Stop the attacks on our solidarity work!

Lisa,

Please post this to your blog.

Thanks,

Alan



I just received this from Alan Maki. I would suggest people read the truth about FARC:

Some background info on FARC-EP:

The United States and the Colombian ruling oligarchy have, since the 1960s, repeatedly implemented socioeconomic and military campaigns to defeat the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia–Ejército del P...ueblo, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia–People’s Army (FARC–EP). However, this offensive, whose main purpose is to maintain capitalist accumulation and expansion, has resulted in an embarrassing setback for U.S. imperialism and the Colombian ruling class. In a time of growing and deepening U.S. imperialism, it is important to examine this failure. Over the past four decades, despite U.S. efforts, support has risen for what has been the most important continuous military and political force in South America opposing imperialism. I examine how the FARC–EP has not only maintained a substantial presence within the majority of the country but has responded aggressively to the continuing counterinsurgency campaign. I also show as false the propaganda campaign of the U.S. and Colombian governments claiming that the FARC–EP is being defeated. This analysis provides an example of how a contemporary organic, class-based sociopolitical movement can effectively contend with imperial power in a time of global counterrevolution....

read on:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0905brittain.htm

I just have to say this-

My choice for governor won!

Congratulations to Mark Dayton for winning an election based on fundamental and basic liberal, progressive and leftist principles:

• Tax the rich.
• Support for affirmative action.

Mark Dayton has long supported single-payer universal health care and he needs to make this a major part of his campaign agenda.

The Warriors for Justice gave Mark Dayton the boost his campaign needed to win by nominating him from the floor of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party State Convention in Duluth where I was sitting as an observer in the balcony while delegates went wild with support for his nomination even though MNDFL Chair Brian Melendez refused to allow Dayton on the convention floor.

Mark Dayton can win the General Election if he focuses on re-building the historic liberal-progressive-left coalition that Minnesotans are known the world over for which elected Floyd Olson, Elmer Benson, Rudy Perpich, Paul Wellstone and helped guide Eugene McCarthy.

Mark Dayton will fail in his bid for governor if he is sucked into a campaign like that of Barack Obama's by the business interests in control of the DFL. Melendez and his gaggle of pro-business, racist party hacks will have to go; otherwise Dayton is going to have to build his own campaign structure independent of the DFL leadership and most DFL legislators who, unlike Dayton, are more committed to big business, insurance companies and casinos than working people.

Rudy Perpich found out just how rotten these people with big-business interests in the MNDFL actually are and he very belatedly came to the conclusion he would have to begin working outside of the DFL if he wanted to accomplish real progressive change like increasing the taconite tax to pay for quality public education.

If Mark Dayton sets up campaign committees independent of the DFL now dominated and controlled by big business interests these campaign committees might be building blocks and the creation of a foundation for a real progressive political party in Minnesota.

I find the creation of the Warriors for Justice, one of whose leaders is a young mother, the way we need to go. Mark Dayton took to heart the suggestions of the Warriors for Justice in his public support for affirmative action. He could learn even more from their electoral initiatives as they broke free from the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party and gave his campaign for governor the boost he needed to win the Primary Election. Dayton, if he wants to win in November, would now be well advised to take a few more ideas from the Warriors for Justice by working himself free from the restraints of the DFL which has not been able to deliver a governor since Rudy Perpich by establishing campaign committees independent of the DFL. Certainly Mark Dayton must be intelligent enough to understand that those like Brian Melendez and most DFL legislators who opposed him because of his stands for taxing the rich and support for affirmative action are not going to turn around and make an all out effort to elect him governor because their real pro-big business sympathies lie more with the Republican program as evidenced by their refusal to fight Pawlenty and their failure to support initiatives aimed at saving the Ford Plant in St. Paul and bailing out working people.

Lisa

New York Times editorial adds to the confusion on Afghanistan: The State of the War; then publishes an opinion piece by a babbling idiot

First we get this utterly confused Editorial from the New York Times: The State of the War.

Two days later we get this garbage in the form of an Opinion piece: No Love From the Lefties

Michael Munk, a former editor at The National Guardian which was the foremost progressive newspaper in the United States at the time, distributed the link to this NYT Editorial stating:

We believe that the United States has a powerful national interest in [Vietnam] Afghanistan, in depriving [the Viet Cong] Al Qaeda of a safe haven on either side of the [South Vietnam-Cambodian] Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This country would also do enormous damage to its moral and strategic standing if it now simply abandoned the [Vietnamese] Afghan people to the [Viet Cong's] Taliban's brutalities.

In the days ahead I will be blogging my own thoughts about these two intentionally confusing pieces appearing a couple days apart in the New York Times intended to disorient the American people and distort reality and the truth.

The New York Times, established in 1851 as the voice of big capital, has traditionally been in the lead in attacking liberals, progressives and the left just as it has run flack for administration after administration for every imperialist war in the 19th, 20th and 21st century of which there have been dozens.

Even when it came to the only two legitimate wars covering the period from its beginnings to the present, the Civil War and World War II, the New York Times has sown confusion thus lending its opposition to the two just wars and support for the many imperialist wars.


Nicholas D. Kristof takes one day off and and the NYT loses it completely.

Lisa


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 12, 2010

The State of the War


Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/opinion/13fri1.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2&ref=editorials

We believe that the United States has a powerful national interest in Afghanistan, in depriving Al Qaeda of a safe haven on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This country would also do enormous damage to its moral and strategic standing if it now simply abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban’s brutalities.

But, like many Americans, we are increasingly confused and anxious about the strategy in Afghanistan and wonder whether, at this late date, there is a chance of even minimal success.

The trove of military documents recently published in The Times showed, once again, why this is so hard: the weakness of the Afghan Army and the corruption of the Afghan government; the double game being played by Pakistan; the failure of the Bush administration, for seven years, to invest enough troops, money or attention in a war that it allowed to drag on until it has now become the longest in the nation’s history.

The WikiLeaks documents, however, end in late 2009 and don’t show us how the war is going now or whether President Obama’s decision in December to send 30,000 more troops (the last won’t be in place until the end of this month) has a chance of altering those realities.

The answer to that question also depends on whether President Obama and his top advisers can finally secure the full commitment and cooperation of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, and Pakistan’s military commander, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.


•

The first test of the new counterinsurgency strategy, in Marja, population 60,000, did not go well. American Marines drove the Taliban from Marja’s center in late February, but the “government in a box” that was supposed to win over the population with security, services and honest governance didn’t arrive. Competent Afghan officials didn’t want the risk or the hardship of moving there.

Taliban fighters quickly began a campaign of intimidation and assassination. Many local residents have been too frightened to sign up for American-financed reconstruction projects. With too few Afghan security forces to hold the town, the Marines have not been able to move beyond Marja.

American officials say things are improving. Some schools and markets have reopened, and as of mid-July there were 21 Afghan officials working at the Interim Government Center, with another 7 to 10 positions unfilled. Marja remains isolated and dangerous.

We were told that Marja was a rehearsal for a major offensive this spring around Kandahar, the country’s second-largest city and the Taliban’s spiritual base. Breaking the insurgents’ hold there was supposed to send a powerful message that the tide of the war is finally changing. After Marja, though, the Kandahar offensive was postponed, reinforcing the impression of drift.

Mr. Obama has promised to review his policy this December. We agree that the “surge” and his new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, need time. But reports from the ground have been so relentlessly grim — July’s death toll of 66 American troops was the highest since the war began — that Mr. Obama needs to do a better job right now of explaining the strategy and how he is measuring progress. Here are some of the things Americans and American allies, who are even more anxious about the war, need to hear:

THE PLAN AFTER MARJA Do the president and his generals still believe that counterinsurgency — securing crucial areas and building up local governments — is the best chance for driving back the Taliban? Is it even possible? What lessons were learned in Marja? How has it changed their approach in Kandahar?

American officials now insist that it was wrong to think about Kandahar as a set piece offensive. The city is already under the formal control of the Afghan government, and they say Special Forces are already pounding the Taliban outside the city while efforts to improve services and security inside are under way. Claiming that the media somehow didn’t get it right doesn’t help. The White House and Pentagon need to explain clearly what is happening there.

One of the first bureaucratic fights General Petraeus won after assuming command was his insistence on spending more than $200 million for diesel generators and fuel to increase Kandahar’s electricity supply. That sounds like a sensible way to win local support.

We are concerned about the administration’s decision not to challenge the control of Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president’s younger brother and chief of Kandahar’s provincial council. American officials have long claimed that the younger Mr. Karzai is involved in the opium trade and other corrupt enterprises. (He also has been on the C.I.A.’s payroll.) Washington’s new line is there are suspicions but “nothing that will stand up in court.”

How can a more credible government be built in Kandahar with Ahmed Wali Karzai still in place? What is the plan for bringing in and protecting more honest officials? And for tamping down the resentment of other local leaders who complain that the younger Mr. Karzai has grabbed all of the lucrative security and supply contracts? President Karzai could give a major boost to the Kandahar campaign by urging his brother to take a year or two abroad. Failing that, what is Washington doing to ensure that the two Karzais help rather than hinder the effort?

A CREDIBLE PARTNER At a recent international conference in Kabul, President Karzai said all the right things about fighting corruption and Afghans assuming more responsibility for their own security. (For a change, there were no anti-American tantrums.) Does the administration finally have a plan to get him to deliver? Indeed, we are still not clear about the benchmarks that are being set for adequate governance. Has Mr. Karzai been given a detailed list? How can Americans judge if they are being met?

Most urgent, has the administration warned Mr. Karzai of the disastrous consequences — in Afghanistan and in the United States — if next month’s parliamentary elections are as tainted as last year’s presidential vote? Some American officials are so worried that they are hoping a way can be found to get the Afghans to postpone the vote at least until next spring.

Confronting Mr. Karzai head-on hasn’t worked. The White House has now decided to play nice, at least in public. We hope American officials are a lot franker in private about the limits of the American public’s patience. General Petraeus skillfully managed self-defeating politicians in Iraq. He will need to bring that skill to bear with Mr. Karzai while cultivating a wider array of leaders. He cannot do that alone.

The constant infighting among top American officials over how deeply to invest in the war has to end. It has undermined Americans’ confidence and made it far too easy for Mr. Karzai to ignore Washington’s advice and demands.

MILITARY AND POLICE TRAINING Like everything else about this war, the effort to train the Afghan Army and police was shortchanged for years under the Bush administration. President Obama has done better, but there is still a very long way to go. News of the way an ambitious Afghan military operation turned into a bloody rout by the Taliban is the latest reminder of that.

In November, the United States and NATO opened a new integrated training mission. Its leader, Lt. Gen. William Caldwell IV, has increased the number of trainers (the allies still need to ante up hundreds more), revamped the Afghan Army leadership program and standardized police instruction, including adding new literacy courses. American military officials said this week that this year’s goal of 134,000 Afghan National Army troops and 109,000 police officers has already been met.

After days of discussion, General Petraeus persuaded President Karzai to support the creation of new, lightly armed village defense forces.

Still, we are concerned about a recent report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, which found serious flaws in how the United States military has been measuring the readiness of Afghanistan’s Army and police for the last five years. It also described widespread problems with drug use, corruption and high attrition rates. General Caldwell said the report was based on out-of-date information; the No. 2 American commander in Afghanistan said they were developing a more rigorous system. We are eager to learn about that system and hear the evaluation.

REINTEGRATION AND RECONCILIATION American officials say that any exit strategy will almost certainly include some deal with some Taliban. Americans need to hear more about the plans to woo back lower-level fighters with offers of aid, jobs and security.

We also need to hear more about the plans for reaching out to the insurgency’s leaders. An Afghan peace conference in June called for creating a council to negotiate a deal with senior Taliban. Washington has laid down what it insists are clear red lines: Taliban leaders must forswear all ties to Al Qaeda and accept the Afghan Constitution, with its protection of women’s rights. Mr. Karzai has embraced the same conditions.

There are also reports that the Afghan president has been secretly negotiating with the Taliban and that Pakistan is eager to broker a deal. American officials say any negotiations have to be Afghan-led, while admitting they are not fully certain who is talking to whom.

We don’t know if there is a deal to be had with the Taliban. We are sure that Washington cannot sit on the sidelines. The administration also needs to be thinking hard about a diplomatic strategy to engage or at least neutralize all of the region’s meddling players.

MANAGING PAKISTAN The most alarming parts of the WikiLeaks reports were the ones that described how Pakistan’s military intelligence service was cynically colluding with the Afghan Taliban, which it sees as a proxy force to ensure its influence in Afghanistan and keep India’s at bay.

The administration has said and done many of the right things to try to change Pakistan’s behavior: committing to long-term economic aid and constantly reminding Pakistani leaders that they are playing with fire and that extremists, on both sides of the border, pose a genuine threat to their own survival. It is not clear whether they are getting through.

Pakistan has pushed back against the Pakistani Taliban and has allowed the Americans to fly drone strikes against Al Qaeda and other fighters along its border. It also continues to shelter and aid some of the most destructive and dangerous armed factions fighting United States and allied troops in Afghanistan. Americans need to understand what more the administration plans to do to end this support and draw Islamabad fully into the fight — on the right side.

THE DEADLINE President Obama was intentionally vague last December when he said that American troops would begin to transfer out of Afghanistan by July 2011. At the time, we agreed that a deadline, so long as it was not set in stone, made sense. Americans need to know this war will not go on forever. Mr. Karzai needs to know that American protection is not open-ended. American generals and diplomats need to know that their work is being closely reviewed.

Since then, the administration has sent a host — a cacophony — of conflicting signals about the deadline, the strategy and its commitment to the war.

Americans need regular, straight talk from President Obama about what is happening in Afghanistan, for good and ill, and the plan going forward. More ambiguity will only add to the anxiety and confusion.




August 14, 2010
No Love From the Lefties

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/opinion/15dowd.html?hp

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

Robert Gibbs should be yanked as White House press secretary.

Not because of his outburst against the “professional left.” He was right about that. In an interview with The Hill last week, Gibbs once more proved Michael Kinsley’s maxim that a gaffe is just truth slipping out.

He said the president’s lefty critics “ought to be drug-tested,” would only “be satisfied when we have Canadian health care and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon,” and “wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

His colleagues tried to excuse Gibbs by saying he was suffering from a bug going around the White House. But the press secretary and the president are understandably frustrated over the asymmetry at the heart of American politics: Rand Paul and Sharron Angle aside, Republicans often find a way to exploit their extremes for political advantage, while Democratic extremes typically do damage to a Democratic president.

One of the most disgusting things about Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl, and now the former maverick John McCain, is that they are happy to be co-opted by the radicals in their party to form one movement against President Obama.

On the Republican side, the crazies often end up helping the Republican leadership. On the Democratic side, the radicals are constantly sniping at Obama, expressing their feelings of betrayal.

Fox built up a Republican president; MSNBC is trying to make its reputation by tearing down a Democratic one.

We’ve known that the left was mad at Obama, but now we know Obama is mad at the left. Obama and Gibbs are upset that the lefties won’t recognize the necessity of compromise. The left is snapping back: What necessity? You won 365 electoral votes. You have both houses of Congress. And bipartisanship is an illusion.

Democrats are not prepared to go the whole way to appease their ideologues. The Republican leaders on the Hill, on the other hand, seem perfectly happy to go all out.

W.’s reign of error so enraged Democrats that they were bound by one desire: to get rid of him. Bush, Cheney and Rove inspired the Democrats to spawn a powerful lefty tower of babble led by Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore and the blogosphere.

After Bush, Democrats thought the way to paper over the distinction between liberals and radical lefties was to call everyone progressives. But calling yourself a progressive is just a stupid disguise where you pretend the contradiction isn’t there.

Some liberals, like the president, felt he could live without the public option, whereas lefties thought the public option was essential. Some liberals, like the president, think you can escalate our wars to end them, whereas lefties just want the wars ended.

There are deep schisms within the Democratic Party that were masked for a time, first by Bush and then by Obama’s election. Now that the Democrats have the presidency and the power and can enact legislation, it’s apparent that the word progressive is kind of meaningless.

President Obama is testing how elastic he can be, how much realism he can have before he betrays his idealism. For better and worse, he is an elitist and a situationist. But the professional left — like the professional right — often considers pragmatism a moral compromise.

The lefties came to the defense of the centrist Clinton during impeachment. Now that Obama is under attack, however, they are not coming to his defense, even though he has given more to the liberal cause than the scandal-stunted Clinton ultimately achieved.

He has shepherded the biggest expansion of social programs since the Great Society and spearheaded the biggest spending program with the stimulus. But for the left (and for some economists), it was not as big as it ought to have been.

Obama got elected because of the clarity of his campaign and his speeches. But, surprisingly, he’s in some ways an incoherent president. He’s with the banks, he’s against the banks. He’s leaving Afghanistan, he’s staying in Afghanistan. He strains at being a populist, but his head is in the clouds.

He needs to communicate more clearly. And, in that department, Gibbs isn’t helpful. He’s often unresponsive and sometimes hostile to the press. His adversarial barking has only heightened tensions with a press that was once lampooned for fawning over his boss.

Gibbs does not see his job as a bridge between the press and the presidency. He sees himself more as a moat. He has always wanted to be an inside counselor to the president. So Obama — who bonded with Gibbs during the campaign, over sports, missing their families and how irritating the blog-around-the-clock press corps is — would be wise to promote him to a counselor. Let someone who shows less disdain for the press work with the press, and be the more engaging face of the White House.


Nicholas D. Kristof is off today.

Mark Dayton for Governor

Mark Dayton is the best choice for Governor.

Get out and vote in the Primary!

For real change you can believe in.

It's about time

Communist Party of China Puts Marxist Theory Online

from People's Daily

The Communist Party of China (CPC) on Wednesday launched an online database on Marxist theory by uploading the Party's major political doctrines to an Internet website, an effort that analysts said is promoting its ideology through information technology.

Uploaded contents to www.ccpph.com.cn include collected works in Chinese of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, as well as former CPC leaders Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin.

All the works are available free of charge for Internet users to read, while visually impaired readers can listen to recorded voices reciting the content in Chinese.

The website also contains dozens of works explaining the doctrines, research of the communist party as well as the CPC's important documents, files and speeches of General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee Hu Jintao and other current leaders.

The database is sponsored by People's Publishing House, copyright owner of those Chinese works and major publisher of translated works of foreign political figures in China.

Liu Binjie, Director of General Administration of Press and Publication, said that the official launch of these works on the Internet would expand the spread of Marxist theories.

The world has entered an era when information, digitization and other new communication methods are booming, said Huang Shuyuan, president of the People's Publishing House.

The more advanced and powerful communication methods a party uses, the more influential it will be, Huang said.

To help online readers find a classic Marxist reading, the database of the website provides a smart search function which finds the origin based on fractional words that readers input.

"It will greatly help researchers on Marxist doctrines like me, since many of those works could only be available in libraries," said Professor Zhang Guangming with the School of International Relations of Peking University.

"We could search for information about Marxist works at any time in my reading room," Zhang said.

Prof. Zhang Xixian with the Party School of the CPC Central Committee said that the online database represents a new trend for the Party to promote its theories in a more attractive way.

By the end of last year, the number of Internet users in China had reached 384 million users, covering about 28.9 percent of the country's total population.

Li Changchun, member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, also attached great importance to the publication of the Party's theories by using multimedia technologies.

The People's Publishing House plans to digitize its 3.6 billion-word Marxist theories books within two years to complete the database and provide it free of charge to the public.

Source:Xinhua

Free Peter Erlinder

Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:30:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: wamm@mtn.org
Subject: [Women Against Military Madness] Action Alert-Peter Erlinder arrested

National Lawyers Guild Demands Immediate Release of Attorney Peter Erlinder Vigorous Legal Advocate Arrested in Rwanda

For Immediate Release: May 28, 2010

Contact: David Gespass, 205-566-2530
Heidi Boghosian, 917-239-4999

New York - The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) demands the immediate release of its former president, Professor Peter Erlinder, whom Rwandan Police arrested early today on charges of "genocide ideology." He had traveled to Rwanda's capital, Kigali, on May 23, to join the defense team of Rwandan presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. Erlinder is reportedly being interrogated at the Rwandan Police Force's Kacyiru headquarters.

Professor Erlinder has been acting in the best tradition of the legal profession and has been a vigorous advocate in his representation of Umuhoza. There can be no justice for anyone if the state can silence lawyers for defendants whom it dislikes and a government that seeks to prevent lawyers from being vigorous advocates for their clients cannot be trusted. The entire National Lawyers Guild is honored by his membership and his courageous advocacy," said David Gespass, the Guild's president.

Erlinder traveled to Kigali after attending the Second International Criminal Defense Lawyers' Conference in Brussels. Since his arrival in Kigali, the state-sponsored Rwandan media has been highly critical of Erlinder. The Rwandan Parliament adopted the "Law Relating to the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Ideology" (Genocide Ideology Law), on July 23, 2008. It defines genocide ideology broadly, requires no link to any genocidal act, and can be used to include a wide range of legitimate forms of expression, prohibiting speech protected by international conventions such as the Genocide Convention of 1948 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

Sarah Erlinder, Arizona attorney and NLG member said, "My father has made a career defending unpopular people and unpopular speech - and is now being held because of his representation of unpopular clients and analysis of an historical narrative that the Kagame regime considers inconvenient.
We can help defend his rights now by drawing U.S. government and media attention to his situation and holding the Rwandan government accountable for his well-being."

Before leaving for Brussels and then Kigali, Professor Erlinder notified the U.S. State Department, his Minnesota Congressional Representative Betty McCullom, Representative Keith Ellison, and Minnesota Senators Al Franken and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.

Professor Erlinder is a professor of law at the William Mitchell College of Law. He is a frequent litigator and consultant, often pro bono, in cases involving the death penalty, civil rights, claims of government and police misconduct, and criminal defense of political activists. He is also a frequent news commentator. Erlinder was president of the National Lawyers Guild from 1993-1997, and is a current board member of the NLG Foundation. He has been a defense attorney at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda since 2003.

The National Lawyers Guild, founded in 1937, is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state. # # #

Call and demand the immediate release of Professor Peter Erlinder:

Senator Al Franken (202) 224-5641 Or send an email at
http://franken.senate.gov/contact/

Senator Amy Klobuchar 202-224-3244 Fax: 202-228-2186 Or send an email at
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm?contactForm=emailamy&submit=Go

Representative Keith Ellison 202-225-4755 Or send an email at
http://forms.house.gov/ellison/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Representative Betty McCullom (202) 225-6631 Fax: (202) 225-1968 Or send
an email at http://forms.house.gov/mccollum/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

KKE message to cpusa

Note: This is the link to PAME, the All Workers’ Militant Front, as mentioned below.:

http://www.pamehellas.gr/main.php?lang=2



Communist Party of Greece - [13.05.2010] Message to the National Committee of CP, USA
Communist Party USA,
National Committee,
New York
Athens, Thursday, 13 May 2010

Dear comrades

We would like to thank you for the information regarding your 29th party convention and to extend our greetings to the delegates. Our parties have met in the past in common struggles for workers’ rights, in the struggle against anti-communism, for the defense of socialism and the Soviet Union, for the unity of the communist movement on the basis of our revolutionary principles and traditions.

We are following as closely as we can the developments in the USA, the escalation of the aggression of US imperialism which lately has become quite obvious. The US is striving to respond to the trend of losing ground within the framework of the imperialist system by inciting regional tensions and conflicts, so that it can take advantage of its political and military supremacy in order to safeguard its interests and maintain its spheres of influence.

In Greece, the working class and the popular strata are facing a barbaric attack, on the pretext of the economic crisis; an attack which has been jointly unleashed by the social democratic PASOK government, the EU and the IMF, with the assistance of the conservative ND party and the open support of the nationalist LAOS party.

The remarkable resistance presented by the labor and popular movement is spearheaded by KKE which continually strives to reveal the real cause of the crisis, the sharpening of the basic contradictions of capitalism. Without the consistent exposure of the compromised and discredited in the eyes of the workers trade union leaderships of GSEE and ADEDY (the national confederations of the private and public sector respectively), without the decisive contribution of PAME (All Workers’ Militant Front), the national trade union front comprised of class oriented Federations, trade unions, labor centers and trade unionists, the labor movement in our country would have been disarmed, unprepared, and unable to fight back.

KKE calls upon the working class, the self-employed, the poor farmers, and the youth to engage in even stronger, more massive and organized actions in order to stave off the onslaught and pave the way for a different path of development. There can be no way other than the nationalization of the monopolies. The working class must take possession of the concentrated means of production and mobilize them with central planning and popular participation. This presupposes a struggle aiming for people’s power, for socialism-communism.

The fightback against anti-communism, the adamant defense of the historical contribution of the Soviet Union and socialist construction in the 20th century, of the identity and revolutionary traditions of the communist movement, take on particular importance today.

As long as the crisis of the international communist movement persists, as long as the situation does not improve and retreats from ideological and theoretical principles are not resolutely confronted, as long as the front against opportunist views that hinder the formation of a single revolutionary strategy against imperialism does not become strengthened, the situation will harbor the danger of an even greater backslide.

The existence of strong Communist Parties steadfast to the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, with a revolutionary program for the overthrow of the rule of monopolies, for building socialism - communism, is the foremost demand of our times.

We look forward to learning the conclusions and the resolutions of your convention.

With comradely greetings

The Central Committee of KKE

e-mail: cpg@int.kke.gr
International Meetings
________________________________________

• KKE at international meetings
• Meetings of communist & workers'parties

If we had more candidates like Nicole Beaulieu people would want to vote

From: Alan L. Maki [mailto:amaki000@centurytel.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 10:07 AM
To: sknutson@mnaflcio.org; amistad.nai@rcn.com;
Subject: Please !!!!!!!!!! Give this the widest distribution possible: Nicole Beaulieu announces for MN DFL House seat 4-A

Please hit “forward” and distribute this e-mail as widely as possible. Minnesota has one of the largest Native American Indian populations in the United States and there is not one single Native American Indian sitting in the Minnesota State Legislature--- this must change. Send this e-mail to all of your friends. People need to know about what is going on in Minnesota. This is the change we have been seeking. This article is from the Bemidji Pioneer, northern Minnesota’s largest circulation daily newspaper.

Link to article: http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100016853/

“It’s time to go back and fix the things we left behind so we can move forward in unity for a better Minnesota.”

Nicole Beaulieu

Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party Candidate for District 4-A

Published Sunday March 14, 2010

Beaulieu opposes Persell for 4A bid

Nicole Beaulieu of Bemidji, a student and Ojibwe language teacher, filed recently as a Democratic candidate for the House 4A seat held by Rep. John Persell, DFL-Bemidji.

By: Brad Swenson, Bemidji Pioneer

· Nicole Beaulieu

Nicole Beaulieu

Nicole Beaulieu of Bemidji, a student and Ojibwe language teacher, filed recently as a Democratic candidate for the House 4A seat held by Rep. John Persell, DFL-Bemidji.

She’s running “because I know we aren’t being represented as well as we can be. It’s time to go back and fix the things we left behind so we can move forward in unity for a better Minnesota.”

She filed March 4 with the state Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board as a DFL candidate for House 4A, although a three-page news release last week didn’t indicate which party.

In it, she leveled criticisms at both Persell and Bemidji Mayor Richard Lehmann, who a week ago declared his candidacy as a Republican for House 4A.

“Both John Persell and Mayor Lehmann have repeatedly failed the native community of Bemidji area by excluding our needs and special problems resulting from systemic and institutionalized racism from all matters or events that are meant to demonstrate concern for our shared community and citizens,” Beaulieu wrote.

“Neither Mayor Lehmann nor Rep. John Persell do anything about helping people living in poverty as a result of the lack of enforcement of affirmative action which is only one of the many reasons why I wish to be your 4A House of Representative chair holder,” she said.

Beaulieu did not return an e-mail asking for more information.

Born in Duluth, Beaulieu grew up in Bemidji and spent summers with her grandmother on the Leech Lake Reservation. She was graduated from Bemidji High School in 2005, and earned an associate’s degree in Anishinaabe studies from Leech Lake Tribal College in 2008. Currently she is a student at Bemidji State University and teaches Ojibwe language at Leech Lake Tribal College.

“I will work to improve the relationship between natives and non-natives. I would like to change the perspective of the native and non-natives opinion of one another by working hand in hand in all matters we engage ourselves in within our community,” she wrote. “… it saddens me to think of my own daughter exposed to the harsh realities of institutionalized racism of teachers and non-native students alike, which I have endured …”

She recalls growing up in a family of seven, making use of government programs and the food shelf, and said she would work to ensure those programs are available to all in need and entitled to receive.

“Throughout my candidacy I will make the recognition of native American issues in this city a priority along with several other important downfalls of our community,” Beaulieu wrote. “I want the people of the state of Minnesota to know that we are citizens too and we can represent our state just as well as anybody else. We want fair opportunities at whatever it is a native American may pursue as an opportunity to raise above and beyond discrimination.”

In these economic times, government programs need to be expanded, not cut back, she said, adding that it is “interesting Mayor Lehmann chose to build the Bemidji Regional Event Center rather than create the kinds of programs to help the people of Bemidji to cope better with life here.”

Beaulieu wrote that she is anti-abortion, “but why are we worrying about the unborn when the living are going without jobs, going hungry, going without adequate health care, or adequate education?”

She disputes Lehmann’s economic solution to jumpstart the economy by allowing the private sector to expand with less government regulation.

“It is because of this over-emphasis of doling out taxpayer money to private industry which is largely responsible for the present state of the economy,” Beaulieu wrote. “Massive public works programs will create jobs and stimulate the economy. Mayor Lehmann’s ‘trickle down’ theory of economics has been proven not to work.”

She also advocates for a public health program providing everyone with free health care, as is the goal of the Indian Health Service for American Indians, would create thousands of jobs in Minnesota.

She sides with Senate 4 DFL candidate Greg Paquin that the city failed to use affirmative action policies in hiring for the BREC, a decision the city says went to the construction manager and which there is no formal policy as no federal funds are involved.

“It saddens me when we have to utilize these laws meant to open up doors of opportunity for my people. But, the door has been slammed in our faces, once again, because of lack of enforcement of affirmative action,” she said.

Beaulieu is part of an effort to petition the United Nations human rights commissioner in Geneva to review human rights within the United States, including that of American Indians.

“I am doing this in hopes of giving our matters global attention so that those that create these injustices can no longer hide their corrupt agenda which has been devaluing the quality of life of my people for a very long time,” Beaulieu wrote. “Native American aboriginals are not represented by present Democrats from Senate District 4 or House Districts 4A or 4B.”

In filing her Nicole Beaulieu Committee, she lists herself as campaign chairwoman and treasurer. She reports she will not collect a public subsidy for her campaign.

Lehmann has yet to file a campaign committee with the state board.

For Nicole Beaulieu’s complete statement, check out her blog and bookmark Nicole’s blog to keep abreast of campaign activity:

http://anishinaabecandidate.blogspot.com

Also check out Gregory W. Paquin’s blog:

http://nativeamericanindianlaborunion12.blogspot.com/

MN DFL Senate Candidate District 4

Contact info:

1511 Roosevelt Road SE.
Bemidji, Minnesota , 56601
Home: 218-209-3157
Cell: 651-503-9493

Please hit “forward” and distribute this e-mail as widely as possible. Minnesota has one of the largest Native American Indian populations in the United States and there is not one single Native American Indian sitting in the Minnesota State Legislature--- this must change.

Yours in struggle and solidarity,

Alan L. Maki

Director of Organizing,

Midwest Casino Workers Organizing Council

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763

Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell Phone: 651-587-5541

E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net

Please check out my blog: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Let’s talk about the politics and economics of livelihood for real change.

Coffee Party movement

The Coffee Party movement has offered our small Communist Party Club the opportunity to reach out to our friends and neighbors.

We had 14 people at our first gathering at Starbucks in Forest Lake.

We had a terrific discussion about Barack Obama's healthcare legislation. All present agreed it needs to be defeated.

We discussed the three points of the Tea Party movement:

1. Fiscal responsibility.

2. Limited government.

3. Support for free markets.

We noted the leader of the Tea Party movement in Minnesota, Toni Backdahl, stated in a radio interview that the Tea Party movement doesn't get into social issues."

All fourteen of us agreed we need to talk about at least three social issues if we are going to create a government that is fiscally responsible while the size of government is not the issue because we need a government capable of working properly on behalf of the people. We don't support "free markets" because capitalism got us into this economic mess.

The Tea Party movement we felt is going to be short lived because people want peace, socialized healthcare and jobs which is all about social issues.

Can we afford peace?

Can we afford peace?

by Helen Thomas hthomas@hearstdc.com
Albany Times Union
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=890123&category=opinion
January 19, 2010


No one in the Obama administration is going to acknowledge that our foreign policy in the Middle East has alienated many Arabs.

The U.S. pro-Israel policy and our shocking neglect of the beleaguered Palestinians underlie almost every initiative or tactical tilt that comes out of Washington.

President Obama and his predecessors in the White House have scored domestic political points by embracing this world view. This is one vantage point that is truly bipartisan, to the point where no one discusses it.

Michael Scheuer, a former CIA specialist on the al-Qaida terrorists, complained on C-SPAN recently that any debate about American support for Israel is "normally squelched."

"For anyone to say our support for Israel doesn't hurt us is to just defy reality," he added.

Another former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, says the 9/11 Commission report noted that Khalid Sheikh -- the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks -- cited his violent disagreement with U.S. support for Israel as the motivating dynamic behind the attacks.

Obama knows enough about the Middle East that tightening airport security is not the whole answer to fighting terrorism. He should try a more even-handed policy in the region.

Grievances of the Arab man on the street include bitter criticism of the U.S. for supporting harsh authoritarian regimes in the Arab world and the failure of those U.S.-backed regimes to help the Palestinians in Gaza.

Surely after several years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can dispense with the obfuscation and evasion that flood forth from official U.S. megaphones.

Terrorism spawned in the Middle East is not the only threat we face.

As the American economy digs out from the debris of the Great Recession triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble, we should think about what could happen about another bubble that invisibly chugs through the American economy.

I refer to our bloated defense spending.

The United States spends more for its arsenal than any other 10 countries combined. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. accounts for more than 40 percent of the world's total military spending. China is in second place, at a relatively puny 5.8 percent.

If the U.S. defense spending bubble were ever to deflate, domestic job losses would be catastrophic, a stunning fact that raises the question of whether we can ever afford peace.

The American people have long shown they can handle the truth. When it comes to the Middle East and to threats to our economy, so should our leaders.

Afghans say: Obama builds occupation

Some change Obama is bringing to this country. This new escalation of the war in Afghanistan makes me sick.

Alan Maki has it right in his letter to leaders of the peace movement (see his blog below this Reuter's article).

Lisa



This article deserves the widest circulation possible…

Afghans say: Obama builds occupation

Kabul money changer Ehsanullah wondered why U.S. forces had managed to find former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but had yet to locate Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden or Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, who both fled U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2001.

"This is part of America's further occupation of Afghanistan," he said. "America is using the issue of insecurity here in order to send more troops."

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSSP236797

Wed Dec 2, 2009

Afghans unimpressed by Obama's troops surge
Reuters
·


By Sayed Salahuddin
KABUL (Reuters) – Thirty thousand more U.S. troops for Afghanistan? Esmatullah only shrugged.

"Even if they bring the whole of America, they won't be able to stabilize Afghanistan," said the young construction worker out on a Kabul street corner on Wednesday morning. "Only Afghans understand our traditions, geography and way of life."

U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement of a massive new escalation of the eight-year-old war seemed to have impressed nobody in the Afghan capital, where few watched the speech on TV before dawn and fewer seemed to think new troops would help.

Obama said his goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al Qaeda in Afghanistan and "reverse theTaliban's momentum."

The extra U.S. forces, and at least 5,000 expected from other NATO allies, would join 110,000 Western troops already in the country in an effort to reverse gains made by the Islamist militants, at their strongest since being ousted in 2001.

Shopkeeper Ahmad Fawad, 25, said it would not help.

"The troops will be stationed in populated areas where the Taliban will somehow infiltrate and then may attack the troops," he said. "Instead of pouring in more soldiers, they need to focus on equipping and raising Afghan forces, which is cheap and easy."

For many, the prospect of more troops meant one thing: more civilian deaths.

"More troops will mean more targets for the Taliban and the troops are bound to fight, and fighting certainly will cause civilian casualties," Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former Afghan prime minister, told Reuters.

"The civilian casualties will be further a blow to the U.S. image and cause more indignation among Afghans."

"NOTHING REALLY NEW"

By late morning, the Afghan government had yet to issue an official response to Obama's statement.President Hamid Karzai has in the past said he favors additional Western troops, although he wants Afghan forces to take over security for the country within five years.

Although Obama pointedly addressed Afghans, telling them the United States was not interested in occupying their country, parliamentarian Shukriya Barakzai said she was disappointed because the speech contained little talk of civilian aid.

"It was a very wonderful speech for America ... but when it comes to strategy in Afghanistan there was nothing really new which was disappointing," she told Reuters from her home.

"It seems to me that President Obama is very far away from the reality and truth in Afghanistan. His strategy was to pay lip-service, and did not focus on civilians, nation-building, democracy and human rights."

Other Afghans, hardened by decades of war and wary of foreign forces whom have for years fought proxy battles in Afghanistan, were skeptical of the United States' intentions.

Kabul money changer Ehsanullah wondered why U.S. forces had managed to find former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but had yet to locate Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden or Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, who both fled U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2001.

"This is part of America's further occupation of Afghanistan," he said. "America is using the issue of insecurity here in order to send more troops."


Tuesday, December 1, 2009

An open letter to peace activists who supported Barack Obama
Peter Lems and Mary Zerkel, American Friends Service Committee;

Here is a President many of you “leaders” of peace organizations supported knowing that Obama’s stated intent was to expand the war in Afghanistan… now he has fulfilled this campaign promise and you pretend to be surprised.

There is no shortage of funding... for wars from the president and Democrats you supported but there is a lack of funds for socialized health care or single-payer. I have to ask a question here: What is going on; will all these organizations go out into the streets and carry signs saying the escalation is a bad idea and then turn around and campaign and vote for the Democrats and Barack Obama in 2010 and 2012?

I hear all kinds of “mass activities” being planned to oppose this escalation of the war; but, why is there no ADDITIONAL suggestion that in retaliation for escalating this dirty imperialist war the Democrats will suffer repercussions at the polls… This is called “accountability.”

“Accountability” is something basic and fundamental to democracy.

“Accountability” goes like this…

No peace; no votes.

Yet, I haven’t heard either of you or one single one of these “leaders” of the peace movement talk about holding Barack Obama and the rest of these warmongering Dumb Donkeys “accountable” at the polls.

What gives?

Go out and hold a little peace parade and then turn around and tell these war mongers you are going to be supporting them in the next election?

Of course, if you aren’t going to be supporting warmongering Democrats in the next Election; that kind of begs another question… do we challenge these warmongers and Dumb Donkeys in their own primaries and continue on as independents in the general election or should progressives begin to consider organizing an alternative to this two-party trap set for us by Wall Street. Could we do both?

Something to think about:

Accountability.

If politicians don’t know the meaning of the word, give them a dictionary… but not your vote.

No peace; no votes.

Should there be an organized movement demanding “accountability” from Obama and the Democrats as a means to end these wars?

Should peace organizations be leading this effort for “accountability” at the polls?

I am having a very difficult time understanding how it is that I should protest the escalation of this war with you if you are then going to go right back and urge people to vote for the Democrats and Obama.



We heard a lot of talk from liberals, progressives and those on the left as they enthusiastically supported Obama often telling us that this support would provide our peace and other progressive movements with clout.

From the same people eager to sell us on Obama we were assured they would be initiating and leading movements for real change as a means of "holding Obama's feet to the fire" but so far we have only seen these people sitting on resources required to mobilize people in defense of their rights and interests, and holding an occasional press conference where they made all kinds of fantastic claims to be "organizing" on our behalf but no movements have developed as these foundation funded organizations walk away from the required struggles.


One has to ask how you get any kind of accountability from Barack Obama and these Democrats if promises are made to campaign and vote for them the next time around?

No peace; no votes.



Something to think about around the dinner table as Barack Obama sends off another 30,000 troops to fight and kill in an unjust, illegal and unconstitutional war in Afghanistan.




Alan L. Maki

58891 County Road 13

Warroad, Minnesota 56763


Phone: 218-386-2432

Cell phone: 651-587-5541


E-mail: amaki000@centurytel.net



Check out my blog:



Thoughts From Podunk



http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/

Cribbage: A great Minnesota tradition... and Club builder

I'm doing something a little unusual in this blog posting. Something a little "lighter" from the regular topics.

Members and friends of our "Club," the Hardwood Creek Trail Club of the CPUSA, gathered the other night for a friendly "Cribbage tournament" and I found out there are lots of people who don't know how to play this fun game. They had fun learning. We had fun teaching.

The game is especially suited for activists who want to sit and have a leisurely discussion about the world and talk about what can be done to make it better.

In a lot of ways to talk things over during a game of "Crib" is better than holding another meeting and a lot more fun for everyone.

If you haven't played Cribbage; all you need is a cheap Cribbage Board and a deck of cards.

Our Club had a great experience with our evening of Cribbage; eleven couples showed up. Lots of fun. Good conversation. And everyone brought a treat to share. I never popped so much pop corn!

Here is a great web page for reference... just leave the computer on and click on this page to resolve any problems and to find rules or how to score different hands:

http://www.cribbage.org/rules/

Lisa












Here are the rules:

Six Card Cribbage

This page is based mainly on a contribution form Mike Block agentblock@yahoo.com, with additional material from David Dailey, John McLeod and others.

Contents


Introduction

Two-handed play
Object
Board and Pegs
Deal
Discard
Start Card
Play of the Cards
Scoring during the Play
The Show
Winning the Game
Four Handed Play
Three-handed play
Variations



Introduction

Six Card Cribbage is basically a game for two players, but adapts easily for three players, and for four players in fixed partnerships - a very useful feature. It is now the standard form of Cribbage and widely played in English speaking parts of the world.

See also the page on Five Card Cribbage, an older form of the game which has been largely forgotten, though it is still played in parts of Britain.

Cribbage in England is primarily a pub game - indeed, it is one of the few games allowed by Statute to be played in a public house for small stakes. A game of low animal cunning where players must balance a number of different objectives, remain quick witted enough to recognise combinations, and be able to add up, it is perhaps not the most obvious of games to be so firmly associated with the English pub. It is a game where experience counts for a great deal - though luck, of course, has a large part.

It is also a game where etiquette is important. The rituals associated with cutting and dealing, playing and pegging, as well as the terminology, all serve the useful purpose of keeping things in order - and they help to give the game a flavour of its own. In card playing, as with food, authenticity matters.

Two-handed play

Two players use a standard 52 card pack. Cards rank K(high)Q J 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 A(low).

Object

To be the first to score 121 points or over (twice round the usual British design of board) accumulated over several deals. Points are scored mainly for combinations of cards either occuring during the play or occuring in a player's hand or in the cards discarded before the play, which form the crib or box.

Board and Pegs

The score is kept by means of a board and pegs. Starting at one end of the board - usually to the left of the first dealer - players peg their scores as they occur using their two pegs alternately: the forward peg shows the player's latest score, and the rear peg shows the previous score.



When a player scores, the rear peg is moved in front of the forward peg by the same number of holes as the score to show the new total. This enables scores to be easily checked and acts as a visible statement of the progress of the game. Players peg up on the outside of the board and back on the inside. The winner is the first to peg out by exceeding 120.

The exact design of the board is not critical. The diagram shows the type of board most commonly used in Britain. In North America they come in a great variety of shapes. The essential feature is a track for each player with holes representing the numbers from 1 to 120.

Deal

The first deal is determined by cutting the cards. The player cutting the lower card deals and has the first box or crib. If the cards are equal - and that includes both players cutting a ten card (10, J, Q or K) - there is another cut for first deal. The deal then alternates from hand to hand until the game is over.

It is usual to play best of three games. The opponent of the first dealer in the first game deals first and gets the first box in the second game. For the third game - if a decider is needed - there is a fresh cut to decide who deals first.

The dealer shuffles, the non-dealer cuts the cards [but see variations], and dealer deals 6 cards face down to each player one at a time. The undealt part of the pack is placed face down on the table. At the end of each hand, the played cards are gathered together and the whole pack is shuffled by the new dealer before the next deal.

Discard

Each player chooses two cards to discard face down to form the crib. These four cards are set aside until the end of the hand. The crib will count for the dealer - non-dealer will try to throw cards that are unlikely to make valuable combinations, but must balance this against keeping a good hand for himself. Dealer, on the other hand, may sometimes find it pays to place good cards in the box - especially if they cannot be used to best advantage in hand.

Start Card

Non-dealer cuts the stack of undealt cards, lifting the upper part without showing its bottom card. The dealer takes out the top card of the lower part, turns it face up and, after non-dealer replaces the upper part, places it face up on top of the pack. This turned up card is called the start card. It is not used during the play of the cards but in the show it will count for combinations as part of both players' hands as well as of the dealer's box.

If the start card is a jack, the dealer immediately pegs 2 holes - this is called Two for his heels.

Play of the cards

Beginning with the non-dealer, the players take turns to play single cards. You play your own cards to form a face-up pile in front of yourself, keeping them separate from the other player's cards. In this stage of the game the total pip value of the cards played by both players is counted, starting from zero and adding the value of each card as it is played. This total must not exceed 31. When no more cards can be played without going over 31, the count is restarted from zero. The pip values of the cards are:

Ace = 1; 2 to 10 = face value; jack = 10; queen = 10; king = 10.

As each card is played, the player announces the running total - for example the non-dealer plays a king and says "10", the dealer plays an 8 and says "18", the dealer plays a jack and says "28", and so on. If a card is played which brings the total exactly to 31, the player pegs 2 claiming Thirty one for two as he does so.

A player who cannot play without exceeding 31 does not play a card but says Go, leaving his opponent to continue if possible, pegging for any further combinations made (see below). Bringing the total to exactly 31 pegs 2, but if the total is 30 or less and neither player can lay a card without going over 31, then the last player to lay a card pegs one for the go or one for last.

The cards that have been played are turned over and a fresh round of play starts with the cards remaining in the players' hands in exactly the same way. The opponent of the player who played last in the previous round (scoring Thirty one for two or One for last) plays first in the new round. This second round of play starts again from zero and again continues until neither can play without going over 31. The last player again scores "1 for last" or "31 for 2", and if either player has any cards left there is a further round. Play continues for as many rounds as necessary until both players' cards are exhausted. Towards the end, it may happen that one player has run out of cards but the other still has several cards. In that case the player who still has cards simply carries on playing and scoring for any combinations formed until all his cards have been played.


Example: Player A has king-king-2-2; player B has 9-8-7-6.

First round: A plays king - "10"; B plays 6 - "16"; A plays king - "26"; B says "go"; A plays 2 - "28"; A plays 2 - "30 for 3". A pegs 3, namely 2 for the pair of twos and 1 for playing the last card of this round.

Second round: B plays 8 - "8"; A has no cards left so cannot do anything; B plays 7 - "fifteen two" (B pegs 2 points); B plays 9 "24 for 3 and 1 for last" (B pegs 4 points: three for the run 7-8-9 and one for playing the last card).

Please note: it is never possible to score "one for last" and "31 for 2" at the same time. They are alternatives. If you make exactly 31 for two points just peg those two points - you do not get an additional "one for last" in this case.

Tactical note: It is often worth keeping low cards in hand for this phase of the game, especially when there is a strong possibility of being able to peg out before one's opponent.

Scoring during the play

A player who makes any of the following scores during the play pegs them immediately.

15:
If you play a card which brings the total to 15 you peg 2 claiming Fifteen two.

31:
As mentioned above, if you play a card which brings the total to exactly 31 you peg 2.

Pair:
If you play a card of the same rank as the previous card (e.g. a king after a king) you peg 2 for a pair. Note that (for example) a 10 and a queen do NOT make a pair even though they are both worth 10 points.

Pair Royal:
If immediately after a pair a third card of the same rank is played, the player of the third card scores 6 for pair royal.

Double Pair Royal:
Four cards of the same rank, played in immediate succession. The player of the fourth card scores 12.

Run:
A run or sequence is a set of 3 or more cards of consecutive ranks (irrespective of suit) - such as 9-10-jack or 2-3-4-5. Note that ace is low so, for example, ace-king-queen is not a run. The player of a card which completes a run scores for the run; the score is equal to the number of cards in the run. The cards do not have to be played in order, but no other cards must intervene.

Example: cards are played in the following order: 4-2-3-5-6. The player of the 3 scores 3 for a run, then the player of the 5 scores 4, and the player of the 6 scores 5.

Another example: 4-2-3-4-3. The player of the first 3 scores 3 for the run 4-2-3. Then the player of the second 4 score 3 for the run 2-3-4. The player of the second 3 scores nothing because the 3 does not complete a run.

Another example: 4-2-6-5-3. The final 3 scores 5 points for a 5-card run. Nothing is scored before then, because there is no run until the 3 is played.

Last Card:
If neither player manages to make the total exactly 31, whoever played the last card pegs 1.

Note that to score for pair, pair royal, double pair royal or run, the cards must have been played consecutively during a single round of play. If one player had to say "go" while the combination was being formed, the combination is still valid, but if both players are unable to play, causing a new round of play to be started from zero, all combinations are started afresh.

Example 1: Player A has 10, 10, 9, 6; player B has 7, 6, 5, 4.
A plays 9, B plays 6 (scoring fifteen two), A plays 6 (scoring two for a pair), B plays 5. The total is now 26; A has to say "go", so B plays 4, scoring three for a run, plus one for last. The A begins again with 10, B plays 7, and A plays the other 10, scoring one for last.

Example 2: Player A has 10, 8, 7, 5; player B has 7, 6, 5, 4.
A plays 8, B plays 7 (scoring fifteen two), A plays 7 (scoring two for a pair), B plays 6. The total is now 28; neither can play, so B scores one for last. If A now begins again with a 5, A does not score for a run, because the 7 and 6 were played in the previous round of play (before the total was reset to zero).

The Show

Players now retrieve the cards that they put down during the play and score for combinations of cards held in hand. First the non-dealer's hand is exposed, and scored. The start card also counts as part of the hand when scoring combinations. All valid scores from the following list are counted.

15:
Any combination of cards adding up to 15 pips scores 2 points. For example king, jack, five, five would score 10 points altogether: 8 points for four fifteens, since the king and the jack can each be paired with either of the fives, plus 2 more points for the pair of fives. You would say "Fifteen two, fifteen four, fifteen six, fifteen eight and a pair makes ten".

Pair:
A pair of cards of the same rank score 2 points. Three cards of the same rank contain 3 different pairs and thus score a total of 6 points for pair royal. Four of a kind contain 6 pairs and so score 12 points.

Run:
Three cards of consecutive rank (irrespective of suit), such as ace-2-3, score 3 points for a run. A hand such as 6-7-7-8 contains two runs of 3 (as well as two fifteens and a pair) and so would score 12 altogether. A run of four cards, such as 9-10-J-Q scores 4 points (this is slightly illogical - you might expect it to score 6 because it contains two runs of 3, but it doesn't. The runs of 3 within it don't count - you just get 4), and a run of five cards scores 5.

Flush:
If all four cards of the hand are the same suit, 4 points are scored for flush. If the start card is the same suit as well, the flush is worth 5 points. There is no score for having 3 hand cards and the start all the same suit. Note also that there is no score for flush during the play - it only counts in the show.

One For His Nob:
If the hand contains the jack of the same suit as the start card, you peg One for his nob.

Nineteen:
It is impossible to score nineteen in hand or in box. If you think you have, then you should either stop playing or stop drinking. Nineteen is proverbially used as a term to indicate a worthless hand.

Note that when scoring a hand, the same card may be counted and scored as part of several different combinations. For example if your hand is 7 8 8 K and the start card is a 9 you score Fifteen 2, fifteen 4, and a pair is 6, and a run is 9 and a run is 12 - 12 holes to peg, with each of your 8s forming part of a fifteen, a pair and a run.

After non-dealer's hand has been shown and the score pegged, dealer's hand is shown, scored and pegged in the same way. Finally the dealer exposes the four cards of the crib and scores them with the start card. The scoring is the same as for the players' hands except that a flush in the crib only scores if all four crib cards and the start card are of the same suit. If that happens the flush scores 5.

Muggins (optional rule). If a player, when scoring his hand or the crib, overlooks some points, then after the player has announced the total and scored it, his opponent can call "muggins", and peg the points himself. Some people apply the same rule if a player fails to claim a combination scored during the play. Some Americans call this version of the game "cutthroat" cribbage, and play that you don't have to say anything - you just wait until the opponent finishes pegging the points they have noticed and then silently peg the rest of their points yourself.

Winning the game

As soon as someone reaches or passes 121, that player wins the game. This can happen at any stage - during the play or the show, or even by dealer scoring two for his heels. It is not necessary to reach 121 exactly - you can peg out by scoring 2 more when you were on 120 and still win. All that matters is that your opponent's pegs are both still on the board.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four-handed play

All the scoring features are identical to the two-handed version. Partners sit opposite each other. One member of the partnership is elected to peg and these two players cut for first box. Dealer offers the pack to the opponent on his right for the first cut (or not, if you pay the rule that the cards are not cut). Cards are dealt clockwise one at a time, five to each player. (So this is six card crib with five cards each - the logic of the game is the same since hand and box always contain the same number of cards.)

Each player puts one card in the dealer's box. Dealer then offers the undealt stack to the opponent on his left to cut for start. ('Cut back for box, forward for start.') Partners may help each other keep score and will try to assist each other with a good discard if possible (putting a 5 in partner's box on occasion, for example) and will co-operate during play to trap their opponents or to improve each other's chances of pegging. But they may not overtly advise on play or indicate the cards they hold. When three players are forced to say "go", the fourth player earns the point for last card. In the show, counting begins at the dealer's left and ends with the dealer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three-handed play

Again, all the main features of play are identical. Dealer deals five cards to each player and one into the box. Each player discards one card, so that everyone has a four card hand and there are four cards in the crib. The player to the dealer's left cuts the deck to reveal the turn-up card. This player also begins the play, playing the first card. When two players are forced to say "go", the third player earns the point for last card. In the show, counting begins at the dealer's left and ends with the dealer. Each player acts completely independently, although the two trailing players may temporarily conspire to do down the leader. This form of the game really requires a special board with either three sides or some other arrangement to accommodate three sets of holes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Variations
Dealing Sequence
According to the American Cribbage Congress rules, in a match consisting of a series of games, the loser of each game deals first in the next game.

No cutting
In some circles, the non-dealer does not get the opportunity to cut the cards before the deal. For example, David Dailey writes:

Dealer shuffles the deck (and may cut it himself [though some disagree]) but does not place it on the table to be cut. If he does, the opponent may pick up the deck and deal, giving himself the "crib" and a slight advantage.

I think this version without a cut is played only in some informal circles in North America. The American Cribbage Congress rules require the cards to be cut, as do the rules normally used in Britain. Those who omit the cut is sometimes justify this by asserting that Cribbage is a gentleman's game in which cutting (seen as a device to make it more difficult for the dealer to cheat by stacking the deck) is out of place.

Lurching or Skunking

When playing to 121 points, some play that if the loser scores 60 or fewer points he is lurched and loses a double stake.

Some play that if the loser scores 61-90 points he is skunked and loses a double stake; if he scores 60 or fewer he is double skunked and loses a triple (or quadruple) stake.

91-Point Cribbage

Mike Tobias reports that in and around Manchester, England it is usual to play Cribbage to 91 points rather than 121 - that is up, down and up a standard 30-point long cribbage board.

Restrictions on pegging in the endgame

Jim Hinds reports the following variations. These are certainly not part of the usual game; I do not know how widespread they are:

You cannot finish the game on a go. So if you have 120 points in a 121 point game, the point for playing the last card does not count.

You cannot score "two for his heels" if you need five or fewer points to go out.

Two into the Crib

This version is reported by Bruce Clouette of Connecticut, USA. The dealer deals out five cards to each player instead of six, and deals two cards into the crib. The players then discard one card each into the crib, and play proceeds as usual with six card play. This introduces an extra level of uncertainty into the game.

Cribbage rules and strategy pages:

The American Cribbage Congress publishes Rules of Cribbage for use in its tournaments.

John Arundel's Cribbage Corner includes tactical hints and discussions of etiquette, and may in future review books and software.

The Schellsburg Cribbage Forum includes articles on strategy and course of study.

The Central Connector Cribbage page has another set of Cribbage rules.

Bill Whitnack's Rules of Cribbage.