but the empowered. The movie is soaked in what Jon Stewart called “the anger of the enfranchised.” Society’s superior, more powerful members are held back by the resentment of the masses who are driven by jealousy to bring them down. Armies of lawyers and reams of regulations are deployed by the masses against their betters, leaving the super heroes bored and petulant and the masses unsafe. And who’s the ultimate adversary this elite must spring into action to confront? A scientist who resents that he couldn’t be a super hero. What’s his dastardly plan? To use science to give the masses super powers of their own so that they can be special too. And, various characters contend throughout the script, “If everyone’s special, then no one is special” (Says who?). The society of Spiderman is threatened by Enrons and Halliburtons; the society of The Incredibles is threatened by affirmative-action-admits and welfare queens.

The question posed by these movies, then, is which represents the real threat. Is America more endangered by those working to empower the disempowered, or by those working to further consolidate power for a narrow elite? I think it’s clear where I come down on this one.

Labor’s New Unity Partnerships disbands, though its project continues:

Since its founding in September 2003, the NUP fostered one significant organizing campaign (in the multi-service industry) and laid the groundwork for last summer’s merger of UNITE and HERE. The NUP also started a discussion about labor’s capacity to grow again and whether the structure of the movement actually inhibited growth — a discussion that has recently swept the AFL-CIO and that may provide the basis for a challenge to the continuing tenure of AFL-CIO president John Sweeney at this summer’s Federation convention. The Prospect has learned, however, that on January 4 — just as that discussion was reaching fever pitch — the presidents of the NUP unions (SEIU’s Andy Stern, the Laborers’ Terence O’Sullivan, the Carpenters’ Doug McCarron, and UNITE-HERE co-presidents Bruce Raynor and John Wilhelm) met in Washington and decided to disband the alliance.

“I think it served its purpose,” Raynor told the Prospect. “It sparked this great debate in the labor movement, which is what we wanted. Now, we want it to be an inclusive discussion, not an exclusive one. The list of unions calling for reform has expanded. Hopefully, the AFL-CIO now becomes the vehicle to reform the labor movement.”…Raynor told the Prospect that he “was very encouraged by the [AFL-CIO] executive committee meeting on Monday,” January 10, at which the presidents of the Federation’s largest unions discussed the Teamsters’ and other proposals. “I was impressed with the commitment union leaders showed to making the necessary changes — more than cosmetic changes,” he said. “There’s a growing majority for substantive change.” Sources close to the NUPster leaders say that the NUP itself had become an obstacle to change. “To some of the more centrist union presidents, the NUP poses a problem,” one union leader said. “They say Andy [Stern] is too radical, and, instead of dealing with the substance of the arguments, they just want to attack Andy and the NUPsters. Rather than enable these critics to point at Andy or the NUP, [the NUP presidents] decided to take the NUP off the table as an issue.”…Though the principal parties deny that internal tensions were a factor in the decision to dissolve the NUP, a number of union leaders and staffers say that Stern’s mid-November announcement of SEIU’s manifesto, his statements about leaving the Federation, and his unveiling of SEIU’s union-reform website (unitetowin.org) took his NUPster colleagues very much by surprise. “It took a little while to patch that one up,” one non-NUP leader said.

Powell’s outgoing deputy offers sobering words appropriate for a dark day:

“I’m disappointed that Iraq hasn’t turned out better. And that we weren’t able to move forward more meaningfully in the Middle East peace process.”
Then, after a minute’s pause, he adds a third regret: “The biggest regret is that we didn’t stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot.”

Rice gets the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s nod:

“I’m going to vote for you, but I must tell you it’s with a little bit of frustration and some reservation,” Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said today. Mr. Biden said the administration had been less than candid about the problems in Iraq. “Time and again, this administration has tried to leave the American people with the impression that Iraq has well over 100,000 fully trained, fully competent military police and personnel,” the senator said. “And that is simply not true. You and I know that. We’re months, probably years away from reaching our target goal.” Ms. Rice was conciliatory in her reply. “Senator, we’ve made a lot of decisions in this period of time,” she said. “Some of them have been good. Some of them have not been good. Some of them have been bad decisions, I’m sure. I know enough about history to stand back and to recognize that you judge decisions not at the moment, but in how it all adds up.”

The “no” votes by Senators Boxer and Kerry were no surprise, given their sharp questioning of Ms. Rice on the reasons for going to war against Iraq, the prosecution of the war, and the peacekeeping operations that have caused more American deaths than the war itself. Ms. Boxer assailed the administration anew this morning, asserting that President Bush and his top aides – including Ms. Rice, the national security adviser – had capitalized on the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to justify the war in Iraq. “I find it so troubling that the Bush administration used the fear of terror to make the war against Iraq appear to be part of the response to 9/11,” Ms. Boxer said. “You were involved in that effort.” The senator said Ms. Rice had continued to imply a link between the Sept. 11 attacks and Saddam Hussein, when in fact there was none. Her vote against Ms. Rice had nothing to do with her qualifications, the senator said. “It’s about candor,” Ms. Boxer went on. “It’s about telling the full story.” Ms. Rice replied evenly, “When you’re dealing with intelligence matters you are not dealing with perfect information, and you do have to put that information into a context of someone’s history.”

Chris Ashley on how he came to support GESO:

When I first heard of a graduate student union my freshman year here, the idea sounded preposterous. Unions, in my mind, were either part of that confusing period of U.S. history between the big wars, like the Haymarket riots, or else fat men in ugly suits posing with Mayor Daley and getting indicted for corruption. I forgot the common sense I knew — that administrators are more powerful than anyone, and that graduate students are poor and powerless — and put my faith in the media’s image of bad unions. So I believed the stories I heard about GESO harassing and intimidating people into signing union cards. I never asked why no names were ever attached to those accusations, because I sort of assumed that anyone who questioned the union would get a visit from the mob. The idea of some Ph.D. student in Renaissance Studies beating up Marlon Brando on the docks sounded ridiculous when I actually verbalized it. But faculty and administrators who want to discourage union participation have very real threats at their disposal. GESO members have reported such intimidation on the record, especially in the hard sciences.

Those threats should chill to the bone anyone considering grad school. Even if you don’t believe graduate students should unionize, such threats have far more power to disrupt the student-teacher relationship than any union drive, simply because they’re backed up by executive force. When teachers are willing to kill their students’ careers to preserve their own power, that’s abuse. It stains the school I love. And even if we want to question both sides’ abuse claims, my Christianity still compels me to the side of the powerless, which will almost never be the side of capital. What I learned over the dinner table, frankly, was that American graduate education is broken in some respects. Not in all — that’s why I still think grad school sounds like a good idea — but in some. GESO is working to fix these by creating another power center in the academy, one that could set some limits to the presently unchecked power of administrators. It’s not the plan I would have come up with. But who else is even trying?

Also in today’s YDN, Kate Unterman describes Monday’s MLK Day breakfast:

Despite the grim nature of the report, everyone in attendance expressed confidence that Yale would soon recognize where its best interests lie: with the workers, teachers and researchers who make this University function. In the uniting spirit of Dr. King, GESO cemented ties of solidarity with New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr., State Sen. Martin Looney, the New Haven Board of Aldermen and fellow Yale workers. It’s a shame President Levin wasn’t there. He could have learned a lot about what genuine commitment to diversity entails.

And Kisten Weld takes issue with Levin’s response:

The chimera to which Yale clings — let’s call it LevinWorld — is a magical bit of whimsy. It looks something like this: First, diversity on campus is being “dealt with,” and the Graduate Student Assembly and the Executive Committee are effective bodies for that purpose. Second, Local 1199 “has nothing to do with the University.” And third, GESO “[does] not represent Yale graduate students.” Now, the cold water: Yale’s diversity stats remain damning. Grad and faculty diversity still lurk considerably below the national average. And during my time here, I’ve never heard a peep from the GSA. I trust they’re “representing” me on this one, although they’ve never even spoken to me. Next, Local 1199 is the Yale-New Haven Hospital workers’ union. Yale-New Haven makes millions of dollars for Yale, and Levin sits on its board of directors. To suggest that these workers have “nothing” to do with Yale is insulting. And finally, GESO represents hundreds upon hundreds of graduate students, who are calling upon Yale to recognize their union.

The YDN covers yesterday’s rally:

Calling on Yale to improve its financial aid policy, about 125 students gathered in the Woolsey Rotunda Monday, rallying in support of the Undergraduate Organizing Committee’s platform for financial aid reform, which urges Yale to halve student self-help levels and reduce family contribution levels. Featuring several student speakers, the purpose of the rally was to pressure Yale President Richard Levin to personally meet with students to discuss changes to the University’s financial aid policy, UOC member Josh Eidelson ’06 said. The UOC is calling on Yale to increase economic diversity among its student body, decrease students’ financial burden, and increase the transparency and accountability of the financial aid office.

One of the central proposals of the UOC platform is to cut self-help levels in half from the current amount of $4,200, which all students on financial aid must pay, to $2,100, so that it can be met by a campus job of 10 hours per week. In comparison, Harvard’s self-help level is set at $3,500 and Princeton’s self help levels range from $2,465 to $2,925, depending on students’ grade levels. As a result of these lower self-help levels, students at Harvard work an average of 10 to 12 hours per week, while students at Princeton work about nine hours a week on average, according to the universities’ financial aid fact sheets. Students at Yale who receive financial aid currently work about 14 to 15 hours a week on average, Yale Financial Aid Director Myra Smith said.

Grover Norquist once again demonstrates for the right the kind of understanding of how to organize around a broad agenda which too often is lacking on the left:

Within Republican circles, Norquist’s job is to organize other organizations, making sure the different branches of conservatism are moving in the same direction, at the same time, to the greatest extent possible. His particular genius is for persuading one organization to reach beyond its own agenda to help out another — for getting, say, the cultural traditionalists at the Eagle Forum to join the business libertarians at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in opposing fuel-economy standards for automobiles by convincing the traditionalists that, as Norquist once explained to me, ”it’s backdoor family planning. You can’t have nine kids in the little teeny cars. And what are you going to do when you go on a family vacation?”

This year, in four and a half hours, students and allies will converge at 3 PM in the Woolsey Rotunda (corner of Prospect and Grove, outside of Commons) to stand in support of our platform for financial aid reform and call for Yale to come to the table to discuss how our policy can better realize our values. Be there. And if you’re a member of the Yale community who still hasn’t signed our petition, please do so now. Thanks.

Last Martin Luther King Day, after a march to the New Haven Savings Bank to threaten a boycott, students, workers, and community members gathered in the Woolsey Rotunda to speak out about the meaning of the day and the path to making “Jobs and Freedom” a reality in New Haven and in this country. Here (because mine is the only one I have a copy of) is what I said:

Never in this country has the symbol of Dr. King been so popular and so ubiquitous; never in this country has the vision he struggled for faced such tremendous opposition. In this morning’s New York Times, a Reagan archivist argues that Reagan and King were soulmates – that though their politics differed, their values were the same. Such a claim goes beyond cynicism – it is nihilism. It demonstrates a choice to forget who Reagan was – that he kicked off his Presidential campaign in a city in which civil rights activists were murdered and he called for states’ rights and excoriated welfare queens as a threat to our society. But as troublingly, it demonstrates a choice to forget who King was. There was a time when the FBI called King the most dangerous Negro in America. It’s time King was dangerous again.

On Thursday the President of United States made a last minute visit to lay a wreath on King’s grave, and in so doing foisted on the American people the bill for a trip followed by a $2,000 a plate fundraiser. Hundreds of people turned out to protest, and the administration decided to salvage its photo op at Dr. King’s grave by obscuring the view of the social protest, the non-violent resistance, going on behind. And they did it with rows of buses. The searing image of Dr. King’s birthday, 2004, is that of Blacks, Whites, and Latinos mobilized in protest on the other side of buses. What did Dr. King’s last living birthday look like? According to Jesse Jackson, “Perhaps what he did on that day would be instructive to us…he pulled together the coalition – black, white, Jewish, Hispanic, Native American, labor – to work on the Poor People’s Campaign. The object was to demand a job or an income for all Americans. He was driven by a moral imperative to include all and leave no one behind.”

“It is crimminal to have people working on a full-time basis and a full-time job getting part-time income,” King preached in Memphis soon before his death, standing with striking sanitation workers. “One day our society will come to respect the sanitation worker if it is to survive. For the person who picks up our garbage, in the final analysis, is as significant as the physician, for if he doesn’t do his job diseases are rampant.” Today in New Haven, service workers who make hospitals function and graduate student researchers who make medical research happen both find themselves unable to pay for health insurance for themselves and their families.

Dr. King declared that “Negroes will no longer spend our money where we cannot get substantial jobs.” Today this bind remains salient, as does its twin: even as too many are locked out of substantial work in the institutions their business and their taxes fund, too many are forced to work manufacturing products they cannot themselves afford to buy. Wal-Mart employees cannot afford discount Wal-Mart clothing. University employees here in New Haven cannot afford to send their children to college.

One year after the Voting Rights Act and two after the Civil Rights Act, King argued that these “legislative and judicial victories did very little to improve” the ghetto or “penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation.” Thirty-six years ago, on his last birthday, Dr. King declared “we have an underclass, that is a reality – an underclass that is not a working class…thousands and thousands of Negroes working on full-time jobs with part-time income…to work on two and three jobs to make ends meet.” The solution, he said the next month, was “a redistribution of economic power.”

“The problem of transforming the ghetto,” Dr. King wrote, “is a problem of power–confrontation of the forces of power demanding change and the forces of power dedicated to preserving the status quo. Now power properly understood is nothing but the ability to achieve purpose. It is the strength required to bring about social, political and economic change. Walter Reuther defined power one day. He said, ‘Power is the ability of a labor union like the UAW to make the most powerful corporation in the world, General Motors, say, ‘Yes’ when it wants to say ‘No.’ That’s power.”

It’s not enough to glorify the symbol of the fallen King. We must rededicate ourselves to his vision of social, economic, and democratic change. It is not enough for our leaders to lay wreaths on the man’s grave. We must hold them accountable for a status quo which has deprived too many Americans of all races of the right to freedom from want, of the right to a voice in the decisions which determine their future. It is not enough for the President of this great University to recount that he cried on hearing Dr. King’s “I have a dream”
speech. Yale, as King confidante Rev. James Lawson declared here this summer, must commit itself to becoming fully human.

“A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will thingify them,” Dr. King warned, “make them things…And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. What I am saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, ‘America, you must be born again!'”