The Writers Guild of America took to the streets today, beginning what promises to be a long strike in one of the largest industries in California.  I couldn’t be more in support of the people who are the lifeblood of Hollywood, the creative personnel that are the engine of the last vibrant manufacturing industry in America.  Unfortunately, I’m getting the sense that their leadership is falling back on an old union strategy of securing benefits for their existing membership rather than allowing their membership to grow, and this will have disastrous consequences for the future of the labor movement.

Two and a half years ago, I wrote a post, It’s the Unions, Stupid, which documented my experience at a Writers Guild meeting dedicated to organizing reality and nonfiction television storytellers. 

Yes, a lot of reality television is slipshod, exploitative and dumbed-down. But people don’t understand that the rank-and-file who work in it are often being as exploited as the contestants. Reality is big because of its low costs, mainly because, unlike scripted shows, it is not unionized. This has become a bargaining chip for the networks in their dealings with the Writer’s Guild, Director’s Guild, and others: take our crappy contract, or we’ll just make more reality shows.

Reality show workers make less than their counterparts in scripted TV. They work largely on weekly salaries, usually for no overtime, yet during stressful parts of production 16-hour days and weekend work are all too typical. Their credits are so amorphous that they bear no relation to the actual job worked. If a reality show is sold to another network for use in reruns, none of the workers see any residual fees. They have no employer-paid health care or pensions, and as freelancers on short-term assignments, they have little or no job security. 1 out of every 3 TV and film industry professionals are out of work on any given day in Hollywood (just go to a coffee shop at 2:30 on a Wednesday for proof).

This probably sounds whiny to many, and actually, it should. Most of these people are well-paid for the work that they do. Of course, that’s mainly because of the power of collective bargaining. The sundry labor unions have forced Hollywood to share its profits with its employees, with very few exceptions. But while reality television workers do benefit from that to a degree, they are the crack in the dike that allows the networks to cash in.

Along with hundreds of others, I signed a card at that time, in May 2005, allowing the WGA to negotiate on my behalf.  These negotiations ran up against a brick wall.  There were a couple high-profile meetings and protests.  Nothing.  There were lawsuits against production companies who were making their employees work 18-hour days, falsifying time cards, changing start dates and delaying productions that cost the employees thousands of dollars.  They resulted in brief reconciliations that were eventually rolled back.  There was a high-profile strike last year by the writer-producers of America’s Next Top Model.  The editors, who were unionized through IATSE, didn’t honor the picket line, the season of shows were finished, and those writers were not brought back the following season.  There was talk of a “wage-and-hour” campaign, to sue the production companies for overtime pay.  It never materialized.

The light at the end of the tunnel was the coming negotiations on a new contract.  Many thought that organizing reality and nonfiction storytellers would be a key bargaining chip.  After all, in the event of a strike, the studios could simply ramp their nonunion shows into production and move forward with business as usual.  So to avert the same thing happening far into the future, it made sense for the WGA to take a stand now, expand their membership, and leave the studios with less wiggle room to make a schedule during subsequent threats to walk out.  Indeed, this is exactly what the studios are saying is their alternative now.

Prime-time schedules would appear relatively unchanged for a couple of months, since a handful of episodes have already been prepared. But if the strike drags on the 2008 schedule will be heavy on reality shows (not covered by the current contracts) and reruns […]

Though CW Entertainment Chief Dawn Ostroff says they’re prepared, with new reality series like Farmer Wants a Wife and Crowned waiting in the wings, she, too, sees no advantage to striking: “It’s just better for everyone if habits aren’t broken and if people that are getting into characters and shows are able to continue to do so.”

I’m not at the bargaining table, so I can only go by the many reports I’ve seen, but it appears to me that the WGA is holding the line on DVD and Internet residuals.  Now, those are important issues that must be part of an overall agreement.  But the difference between those benefits discussions and expanding membership to other programming mirrors the central debate within the labor community; should they get as much for the dwindling numbers of union members they have, or should the focus be on expanding membership?  This is the schism that caused the SEIU and other unions to leave the AFL-CIO and form the Change To Win coalition.  Andy Stern and the other new-labor leaders firmly believe that the old paradigm is failing America, where union membership has declined to a great degree over the past 50 years.  If you give management a lifeline, a way to get their work done without having to deal with a union, they’re going to take it.  There are significantly less situation comedies in production than there were ten years ago.  There are less dramas, too, at least at the network level.

I hear the criticism that reality shows are cheap and tawdry and a major factor in the decline of Western civilization.  To a large extent I agree with it.  But if you hate reality shows, the number one thing you should hope for is that they become organized.  Ratings are only a small part of the story of reality’s success; with the exception of American Idol, that growth has leveled off.  It’s the enormous difference in production costs that has led to the burgeoning of the genre, and that’s entirely attributable to the fact that they’re nonunion.  The chain of TV and entertainment can only be as strong as its weakest link.  And I believe that, by foregrounding the monetary issues and not fighting to expand the membership, the WGA is undergoing the wrong strategy for the future, one that will ensure that their members have less opportunities to practice their craft.

United Hollywood is giving constant updates, as well as the LA Times’ Hollywood Writers blog.  I will support the strike in any way possible.  But I wish that the leadership would understand the need for a new-labor strategy, to increase the fortunes of the middle class and ensure that nobody is left behind.

Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise.  She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.  Yet, it is her own equivocation on critical issues that, more than anything else, may stop her from securing the nomination.  As noted by Dick Morris, the former pollster for Bill Clinton:

With linguistic obfuscation reminiscent of Bill's more famous remarks — “I didn't inhale” and “It depends on what the definition of is, is” — Senator Clinton is determined not to tell us where she stands on anything. Instead, she has come to believe, probably correctly, that if we knew what she really wants to do as president, we would never vote for her. So on Social Security (where she plans to raise taxes), Iran (where she will take military action if need be), Iraq (where she will keep the troops), the Alternative Minimum Tax (which she will only repeal if it can be used to hide massive tax increases) and drivers licenses (which she will give to illegals as soon as she can), Hillary resists telling the truth.

I would like to focus on Morris' claim that Clinton will keep our troops stationed in Iraq.  On the surface, Clinton has from the beginning of the campaign offered an entirely different message.  At the February 2007 meeting of the Democratic National Convention, Clinton claimed:

I want to be very clear about this. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war. I would not and if in Congress, if we in Congress, working as hard as we can to get the 60 votes you need to do anything in the Senate — believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage, you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything.  If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will!

It's become obvious that Congress will not end the war by January 2009.  It's also become obvious that Clinton's pledge to end the war in Iraq rests on a foundation of quicksand.  Clinton has never called for a prompt and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq.  When questioned on whether she will commit to specific date for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as noted by Helen Thomas, Clinton reverts to “her usual cautious equivocation.”  She she leaves open the possibility our troops will remain until 2013.  David Broder commented that Clinton plays “dodgeball” on the question of leaving Iraq:

During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but “it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting” from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge — as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.

What circumstances must exist in Iraq in 2009 to permit a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?  Clinton is silent on this critical point.  What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq?  In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study.  As explained on her campaign website:

As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days.  She simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months. 

This begs the question:  what if Clinton's advisers repeat the mantra of the D.C. political and military establishment that Iraq is too unstable and a withdrawal of our forces will threaten U.S. interests in the region? 

What is clear is that Clinton lacks confidence in her own judgment.  Instead, Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.

How can I make this charge?  Look at whom is advising Clinton today on Iraq and military affairs.  Among her military advisers, as reported in the Washington Post, are Gen. John (“Jack”) Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence; retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser; retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow.  These are the persons that will form her inner circle of advisers should she become President. 

Let's examine each of these persons. 

Jack Keane was “vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning” and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld.  In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign was “bold and brilliant.”  There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country.  Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was “catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic.”  In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that: 

We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be.

Two years later, Keane stated: 

If we had planned for an insurgency, we probably would have deployed the First Cavalry Division and it would have assisted greatly with the initial occupation. This was not just an intelligence community failure, but also our failure as senior military leaders.

Fast forward to December 2006, whom is meeting with President Bush and advocating an escalation of the war in what became known as the “surge”?  Yes, the answer is Keane.  He along with Frederick Kagan developed the strategy of the surge.  I encourage everyone to read the interview of Keane by Frontline earlier this year.  Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled “The Evangelical President,” reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to “maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq.”  One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq. 

Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was “absolutely” certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.  In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded: 

If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be — where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there.

Kennedy believes that it is not our invasion of Iraq that has caused so much difficulty for the U.S.  Rather, the war has been botched by President Bush.  Kennedy recently made national headlines when she stated:

I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'”

Donald Kerrick wrote an essay last year entitled “Iraq Not Lost Yet“.  While calling for a review of our strategy in Iraq, Kerrick opposed those he labeled as advocating the U.S. cut and run.  Such a course would lose Iraq to the extremists. 

Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq.  The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war.  In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security. 

Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents.  However, “victory” in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich: 

Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq.

This year, Krepinevich sees the surge, if successful, resulting in American forces staying “in Iraq for decades — much as we have in Korea, for example, to ensure the security of that part of the world, we will have to have 30,000, 40,000 soldiers in Iraq, I think indefinitely.” 

Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge.  In an Op Ed entitled “A War We Just Might Win” published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.” 

After the latest Presidential debate in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their “flexibility” on Iraq. “I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months,” O'Hanlon stated. 

Finally, Mark Penn, Clinton's top political strategist, may play a role in shaping Clinton's policy on Iraq should she become President.  As noted by Bill Boyarsky: 

Penn, is worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which helped prepare the chief of Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony defending the way that the company employees killed 17 and wounded 24 while fulfilling its contract to provide security for the State Department.  It's all very clubby.

In conclusion, Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise.  She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office.  Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. 

Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.  If Clinton becomes President, the opportunity to end our open-ended military intervention in Iraq may very well be lost.

What is the alternative?  There is a Democratic candidate for President that says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed.  He has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this. 

This candidate is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq. 

Whom is this candidate?  His name is Bill Richardson.

Dennis Kucinich will introduce privileged resolution to force a vote on V.P. Cheney’s impeachment resolution this week, probably Tuesday. It is critical that we voice our support and contact our Representatives ASAP to let them know how we feel.

However, he is reaching out to us, the American people, to do our part and claim responsibility to reclaim our constitutional democracy. Dennis understands that real change and meaningful reform can’t happen without the active support of the people, and so he will be holding a live, national conference call Monday evening, November 5th, to explain how everything will work and what we can do to help. From the Kucinich campaign website:

Dennis will host a live, nationwide conference call on  Monday, November 5th, beginning at about 7:30 p.m. (Eastern Time), to announce what will be happening in the House of Representatives this week regarding the Cheney impeachment resolution – and to ask for your help.

The call-in number is (641) 715-3300.
When the operator asks for an access code, key in 324341#.
The call is  open to all interested citizens.

The time to act is now. We have to contact our Representatives to gain support. We have to contact the Democratic leadership and explain that no part of our Constituion, including impeachment, is “off the table”.

Off the table!? It is important to note why Kucinich is moving this forward: there is wide popular support for it! Over 80 cities/towns have now passed impeachment resolutions, with 50 more pending, and major polls, such as Zogby, have indicated a majority of Americans support impeachment proceedings. However, the Democratic leadership, members of Congress, and the MSM have failed to listen to the American people. As Kucinich noted at the San Mateo Straw Poll:

“If Congress did the right thing, they would be talking … about impeachment…

“I introduced House Resolution 333 because I heard from the American people and they said they wanted some response to make Dick Cheney accountable for the statements that he made that took us into a war based on lies. And the statements he made that would take us into a conflict against Iran. Again, more lies.

“The President is now openly invoking the specter of World War III with respect to Iran. He ought to be held accountable also. I’m the only member of Congress who stepped forward on the issue of making Dick Cheney accountable. And now we have 21 members who’ve joined me. That’s a step in the right direction. But I’m going to go beyond that. I’m going to call a privileged resolution, at which point, would force a vote — at least if it’s only on a procedural motion — members are going to have to confront this issue of impeachment. They’re not going to escape it. This is a question of defending our Constitution. It really is.

Just as our Congressional Representatives have gone deaf to the voice of millions of Americans, we, like the Constitution, have gone dumb to this Administration. And Kucinich understands this:

“Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme.

“Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.”

So here we are. Kucinich is giving us a chance to let Congress know how we feel, while holding them and this Administration accountable for their actions. There will be a vote. People will have to make a decision. People will have to take action. And we who believe in the principles of this country have to act first. This is our country, our government and our consequences if we stand idly by.

Call your Representatives here. Call the Democratic Leadership here. Call in to the conference call tommorow night. Recommend, Digg, pass along this diary and raise your voices. There isn’t much time. 

Articles of Impeachment against V.P. Cheney:

1.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests

2.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests

3.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States

Kucinich’s list of supporting documents are here.

Co-sponsors for Articles of Impeachment:

H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President, has 21 cosponsors. They are: Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD).