Jenny Brown : Workers Challenge Big Food

Image from Food Chain Workers’ Alliance.

From farm to fork:
Workers challenge Big Food

By Jenny Brown / Labor Notes / November 7, 2011

Workers and students gathered at “Food Day” events on dozens of campuses to link decent jobs to decent food. The event was so successful making connections that a week later Pomona College banned students and workers from talking to each other in the dining halls.

“Farm to fork” may sound like a doctrine for foodies, but for workers in food production struggling for decent jobs, it’s an organizing goal.

Workers along the food chain — on farms, in warehouses and supermarkets, in restaurants and cafeterias — are seeking to make common cause with each other and against the corporations that run the food industry.

Big food purveyors like Walmart and Sodexo indirectly set the pay of the farm workers who pick fresh vegetables in the sun and the warehouse workers who move the frozen variety in and out of windowless buildings.

They do so by setting low prices and squeezing their suppliers, pushing contractors to underpay workers all along the chain. They goad farms and food processors to cut corners in a production system that values quantity over quality and appearance over nutritional content.

Corporate consolidation in the food system has become so extreme that the Department of Justice held investigative hearings last year. Firms seek to control food “from gene to supermarket shelf,” said a report for the National Farmers Union, with five companies now controlling 50 percent of the retail food market and four firms controlling 85 percent of beef production.

Joann Lo of the Food Chain Workers Alliance says this means “workers need to be united across the food supply chain.” Her organization brings together farmworker groups, worker centers, and unions.

Supermarket workers in Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) locals in the New York and Los Angeles areas are part of the alliance, as is the hotel and culinary union UNITE HERE, Restaurant Opportunities Center, Warehouse Workers for Justice, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida, and the Farmworker Support Committee (CATA) in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Fair food

The alliance is connecting workers with consumers — leveraging fresh interest in locally grown, healthy, and sustainable food into backing for sustainable jobs.

“You care about the food you’re eating?” asks Diana Robinson of UFCW Local 1500 in New York. “Well, let me tell you about the person behind your food.”

Campus food workers had a median wage of $17,176 in 2010, according to UNITE HERE, and 28 percent of cooks live in “food-insecure” households, where nutritionally adequate food is limited or uncertain. Many Florida pickers still make 45 cents per 30-pound bucket of tomatoes, the same rate they did decades ago.

Connections between food workers and consumers can make managers nervous. At Pomona College in Claremont, California, the administration has banned students from talking to dining hall workers, even during their breaks. The gag rule came down a week after workers cooked and shared a meal with students as part of a union-supported “Food Day” event in October.

But people who are concerned about getting healthy local food to low-income communities often aren’t making the connection to the workers involved in food production, Lo said.

That connection came into sharp focus in January when Michelle Obama, whose signature issue is healthy food, praised Walmart for its promise to reduce hydrogenated fats and salt in its brands, and to locate stores in underserved neighborhoods.

Unions shot back that Walmart is a prime cause of poverty, as it drives out unionized stores that pay better, squeezes its food suppliers, and pays its own workers so little they need food stamps to survive.

Food workers on bottom

Low pay and harsh working conditions face nearly every worker in the long food production chain, from farmworkers, meatpackers, and warehouse workers to grocery clerks, cooks, and servers.

“They’re stealing our wages, they’re treating us poorly, and they’re stealing our dignity, like it’s nothing,” said Deathrice Jimerson, a former warehouse worker who’s now a volunteer organizer with Warehouse Workers for Justice south of Chicago.

Farmworkers are still organizing for basic labor protections, while at the other end of the chain, kitchen staff working for food service companies like Sodexo and Aramark have been struggling over a decade to win union recognition.

Because of their low pay, food workers are disproportionately affected by nutrition-related illnesses — diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease, said Jessica Choy, a California UNITE HERE organizer. “Workers are affected not only where they work by this broken food system,” she said.

Image from Coalition of Immokalee Workers.

The union organized “Food Day” events at dozens of campuses in October, where students and kitchen staff cooked, ate, and talked together. UNITE HERE connects its union drives to students’ growing desire for cafeteria food that isn’t processed slop—favored by institutions to cut costs.

“Bringing in packaged food, to a lot of people that are passionate about feeding people, it’s sort of like an insult,” said LaShanda Bell, a cook at Northwestern University. “We want to mix sauces and make our own stocks and actually produce food with our hands versus unthawing, heating, and serving.”

Re-skilling the kitchen

Union food workers at Yale successfully fought back against a de-skilling of their kitchen and the closing of their bakery.

After Yale contracted with Sysco, the food distribution company, “we went right to canned sauce, processed cheese, pizza dough out of a box,” chef Stu Comen told the student paper. “Here we are, with our chef coats with our names on them, and we’re opening up cans of sauce.”

The workers, members of UNITE HERE Local 35, made common cause with students, holding taste tests and posting ingredient lists so students could compare the processed baked goods provided by Sysco to those produced in Yale’s bakeshop.

Now the college aims to get 40 percent of its food from sustainable sources in the next two years.

Harvard dining hall workers, members of UNITE HERE Local 26, ratified a contract in September that sets up a union-management committee to implement “environmentally responsible” food practices.

Dining hall workers say these initiatives lead to more work as well as better, healthier food. At Harvard, workers were getting hours cut. They hope to see those hours return as real cooking increases.

Pitfalls at Pomona

At Pomona College, it’s been easier to get the school to switch to unprocessed food than to win union recognition.

On Food Day kitchen staff reported that the sustainable-food initiative won by students and workers has led to speed-up in the kitchen rather than to more hours or more jobs.

“They’re putting skill back in the work, adding to the workload, and not taking into account how it may be affecting the workers,” said Choy.

More than 90 percent of kitchen staffers signed a petition for a union in March 2010, but the college doesn’t recognize their organization, despite many meetings in which management promised neutrality, a promise workers say has been broken.

In powerful videos the group has posted online, workers say they were fired for being sick, had vital medical care delayed due to management shenanigans, and were unable to afford health coverage, which runs up to $600 a month. Some workers were still making less than $12 an hour after 20 years of service.

All along the food chain

The Food Chain Workers Alliance is using worker-to-worker, worker-to-farmer, and worker-to-consumer connections to plan a larger campaign, expected to launch next year, focused on one corporate target that can impact work from farms to tables, Lo said.

Each group of workers will figure out specific demands, she said. They’re compiling their knowledge of the industry and studying winning models employed by members of their coalition:

  • Warehouse Workers for Justice has successfully used community outrage to win back jobs for 10 workers fired in warehouses southwest of Chicago. An ethnic food distributor charged with discriminating against Latino workers got an earful from community leaders who threatened to boycott.
  • In a 10-year campaign, Florida farmworkers and students joined forces to pressure highly advertised brands like Taco Bell to sign on to fair wages for tomato pickers. They have nipped other brands into line with marches, campus actions, and boycotts, and are now focused on specialty grocer Trader Joe’s and the Florida-based Publix supermarket chain.

But farmworkers are able to employ boycotts partly because they are excluded from U.S. labor law. Workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act are hogtied by legal restrictions on “secondary boycotts,” which target a company that is not their direct employer.

On campuses, kitchen workers usually labor for contractors like Aramark, rather than the university itself. In warehouses, workers are often temps, way down the chain from companies with a recognizable name. When confronted, the corporate behemoths point to their contractors as the culprits.

Successes have been won by cutting through the layers of subcontractors, finding where the real power lies, and then finding leverage to shift that target directly. By creating connections and a deeper understanding of what is at stake, food chain workers hope to scale up and “build a campaign that will fight for all of us on the supply line to America’s tables,” said Jimerson.

[Jenny Brown, staff writer for Labor Notes, was for 23 years the co-editor of the Iguana, a progressive monthly magazine in Gainesville, Florida. Eduardo Soriano-Castillo also contributed to this article, which originally appeared at Labor Notes and was distributed by Portside.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Workers Challenge Big Food

By Jenny Brown / Labor Notes /

Workers and students gathered at “Food Day” events on dozens of campuses to link decent jobs to decent food. The event was so successful making connections that a week later Pomona College banned students and workers from talking to each other in the dining halls. Photo: UNITE HERE.

“Farm to fork” may sound like a doctrine for foodies, but for workers in food production struggling for decent jobs, it’s an organizing goal.

Workers along the food chain—on farms, in warehouses and supermarkets, in restaurants and cafeterias—are seeking to make common cause with each other and against the corporations that run the food industry.

Big food purveyors like Walmart and Sodexo indirectly set the pay of the farm workers who pick fresh vegetables in the sun and the warehouse workers who move the frozen variety in and out of windowless buildings.

They do so by setting low prices and squeezing their suppliers, pushing contractors to underpay workers all along the chain. They goad farms and food processors to cut corners in a production system that values quantity over quality and appearance over nutritional content.

Corporate consolidation in the food system has become so extreme that the Department of Justice held investigative hearings last year. Firms seek to control food “from gene to supermarket shelf,” said a report for the National Farmers Union, with five companies now controlling 50 percent of the retail food market and four firms controlling 85 percent of beef production.

Joann Lo of the Food Chain Workers Alliance says this means “workers need to be united across the food supply chain.” Her organization brings together farmworker groups, worker centers, and unions.

Supermarket workers in Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) locals in the New York and Los Angeles areas are part of the alliance, as is the hotel and culinary union UNITE HERE, Restaurant Opportunities Center, Warehouse Workers for Justice, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida, and the Farmworker Support Committee (CATA) in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
FAIR FOOD

The alliance is connecting workers with consumers—leveraging fresh interest in locally grown, healthy, and sustainable food into backing for sustainable jobs.

“You care about the food you’re eating?” asks Diana Robinson of UFCW Local 1500 in New York. “Well, let me tell you about the person behind your food.”

Campus food workers had a median wage of $17,176 in 2010, according to UNITE HERE, and 28 percent of cooks live in “food-insecure” households, where nutritionally adequate food is limited or uncertain. Many Florida pickers still make 45 cents per 30-pound bucket of tomatoes, the same rate they did decades ago.

Connections between food workers and consumers can make managers nervous. At Pomona College in Claremont, California, the administration has banned students from talking to dining hall workers, even during their breaks. The gag rule came down a week after workers cooked and shared a meal with students as part of a union-supported “Food Day” event in October.

But people who are concerned about getting healthy local food to low-income communities often aren’t making the connection to the workers involved in food production, Lo said.

That connection came into sharp focus in January when Michelle Obama, whose signature issue is healthy food, praised Walmart for its promise to reduce hydrogenated fats and salt in its brands, and to locate stores in underserved neighborhoods.

Unions shot back that Walmart is a prime cause of poverty, as it drives out unionized stores that pay better, squeezes its food suppliers, and pays its own workers so little they need food stamps to survive.
FOOD WORKERS ON BOTTOM

Low pay and harsh working conditions face nearly every worker in the long food production chain, from farmworkers, meatpackers, and warehouse workers to grocery clerks, cooks, and servers.

“They’re stealing our wages, they’re treating us poorly, and they’re stealing our dignity, like it’s nothing,” said Deathrice Jimerson, a former warehouse worker who’s now a volunteer organizer with Warehouse Workers for Justice south of Chicago.

Farmworkers are still organizing for basic labor protections, while at the other end of the chain, kitchen staff working for food service companies like Sodexo and Aramark have been struggling over a decade to win union recognition.

Because of their low pay, food workers are disproportionately affected by nutrition-related illnesses—diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease, said Jessica Choy, a California UNITE HERE organizer. “Workers are affected not only where they work by this broken food system,” she said.

The union organized “Food Day” events at dozens of campuses in October, where students and kitchen staff cooked, ate, and talked together. UNITE HERE connects its union drives to students’ growing desire for cafeteria food that isn’t processed slop—favored by institutions to cut costs.

“Bringing in packaged food, to a lot of people that are passionate about feeding people, it’s sort of like an insult,” said LaShanda Bell, a cook at Northwestern University. “We want to mix sauces and make our own stocks and actually produce food with our hands versus unthawing, heating, and serving.”
RE-SKILLING THE KITCHEN

Union food workers at Yale successfully fought back against a de-skilling of their kitchen and the closing of their bakery.

After Yale contracted with Sysco, the food distribution company, “we went right to canned sauce, processed cheese, pizza dough out of a box,” chef Stu Comen told the student paper. “Here we are, with our chef coats with our names on them, and we’re opening up cans of sauce.”

The workers, members of UNITE HERE Local 35, made common cause with students, holding taste tests and posting ingredient lists so students could compare the processed baked goods provided by Sysco to those produced in Yale’s bakeshop.

Now the college aims to get 40 percent of its food from sustainable sources in the next two years.

Harvard dining hall workers, members of UNITE HERE Local 26, ratified a contract in September that sets up a union-management committee to implement “environmentally responsible” food practices.

Dining hall workers say these initiatives lead to more work as well as better, healthier food. At Harvard, workers were getting hours cut. They hope to see those hours return as real cooking increases.
PITFALLS AT POMONA

At Pomona College, it’s been easier to get the school to switch to unprocessed food than to win union recognition.

On Food Day kitchen staff reported that the sustainable-food initiative won by students and workers has led to speed-up in the kitchen rather than to more hours or more jobs.

“They’re putting skill back in the work, adding to the workload, and not taking into account how it may be affecting the workers,” said Choy.

More than 90 percent of kitchen staffers signed a petition for a union in March 2010, but the college doesn’t recognize their organization, despite many meetings in which management promised neutrality, a promise workers say has been broken.

In powerful videos the group has posted online, workers say they were fired for being sick, had vital medical care delayed due to management shenanigans, and were unable to afford health coverage, which runs up to $600 a month. Some workers were still making less than $12 an hour after 20 years of service.
ALL ALONG THE FOOD CHAIN

The Food Chain Workers Alliance is using worker-to-worker, worker-to-farmer, and worker-to-consumer connections to plan a larger campaign, expected to launch next year, focused on one corporate target that can impact work from farms to tables, Lo said.

Each group of workers will figure out specific demands, she said. They’re compiling their knowledge of the industry and studying winning models employed by members of their coalition:

> Warehouse Workers for Justice has successfully used community outrage to win back jobs for 10 workers fired in warehouses southwest of Chicago. An ethnic food distributor charged with discriminating against Latino workers got an earful from community leaders who threatened to boycott.

> In a 10-year campaign, Florida farmworkers and students joined forces to pressure highly advertised brands like Taco Bell to sign on to fair wages for tomato pickers. They have nipped other brands into line with marches, campus actions, and boycotts, and are now focused on specialty grocer Trader Joe’s and the Florida-based Publix supermarket chain.

But farmworkers are able to employ boycotts partly because they are excluded from U.S. labor law. Workers covered by the National Labor Relations Act are hog-tied by legal restrictions on “secondary boycotts,” which target a company that is not their direct employer.

On campuses, kitchen workers usually labor for contractors like Aramark, rather than the university itself. In warehouses, workers are often temps, way down the chain from companies with a recognizable name. When confronted, the corporate behemoths point to their contractors as the culprits.

Successes have been won by cutting through the layers of subcontractors, finding where the real power lies, and then finding leverage to shift that target directly. By creating connections and a deeper understanding of what is at stake, food chain workers hope to scale up and “build a campaign that will fight for all of us on the supply line to America’s tables,” said Jimerson.

[Jenny Brown, staff writer for Labor Notes, was for 23 years co-editor of the Iguana, a progressive monthly magazine in Gainesville, Florida. Eduardo Soriano-Castillo contributed to this story which originally appeared at Labor Notes and was distributed by Portside.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

David Bacon : From ‘Planton’ to Occupy

Banners at Occupy Seattle. Photo by David Bacon / The Rag Blog.

From planton to Occupy:
Unions, immigrants, and the Occupy movement

By David Bacon / Truthout / November 6, 2011

OAKLAND, California — When Occupy Seattle called its tent camp “Planton Seattle,” camp organizers were laying a local claim to a set of tactics used for decades by social movements in Mexico, Central America, and the Philippines.

And when immigrant janitors marched down to the detention center in San Diego and called their effort Occupy ICE (the initials of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency responsible for mass deportations), people from countries with that planton tradition were connecting it to the Occupy movement here.

This shared culture and history offer new possibilities to the Occupy movement for survival and growth at a time when the Federal law enforcement establishment, in cooperation with local police departments and municipal governments, has uprooted many tent encampments.

Different Occupy groups from Wall Street to San Francisco have begun to explore their relationship with immigrant social movements in the U.S., and to look more closely at the actions of the 1% beyond our borders that produces much of the pressure for migration.

Reacting to the recent evictions, the Coalition for the Political Rights of Mexicans Abroad recently sent a support letter to Occupy Wall Street and the other camps under attack. “We greet your movement,” it declared, “because your struggle against the suppression of human rights and against social and economic injustice has been a fundamental part of our struggle, that of the Mexican people who cross borders, and the millions of Mexican migrants who live in the United States.”

Many of those migrants living in the U.S. know the tradition of the planton and how it’s used at home. And they know that the 1%, whose power is being challenged on Wall Street, also designed the policies that are the very reason why immigrants are living in the U.S. to begin with.

Mike Garcia, president of United Service Workers West/SEIU, the union that organized Occupy ICE, described immigrant janitors as “displaced workers of the new global economic order, an order led by the West and the United States in particular.”

Criminalizing the act of camping out in a public space is intended, at least in part, to keep a planton tradition from acquiring the same legitimacy in the U.S. that it has in other countries. That right to a planton was not freely conceded by the rulers of Mexico, El Salvador, or the Philippines, however — no more than it has been conceded here. The 99% of those countries had to fight for it.

Two of the biggest battles of modern Mexican political history were fought in the Tlatelolco Plaza, where hundreds of students were gunned down in 1968, and three years later in Mexico City streets where more were beaten and shot by the paramilitary Halcones.

In both El Salvador and the Philippines, strikers have a tradition of living at the gates of the factory or enterprise where they work. But even today that right must be defended against the police, and (at least until the recent election of the Funes and Aquino governments) even the military.

Plantons or encampments don’t stand alone. They are tactics used by unions, students, farmers, indigenous organizations, and other social movements. Each planton is a visible piece of a movement or organization — a much larger base. When the plantons are useful to those movements, they defend them. That connection between planton and movement, between the encampment and its social base, is as important as holding the physical space on which the tents are erected.

For the last two years that relationship has been very clear in the Zocalo, Mexico City’s huge central plaza. During that time, fired members of Mexico’s independent left-wing electrical workers union, the SME, have lived in a succession of plantons. They’ve often been elaborate, with kitchens, meeting rooms, and communications centers, in addition to the tents where people slept and ate.

At various times, the SME encampment was one of several in the huge square. A year ago the workers were joined by indigenous Triqui and Mixtec women from Oaxaca, who protested the violence used by their state’s previous governor against teachers’ strikes and rural organizations.

The social movement in Oaxaca, which the women represented in Mexico City, grew strong enough to finally knock the old ruling party, the PRI, from the governorship it had held for almost 80 years.

In the Zocalo plantons, people from different organizations mix it up. Last September’s Day of the Indignant brought together people from very diverse movements. Some see electoral politics as a vehicle for change, but many indigenous activists and SME members don’t. Even among those who do, there are deep disagreements over how to participate in the electoral process.

But the people in the Zocalo have two things in common. Different plantons may not see every political question eye-to-eye, but each represents a social movement in the world outside the plaza. And the planton itself has value primarily because it forces public attention to focus on the crisis that has led each group to set up its encampment.

The SME workers used their plantons to dramatize repression by the Federal government. When Mexican President Felipe Calderon dissolved the state-run power company for central Mexico and fired its 44,000 employees, he sought to destroy their union and move towards the privatization of the electrical system — to benefit Mexican and foreign 1%ers.

A year ago, several SME members conducted a hunger strike at the planton that generated front page headlines for weeks, and lasted so long that doctors warned participants they were risking death. At the height of the protest, the union battled police in front of the power stations, as it tried to exercise its legal right to strike and picket.

The planton and the movement outside it were intimately connected. The hunger strikers were few, but spoke for a union of tens of thousands of workers. In the end, the SME negotiated the removal of its last planton in return for government acknowledgement of its right to exist. It organized other unions to resist the government’s assault on labor rights, and mobilized electricity consumers to protest rising bills and cuts in service. The planton helped to focus attention on these demands, and to pull the union’s allies into action.

Clearly someone in Seattle knows this tradition of plantons in the Zocalo, perhaps even as a participant. When the painter made the Seattle banner, she or he also included, right next to the word “planton,” the anarchists’ “A” with the circle around it. This symbol was a reminder of another aspect of cross-border fertilization. Many anarchists or anarcho-syndicalists — members of the Industrial Workers of the World — fought in the Mexican Revolution.

Because of that revolutionary upheaval, even today, almost a century later, ordinary Mexicans expect certain rights, including the right to set up a tent in the Zocalo. U.S. workers crossed the border to fight alongside Mexicans in that insurrection long ago, for a government that would acknowledge that right. The planton, therefore, is a common heritage, with a history that makes it as legitimate on Wall Street as it is in Mexico City.

Not long after the OWS camp was set up in Zuccotti Park, the planton/occupy movement crossed the U.S./Mexico border. In Tijuana, home to a million people, mostly displaced migrants from Mexico’s south, activists came together and set up an occupation on the grassy median of the Paseo de los Heroes.

Their tents were pitched in the middle of the Zona del Rio, where the city’s 1% meet in fancy hotels and work in government offices. Then, on October 18 police reacted even earlier than they did in most U.S. cities, arresting two dozen activists at the urging of local businessmen. Occupy Tijuana condemned the detentions, declaring, “We are not assassins, delinquents, tramps, or crooks.”

Leobardo Benitez Alvarez. a fired SME member, in the union’s planton. Photo by David Bacon.

In the U.S. we have our own history of defending public space for protest, and it isn’t necessary to reach back a hundred years to find it. In just the last few decades, immigrant workers have popularized the use of the planton here, helping unions recover the militant tactics of their own past.

In 1992 immigrants trying to join the United Electrical Workers mounted the first strike among production workers in Silicon Valley, and set up a planton and conducted a hunger strike to pressure their employer. A year later other Latino immigrants in San Francisco erected their tents on the sidewalk in front of Sprint’s headquarters, after their workplace was closed days before they were scheduled to vote in a union election.

A decade ago anti-globalization activists and unions shut down the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. Young protestors chained their arms together inside metal pipes, and lay down in the intersections of downtown Seattle. Tens of thousands took over the streets. Other anti-globalization protests followed, in which activists battled for their right to use public space to challenge the international policies of the 1%.

Working-class support for the battle in Seattle had its roots in the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Workers could see the cost of free trade in the loss of their own jobs, as production moved south. Over the last two decades, many have also discovered that those same agreements and policies didn’t make Mexicans better off, but led to their impoverishment as well.

NAFTA and free market policies forced on developing countries produced opportunities for banks and corporations to reap profits. They drove down wages, forced farmers off their land, and destroyed the unions and livelihood of millions of people. This system was designed on Wall Street, by the same bankers Occupiers hold responsible for the current crisis of foreclosures and unemployment in the U.S.

The current economic crisis doesn’t stop at the border. In fact in Mexico, Central America, the Philippines, and elsewhere, it’s been a fact of life for a long time. This is the source of forced migration — what Garcia condemned at Occupy ICE.

The 99% live in all those countries where free trade agreements and structural adjustment policies are imposed. They also live in the communities of people who have come here as a result. Who, then, are more natural allies for Occupy protestors than people who’ve been on the receiving end of these policies for years?

In New York this connection wasn’t lost on Occupy Wall Street. In October a group, Occupy Wall Street-Español was formed at the first Asemblea en Español. They, in turn, translated the first issue of the Occupied Wall Street Journal.

Participants formed a subgroup, Occupy Wall Street Latinoamericano, to spread the movement to Spanish-speaking communities, recognizing that the city is home to so many Mexicans from the state of Puebla that its nickname is PueblaYork, as well as much older established communities of Puerto Ricans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, and other Spanish-speaking people.

The group will soon publish the first issue of its own newspaper, with articles talking about immigration, globalization, and the specific attacks by the 1% on Latinos.

Claudia Villegas, a women’s rights activist working with the group Occupy Wall Street Latinoamericano, helped organize a demonstration of immigrant women four days after police raided the Zuccotti Park encampment. “We decided to change our original plan for a march because we were afraid they would stop it,” she says. “Nevertheless, 23 organizations participated including women’s rights groups and, above all, those working with immigrant women.”

In San Francisco a joint march of immigrant activists and Occupy participants helped to defend that city’s encampment. In the general assembly meeting preceding it participants talked about the city’s offer to move the Occupiers into an abandoned building in the Latino Mission District several miles away.

Few wanted to give up the camp on Justin Herman Plaza, and most felt the city was just trying to move them out of sight. But many people also felt that having an Occupy camp in the barrio was a good idea.

“We’re still really working in parallel,” Villegas says. She draws attention to the potential power of the immigrant rights movement, and what it could mean to OWS.

“We have to include the movement that began in 2006, when there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets across this country. People were reacting to the injustice of the system then too.”

They’re separate movements, though, she warns, and “our agenda has to come from immigrants themselves. We need to integrate, and at the same time the Occupy movement has to learn to accept us. But we’re all on the same path.”

Bringing the immigrant and Occupy movements together means more than setting up an encampment. The San Diego demonstration didn’t set up an overnight camp, but it brought thousands of workers and supporters down to the ICE detention center to protest the firings of immigrant janitors.

The Occupy ICE protest was intended to draw public attention to the Federal government’s immigration enforcement strategy that requires employers to fire undocumented workers. In Southern California, the multinational corporations that clean office buildings are terminating 2,000 union members.

Earlier waves of firings have targeted unionized building cleaners in Minneapolis, Seattle and San Francisco, sewing machine operators in Los Angeles, food service workers on university campuses, and thousands of others.

Garcia says ICE and the employers are in collusion. After firing union janitors with high seniority and benefits, using immigration status as a pretext, the companies can then hire new workers at lower wages with fewer benefits.

“To hide their greed the commercial real estate industry has used the tools of government to confuse and divide the 99%,” he charges.

“They first said we were unskilled workers who should be happy to be working. They then weakened worker protections to make organizing virtually impossible. Over the last decade the industry has used immigration as a wedge to intimidate and, if need be, replace our workers. ICE is doing what the 1% corporate real estate industry wants: using immigration laws to recycle well paid janitors in the hopes of taking back gains in pay and benefits our union has won.”

(Ironically, the week USWW organized Occupy ICE its parent union, SEIU, endorsed the reelection of President Obama, who is responsible for the ICE policy of firing workers.)

For Occupy, defending workers under attack is a way to survive, grow roots, and develop a strong base. That’s not always the direction activists take, however. Near Oakland, over 200 immigrant workers at the largest foundry on the west coast, Pacific Steel Casting in Berkeley, are being fired in another “silent raid” like that hitting the janitors.

Through the summer and fall, foundry workers went to city councils, unions, churches, and community organizations, seeking help to pressure ICE not to force them from their jobs. Their campaign held “the migra” off for months, but the firings began nevertheless in November. Now these immigrant families are trying to survive. Occupy Oakland has yet to respond, however.

Instead, some of its activists are trying to shut down work in Oakland’s port a second time, as well as others along the West Coast. An earlier march to close the port after the first eviction of Occupy Oakland drew thousands of people. The proposal for a second Coast-wide shutdown, however, is opposed by the longshore union.

The ILWU’s opposition does not come from conservatism. The union, whose members make a living from international shipping and trade, has been one of the most vocal critics of U.S. free trade agreements. ILWU members have taken action many times to defend the SME and unions in Mexico, as well as other countries. Its locals, however, had no role in the decision to try to close the ports, nor did other port workers.

Solidarity is a two-way street, based on mutual respect. In most cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, labor has welcomed Occupy and sought to defend the encampments. In New York, Occupy activists have been given resources in many union halls, and unions have mobilized against police raids at Zuccotti Park.

An alliance of unions, immigrants, and Occupiers has great potential strength, not just in numbers, but also in the exchange of ideas and tactics. Unions in particular might benefit from wider use of the planton or Occupy encampment. Occupy ICE challenges the Occupy movement to take up the firings of immigrant workers, but it’s also a challenge to unions themselves, many of which have watched in silence as longtime members have been forced from their jobs.

The vision of Occupy — the 99% vs. the 1% — has enormous support among immigrants and unions. In place of the tired rhetoric of politicians, shedding crocodile tears for the “middle class” while demonizing the poor, Occupy gives workers a vision of their commonality in the 99%.

This powerful message blows away illusions that higher-paid workers have more in common with stockbrokers than with immigrants laboring at minimum wage, or unemployed young people on the streets of African American ghettos or Latino barrios.

The Coalition for the Political Rights of Mexicans Abroad shares the same vision of class-based commonality.

“We are outraged,” it says, “that U.S. citizens, when they demand justice and expose the inequalities that exist in their society, are treated like criminals. With the same outrage, we condemn the criminalization of migrant Mexicans by the U.S. government, the raids by immigration authorities [and] the militarization of the border… No human being should be treated as a criminal because they struggle to find better conditions in which to live.”

[David Bacon is a California-based writer and photographer. His latest book, Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants, was published by Beacon Press. His photographs and stories can be found at dbacon.igc.org. This article was published at Truthout and was crossposted to The Rag Blog. Read more of David Bacon’s articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Harry Targ : Vince Emanuele, Anti-War Vets, and the 99%

Anti-war vet Vince Emanuele. Photo by Jessica A. Woolf / nwtimes.

Veterans unplugged:
Hoosier anti-war activist connects
returning veterans to the 99%

By Harry Targ | The Rag Blog | November 6, 2011

“I grew up in Chicago and Northwest Indiana. Working-class family, father was a Union Ironworker… mother was a stay at home Mom.” Vince Emanuele joined the Marines after graduating from high school. “I came out of boot camp a hard chargin’ Devil Dog.”

He served in the Marines from 2003 until 2005 stationed in California, Kuwait, and Iraq. His eight month deployment in Iraq involved him in street patrols, looking for snipers and land mines, “along with shooting at innocent civilians, destroying their property and beating up prisoners.”

While in Iraq the fascination with war that he had acquired as a kid playing video games dissipated. His father sent him reading material — Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Hunter Thompson, The Nation — and he and friends began to reflect on what they were doing in Iraq. He came to the view that the war was “illegal, immoral, unjustified, and unneeded.” He was not spreading “democracy” or “peace” and the U.S. war effort was not winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people.

After returning to the U.S., Emanuele joined Iraq Veterans Against the War, has been organizing vets in Indiana and Illinois, created a weekly radio show called “Veterans Unplugged” which is available online, and has become a prominent activist for social, economic, and political justice in the heartland of America while finishing an undergraduate political science degree.

Emanuele recently spoke on a panel organized by the Lafayette Area Peace Coalition. He elaborated on the current plight of veterans, particularly veterans who served in the two longest wars in U.S. history, Afghanistan and Iraq.

While acknowledging that the current military force has chosen to enlist in regular army or reserve units, the 21st century enticement to serve is really an “economic draft.” With declining incomes, wages, job opportunities, and rising educational costs, more and more men and women, he said, have seen military service as the only escape from lives of economic marginalization.

He spoke of the culture of militarization to which every new recruit is exposed: a process of dehumanization; the spread of racism, particularly targeting stereotypes of Muslims; sexism; and homophobia. In reality the military experience of young people, Emanuele said, involves placing raw, uneducated, teenagers in a war zone, with weapons and a license to kill. The victims of the actions of these raw recruits, schooled in video games and super-patriotism, were the millions of Iraqi and Afghan citizens who most fervently wanted the young foreigners off their land.

Emanuele presented some figures on the impacts of military service on returning veterans. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2010 there were 20.2 million men and 1.8 million women who had served in the military). In 2011, Emanuele reported:

  • Rates of unemployment of returning veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq are higher than in the non-veteran population, both men and women;
  • African-American vets experience double the unemployment rate of white vets;
  • 80,000 returning veterans are currently homeless (56 % of homeless vets are African American or Latinos);
  • 20% to 50% of 21st century returning veterans suffer some form of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (an estimated 350,000 to 1 million vets);
  • 1,000 returning vets attempt suicide each month.

Emanuele, connected the plight of returning veterans to the military-industrial complex and imperial wars. As a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, he highlighted the long tradition of soldiers resisting participation in unjust wars. He referred to patterns of resistance to war running throughout U.S. history:

  • In 1781 the Pennsylvania militia mutinied against war profiteers and for food;
  • Between the 1870s and the 1890s, National Guard soldiers often refused to fire on striking workers;
  • In 1919 unknown numbers of U.S. soldiers refused orders to go fight against the Bolsheviks who had come to power in Russia;
  • Thousands of World War I veterans, known as the Bonus Army, assembled in Washington D.C. in 1932 to demand back pay due them from their active duty experience;
  • From 1964-75 a massive GI anti-Vietnam war resistance movement emerged with over 300 GI anti-war newspapers produced, 10 % of all Vietnam era soldiers going AWOL or deserting, and a broad array of other forms of anti-war resistance and opposition to military recruiting.

Emanuele stressed the commonality of experience and vision that is shared by most veterans with the Occupy Movement. He suggested that peace and justice activists must understand that returning veterans are a vital part of the 99% movement committed to radically restructure American society.

He argued that the 99%, including vets, must see the vital connections between the global capitalist system, the military-industrial complex, and the pain and suffering that have generated war and economic insecurity in the 21st century.

Emanuele ended his talk with reference to the frank admission of General Smedley Butler who oversaw the effort to crush the army of Augusto Sandino in Nicaragua in the early 1930s. Butler admitted that he, as a Marine General, had served as an instrumentality of Wall Street, putting down popular rebellions in the service of profit.

  • To learn more about Vince Emanuele and his weekly radio show check out Veterans Unplugged.
  • To learn more about Iraq Veterans Against the War, go to the IVAW website.

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical — and that’s also the name of his new book which can be found at Lulu.com. Read more of Harry Targ’s articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Carl Davidson : The Pundits’ Obsession About ‘Specific Demands’

Occupy Wall Street poster from Lalo Alcaraz / laloalcaraz.com.

Occupy and the pundits:
Do we really want ‘specific demands?’

By Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog/ December 6, 2011

I’m getting fed up with pompous pundits lecturing the “Occupy!” movement for not having a set of specific demands.

A case in point: A case in point: New York Times financial columnist Joe Nocera quoted at length in a story by Phoebe Mitchell in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on November 29. He was speaking at the Amherst Political Union, a debate club at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Nocera starts off with the now usual tipping of the hat to the protestors:

Nocera believes the anger caused by income inequality, a divisive issue across the country in this prolonged economic downturn, is the fuel for both popular uprisings. “If we lived in a country that had a growing economy and where the middle class felt that they could make a good living and had a chance for advancement and a decent life, there would be no tea party or Occupy Wall Street,” he said.

But we don’t live in such times, and the more interesting story is that OWS and its trade union allies are displacing the Tea Party, and energizing the progressive grassroots. Nocera, however, makes OWS the target.

He believes that for the Occupy Movement to be successful, it must frame clear demands that outline a plan for creating jobs and refashioning Wall Street to benefit the entire country and not just a select few wealthy investors. Without a solid plan for moving forward, he said, the Occupy protestors will be continued to be viewed by Wall Street supporters as little more than “a gnat that needs to be flicked from its shoulder blades.”

A “gnat” indeed. In due time, a progressive majority may well come to view our dubious “Masters of the Universe” on Wall Street as bothersome gnats to be flicked away.

But to get to the main point, Nocero knows perfectly well that there are any number of short, sweet and to the point sets of demands aimed at Wall Street finance capital and the Congress it works to keep under its thumb. Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO has been hammering away at his six-point jobs program — one point of which is a financial transaction tax on Wall Street as a source of massive new revenues to fund the other five.

The United Steel Worker’s Leo Gerard has been tireless for years working for a new clean energy and green manufacturing industrial policy that could create millions of new jobs and get us out of the crisis in a progressive way.

So what happens when these demands are put forward? With our Wall Street lobbyists working behind the scenes, the best politicians money can buy declare them “off the table.” Nocera and others of like mind in punditocracy put the cart before the horse.

OWS arose as a result of a long train of abuses, year after year of sensible, rational, progressive demands, and programs swept off of Congress’s agenda like so many bread crumbs from a dining table. Not even brought to a vote. OWS and a lot of other people are fed up with being dismissed.

The pundits should watch what they wish for. The demands and packages of structural reforms will be back, much sharper and clearer, and with the ante upped by hundreds of thousands in the streets, as well as millions turning out for the polls.

In fact, the solutions have always been there for anyone with ears to hear. We’ll see if our voices are loud enough to crack the ceiling at the top, and let some light shine through.

[Carl Davidson is a national co-chair of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a national board member of Solidarity Economy Network, a writer for Beaver County Blue, the website of PA’s 4th CD Progressive Democrats of America, and a member of Steelworkers Associates. He is the author of several books, including New Paths to Socialism, available online. In the 1960s, he was a national leader of SDS and a writer and editor for the Guardian newsweekly. This article was also published at Beaver County Blue. Read more articles by Carl Davidson on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ted McLaughlin : It’s Everyone’s Fight

Typical 99% parasite. Image from Jobsanger.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

It’s everyone’s fight

‘The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground.’ — Thomas Jefferson

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog/ December 6, 2011

The quote at the bottom of the picture above shows what the right wing would like for Americans to believe — that the Occupy Wall Street movement is nothing more than a few bored young people, parasites with meaningless lives who have contributed nothing to America. But this picture shows that argument is a pathetic lie (designed to protect the 1% and the failed Republican economic policy).

This gentleman has contributed much to his country. As a World War II veteran, he put his life on the line for his fellow citizens — to defend freedom for not only his generation, but also for all the generations that followed.

And I suspect that he has worked hard all his life to support his family and contribute to our economy. He certainly doesn’t look like a “trust fund baby.” And he’s not the only older American who has joined in the protests. There are many — they may not be camping out with the younger folks, but they are there for the marches and demonstrations.

For many of these older demonstrators — even if they and their younger cohorts are able to finally affect the change that is needed in this country — that change will probably not benefit them much. That is not why they are there. They are there because they love their country and they want to protect the constitutional rights for those who come after them. And they want some economic justice for their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

These people know something that far too many Americans seem to have forgotten — that rights, even constitutional rights, must be fought for continuously, or they will disappear. It is simply the nature of ALL governments to assume as much power as they can — and this is true even of rather benign democratic forms of government. Every form of government will slowly eat away at the rights of its citizens if allowed to do so. As Thomas Jefferson so wisely told us, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground.”

These governments always have a seemingly justifiable reason for eroding the rights of citizens — the most popular being that it is necessary to defend the country, or to maintain law and order, or to please some god.

A perfect example of this was the Bush administration’s imposition of the Patriot Act. They said it was needed to prevent another 9/11 disaster. But 9/11 did not happen because of a lack of intelligence gathered — the plans were known before the incident happened.

9/11 happened because of incompetent leadership that did not take the proper precautions after learning of the plan to attack America. And preventing another 9/11 was just an excuse government used to seize a few more of the people’s rights.

And now we have the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. These protests were started to point out the economic injustices of our present society. The deck has been stacked in favor of the richest Americans (because they own far too many members of Congress) and this has resulted in a serious recession and the loss of millions of jobs — not to mention a vast gulf in wealth and income between the richest Americans and the rest of America. And much of America has responded favorably to these demonstrations, because they recognize that change must come.

In fact, the demonstrations have been so popular and widespread (blanketing the nation) that the 1% and their government lackeys are beginning to get scared. They want to stop the movement before it grows large enough to actually affect the needed change.

This is normal, as no group in power has willingly given up any of their power or economic advantage. The sad part is that, like past governments here and around the world, they are willing to deny the rights of the people in an attempt to hold on to their power and advantages.

It is written in the United States Constitution that the people of this country have certain rights, and among these are the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to redress the government for their grievances. The Occupy Wall Street movement is simply trying to exercise those rights in its quest for economic justice. And the authorities are trying to deny them those rights — often through the use of violence.

The stakes were already high, as they will be in any quest for economic justice. But now those stakes have been heightened even more. It has now become a fight to either keep or cede to the government the basic rights given citizens by the Constitution. Whatever anyone might think of Occupy Wall Street’s goals, it is now imperative for all Americans to step up and demand that our constitutional rights be respected and obeyed by the government.

These rights have always been guaranteed to the rich and powerful but are often denied to those without political power. Now it is time for the Americans of this generation to fight for those rights to be extended to every citizen, and that fight can only be won if everyone becomes involved — regardless of age, sex, race, color, or national origin. It is everybody’s fight, and it is too important a fight to lose.

It is not good enough for those rights to be written in the Constitution. Government must be forced to honor those rights, or they mean nothing.

[Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger. Read more articles by Ted McLaughlin on The Rag Blog.]

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Occupy Wall Street movement has captured the attention and imagination of the country — and with it’s advent have come some stylistic innovations. One of those, known as “mic check,” has served as a unique means of communication among demonstrators — and has more recently been used as a technique to interrupt speeches, including one by Karl Rove. Our old friend and colleague Allen has serious reservations about “mic check” which he shares with us — along with an email discussion about the subject. The post includes a video of the Karl Rove disruption.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Bill Meacham : What is Truth? (In 400 Words)

The Chinese character for truth.

(In 400 words)
What Is Truth?

By Bill Meacham /The Rag Blog/ November 30, 2011

Philosophy Now magazine runs an occasional contest: Write an answer to a philosophical question in 400 words or fewer. The winning essays are printed in the magazine. My essay in answer to the question “What is Truth” was selected[1], and I am pleased to present it here, followed by another winning essay by my colleague Robert “Little Bobby” Tables.

Several factors determine the truthfulness of a theory or an explanation of events: congruence, consistency, coherence, and usefulness.

  • A true theory is congruent with our experience. It fits the facts. No fact is left unexplained. It is falsifiable, and nothing falsifying has been found. People think truth is correspondence to reality, understood as something independent of us. But we don’t have direct contact with reality, only with our experience of it.
  • When what we experience is predictable then we can infer that our theory corresponds with reality. Our theory is congruent with the facts, as we experience them. When we discover new facts, we can change our theory. Truth is always provisional, not an end state.
  • A true theory is internally consistent. It has no contradictions within itself, and it all fits together elegantly. Consistency allows us to infer things from what we already know. An inconsistent theory, one that contains contradictions, does not allow us to do this.
  • A true theory is coherent with everything else we consider true. It confirms, or at least fails to contradict, the rest of our knowledge, where “knowledge” means beliefs for which we can give rigorous reasons. The physical sciences, for example, hold together quite well. Physics, chemistry, geology, biology and astronomy all reinforce each other.
  • A true theory is useful. It has predictive power, allowing us to gain control of the world by making good choices concerning what is likely to happen, choices that pan out. It gives us mastery. When we act on the basis of a true theory or explanation, our actions are successful.

Truth enables us to exert our power, in the sense of our ability to get things done, successfully. We master both the world of physical things and the world of ideas, of theory. What is true is what works to organize our practice and our thought, so that we are able both to handle reality effectively and to reason with logical rigor to true conclusions.

Truth is useful. Does that mean that what is useful is true? That is not a useful question. Let’s not ask what truth is; let’s ask instead how we can recognize it reliably when it appears. If a theory is congruent with our experience, internally consistent, coherent with everything else we know, and useful for organizing our thinking and practice, then we can confidently consider it true.

The following is Robert Tables’ essay on Truth:

Truth is interpersonal. We tell each other things, and when they work out we call them truths. When they don’t, we call them errors or, if we are not charitable, lies.

What we take as truth depends on what others around us espouse. For many centuries European Christians believed that men had one fewer rib than women because the Bible says that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Nobody bothered to count because everyone assumed it was true. And when they finally counted, it was because everyone agreed on the count that the real truth became known.

Even when we are alone, truth is interpersonal. We express these truths or errors or lies to others and to ourselves in language; and, as Wittgenstein pointed out, there can be no private language.

But the most essential truth, the truth by which we all live our lives, is intensely personal, private. We might call this “Truth,” with a capital T. Even though each of us lives our life by it, it can be different for each person. Shall I believe and obey the Torah, the New Testament, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Zend Avesta, the Dhammapada? Or none of the above: shall I find my own Truth in my own way? Am I more authentic if I do so? What if I find my Truth and it sets me apart from others? Am I then authentically lonely?

We need a community of seekers with a commitment to meta-Truth, recognizing that everyone’s personal Truth is to be respected, even though it might differ from someone else’s.

But even in such a community, some beliefs would be acceptable and others not. My belief that I am exceptional and deserve preferential treatment, perhaps because I alone have received a special revelation, is not likely to be shared by others. Whether that changes my mind or not depends on how compelling are my reasons for believing it and how deeply I feel the need for acceptance.

From within the in-group we look with fear and revulsion on those who deny the accepted beliefs. From outside, we admire those who hold aloft the light of truth amidst the darkness of human ignorance.

And in every case it is we who judge, not I alone. Even the most personal Truth is adjudicated within a community and depends on the esteem of others.

[1]Philosophy Now magazine, “What Is Truth?” Issue 86 Sept/Oct 2011, pp. 34-37. London: Anya Publications, 2011. Also online publication, URL = http://www.philosophynow.org/issue86/What_Is_Truth as of 22 November 2011.

[Bill Meacham is an independent scholar in philosophy. A former staffer at Austin’s 60s underground paper, The Rag, Bill received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin. Meacham spent many years working as a computer programmer, systems analyst, and project manager. He posts at Philosophy for Real Life, where this article also appears. Read more articles by Bill Meacham on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Allen Young : Is ‘Mic Check’ Just ‘Political Shouting?’

Image from Pragmatic Witness.

An email string:
Analyzing ‘mic check’

Polarizing behavior, besides being wrong, simply creates more polarization…

By Allen Young / The Rag Blog / November 30, 2011

“Mic check,” as it is known, is short for “microphone check,” a name that was chosen with irony because in fact the speech amplification technique known as “mic check” was introduced by Occupy Wall Street activists in places where electronic sound systems and even bullhorns were not allowed.

So, a speaker calls out “mic check” and speaks sentence after sentence, with the people in the crowd repeating each sentence so everyone can hear it.

It seems that for participants this is quite exhilarating, aside from serving a practical purpose of getting words heard.

Eventually, this “mic check” technique was brought to bear in confrontational situations. A group of Occupy protesters, for example, organized the disruption of speeches by Karl Rove and others, using this now familiar technique — followed by YouTube videos bringing the scene to many thousands more.

Now, I must be clear that I am enthusiastic about Occupy Wall Street, and the entire Occupy movement, and want to see this movement grow and succeed. I would like to see the movement be more successful than the New Left I was a part of in the 1960s.

This movement has done a much better job than the Democratic Party (and I am a registered Democrat) at bringing to the American public a message of urgent concern about corporate corruption of our democracy, the immoral lack of economic justice and equality, and the criminal or near-criminal activity of bank and corporate executives in recent times.

I am not so enthusiastic, however, about “mic check,” even in its benign form where only used for amplification. It seems to me – especially when observed in a YouTube video – that “mic check” creates a rather cult-like scene. To the general public, I think it looks and sounds ridiculous, and I have experience with some political shouting of my own, circa 1969, that certainly looked and sounded ridiculous to most people. (Remember “Ho Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF. is Gonna Win?” Yeah, that won over lots of hard-working American citizens to the anti-war cause.)

Recently, a friend in San Francisco who I’ll call Fred suggested that I view a YouTube video of “mic check” used at a Karl Rove speech [see below]. He was very animated about this, and said, “It gives me chills.” I looked at the video, and then emailed a response to him, which I shared with a handful of friends, commenting to them that I wondered if I’d become a “softie.”

Fred has not responded to me yet, but the following email exchange resulted. The names of my friends have also been changed. Some Rag Blog readers who don’t agree with me may find the entry by “Bradley” to be a point of view they like best.

I also passed the entire string by fellow Rag Blog contributor Bill Freeland, and his comments close the piece.

Mic check at Occupy Wall Street event. Image from New Clear Vision.

Allen Young: These are tentative thoughts on “mic check.” I could change my mind, but here’s my honest reaction at the moment after viewing a YouTube video of the Rove “mic check” incident you told me about.

I think people like Rove, Cheney, Bush (and from an earlier era, Kissinger and others), and so on, are war criminals and “very bad people.” I think their evil-doings should be remembered and people should be educated about them.

However, disrupting their speech in an auditorium where they are the invited speaker does not seem to me to be correct or productive. I say it’s not productive because in the end, those people who disrupt will probably be legally expelled from the auditorium by authorities, with or without scuffles or violence of some sort, and then the people who have come to hear the speaker will most likely have increased sympathy for the speaker and will, with perhaps a few exceptions, not even have heard the points being made by the protesters.

There might even be arrests for “disorderly conduct” and bad publicity and the expense involved in legal defense, a waste of resources, in my view. That’s the practical point.

The theoretical point has to do with the right of free speech. You and others may argue that such villains do not deserve rights of any kind. However, as a card-carrying member of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) for decades, I do not agree with this. I and others supported the ACLU when it went to court to protect the rights of the KKK to march in Skokie, Ill. (where many Jews reside) some years ago. (Some people were upset and quit the ACLU, on the other hand.)

I have a personal reason for reacting negatively to “mic check.” I have done a fair amount of public speaking, including on gay issues. So I hope you will try to put yourself in my place.

Imagine if I (or you) were in a college auditorium at the microphone, invited by a gay student organization. Imagine that a large group of anti-gay students infiltrated the auditorium and did a “mic check” style of interruption. Certainly, I would be flustered and upset and uncertain how to respond. I could shout out “bigots go home,” but I would be unable to make the comments I planned to make, the comments that the gay student group which invited me wanted to hear.

My right to express my views would have been suppressed by a handful of vigilante haters. Maybe friendly supportive people in the audience would give me a big hand, and the homophobes would get bad publicity, but my purpose as a speaker would be lost.

There needs to be justice for Rove and his ilk, but not vigilante justice, as I do not believe in that, and I think it is very dangerous to use vigilante justice concepts as we move forward to try to correct the bad things happening in the nation and the world. The cop who sprayed pepper at UC Davis probably saw himself as dishing out vigilante justice to people he despised.

As for moments when Rove, etc., have speaking engagements, I think picketing outside the auditorium and handing out educational leaflet to those attending as well as passers-by is a more appropriate political action, one that I would be proud to participate in. I would not be proud to participate in “mic check.” It would not give me chills (as you said) in any positive sense; it would give me chills in a very frightening negative sense.

Chet: Well-stated and I agree entirely. Polarizing behavior, besides being wrong, simply creates more polarization and a spectacle that people can watch from the sidelines, taking sides and pretending they are acting as citizens rooting for their ideological team, instead of being real citizens doing the unglamorous, slow, and steady work of building broad-based consensus for change.

Kathy: You’re absolutely right, it’s ghastly. And that doesn’t make you a softie, but a man of principle who can speak up when his friends are wrong. A “softie” is someone who would keep quiet about it so as not to offend anyone. People who think that politics is simply a matter of “expressing yourself” by shouting louder than the other guy are ignorant narcissists.

This is the same damn tactic that the original Tea Party people used on the speakers who were trying to present Obama’s healthcare plan, and in my eyes it discredited the movement from the get-go. We’re desperately in need of reasoned discussion these days, and shouting down the “bad people” makes that impossible, because when you do that you validate everyone’s worst image of your own side.

The Right is working hard enough to misrepresent and discredit OWS already; the idiots don’t have to help them. This is what happens with a movement with no leaders, no goals, no philosophy and no discipline — the paranoids, the immature and the violent — all feel empowered, and they hijack the movement, and then it’s all over. Didn’t we already go through that in the Sixties?

I could go on ranting but I have family coming and cooking to do. Happy Thanksgiving!

Bradley: I have heard it said that freedom of the press belongs to anyone who owns the press. So it is with the powers of speech. Our society has evolved into one that is completely dominated by mega-wealthy, mega-powerful men and corporations.

They are so powerful that they own and control entire blocks of media outlets and blanket the population with their slanted world view. Their message is delivered in such a manner as to bamboozle the unwary population lulled by their soma as the telescreen emits powerful, suggestive messages designed to mold their opinion of people and events.

Now the inequity in our society grows to proportions not seen since the days of the “robber barons” of the early industrial age. Monopolies grow unabated by impotent laws and a justice system that has been corrupted by money and power.

There is no justice. Just us.

We, the people, struggle to get our message heard. Suddenly, a clever new tool emerges. Mic Check.

The rich and powerful HAVE freedom of speech, and the power (money) to use it. Mic Check has emerged as a way of delivering powerful messages by temporarily hijacking the speech avenue paved by the powerful.

A typical Mic Check only lasts a few minutes, and delivers a couple of carefully worded paragraphs, but the delivery is compelling. The ubiquitous presence of video recording, and the viral nature of YouTube, has combined with traditional commercial media to deliver these messages well beyond the limitations imposed by the lack of power or influence of the messengers.

Does Mic Check have the potential for misuse? Absolutely. It means that any group can potentially take control of a venue to which they have no actual right.

Will Mic Check become an out-of-control phenomenon used frequently for harassment purposes? Maybe. It also may be something that is with us and effective for only a few months, or even weeks.

No one knows how Mic Check may evolve, but as it stands now, it is a powerful tool for the powerless. Our society is on the verge of collapse and maybe, just maybe, the Occupy Movement, and Mic Check can make a difference. There is no denying that Occupy has changed the dialog, and Mic Check has given that dialog voice.

Three cheers for Mic Check.

Stanley: I tend to agree with you, Allen, if for no other reason than — as you point out — it would likely be counterproductive and bring sympathy to the one interrupted — especially as it is communicated through the media. And it would then subordinate the primary issue to that of the free speech of the speaker.

One idea that might be pursued is the use of the Mic Check approach in a situation where it isn’t actually being used to interrupt the speaker, but to make a political point in a dramatic fashion.

And finally, from Bill Freeland:

In general, repeated chants of the same phrase ’60-style is different than an ongoing statement under “mic check” with specific content to communicate. The first example seems to be just rhetoric for its own sake, while the second example seems to have a useful purpose designed to communicate specific information.

On the specific example of the use of mic check at Rove’s address:

  • Those who have come (and probably paid) to hear Rove in person feel about as sympathetic to him as it is possible to feel. The protesters, I doubt, are not likely to increase the affection those at the event already have for him due to their disruptive behavior. Nor are they likely to view the protesters in a worse light than they already do.
  • Meanwhile, when the action goes viral on social media, the protesters have a tool to reach a much larger and presumably less sympathetic audience than those in the room, which can serve to remind people of who Rove is and what he has done in a way that can’t be ignored (as pickets easily can).
  • Also, mic check in the Rove setting, unlike the continuous “Ho, Ho, Ho” chanting, is of very limited duration. They make their point and then leave — or are removed. So they don’t intend to deny Rove of his right to free speech. They hope merely to briefly interrupt him. So I think it becomes as a result a much less urgent free speech issue when weighed against the potential benefit of holding him to some account.

As for the utility of mic check in the practical (and friendly) setting of a large audience where there is no amplification or free speech implications, I’ve found it to be (much to my surprise) a very useful and creative tool.

So in summary:

  • Mic check is not the equivalent of a repeated chant.
  • It has limited impact on free speech rights when the purpose is to interrupt, but not prohibit, what others are saying
  • In a friendly setting with no other alternative methods available it seems useful for the purpose it was designed to address.

[Allen Young left the Washington Post to work with Liberation News Service in the late Sixties and later became an important voice in the gay liberation movement. Allen now lives in rural Massachusetts where he is involved with environmental issues and writes a column for the Athol Daily News.]


Check out for yourself the ‘mic check’ at Karl Rove’s speech:

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 6 Comments

Paul Rosenberg : American Deceptionalism

Photo by Gallo / Getty Images / Al Jazeera.

American Deceptionalism

Under the growing influence of the 1 per cent, American exceptionalism has become American deceptionalism.

By Paul Rosenberg / Progressive America Rising / November 30, 2011

From the dawn of the colonial era, long before they even had a national identity, Americans have always felt they had a special role in the world, though the exact nature of American exceptionalism has always been a matter of some dispute.

Many have taken it to be a special religious destiny, but Alexis de Tocqueville, the first to consider it systematically, affirmed the exact opposite: “a thousand special causes… have singularly concurred to fix the mind of the American upon purely practical objects.” Ironically enough, the exact term “American exceptionalism” was first used by Joseph Stalin, in order to reject it.

And yet, for 70 years American exceptionalism has been most prominently and consistently associated with imperialism (“benevolent,” of course!), via the phrase “the American Century.” It was coined by Time-Life publisher Henry Luce in February 1941, 10 months before Japan’s Pearl Harbor attack drew the U.S. into World War II. The history of Luce’s coinage provides a depth of resonance for a recent twist: a not uncommon, but particularly telling juxtaposition of four Time magazine covers from around the world this week.

In three editions — Europe, Asia, and South Pacific — Time magazine’s visually hot, tumultuous cover featured a gas mask-protected Egyptian protester, upraised fist overhead with a chaotic street background behind. The headline: “Revolution Redux.” Not so in the exceptional American edition. There, the visually cool, wanna-be New Yorker-ish cover was a text-dominated cartoon against a light gray background: “Why Anxiety is Good For You.”

Clearly, Time is whistling past the graveyard. As mostly Democratic mayors clamp down hard on Occupy Wall Street outposts across the land, it’s obvious that the U.S.’ political class is having none of it. They do not believe that anxiety is good for them and they are doing their darnedest to keep a lid on things. Agitated citizens out in the streets are bad enough. Pictures of agitated citizens are simply too much.

Once upon a time, those pictures coming from a Third World dictatorship in a (hopefully) democratic transition would have been comfortably distant, even reassuring — exotic, other, subsumed in history, striving to become more like us, the transcendent ones at the “end of history.”

That, after all, was part of the message of Luce’s “American Century.” But nowadays, everyone knows that the differences between Zuccotti Park and Tahrir Square are increasingly less significant than their similarities. They are matters of degree more than kind. There is no such place as “outside of history” anymore. Those making history know it, and those fighting history know it just as well.

Democratic mayors to the 99 per cent

In the U.S., the message from the mayors is simple: You’ve made your point. Now go to your room and shut up. We’ve got a lawn to keep up, and you’ve spoiled it. America’s “grown-ups,” as the political class likes to think of itself, have never had much patience when it comes to the “children,” as its mere citizens are known. And yet, America’s democratic revolutionary origins are at the very center of a radically different vision of what American exceptionalism is all about.

The situation in Los Angeles is particularly exemplary. Although city officials welcomed Occupy LA at first, for weeks on end Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and others have been saying it’s time to leave. Villaraigosa — like Obama — is a former progressive organizer turned neoliberal politician. He was a teacher’s union organizer when I first met him in the 1980s, as part of a progressive precinct network aimed at getting disaffected progressive voters to the pols.

Also within the coalition’s core was the LA National Lawyers Guild’s executive director. When Villaraigosa first took office in 2006, his first big battle was against the teachers’ union he used to work for. He took them on with the backing of billionaire real estate developer and education “reformer” Eli Broad. Five years later, as he faces off against Occupy LA, the current NLG executive director, James Lafferty, is one of his major opponents.

With no sense of irony, Villaraigosa thought Thanksgiving weekend was the perfect time for an eviction. “It’s clear that this mayor cares more about dead grass than a dead economy,” Lafferty responded at an Occupy LA press conference. “The 99 per cent that have been thrown out of their homes, jobless, without proper healthcare and all the rest seem to be less important to him than that lawn.”

America’s exceptional democracy

As indicated above, the idea of American exceptionalism was always a contested one. But it’s hard to deny that the New World in general was seen as a land of opportunity, and the American colonies were the place where the most opportunity was seen for people to actually settle in significant numbers.

Yet, the way most people managed to get to this new land of opportunity and freedom was through indentured servitude, and when that failed to provide enough labor, the African slave trade was “Plan B.”

The land itself came courtesy of the earliest stages of America’s centuries-long series of genocidal wars. And when the American Revolution came, it was lead in large part by slaveholder advocates of freedom – men like Washington, Jefferson and Patrick Henry, whose influence only expanded as the new nation was established.

Although their primary arguments were grounded in universalist appeals, the actual rights-holding subjects of their political system were a relatively tiny minority of well-to-do white males. The promise of rights-based liberal democracy was intoxicating to all, but forbidden to most. Equality was for gentlemen only. And yet, those excluded would not be denied. Scattered state and local battles coalesced into a national abolitionist movement by the 1830s, which in turn spawned a women’s rights movement in the 1840s.

In Europe, the U.S. example spawned the French and Polish revolutions, followed by more than a century of struggles in which the example of the U.S.’ existence powerfully transformed the Old World in combination with Europe’s own internal modernizing forces.

And even though the United States itself embarked on an imperialist course sparked by the Spanish-American War in 1898, its example as the first anti-colonial revolutionary regime inspired colonial revolutionaries as well. It was no accident that Ho Chi Minh approached Woodrow Wilson for his support at Versailles after World War I, before turning to communism as his second choice in seeking to rid his country of French colonialism.

From exceptionalism to deceptionalism

But the U.S. had a hard time keeping up with itself, or with the world that it helped create. The European welfare state was a direct response to popular demands for a better, more just, less arbitrary life, demands that were sparked in part by the very existence of the U.S. as an alternative.

As the U.S. itself became more like Europe — more industrialized, more urbanized, less composed of small farmers and more composed of urban workers — the resistance to learning from European advances became increasingly irrational, and at odds with American pragmatism. Our political system lagged behind as well, lacking the fluidity and inventiveness that made parliamentary systems the dominant form of democracy elsewhere around the world.

This perverse refusal to learn from others who have been inspired by us in the political realm is strikingly at odds with Americans’ grassroots improvisatory traditions. From food to music to everything in between, Americans have always adopted diverse influences, mixed them together and made them their own, based on the sole criteria of what works.

Yet, with far too few exceptions, we Americans have spectacularly failed to do this in the realms of economics and politics, where powerful elites have emerged to repeatedly stifle the U.S.’ spirit of ingenuity. Not only that, they have successfully blinded us as well. Under the growing influence of the 1 per cent, American exceptionalism has become American deceptionalism: a perverse refusal to see what others have done — often inspired by our own earlier examples — and use that knowledge to continue advancing ourselves.

The U.S.’ patchwork welfare state is the prime example of this dysfunction. But our lack of industrial policy is even more bizarre, given that we used to believe in it so. Indeed, the same could be said about the welfare state as well. Universal public education was an American idea — outside the South, of course — before catching on elsewhere around the globe. What’s more, most of the U.S. was homesteaded through a subsidized process of free or cheap land, supported by public infrastructure — or, in the case of railroads, publicly-subsidized infrastructure.

But when it came to an industrial welfare state, suddenly, everything changed. It’s not so hard to understand why: the original industrial workforce was largely immigrant and culturally “other” — Irish at first, then central and southern European, predominantly Catholic or Jewish. It was not until the Great Depression pushed the U.S. economy to the wall that we began to even partially catch up with Germany, which had created its welfare state half a century earlier.

Even then, it took another 30 years for us to add universal health care, but only for senior citizens. The results of creating Medicare were dramatic: Within a decade, American seniors went from being the age group with the highest poverty rate to the lowest.

But that was nearly 50 years ago, 130 years after Germany established its universal healthcare system. Since then, conservative resistance to America’s welfare state has stiffened dramatically. Cultural differences between whites of European descent are nothing compared to differences with people of color — which moved dramatic to the fore as legal segregation was finally being dismantled.

Welfare in the U.S.

A 2001 paper from the Brookings Institute, “Why Doesn’t the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?,” found a direct correlation between welfare state spending and the size of minority populations — the more minorities, the lower the levels of spending. This held true both internationally (comparing more than 60 different countries) and nationally (comparing all 50 states).

The paper did not argue that racial animosity was the sole reason for the U.S.’ fragmented and under-sized welfare state. It also cited the U.S.’ backwards political institutions — such as our lack of proportional representation — which in turn have roots in our history and geography.

The report stated, “Racial animosity in the U.S. makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters. American political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally limited the political power of the poor.”

Among other things, the report offered comparisons across time, which showed the U.S. lagging decades behind Europe throughout the 20th century. The size of subsidies and transfers in the U.S. in 1970 was roughly the same as that in the European Union in 1937. U.S. figures in 1998 roughly matched the EU in 1960.

While American conservatives have long been hysterical about the welfare state in the U.S., two major points need to be stressed. First: German conservatives established the first comprehensive welfare state, under Chancellor Bismarck in the 1880s. Second, the American welfare state is the smallest and least comprehensive in the Western world.

While American conservatives denounce the welfare state for supposedly strangling capitalism, Germany’s welfare state has been crucial to its long-term prosperity, even as the U.S.’ incomplete welfare state has harmed us considerably. For example, without a national system, healthcare costs built into American cars were a crucial factor leading up to the bankruptcy crisis of 2009.

Nearly a half-century after Medicare, the U.S. was finally ready to take a modest half-step forward toward expanding healthcare coverage. But President Obama’s approach was so compromised, and so poorly argued, that it’s now opened the doorway for a massive reversal that could actually eliminate Medicare — a major decimation of the U.S.’ welfare state that would plunge millions of seniors into abject poverty, deprive them of healthcare and subject them to premature death.

Grand bargains

Obama is obsessed with trying to strike a series of “grand bargains” with conservatives, even though they keep rejecting him. As a consequence, he repeatedly begins his negotiations with positions that conservatives have supported in the past, hoping they will support those positions again. At the same time, he refrains from making energetic arguments for the liberal position.

As a result, his stimulus program was roughly 40 per cent tax cuts (even though they’re less effective in creating jobs than direct spending is) in a vain attempt to get Republican support. And when it came to healthcare, his approach was based on Republican proposals from the 1990s, developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It was the same foundation used by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Obama never used the popularity, efficiency, and overall success of Medicare to argue for a government-centered approach, either an immediate full-fledged socialization, aka “Medicare for all,” or a gradualist approach — a public option for those currently without private insurance. Indeed, Obama collaborated with conservative Democrats in the Senate — most notably Max Baucus — to silence those who advocated for these approaches.

Medicare-for-all advocates were reduced to shouting from the audience and getting arrested, despite representing a substantial body of public opinion. Support for the more gradual public-option approach hovered around 60 per cent or more throughout the year-long legislative process. And yet, these proposals — tried and true in the rest of the industrialized world — could not even get a serious hearing.

Such is the power of American deceptionalism: No one else’s experience in the world matters to the American political system.

Less than two years after Obama’s Republican healthcare plan passed, its very modesty is being used against it. Although it did involve considerable long-term cost reductions, it was nothing remotely close to reducing costs to full-fledged welfare state levels.

For example, calculations by the Center for Economic and Policy Research show that, if we Americans could get our per-capita health-care costs down to the level of most central European nations, we would have a budget surplus of around 10 per cent in 2080, rather than the current projected deficit of over 40 per cent.

By ignoring the example of other countries, the American political class has spun itself off into an alternate reality in which nothing short of catastrophically bad choices remain. (The situation of global warming denialism is an instructive parallel, in which facts have become entirely irrelevant.) And so, fueled by an obsession with long-term deficits decades in the future, and ignoring the sky-high level of the unemployed, the U.S. congress may well be about to drift toward abolishing Medicare as its so-called “solution.”

Of course, Republicans like Congressman Paul Ryan, who originated the plan, won’t come right out and say that. And neither will Democrats, now rumored to be thinking of joining them in search of yet another “grand bargain.” Ryan and company say they want to “save” Medicare by replacing it with a voucher system. As one wag put it, it’s like killing my dog named Spot, and giving me a cat named Spot instead, then telling me you haven’t killed Spot. But a variety of studies have stripped all the pretense away.

Most significantly, the vouchers (“premium support” in Orwellian Newspeak) would come nowhere near to paying the cost of health insurance for seniors, and the shortfall would only grow more severe over time. So instead of the government going broke, the people would. That’s the anti-government Republican plan! But at least the plan would keep the private insurance companies making money hand over fist as they deny you coverage.

And since they’re private companies, that counts as a win, according to the rules of American deceptionalism. Even if there is no real competition involved, and Adam Smith would have a heart attack if he saw what was being done in his name.

I’ve concentrated here on healthcare as a key welfare state component. But the same pattern of delusionary grand bargaining can be seen wherever you care to look. Consider “education reform.” “America’s schools are failing!” we’re told. We have to privatize, voucherize, give parents more choice — that alone can save us.

But none of this is supported by evidence, certainly not the evidence of other countries, whose systems are more centralized and less privatized than those of the United States. The U.S. accounts for nearly half of military spending worldwide. The only folks whose overspending ever came close to us was the Soviet Union, and we sure didn’t learn anything from them. On the drug war? Don’t even think of thinking about it!

The list could be extended indefinitely. There is not a single area in which Republicans won’t condemn anything foreign just for being foreign (unless, for some reason they like it, the way Michele Bachmann likes Chinese slave labor). And there’s not a single area where Democrats won’t be defensive about thinking outside the box that Republicans have put them in.

If all this leaves you feeling anxious, relax. After all, as Time will tell you, “Anxiety is good for you!”

[Paul Rosenberg is the Senior Editor of Random Lengths News, a bi-weekly alternative community newspaper. This article was first published by Al Jazeera and was distributed by Progressive America Rising.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Robert Jensen : Occupy Congress


Norman Solomon. Image from Nation of Change.

Occupy Congress:
Norman Solomon sees a
role for progressive legislators

By Robert Jensen | The Rag Blog | November 30, 2011

Conventional politics in the United States focuses on elections, while left activists typically argue that political change comes not from electing better politicians but building movements strong enough to force politicians to accept progressive change.

Norman Solomon has concluded it isn’t either/or. A prominent writer and leader in left movements for decades, Solomon is running for Congress in the hopes of being practical and remaining principled.

“Since I first went to a protest at age 14 in 1966 — a picket line to desegregate an apartment complex — my outlook on electoral politics has gone through a lot of changes,” Solomon said. “First I thought politics was largely about elections, later I thought politics had very little to do with elections, and now I believe that elections are an important part of the mix.

Solomon argues that when the left has treated elections as irrelevant, the result has been self-marginalization that helps empower the military-industrial complex.

“The view that genuine progressives should leave the electoral field to corporate Democrats and right-wing Republicans no longer makes sense to me. I used to say that having a strong progressive movement was much more important than who was in office, but now I’d say that what we really need is a strong progressive movement AND much better people in office,” he said.

“Having John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Jim McGovern, Raul Grijalva, Lynn Woolsey in Congress is important. We need more of those sorts of legislators as part of the political landscape.”

The 60-year-old Solomon had been considering such a strategy, and when Woolsey announced she was not running for re-election in her northern California district, he entered the race with the goal of staying true to his left political views, and winning.

“I’m skeptical about election campaigns that abandon principles, but I’m also skeptical about campaigns that have no hope of winning and that are only for protest or public education,” he said. “There are more effective ways to protest and to educate.”

Solomon said that if elected he would strive to change the relationship between social movements and members of Congress.

“Progressive movements and leaders in Congress should be working in tandem,” he said. “I want to strengthen the Congressional Progressive Caucus and help make it more of a force to be reckoned with.”

Solomon said that a reinvigorated Progressive Caucus could be more effective in fighting for the human right of quality healthcare for all; ending the perpetual war of the warfare state, what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism”; pushing back against the power of Wall Street; replacing corporate power with people power

Solomon is most widely known for his media criticism and activism, through his “Media Beat” weekly column that was nationally syndicated and his work with Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. In 1997 he founded the Institute for Public Accuracy, a national consortium of policy researchers and analysts for which he served as executive director for 13 years.

Solomon became more visible in mainstream media through his trip to Iraq with actor Sean Penn on the eve of the U.S. invasion, part of anti-war efforts to prevent that coming catastrophe. Solomon’s 2005 book, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, and a companion film drew on his media and political expertise to analyze the war machine. (Full disclosure: I found the book and film so compelling that I brought Solomon to my campus to speak.

Polls indicate that Solomon is competitive in a Democratic primary that includes a state assemblyman, a county supervisor, and two businesspeople. Penn is supporting Solomon’s campaign, which has also received endorsement from U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers. Fundraising is always a struggle, especially since he committed to “corporate-free fundraising.”

“By raising more than $250,000 from more than 2,000 different people, we’ve shown that we can raise the needed funds without a single dollar from corporate PACs,” Solomon said. “But we need to raise a lot more, and the month of December will be crucial — end-of-year totals will be seen by many as a self-fulfilling gauge of our capacity to gain enough support to win.”

Solomon believes that citizen frustration with concentrated wealth, and the political dominance that big money buys, is opening up new possibilities for progressive candidates.

“Our campaign is very much in sync with Occupy Wall Street,” he said. “Issues that I’ve been talking about from the outset of this campaign last January, and for many years before that, are part of the OWS focus — Wall Street’s undemocratic power, the widening disparities between the rich and the rest of us, the need to eject corporate money from politics.”

Solomon has described his politics as “green New Deal,” arguing for a vigorous government role in providing quality education, adequate health care, consumer protection, civil liberties, and environmental safeguards.

For leftists, two questions hover: Can a candidate go beyond liberal positions and articulate anti-capitalist and anti-empire politics during a campaign? If elected, can a member of Congress stay true to those principles? Movement activists are wary of left/liberal politicians who push their rhetoric toward the center to get elected and then end up advocating centrist policies.

Solomon said he identifies with a phrase Penn used at a campaign rally: “principle as strategy.”

“I intend to stick with principles, what I believe and what I’m willing to fight for,” Solomon said. “The quest is not for heightened rhetoric, it’s for deeper meaning, with insistence on policies to match — economic populism, human rights, civil liberties, ending wars, and working for social equity.”

Though that agenda suggests radical change, Solomon said he doesn’t use the term “radical,” opting instead for terms such as “genuine progressive,” “progressive populism,” and “independent progressive” to describe himself and his campaign.

“The term radical can be understood as ‘to the root,’ but what it conveys to most of the public is that we are extreme and the status quo isn’t,” he said. “But look at the huge disparities between rich and poor, catastrophic climate change and destruction of ecology, inflicting massive suffering, extreme violence of war, and on and on. I would say the status quo is extreme.”

[Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, where he teaches courses in media law, ethics, and politics — and a board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. His books include All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, and Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. His writing is published extensively in mainstream and alternative media. Robert Jensen can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu. Read more articles by Robert Jensen on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

What Is Truth?
(in 2 x 400 words)

By Bill Meacham / The Rag Blog / November 30, 2011

Philosophy Now magazine runs an occasional contest: Write an answer to a philosophical question in 400 words or fewer. The winning essays are printed in the magazine. My essay in answer to the question “What Is Truth” was selected(1), and I am pleased to present it here, along with another winning essay by my colleague Robert “Little Bobby” Tables.

Several factors determine the truthfulness of a theory or an explanation of events: congruence, consistency, coherence and usefulness.

  • A true theory is congruent with our experience. It fits the facts. No fact is left unexplained. It is falsifiable, and nothing falsifying has been found. People think truth is correspondence to reality, understood as something independent of us. But we don’t have direct contact with reality, only with our experience of it.
  • When what we experience is predictable then we can infer that our theory corresponds with reality. Our theory is congruent with the facts, as we experience them. When we discover new facts, we can change our theory. Truth is always provisional, not an end state.
  • A true theory is internally consistent. It has no contradictions within itself, and it all fits together elegantly. Consistency allows us to infer things from what we already know. An inconsistent theory, one that contains contradictions, does not allow us to do this.
  • A true theory is coherent with everything else we consider true. It confirms, or at least fails to contradict, the rest of our knowledge, where “knowledge” means beliefs for which we can give rigorous reasons. The physical sciences, for example, hold together quite well. Physics, chemistry, geology, biology and astronomy all reinforce each other.
  • A true theory is useful. It has predictive power, allowing us to gain control of the world by making good choices concerning what is likely to happen, choices that pan out. It gives us mastery. When we act on the basis of a true theory or explanation, our actions are successful.

Truth enables us to exert our power, in the sense of our ability to get things done, successfully. We master both the world of physical things and the world of ideas, of theory. What is true is what works to organize our practice and our thought, so that we are able both to handle reality effectively and to reason with logical rigor to true conclusions.

Truth is useful. Does that mean that what is useful is true? That is not a useful question. Let’s not ask what truth is; let’s ask instead how we can recognize it reliably when it appears. If a theory is congruent with our experience, internally consistent, coherent with everything else we know, and useful for organizing our thinking and practice, then we can confidently consider it true.

What is truth?

Following is the essay by Robert Tables.

Truth is interpersonal. We tell each other things, and when they work out we call them truths. When they don’t, we call them errors or, if we are not charitable, lies. What we take as truth depends on what others around us espouse. For many centuries European Christians believed that men had one fewer rib than women because the Bible says that Eve was created from Adam’s rib. Nobody bothered to count because everyone assumed it was true. And when they finally counted, it was because everyone agreed on the count that the real truth became known. Even when we are alone, truth is interpersonal. We express these truths or errors or lies to others and to ourselves in language; and, as Wittgenstein pointed out, there can be no private language.

But the most essential truth, the truth by which we all live our lives, is intensely personal, private. We might call this “Truth,” with a capital T. Even though each of us lives our life by it, it can be different for each person. Shall I believe and obey the Torah, the New Testament, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Zend Avesta, the Dhammapada? Or none of the above: shall I find my own Truth in my own way? Am I more authentic if I do so? What if I find my Truth and it sets me apart from others? Am I then authentically lonely?

We need a community of seekers with a commitment to meta-Truth, recognizing that everyone’s personal Truth is to be respected, even though it might differ from someone else’s.

But even in such a community, some beliefs would be acceptable and others not. My belief that I am exceptional and deserve preferential treatment, perhaps because I alone have received a special revelation, is not likely to be shared by others. Whether that changes my mind or not depends on how compelling are my reasons for believing it and how deeply I feel the need for acceptance. From within the in-group we look with fear and revulsion on those who deny the accepted beliefs. From outside, we admire those who hold aloft the light of truth amidst the darkness of human ignorance.

And in every case it is we who judge, not I alone. Even the most personal Truth is adjudicated within a community and depends on the esteem of others.

— Robert Tables

[Bill Meacham is an independent scholar in philosophy. A former staffer at Austin’s 60s underground paper, The Rag, Bill received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin. Meacham spent many years working as a computer programmer, systems analyst, and project manager. He posts at Philosophy for Real Life, where this article also appears. Read more articles by Bill Meacham on The Rag Blog.]

1) Philosophy Now magazine, “What Is Truth?” Issue 86 Sept/Oct 2011, pp. 34-37. London: Anya Publications, 2011. Also online publication, URL = http://www.philosophynow.org/issue86/What_Is_Truth as of 22 November 2011.

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment