Harvey Wasserman : California Quake Hit Could Irradiate Entire Country

The Fukushima No. 1 power plant of Tokyo Electric Power at Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, northern Japan, shown in a photograph from October 2008. Japan has issued a state of emergency at the nuclear power plant after its cooling system failed. Photo from AP.

Had it hit off the California coast:
Japan’s quake could have
irradiated the entire United States

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / March 11, 2011

Had the massive 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast, it could have ripped apart at least four coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the entire United States.

The two huge reactors each at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are not designed to withstand such powerful shocks. All four are extremely close to major faults.

All four reactors are located relatively low to the coast. They are vulnerable to tsunamis like those now expected to hit as many as 50 countries.

San Onofre sits between San Diego and Los Angeles. A radioactive cloud spewing from one or both reactors there would do incalculable damage to either or both urban areas before carrying over the rest of southern and central California.

Diablo Canyon is at Avila Beach, on the coast just west of San Luis Obispo, between Los Angeles and San Francisco. A radioactive eruption there would pour into central California and, depending on the winds, up to the Bay Area or southeast into Santa Barbara and then to Los Angeles. The cloud would at very least permanently destroy much of the region on which most Americans rely for their winter supply of fresh vegetables.

By the federal Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the owners of the destroyed reactors — including Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison — would be covered by private insurance only up to $11 billion, a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars worth of damage that would be done. The rest would become the responsibility of the federal taxpayer and the fallout victims. Virtually all homeowner insurance policies in the United States exempt the insurers from liability from a reactor disaster.

The most definitive recent study of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster puts the death toll at 985,000. The accident irradiated a remote rural area. The nearest city, Kiev, is 80 kilometers away.

But San Luis Obispo is some ten miles directly downwind from Diablo Canyon. The region around San Onofre has become heavily suburbanized.

Heavy radioactive fallout spread from Chernobyl blanketed all of Europe within a matter of days. It covered an area far larger than the United States.

Fallout did hit the jet stream and then the coast of California, thousands of miles away, within 10 days. It then carried all the way across the northern tier of the United States.

Chernobyl Unit Four was of comparable size to the two reactors at Diablo Canyon, and somewhat larger than the two at San Onofre.

But it was very new when it exploded. California’s four coastal reactors have been operating since the 1970s and 1980s. Their accumulated internal radioactive burdens could exceed what was spewed at Chernobyl.

Japanese officials say all affected reactors automatically shut, with no radiation releases. But they are not reliable. In 2007 a smaller earthquake rocked the seven-reactor Kashiwazaki site and forced its lengthy shutdown.

Preliminary reports indicate at least one fire at a Japanese reactor hit by this quake and tsunami.

In 1986 the Perry nuclear plant, east of Cleveland, was rocked by a 5.5 Richter-scale shock, many orders of magnitude weaker than this one. That quake broke pipes and other key equipment within the plant. It took out nearby roads and bridges.

Thankfully, Perry had not yet opened. An official Ohio commission later warned that evacuation during such a quake would be impossible.

Numerous other American reactors sit on or near earthquake faults.

The Obama Administration is now asking Congress for $36 billion in new loan guarantees to build more commercial reactors.

It has yet to reveal its exact plans for dealing with a major reactor disaster. Nor has it identified the cash or human reserves needed to cover the death and destruction imposed by the reactors’ owners.

[Harvey Wasserman edits NukeFree.org. He is Senior Advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. He co-authored Killing Our Own: the Disaster of America’s Experience with Atomic Radiation.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

Anne Lewis : Workers’ Rights and the Fight Against Poverty

Labor leader John L. Lewis testifies before Congress in 1947. Still image from archival film footage.

Poverty in America and the
attack on public sector unions

I want to ask a basic question that unifies religious, labor, and community organizations at the core. Why in this, the richest country in the world, are people poor?

By Anne Lewis / The Rag Blog / March 10, 2011

The labor movement has rarely won anything without the social movement, and the social movement has rarely won anything without the labor movement. One often cited example is Dr. King’s 1963 March for Jobs and Freedom initiated by A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.

If you have any doubts about the necessity of a combined effort, watch this archival film of John L. Lewis when he testified before Congress in 1947 about health care and pensions for miners paid by the coal companies.

The resulting welfare fund, hard fought at the grassroots level by miners and their families, was the most comprehensive health care that I can think of. I know because I was covered under it from the mid seventies to the eighties when it was lost under Reagan.

We frequently marginalize each other — social movement folks saying unions don’t matter anymore and condemning labor “bureaucrats” and union folks saying that social movement people don’t care about workers and have grandiose ideas of their own power. Some of us get downright schizophrenic dividing our lives into two segments. It’s time we stop this nonsense. We need to speak a common language.

I want to ask a basic question that unifies religious, labor, and community organizations at the core. Why in this, the richest country in the world, are people poor? Please think about how you might respond.

That same question was posed to a wide segment of people, rich and poor, in 2001. The NPR survey provides an analysis of public response to welfare reform (many of us called it deform) during the Clinton administration.

Here’s a table that asks whether it’s circumstances that create poverty or poor people themselves not doing enough. The percentages describe poverty level — we know it’s set way too low. In 2001 200% of poverty for a family of four was $34,000.


Then NPR asked folks to name the most important cause of poverty in the United States.


Number one is “the poor quality of public schools.”

At about the same time, the Heritage Foundation decided to prove poverty in the United States wasn’t a problem after all. The Heritage Foundation survey is titled, “Understanding Poverty in America.” Here’s the starting point.

The next bar graph compares the living space of poor people in the United States favorably to that of the average European.

CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE.

Here are two more rational definitions of poverty:

Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having the land on which to grow one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and exclusion of individuals, households and communities. It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation. — United Nations

To meet nutritional requirements, to escape avoidable disease, to be sheltered, to be clothed, to be able to travel, and to be educated. — Amartya Sen

Better, right? We’re at least getting to the idea of living well and a more humane definition. Notably lacking is the mention of labor unions and collective action, although you could make the argument that the United Nations definition pushes us in that direction with language about effective participation, dignity, and jobs. The lack of worker organization isn’t mentioned in the NPR study. Neither is discrimination, race, ethnicity, or gender or environment or workers’ rights.

Would you have named lack of unionization or lousy labor law or something like that as an important reason why poverty exists in this country?

In July 2002, union members overall had a 20% higher hourly wage ($20.65 vs. $16.42). In blue-collar industry it was $18.88 vs. $12.95; in service occupations, $16.22 vs. $8.98. That’s not counting benefits. Those ratios have remained constant.

Currently nearly one in three public workers are union members compared with 6.9 percent of the workers in private-sector industries. These organized workers are under siege in Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, Indiana, Ohio, and here in Texas. Many work in public schools and universities. The occupation of the Wisconsin capitol started with 2,000 graduate teaching assistants and union members from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, on Feb. 14. The attack on these workers and on the work that they do is tightly connected — and they are fighting back.

First, education is not, in and of itself, a cure for poverty. NPR poll aside, “Poor quality of public schools” is not the most important cause of poverty. We could go on and on about how good or bad our schools are, but lack of education is not the leading indicator of poverty.

As much as we’d like it to be so, there isn’t any substantial difference in the average wage of a high school graduate and a high school drop out. It’s considerably less than the boost from unionization. Remember unionization gave a worker at least a 20% boost in wages. A high school diploma gives a less than 15% boost.

The attack on teachers’ unions in this country has been absolutely barbaric and I believe it violates international standards of dignity and decency.

Unfortunately, the way we’ve been looking at education both at primary and secondary level is supply-side economics: improve the quality of workers through education and grow the quantity of quality workers– all for the rich employers — and they won’t be poor no more because the rich will take care of them. Well it doesn’t work that way any more than tax breaks for the rich have created an economy that benefits all of us.

All this talk about creating a competitive workforce for the global economy and endless debates about whether our public schools and universities do or don’t meet the demands of the marketplace is a bunch of hooey. But most folks believe this nonsense. Me too. When I think about our teen-age son’s future, I immediately think: will he finish high school; will his grades and SAT scores be high enough to get into a good college; what’s a high ranked college we can afford… and so on.

Even though I know darn well that there would be much better ways to go about making sure that our child has a good future — make sure that his nutrition is good, introduce him to cultural expression, work to strengthen our community with public transportation, public space, libraries, and museums, fight for the rights of public school workers and quality public schools, and fight for the rights of all workers, especially their right to organize.

The attack on teachers’ unions in this country has been absolutely barbaric and I believe it violates international standards of dignity and decency. I also believe there are large elements of sexism involved here. 70% of public school teachers are women overall. In Texas about 82% of elementary and middle school teachers are female. At UT, about 80% of full professors are male and about 60% of lecturers are female.

Working conditions for teachers are really lousy. Think about being the only adult in front of a class of 20 eight-year-olds and having to pee. Forced overtime — hours worked without pay are unbelievable — and pay isn’t so great. Wisconsin teachers average about $40,000 a year. Lecturers in my department, which is unusually well paid, start at $6,500 a class and are only allowed two classes a semester and two semesters a year. That’s $26,000 a year for what works out to be full time work with an unpaid leave over the summer.

Still image from archival film of John Lewis testifying before Congress in 1947.

In 2002, No Child Left Behind began a new attack in the name of school reform by devaluing teachers in the name of accountability. It was really insidious. It told teachers what to say in their classrooms (teachers in low performance schools are scripted like actors these days); used corporate standardized tests to tell teachers what to teach; it bought curriculum prescribed by corporations (yes folks like Pearson Education, Houghlin Mifflin, and The Pet Goat publisher McGraw Hill use the language of illness as though kids are sick and they’re doctors); and emphasized charter schools and privatization as salvation. And it’s not just the Republicans. Think of Arne Duncan and the Race to the Top.

Now I would agree that our public schools have failed Latino and African American and working class children. That’s one of the reasons that so many parents fought for integration. We know that separate is not equal. Now we have further segregation of the schools in a system based on and currently exhibiting apartheid.

I don’t think the language is too extreme. A very interesting study explores the role of the Koch brothers of Wisconsin fame in defeating the Wake County, North Carolina, socio-economic integration plan. That plan was a model of quality education for all children for the country. The Kochs poured money into the school board race, cast the plan as communistic, and put in a new school board. They won and the children and teachers of Wake County lost big.

Then we have “Waiting for Superman,” which I watched at the Alamo Drafthouse South with a “progressive” Austin audience who giggled at those lazy teachers, cried and then rejoiced with the poor little black child who won a school lottery, and really dug the idea that the problem with the public school system was teacher tenure and their union. I resorted to drink.

Here’s a cartoon from Saving Our Schools from Superman that sums up the movie.

Saving our schools from Superman

At UT, our buildings are plastered with plaques that reveal the connections between the corporate world and higher education. We have the Accenture Endowed Excellence Fund; the Arthur Anderson and Co. Centennial Professorship; Austin Smiles Endowed Fellowship in Speech Pathology; Bank of America Centennial Professorship in Petroleum Engineering; Enstar Chair for Free Enterprise; La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc. Centennial Professorship in Nursing; the BP Exploration Classroom Endowment; Conoco Phillips Faculty Fellowship in Law; and so on.

We have a University President whose three legislative priorities are:

  • no disproportionate cuts (I guess it’s okay to cut education as long as we also let folks die on the streets);
  • support for the Texas Competitive Knowledge Fund (dollar match for external research support);
  • and a new engineering building.

We have a legislature and a state governor that doen’t believe in public services at all — not education, not health care — not for children, not for the disabled, not for the elderly. They’re cutting off college scholarships and denying the rights of immigrants as well as working class students an education.

That’s the external world. The internal one at the University of Texas, Austin is that the budget crunch is used as an excuse to do what the higher-ups have wanted to do all along. Raise tuitions and cut programs that serve students and lay off lecturers, graduate students, and staff (we’re down to once a month office cleanings). Do away with the Identity Studies Centers that we fought to bring to the University — African American, Asian, Mexican American, women, and gender. Forget undergraduate education and turn us into an elite research institution.

We need to join every progressive force in this country into a movement that will finally put an end to the systemic destruction of educational opportunity and workers’ rights.

Before I summarize this rant, I wanted you to see a scene from an interview I did with the Director of Public Affairs, Martin Fox, at the National Right to Work Committee. That’s one of the main organizations that the Koch brothers fund and hang out with.

The clip is from a documentary I made in the context of the Pittston coal strike, which was about health care for retired and disabled miners and widows. “Justice in the Coalfields” is about the contradictions between individual and collective rights and what justice means.

The clip begins with a map of right to work states — you’ll be hearing a lot about that in the next few months. It ends with Bradley McKenzie who led a student walkout in support of the miners. He became a non-union coal miner because there were no union jobs, but his ideas express solidarity at its core. In between is Martin Fox who handled press communications for the Committee at the time.

Martin Fox was a proud member of the National Rifle Association. I know this because I watched him get in his car, with a customized license plate that read “GETAGUN.” Martin Fox is now President of the National Pro Life Alliance and a priest. He holds forth on unions on his blog.

Who has the power to challenge these obscene thugs who have taken over our country? Who wants to challenge them?

Well we do. The “we” is organized labor — public worker unions. Really, we’re not providing state “services.” We’re providing public necessities. We’re helping the social movement create a vision of a more decent world that includes the working class. And when we collectively fight for ourselves to have decent pay and decent working conditions and democratic control in the work place, we’re not in contradiction with the public good. We’re supporting it.

There are a lot of us. The Texas State Employees Union TSEU-CWA local 1686 has 12,000 members in Texas. We have large numbers of women and African Americans and Latinos. Discrimination has been slightly less in the public sector and these workers are more likely to join a union because of a history of struggle. AFT has 57,000 members in Texas and TSTA has 65,000 members. And there are state workers organized by AFSCME and other unions.

Those of us in the labor movement and those of us in the social movement have got to get to know each other. We need to practice democracy together and work together. We need to join every progressive force in this country into a movement that will finally put an end to the systemic destruction of educational opportunity and workers’ rights.

There’s a great line at the end of a Committees of Correspondence statement on Wisconsin:

And to the workers of Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio: our heartfelt thanks — may your occupation of the statehouses foretell the day when you become the governors.

[Anne Lewis is an independent filmmaker associated with Appalshop, senior lecturer at UT-Austin, and member of TSEU-CWA Local 6186 and NABET-CWA. She is the associate director of Harlan County, U.S.A and the producer/director of Fast Food Women, To Save the Land and People, Morristown: in the air and sun, and a number of other social issue and cultural documentaries. Her website is annelewis.org.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Danny Schechter : ‘March Madness’ in American Politics

Digital photomanipulation from deviantart.

‘March Madness’ takes on new meaning:
Peddling the irrational in American politics

By Danny Schechter / The Rag Blog / March 9, 2011

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold — William Butler Yeats

The term class war has been extricated from the archives of another era, while divisions over the future of the economy have become a battleground in which the adversaries yell at each other, but rarely engage in any discourse with each other in a shared language.

The worse things get, the harder it is for people to agree on what to do.

This is a month known in the USA for the “March Madness” college basketball finals, but the madness seems now to be oozing from sports arenas into political capitols.

In the Middle East, all the political turmoil will ultimately impact on a regional economy built on the flow and price of oil, contends author/historian Michael Klare:

Whatever the outcome of the protests, uprisings, and rebellions now sweeping the Middle East, one thing is guaranteed: the world of oil will be permanently transformed. Consider everything that’s now happening as just the first tremor of an oilquake that will shake our world to its core.

Back in the once thought of as “stable” United States, the economic crisis has finally spurred a confrontation between right and left with noisy protests following threatened crackdowns on union rights to collective bargaining, and cutbacks on social programs.

Conservatives hype the austerity programs that divided and created chaos in Ireland as the model Americans should be following.

Writes Terrance Heath,

The irony is that the things that the Heritage (Foundation) praises about Ireland’s economy are what drove it to the brink of extinction… Ireland followed the same tax-cutting, deregulating conservative economic path to its misfortune that led America to its own. That Ireland stands as an example of austerity’s epic failure, makes it even more mystifying that conservatives keep spotlighting the clearest example of the disastrous impact of conservative economic policy.

Activists in the sweltering heat of Egypt hold up signs praising protesters in Wisconsin while the shivering public workers in the snow of Madison talk about struggling “like an Egyptian.”

Who would have thunk?

The poet Yeats once wrote that things fall apart when the center doesn’t hold, and his words seem prophetically appropriate to the unraveling now underway in the U.S. with fierce political combat paralyzing the Congress and rhetoric escalating into a realm beyond the rational.

Even as a film won an Academy Award for calling the collapse of the economy an “inside job,” there is no consensus on the causes of the financial crisis.

The debate about what to do, and whether or not to punish wrongdoers, rages on even as the media looks away from the consequences — the armies of permanently unemployed and growing foreclosures.

Politicians only worry about public budgets, not the private pain of their constituents.

An ideological fight over policy footnotes is considered de rigueur but the suffering of those unable to cope with cutoffs of benefits, rising gas and food prices, and growing despair, is considered a “bummer.”

Many Democrats want so badly to move on that they avoid discussions of Wall Street crime and massive fraud. The President sees all that as unproductive because his new focus is to “win the future.” Believe it or not, that slogan comes from a book by Newt Gingrich.

The White House deliberately stayed away from protests in Wisconsin, later scolding the Democratic Party apparatus after learning that it was urging supporters to back worker protests. For them, such pro-union activism was decidedly off-message, reports The New York Times.

And so much for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report with 633 pages of documented analysis about how the system imploded. That was last week’s non-story.

Republicans want to change the subject and have found new theories to divert attention and/or make the debate so complicated that no one except some Ph.D.’s can follow it.

And even they have problems doing so.

Fed head Ben Bernanke who ignored calls to stop mortgage fraud when it might have made a difference now says that the crisis was caused by China.

It’s all their fault!

The Chinese meanwhile buy up American debt and keep our system going.

The right conspiracy theorists have a new explanation to amuse themselves with as well: the crisis was caused by terrorists.

The Washington Times, a newspaper owned by the Moonies, reports:

Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system…

Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela or Iran.

That just about throws all the “bad guys” they could come up with into one big barrel of ducks to shoot at. Never mind, that this “revelation” is vague and totally undocumented.

On the left, artists explore apocalyptic themes, not a serious activist response. One new exhibit is called “The Days of this Society Are Numbered.”

Inspired by a famous statement by French thinker Guy Debord, proclaiming that THE DAYS OF THIS SOCIETY ARE NUMBERED, this exhibition plays with the notion that at the beginning of the XXI century one is experiencing a period of fin de siècle, in which the state of affairs is questioned and a collective anxiety is emerging, a situation caused by the feeling of political, economic, and cultural crisis that is permeating the Western world and is creating a social entropy.

Perhaps there is something in the water or the political ether that precludes any agreement on facts, much less a consensus on what to do about them.

Resolve on punishing mortgage fraudsters has gotten caught up in arcane debate over obtuse contractual language. Even as “pervasive fraud” was documented by the FBI, no one, least of all the regulators, can agree on who is responsible and what the fines and penalties should be.

It’s clear that denial is not just a river in Egypt. Reports The New York Times, “as the negotiations grind on, there are signs that the banks have still not come to grips with the problems plaguing the foreclosure process.”

The newspaper of record does not look at the record to note that big banks may have no interest in coming “to grips” with charges that they defrauded their customers.

All of this “debate” functions like a fog machine to insure that the public doesn’t know what is happening, and to insure that the class at the top is not treated like the class at the bottom as Naked Capitalism.com’s Yves Smith observes:

It is one thing to point out a sorry reality, that the rich and powerful often get away with abuses while ordinary citizens seldom do. It’s quite another to present it as inevitable.

It would be far more productive to isolate what are the key failings in our legal, prosecutorial, and regulatory regime are and demand changes. The fact that financial fraud cases are often difficult does not mean they are unwinnable.

Winnable or not, there seems to be rational calculation — even a carefully constructed strategy — behind the increasingly irrational political debate.

Perhaps it’s a form of a calculated lack of “intelligent design” that belongs right up there with classic political strategies in which invented realities and message points become believable they more they are repeated.

George Bush once contrasted a fact-based political order with his preferred faith-based one. That’s why all the exposes of his WMD claims in Iraq rolled off his back and never stuck.

The madness this month is like a chicken that has come home to roost, reminding us again that the only time we can tell when a politician is lying is when his or her lips start moving.

[News Dissector and blogger Danny Schechter directed Plunder The Crime of Our Time, a film assessing the financial crisis as a crime story. Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org.

The Rag Blog

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

he Attack on the Public Sector and How Unions are Fighting Bac

The Attack on the Public Sector and How Unions are Fighting Back

The labor movement has rarely won anything without the social movement, and the social movement has rarely won anything without the labor movement. One often cited example is Dr. King’s 1963 March for Jobs and Freedom initiated by A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.

If you have any doubts about the necessity of a combined effort, watch this archival film of John L. Lewis when he testified before Congress about health care and pensions for miners paid by the coal companies. The resulting welfare fund, hard fought at the grassroots level by miners and their families, was the most comprehensive health care that I can think of. I know because I was covered under it from the mid seventies to the eighties when it was lost under Reagan.

We frequently marginalize each other – social movement folks saying unions don’t matter anymore and condemning labor “bureaucrats” and union folks saying that social movement people don’t care about workers and have grandiose ideas of their own power. Some of us get downright schizophrenic dividing our lives into two segments. It’s time we stop this nonsense. We need to speak a common language.

I want to ask a basic question that unifies religious, labor, and community organizations at the core. Why in this, the richest country in the world, are people poor? Please think about how you might respond.

That same question was posed to a wide segment of people, rich and poor, in 2001. The NPR survey provides an analysis of public response to welfare reform (many of us called it deform) during the Clinton administration.

Here’s a table that asks whether it’s circumstances that create poverty or poor people themselves not doing enough. The percentages describe poverty level — we know it’s set way too low. In 2001 200% of poverty for a family of four was $34,000.

People not doing enough
Circumstances
Don’t know
Total
48
45
7

Type rest of the post here

Source

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Lamar W. Hankins : Alzheimer’s and Another Face of Elder Abuse

Image from In Good Feather.

Elder abuse is a complicated matter:
Dementia and the issue of passive restraint

By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / March 9, 2011

During my visits with Dad at the group home, I witnessed several people with Alzheimer’s harm themselves because they did not have adequate passive assistance devices.

The Senate Special Committee on Aging this past week held hearings titled “Justice for All: Ending Elder Abuse, Neglect and Financial Exploitation.” The hearings were stimulated in large part by a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report that identified elder abuse — physical, economic, and psychological — in just over 14% of the elder population living in the community, rather than in institutions.

The GAO report defined neglect as “refusal or failure to fulfill a person’s obligations or duties to an older adult.” Specifically, the report provides that neglect means “refusing or failing to provide an older adult with such necessities as food, water, clothing, shelter, personal hygiene, medicine, comfort, personal safety, and other essentials.”

While honoring obligations to older adults can be a challenge, whether in the community or in institutions, those obligations are particularly challenging when the older adult has cognitive incapacities. I use as an example my father, who died recently at the age of 94, after living and declining with Alzheimer’s Disease for 15 years.

The most prominent and widely-recognized characteristic of Alzheimer’s is the loss of memory for recent events or knowledge that once seemed almost in-born. My father spent 44 years as a machinist. It was from him that I learned about tools, automobile maintenance, and general repairs.

After he retired, he fixed a small lock for a roll-up closure on a Hoosier chest we own. The lock had been broken and he fashioned the missing part on his lathe. I admired his skill. His ability to use algorithms and other complex math always amazed me, especially because he completed only one semester of college before learning the machinist trade and spending all of his working life at The Texas Company (which became Texaco and then Chevron).

About 16 years ago, I was installing a handicapped toilet for my mother at their home and he was helping me. I asked him to hand me the crescent wrench and he was unable to make the distinction between a crescent wrench and an open box wrench, tools he had spent a life working with, and that he had taught me how to use.

That was when I first felt that something was wrong. Mother confirmed that there had been other signs of a cognitive problem. Eventually, he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and prescribed various medicines that seemed to slow his decline. When my mother’s abilities started waning and Dad’s disease was clearly advancing, my parents asked if they could move in with us.

Just over two years later, mother died. Ten days later dad tripped over his own feet, breaking his left hip. Until then, despite all the reading I had done about Alzheimer’s, I had not known that walking and balance could become a special problem for Alzheimer’s patients.

As the brain becomes more and more affected by Alzheimer’s, the functions controlled by the brain diminish or simply disappear. After his hip surgery and rehab, we established elaborate precautions to prevent him from having another fall. He could walk on a walker only with a wide web belt (commonly called a gait belt or transfer belt) around his chest held by someone to keep him from falling should his feet become tangled up.

When he was in a wheel chair, a seat belt connected to an alarm would alert a caregiver that he had unbuckled it and was about to stand up and someone could assist him. One morning, a caregiver failed to activate the alarm when the seat belt was fastened. After she left the breakfast table for a moment, dad got up to get some milk from the refrigerator, not remembering that he could not walk safely without assistance. He fell and broke his right hip.

For the next year or so that he lived with us, we established simple, but thorough protocols to prevent another fall. Whoever came into our home to assist him was educated about the need always to follow the established protocols. There was a bed alarm, a chair alarm, and the wheelchair seat belt alarm. All of the alarms kept him from another damaging fall.

When an Alzheimer’s Group Home opened in our town and the expenses of home care exceeded the cost of the group home, we moved him to the group home where he lived with a dozen or so other, mostly Alzheimer’s, patients. All of the protocols we had established at our home were put in place at the group home, but we had to get a written order from a physician for the seat belt alarm because the facility’s manager believed that the seat belt was a restraint. Under state rules, it is not.

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services provided me with the official definition of a restraint: “Restraints (physical) — Any manual method, or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached, or adjacent to the resident’s body, that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one’s body.” Dad often released the seat belt, the alarm sounded, and someone was able to assist him before he stood up and fell.

During my visits with Dad for the 20 months he lived at the group home, I witnessed several people for whom Alzheimer’s was a dangerous condition that caused them to harm themselves because they did not have adequate passive assistance devices.

I saw people lurch out of their chairs and smash their faces on the floor, requiring trips to the emergency room or hospitalization. I saw others who had become so unstable that they could not walk unassisted, yet they had no protections other than the alertness of a sometimes overburdened staff to keep them from falling and hurting themselves.

Alzheimer’s patients need to have protocols developed to protect them from harm without unnecessarily restraining them from normal daily activities. Such protocols are not now mandated by regulations or institutional procedures at most facilities serving Alzheimer’s patients.

Dad had been receiving hospice services for more than two years before his death. A few months before he died, the hospice nurse had recommended that I find a nursing home that would better meet his increasing needs for more nursing care. I started looking around for an appropriate nursing facility. I was pleased that several new nursing homes had opened within 15 miles of our home.

What I found when I visited most of these facilities was that they prided themselves in being “restraint-free.” To them, in spite of the regulatory definition of restraint, the seat belt was a restraint. Several refused admission for him if he kept the seat belt on his wheel chair.

I explained to all that the seat belt was necessary to prevent him from harming himself because he could not remember that he was unable to walk unassisted — an effect of the Alzheimer’s Disease. When he removed the belt, the alarm alerted staff to assist him so that he did not stand up, fall, and hurt himself.

Yet some facility managers insisted that the seat belt was a restraint. I met with facility administrators, nursing directors, and admission officers at several facilities. At one facility, after a meeting with me to discuss the matter, the manager recognized that the seat belt was not a restraint and was needed to protect my father from harm.

For those who insisted that the seat belt was a restraint, I explained that I was my father’s medical agent under a Medical Power of Attorney. According to law, therefore, when I spoke about what was acceptable medical treatment, it was as though my father were speaking. If I said he needed the seat belt to prevent harm, it was as though he had said, “I need the seat belt to keep me from harming myself.” Some of them understood. Others did not care.

Two weeks before his death, I contacted two legal groups that litigate on behalf of the disabled. I intended to sue any facility that would not accept him because of his disability, which necessitated the use of a seat belt alarm system to protect him.

Dad died before we arranged for him to move to a nursing facility, so the principle for which I was prepared to fight on his behalf was not satisfactorily resolved. Nevertheless, at the time of his death he had been accepted, seat belt and all, by at least two nursing facilities.

All nursing facilities should be required to recognize the special needs of Alzheimer’s and other dementia patients and adjust their procedures to the needs of such patients. No one should be restrained without medical necessity, but when protective assists are needed, no definition or public relations concept — such as “we are a restraint-free facility” — should be used to prevent needed care.

Disability advocates should broaden their views, and all medical agents should be prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to protect those to whom they have a legal and moral obligation. Otherwise, our system of advance directives is meaningless, and disability rights is farcical.

Elder abuse takes many forms, as testimony before the Senate Special Committee on Aging has shown. But financial exploitation, physical neglect, and psychological mistreatment are not its only manifestations. The lack of attention to the special needs of Alzheimer’s patients and others with cognitive disabilities must be considered realistically and identified clearly as another form of elder abuse deserving resolution.

We have legal and moral responsibilities to all of the elderly to make sure that our institutions that serve them satisfy their obligations of appropriate care.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos, Texas, city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins.]

The Rag Blog

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

BOOKS / Doug Ireland : Martin Duberman’s Dual Bio of Deming and McReynolds


A Saving Remnant:
Two lives of courage and commitment

Barbara Deming and David McReynolds were ‘out’ pioneers of the left.

By Doug Ireland / The Rag Blog / March 9, 2011

[A SAVING REMNANT: The Radical Lives of Barbara Deming and David McReynolds, by Martin Duberman (The New Press, March 1, 2011); Hardcover; 298 pp; $27.95.]

Martin Duberman, known as “the father of gay studies,” is a distinguished historian, playwright, essayist, novelist, and public intellectual, and any new book by him is an event in queer culture to which attention must be paid.

Such is certainly the case with A Saving Remnant: The Radical Lives of Barbara Deming and David McReynolds, an unusual dual biography by Duberman just published by the New Press.

Duberman is a distinguished professor of history emeritus at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, where three decades ago he founded the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies (CLAGS), the first such program in any American university, much emulated since. Duberman’s long struggle to establish that center is recounted in his third volume of memoirs, Waiting to Land, published two years ago (see this reporter’s October 15, 2009 review, “Queer Studies’ Essential Man.”)

Duberman first established his reputation as a historian with his groundbreaking work on the 19th-century anti-slavery movement, and later produced stunning biographies of Paul Robeson and Lincoln Kirstein, among others, a body of work that won him the recognition of his peers, who awarded him the American Historical Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award for Distinguished Scholarship.

Duberman was already well-known as an important public intellectual whose essays and articles engaged with “the passion and action of our time” (to borrow Oliver Wendell Holmes’ formulation), and as a prize-winning historian and playwright, when he became the first major intellectual of premier rank to come out and join the gay liberation movement in the early 1970s. As an activist, he went on to help found the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and, later, Queers for Economic Justice.

With his new book, “A Saving Remnant,” Duberman returns to the preoccupation with social movements that has been at the heart of much of his work. And in choosing to recount the lives of Barbara Deming and David McReynolds [a contributor to The Rag Blog], Duberman has picked two openly queer Americans who devoted their lives to the struggles for peace and social justice.

David McReynolds addresses a gathering of the War Resisters League, where, on the recommendation of Bayard Rustin, he worked late in his career, until his retirement in 1999. Photo from The New Press / Gay City News.

Nothing in their family backgrounds destined either Deming or McReynolds to become political radicals. Deming, a novelist, short story writer, and poet who was born in 1917 and died in 1984, was raised in Manhattan by upper-middle class parents with “traditional habits and opinions.” But at 16, she fell in love with her mother’s best friend (Edna St. Vincent Millay’s sister Norma) and boldly wrote in her journal, “I am a lesbian. I must face it.”

Thereafter, she refused to conceal her sexual orientation. After graduation from Bennington, Deming moved to Greenwich Village, worked at Orson Welles’ Mercury Theater, and had a brief affair with Lotte Lenya, the Austrian actress-singer who was married to composer Kurt Weill.

McReynolds, born in 1929 and still going strong today, was raised in Los Angeles as a devout Baptist by conservative Republican parents. But while in high school he read muckraker Lincoln Steffens’ autobiography and underwent a political conversion. McReynolds had his first homosexual experience in grammar school, and when he was 19 came out to his parents.

Although he had some guilt about his “deviance,” that vanished when he was a student at UCLA after an encounter in a notorious “queer bathroom” on campus with a young Alvin Ailey, not yet famous as a dancer and choreographer.

“Alvin’s guilt-free attitude toward homosexuality became a model for David (‘I came home walking on a cloud’) and the two became good friends, though never lovers,” Duberman recounts.

By this time, 1951, McReynolds had become deeply involved with the Socialist Party. Founded in 1901 under the leadership of labor leader Eugene Victor Debs, the party reached its peak of influence in 1912, when, with Debs as its presidential candidate, it won 6 percent of the vote; had 100 elected public officials, including several members of Congress; and a press with a readership in the millions.

But the party’s principled pacifism during World Wars I and II brought it government persecution and decimated its membership, and by the early ’50s the party, for decades led by Norman Thomas, was a shadow of its former self.

As a well-known, “outspoken and magnetic” campus radical “on the non-Communist side,” the handsome young McReynolds became a leader of the Socialists’ left wing, all while being open about his homosexuality with his party comrades in its somewhat Bohemian LA local, but “never taking any flack for it.”

McReynolds, already a committed pacifist, risked prison when he refused induction into the army for the Korean War, and it was then that he met Bayard Rustin, the field director of the principal pacifist organization, the War Resisters League, later famous as the organizer of the 1963 March on Washington under Martin Luther King’s leadership.

At the time of their meeting, Rustin had just been arrested on a “morals charge” for a homosexual encounter, and a long talk with Rustin about homosexuality helped further diminish any of McReynolds’ residual guilt feelings about his own same-sex orientation.

It is difficult to overstate the enormous courage and personal integrity required of Deming and McReynolds to be openly queer at a time in America when homosexuality was illegal, and homosexuals were condemned to barbaric tortures to “cure” them by medicine and loathed as degenerate outcasts by most of society.

This was especially true in the 1950s at the height of the McCarthyite witch-hunts, when government was purging both left-wingers and homosexuals from its ranks and those of academia and the labor movement, and when homosexuality was frequently identified with Communism in the dominant rhetoric of the red-baiters.

In 1955, McReynolds was fired from his job on account of being a “political security risk” and decided to move to New York where, with help from Rustin, he obtained a series of “movement” jobs (including a stint with the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, where he was the only white person in its Harlem headquarters) before joining Rustin on the staff of the War Resisters League, where he remained until his retirement in 1999.

Deming, while essentially liberal, had remained rather apolitical until the late ’50s, when on a trip to India she steeped herself in Gandhi’s writings and became a convert to his theory of nonviolence as the path to peace and change, eventually emerging as a leader of A.J. Muste’s Committee for NonViolent Action.

It was on her return to the U.S. from revolutionary Cuba that Deming began to put her body on the line and got arrested in a never-ending series of non-violent direct action struggles, both in the movement for black civil rights — she spent several harrowing months in jail in Albany, Georgia — and in the budding movement against nuclear weapons and for peace and disarmament.

As she later wrote of these militant actions, they “reverberated deeply a so-called ‘apolitical’ struggle I’d been waging on my own, in a lonely way up until then, as a woman and a lesbian: the struggle to claim my life as my own.”

Barbara Deming (holding flowers) at the 1983 Seneca Women’s Encampment for Peace and Justice to protest the planned deployment of NATO first-strike missiles from the Seneca Army Depot. Image from The New Press / Gay City News.

Duberman writes, “Barbara would also come to believe that nonviolent actions are by their nature androgynous. Two impulses long identified as belonging to different genders — the ‘masculine’ impulse of self-assertion and the ‘feminine’ impulse of sympathy — come together in any individual, regardless of gender, who adheres to nonviolence.”

Duberman contrasts McReynolds’ focus from Deming’s, saying he “was no less committed than Barbara to nonviolence, but throughout most of the 1960s, until the rise of the feminist movement, he emphasized a somewhat though not absolutely different goal than she: his concern centered more on the need to transform social institutions than individuals.”

But the path of Deming and McReynolds increasingly crossed in their activism, as they participated in many of the same direct actions and causes. In the long struggle against the Vietnam War, McReynolds’ War Resisters League and the Committee for Non-Violent Action, in which Deming was a key figure, both played crucial roles.

A Silent Remnant recounts the history of all this activism with many details never before recorded. Deming left her extensive papers at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute, and McReynolds not only has retained expansive personal files but is fortunately still around to add his personal illuminations to Duberman’s account of those years. The book is, as usual with this distinguished historian’s work, carefully footnoted, and includes several dozen photos of its principals and their activism.

There are chapters on the controversies over the U.S. New Left (including McReynolds’ debates about it with right-wing socialists like Irving Howe); on the burnout toll that activism takes on those who choose its demanding path (including McReynolds’ struggle with alcoholism and Deming’s eventually failed attempt to preserve her love affair of two decades with the artist and writer Mary Meigs); on the impact of the feminist and gay movements; and on the disagreements between the two sterling activists on such questions as pornography and patriarchy.

There are also fresh insights into the history of the Socialist Party and the debates and splits with which it has been riven over the last half-century. McReynolds went on to become the first openly gay presidential candidate as the Socialists’ standard-bearer twice, in 1980 and 2000.

Queers have always played an important role in all the movements for social justice and social change, and the lives of Deming and McReynolds are both eloquent testimony to that fact, but it has largely remained hidden history to heterosexuals on the left.

At the same time, as Duberman writes, “Radical gay people engaged with a wide variety of issues besides ‘gay liberation’ (like the continuing struggle against racial discrimination) do still exist in the gay community, but they lack the influence they once wielded in the half-dozen years after Stonewall.”

In A Saving Remnant, Duberman has given us an absorbing book, radiant with an emboldening and unquenchable humanity, that has meaningful lessons both for the left and for today’s single-issue gay activists.

Duberman notes, “I’m certain that my empathy, both political and personal, for both Barbara and David had a lot to do with my being drawn to write about them in the first place and may well have affected how I chose to narrate their lives. Although unsympathetic critics — especially those with a centrist or right-wing political bias — will perhaps accuse me of whitewashing my subjects, I’ve nevertheless done my best to recognize and record their foibles and shortcomings.”

That Duberman has succeeded in doing so renders this dual biography all the more meaningful and admirable.

[Doug Ireland is a longtime radical political journalist and media critic and an openly gay man. His work has appeared in many U.S. and French publications, including the New York Post (back in its liberal days), the Village Voice, New York magazine, The Nation, Bakchich, the Parisian daily Liberation, the LA Weekly, and Gay City News, the largest lesbian and gay weekly in New York City, where this article was first published.]

The Rag Blog

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

Sherman DeBrosse : The Republicans’ ‘Cut and Grow’ Show

Ludwig von Mises: “Cut and Grow” economics. Image from Picasa.

Taking the lead from von Mises:
The GOP’s ‘Cut and Grow’ experiment

By Sherman DeBrosse / The Rag Blog / March 9, 2011

The Republicans talked endlessly about creating new jobs before the election of 2010. After their great victory, they started talking about austerity and deregulation and much less about jobs. The voters wanted to punish the Democrats for not working an economic miracle and for providing health care for over 35,000,000 people who needed it. They did not expect less emphasis on jobs, but that is what they are getting.

Some of their policies will increase the public debt, but Republican leaders and propagandists refuse to acknowledge this. The extension of the tax cut for the rich means more federal debt, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that repeal of health care reform would add $230 billion to the debt between 2012 and 2021. Recently, John Boehner showed a lack of concern when told that his budget cuts jobs. The fact is that it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and dramatically slow economic growth.

The “Cut and Grow” theory

The nation may have to endure an experiment with the Republicans “cut and grow” approach to economics. Republicans seem to think that by cutting government spending, investors in the private sector will regain confidence in the economy and begin to hire people and invest productive facilities in the United States. No one ever offers numbers to support this theory.

It seems that the “cut and grow” approach is based on the theories of Ludwig von Mises. Recently, Representative Ron Paul brought an expert on Von Mises before his subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve. Von Mises was a theorist and not a quantitative economist. No one needed to have a good knowledge of mathematics to get the drift of these ideas. His notions were all based on belief in an absolutely unregulated economy and a fear of socialism and inflation.

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan seems to build his models on something similar to Von Mises’ theories. The Washington Post called him the “GOP’s leading intellectual in Congress.” His thought is based on Ayn Rand’s novels, and he adheres to a very unusual and ahistorical view of the New Deal. Ryan insists that FDR’s policies increased unemployment. He insists that the road to recovery begins with large cuts in spending.

If there is any empirical data to support this economic theory, no one has bothered to make it public.

Mark Zandi, Moody’s chief economist, recently warned that the $61 billion in spending cuts suggested by the House Republicans will increase unemployment by as much as 700,000. The Economic Policy Institute placed the figure at 800,000. It would cut the GDP by .5% in 2011.

Goldman-Sachs economists are suggesting that dramatic federal budget cuts this year could derail the fragile recovery we seem to be experiencing. Their estimate of damage to the GDP was much higher than Zandi’s. Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, a Republican appointee, has sounded the same warning.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor dismissed Zandi’s warning, noting that Zandi had backed the “Obama -Reid- Pelosi” stimulus which guaranteed that unemployment would not rise above 8%. Clearly Obama did not understand how serious the recession was, so he it is fair to note the President promised too much.

But Cantor offered no economic arguments — only three clever political ones: (1) Obama misspoke when he came up with the 8.5 figure, (2) he associated the stimulus with three demonized people, and (3) Cantor suggested that the only jobs that would be lost were political ones. They don’t count because those positions are burdens to taxpayers. Speaker John Boehner had the same thing to say about the lost jobs.

Cut and grow could contract the economy

Even many conservative economists contradict the “cut and grow” theory saying there is no reason to create jobs in the United States when labor is so cheap in the developing world. Abroad, there is evidence that completely contradicts the theory. Polls in the United Kingdom show that British business’s confidence in their economy dropped sharply when the new Conservative-dominated coalition government unveiled its austerity budget.

According to the Republican theory, the new jobs should be coming soon now that business is reassured with Republicans in the driver’s seat. They have absolute control of the House, an absolute veto in the Senate, and a president, seriously chastened by angry voters, who seems very anxious to come more than half-way to please the masters of Capitol Hill.

The same regulatory environment exists now as prevailed under George W. Bush, and the Democrats are now in no position to do more regulating. Even they are offering to regulate less. But, in the Bush years of 2002 to 2008, multinationals should have been happy. The GOP was in power and the regulatory environment was the same as now. Yet their employment abroad increased 22.6% and at home went up 4.5%.

The problem with the proposed $61 billion in cuts can be explained in terms of the monetary theory of Milton Friedman, a leading Republican economist. Friedman’s views have a way of always taking much better care of the people on top than the rest of us, but at least he worked with numbers and realities.

He disliked Von Mise, calling him intolerant and nasty. Our economy would be in a lot less danger if the Republicans, who now set policy, were guided by Friedman rather than Von Mises. Using historical records, Friedman, founder of the so-called Chicago School, demonstrated that dramatic contractions of the amount of money in circulation bring about substantial economic disruptions in the form of more unemployment and lower GDP.

In everyday terms, cutting too much from the budget is like hitting the power breaks while you are traveling at a good clip through several feet of water.

For two years, federal stimulus money covered some $300 billion in losses in revenue at the state level. Now all that stimulus money has dried up, and the states will be making dramatic cuts in spending. The $800 billion in stimulus was intended to fill a $2.5 trillion hole in the economy. Now it has ended, and much of the hole remains.

The Federal Reserve attempted to make up for this contraction through its quantitative easing program, putting $600 billion into circulation. But that outflow of money ends near the end of the year. The fear is that the current budget cuts at the state level plus anticipated federal cuts could administer too great a jolt to the economy.

Trying to understand Republican intentions

There is no way of knowing exactly how much the Republican leaders know about economics or what their intentions are. Clearly, they want to forestall any tax increases for their main constituents, the wealthy. Beyond that, we can only speculate. It is as though they never look at serious economic data.

The Congressional Budget Office says that the Obama administration saved between 2,600,000 and 3,3000,000 jobs. The big bank ratings firms have said the same. Most economists agree that Obama’s policies saved us from a depression. Republican leaders and spokesmen almost uniformly ignore all that. Mary Matalin did concede that Obama saved about 50,000 jobs, but those belonged to state employees.

After noting Republican Representative Darrell Issa’s reaction to a bit of information about the nitty gritty of banking, it struck this writer that the Republicans may not be deliberately dishonest in what they say about economics. They could be simply blinded by ideology and bitter partisanship.

As chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government, Issa opened hearings on how TARP had been administered. He was clearly looking for proof of dishonesty or ineptitude on the part of the Obama administration. Ok, we expected this because he has insisted that Obama was one of our most corrupt presidents.

Some witnesses explained to him that the Frank-Dodd Act was really too weak and that the big banks have grown much larger. There is the danger of another collapse which would make necessary another bailout. Issa took all that in and then said that the big banks should start breaking themselves up. Someone open to facts might have said that Congress should study strengthening Frank-Dodd.

Issa’s response demonstrated he could only process information to a limited degree before ideology took over. Men like Issa learned from Newt Gingrich that whatever Democrats say must be wrong. It was an outlook that created bitter partisan warriors and blinkered outlooks.

Some think the GOP set out to damage the economy
so they would benefit politically

For anyone who has taken more than a few economics courses, it is very difficult to believe that the Republicans seriously believe that their economic policies will help the country. As many knowledgeable writers have noted, their approach is more likely to increase unemployment and risks another recession.

That is why some think the GOP is out to damage the recovery, because the voters would then punish Barack Obama in 2012, just as they punished the Democrats when they were unable to work economic miracles in less than two years.

Barack Obama told a Racine, Wisconsin town-hall meeting, “Before I was even inaugurated, there were leaders on the other side of the aisle who… made the calculation that if Obama fails, they win.”

Jim DeMint and Mitch McConnell have repeatedly said as much. Yet Obama, from the beginning, offered centrist compromises that have almost always been ignored.

Dana Milbank, in an opinion piece, recently reported the obvious: the GOP will benefit in 2012 if the economy slips a little more. He made it clear the GOP leaders must know this and that their present economic plans could be designed to insure that they profit from continued hard times.

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman has written that “Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House.” Steve Benen said the same thing in a piece called “None Dare Call It Sabotage?” Republican columnist Michel Gerson picked the weakest part of the Benen column, his criticism of Republican opposition to the Fed’s “quantitative easing” to claim that the whole argument that the GOP wants joblessness to continue is wrong. After all, Gerson argued, who can honestly claim that “Republicans… hate the president more than they love the country.”

The simple fact is that this is exactly what happened. The stimulus was far less than it should have been. Republicans had enough bargaining power to force the Democratic leadership to hold down the size of the stimulus and load it with tax cuts. It is a wonder the stimulus worked as well as it did.

Whether the Republicans worked to keep unemployment high cannot be resolved, but high unemployment seems to benefit them.

The battle on the debt limit

John Boehner and other Republican leaders have been hinting that they might expect steps to cut entitlement as the price for avoiding a government shutdown. Shutting down the government in 1995 cost the Republicans dearly, but, a poll for The Hill shows that this time more people would blame the Democrats than the Republicans.

Forty-seven percent would blame both parties, and 27 % would blame the Democrats, with 23% faulting the Republicans. The change from a decade and a half ago can be attributed to the nation’s rightward drift and superior Republican messaging.

There was much pressure from Republican politicians and their pundits for Obama to take the lead — and much of the blame — in entitlements reform, but he did not take the bait. Whether the Republicans decide to seize this opportunity to go after entitlements will depend upon how anxious their new Congressmen are to press this agenda. The seasoned Republican leaders may think they can work more dramatic cuts in entitlements if they wait until 2013 when they hope to have the White House.

[Sherman DeBrosse is a retired history professor and a frequent contributor to The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Felix Shafer : Mourning for Marilyn Buck, Part III

Mourning for activist, poet, and political prisoner Marilyn Buck, shown at three stages of her life.

The blue afterwards:
Mourning for Marilyn, Part III

By Felix Shafer / The Rag Blog / January 13, 2011

Part three of three

[Marilyn Buck — political prisoner, acclaimed poet, former Austinite, and former original Ragstaffer — was paroled last August after spending 30 years in federal prisons. But, after only 20 days of freedom, Marilyn died of a virulent cancer.

In the first part of this essay, Felix Shafer wrote about the pain of losing his friend and artistic collaborator to cancer, and his determination to mourn her in some way appropriate to her life, accepting and experiencing grief as fully as great friendship demands.

In part two Felix discussed the specific criminal charges for which Marilyn Buck served nearly 30 years in federal prisons, demonstrating that her acts were actually specific responses to the repression of Black and anti-imperialist activists across the country.

While many today dismiss such acts as adventuristic and self-defeating, the consensus among Black activists, especially members of the Black Panther Party and others who have themselves been victims of government repression, is that Marilyn Buck was a principled freedom fighter. While Marilyn’s thinking on tactics certainly changed over time, her commitment to human rights and equal justice never wavered.

Facing an 80 year sentence, Marilyn had to come to grips with life inside the walls. Until the end of her life, she refused all attempts to treat her case as special, but identified with and walked the same paths as thousands of other incarcerated women. Their daily struggles for simple dignity became her field of endeavor, and fodder for her creativity.

Shafer recalled Marilyn’s emergence as a poet, fighting to maintain her own humanity in the spirit-crushing prison environment. As the so-called “free world” hurtled onward to the distressing present, for a growing community of friends and supporters on the outside, Marilyn Buck, from a steel cell, became increasingly “our breath of fresh air.”

Mariann G Wizard / The Rag Blog]

keywords: a revolutionary who dreams like a poet

The 21st century opened up and Marilyn was finding her own way towards a style in which humor, theory, art and the ironic began to dance with her politically radical common sense. From this dynamic a momentum grew within her, which allowed for tremendous personal change.

For the long-term imprisoned revolutionary this can be an agonizing process. It is incredibly difficult to risk overturning dogmas, re-examining cherished beliefs, while taking responsibility for how your actions — for better and worse — define you.

There is the repressive State power, not as an abstraction but an everyday presence, which studies each political prisoner’s psychology — emotions, vulnerabilities, moods, doubts, questions — in order to determine pressure points to exploit.[1]

The continuing goal, long after any hope of getting politicals to give up “actionable intelligence” (to further repression) was gone, becomes to break the resister so s/he will repent and discredit human principles of liberation. To have broken the imprisoned revolutionary’s soul is a key objective of the authorities because any healthy counter-example to their total power is threatening.

On this battlefield, and make no mistake it is a battlefield — a last ditch of significance — political prisoners, like Marilyn and her comrades, must be on the alert against psychological destabilization. Deeply questioning ideology, strategy and tactics in conditions of isolation (and political prisoners are often kept isolated from each other) and, in periods when the struggle is at very low ebb, is a risky and painful journey.

This long excerpt from Marilyn’s incisive and raw essay, On Self Censorship[2], reveals some of the way she thinks — with feeling.

Women are subject to censorship in a very distinct way from men prisoners. There is a disapproval of who we are as women and as human beings. We are viewed as having challenged gender definitions and sex roles of passivity and obedience. We have transgressed much more than written laws. We are judged even before trial as immoral and contemptible — fallen women. For a woman to be imprisoned casts her beyond the boundaries of what little human dignity and personal right to self-determination we already have…

It becomes difficult to maintain personal relations because all forms of communication are subject to total intervention — all under the guise of security. We have no privacy — our phone conversations are recorded, every word we write or that is written to us is scrutinized, especially as “high profile prisoners.”

Being locked up is physically and psychically invasive. All body parts are subject to physical surveillance and possible “inspection.” Never ending strip searches… one must dissociate oneself psychically, step outside that naked body under scrutiny by some guard who really knows nothing about us, but who fears us because we are prisoners, and therefore dangerous; political prisoners, and therefore “terrorists.”

The guard stands before the prisoner, violating the privacy of her body, observing with dispassionate contempt. It affects each of us. There is a profound sense of violation, humiliation, anger. It takes an enormous amount of self control not to erupt in rage at the degradation of the non-ending assault. I do not think I will ever get used to it. However, being conscious political women enables us to understand and articulate the experience in terms of the very real psychic censorship.

Every time I talk on the phone I have to decide what I will say. I refuse to let the government know how I really am; but I do not want to cut myself off emotionally either. How can I keep saying, “Everything is fine”? It is not believable; and, it would promote the official position that these high-tech prisons are fine places, especially these maximum security prisons with their veneer of civility. It would be a declaration that no, there are no violations of human rights here. It is a dilemma.

I express my interior life in poetry when I have the wherewithal to put the lines down… I write a letter and reread it. I clench. I have a crisis of judgment about whether to send it as is. Should I say this? I do not mail the letter that day. By the time morning arrives again I decide to rewrite it. To couch my thoughts in vaguer terms. Will my vagueness and abstractions frustrate the reader?

I feel like I am diffusing, becoming abstract. I am censoring myself. Like a painter who disguises her statement in an abstract play of colors and forms on canvas… Only she is certain of the voice that is speaking and what she is conveying. And if the observer misses what is being said?

Self-censorship is an oppressive, but necessary part of my life now. For more than six years it has infringed upon my soul, limiting, constraining self-expression. Yet, it is a studied response — a self-defense — against the ubiquitous, insistent, directive to destroy our political identities, and therefore us.

Mural of Marilyn Buck on storefront in Mission District, San Francisco. Photo by Gary Soup.

keyword: artist

Marilyn is one for whom the word revolutionary is truly earned and, yet, it’s also far short of encompassing. She was a woman with probing interests in the arts, culture, and natural sciences. She was a wordsmith who loved to sink her hands into the clay, making ceramic art that she sent out to people all over the country.

Marilyn was a prolific writer: well over 300 poems along with scores of essays and articles, which were widely published both inside the U.S. and abroad. Her master’s thesis became the translation of Christina Peri Rossi’s, State of Exile, published by City Lights in 2008. She won prizes from the international writer’s organization PEN and published the chapbook, Rescue the Word, and the CD, “Wild Poppies,” in which she (via phone recording) joined celebrated poets reading her work.[3]

In late 1999, together with Miranda Bergman and Jane Norling, artists and comrades she’d known since 1969, Marilyn formed surreal sisters — a trio to explore art-making and surrealism. This informal group continued doing art, studying, and occasionally writing, for nearly 10 years. In an unpublished (collective) 2003 essay, “Coincidence in Three Voices,” Marilyn writes:

Three of us had been sister political activists, friends, housemates in the late 1960s and early 70s. Miranda and Jane were artists and activists. I was a political activist who had not yet discovered artistry, at least for myself. By the time the three of us convened in the visiting room of the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) at Dublin CA I had my artist self, though it had taken me half my lifetime to realize that I was and needed to be an artist.

Three women, I behind steel gates and triple barbed wire, Jane and Miranda outside, both painters and muralists. What could we achieve as women dedicated to creating new visions, a new world through collective imagination?

As a prisoner, I feel flattened, forever categorized as only a prisoner — nothing more. I want to scream I am not one dimension of a box, a box inside of a box! What shall I draw to express this?

When I think about Marilyn Buck, I see a revolutionary who dreams like a poet.

One paradoxical feature of the “obvious” is that not everyone takes the time to see it. We nod our heads at some outline, then say, oh I already knew that, and move on. So, at the risk of stating the obvious: under the most restrictive of circumstances, Marilyn continued to throw herself into processes of human transformation.

Becoming an artist — and being an artist is always a process of becoming — was very much part of her destiny. She was neither a propagandist nor a left wing copywriter — though she could fulfill these functions when she felt called to do so. Her art making was valuable in, of and for itself.

Art is a particular area of freedom: a disciplined work/living space of engaged feeling, thinking, and doing. Arts come to be created and live in a transitional space between self and others that is at the heart of all human cultures.

Confined in prison, Marilyn was able to use art-making to express a full range of feelings, desires and relationships that became her powerful, alive response to the death-driven system in which she was forced to exist. Her great capacity for hard work was channeled into highly productive and creative pathways.

She loved this part of her life and had plans to continue the creative work of writing and translation after she was released from captivity. There was the novella she’d begun writing. Skilled in the arts of translation-a bridge building art par excellence-she was working on a translation of Christina Peri Rossi’s work: Desastres Intimos.

When you think of Marilyn Buck: the revolutionary
I hope you also discover Marilyn Buck: the artist

From late 2007 to a month before her death Marilyn was involved, with a few of us on the outside, preparing her selected poems for publication. The idea for the book began in conversation with Raul Salinas, a great advocate of Chicano and Native American resistance, a former long-term federal prisoner, poet, and writer who passed away in Austin in February 2008.

The volume, tentatively titled: Inside Shadows[4] is a collective labor of love that we all believed would widen her readership beyond the label, “prisoner poet.” Together we daydreamed plans for a public launch and readings. The last letter I received from Marilyn came about a month before she died when she was very ill with little energy left for work. It was pure Marilyn: an engagingly lucid three pages of comments and revisions to the book’s table of contents.

keyword: She who links us

Beneath the distorted balance sheets of credit card, mortgage and International Monetary Fund debt, after the loan sharks and the default dreads have been (momentarily) cleared from our mindset, there remains a debt between Marilyn and her communities that isn’t about money at all. It’s my belief that Marilyn’s commitment to human solidarity with freedom struggles of Black and other (neo-) colonized peoples on the global plantation, with women and all who are oppressed, was her genuine effort to help balance the scales of justice in a world thrown terribly out of joint by empire.

Over the years and, it seems especially these last months, some people have compared Marilyn to the anti-slavery warrior John Brown. The first person I ever heard say this was Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) who visited Marilyn in FCI Dublin and corresponded with her. At her Bay Area Memorial on November 7, 2010, former Black Panther and member of the San Francisco 8 Hank Jones spoke movingly of her as a John Brown of our time. At her memorial in Harlem, a number of Black revolutionaries honored her with this comparison.

The essence of their point is not whether she played a comparable historic role but that she was one of the all-too-few who fought shoulder to shoulder with the Black movement. In speaking about white allies in the freedom struggle, Malcolm X called on people to fight like John Brown. It is in the historic context of what was the largest upsurge for Black liberation since the Civil War, that veterans of the Black struggle honor her today.

Along with John Brown, there is another older, historic personage who comes to my mind when I think of our sister Marilyn. This is a near mythic figure of someone we, in the left, don’t talk much about: The woman Antigone, whose story was dramatized thousands of years ago in ancient, classical Greece.

Briefly, Antigone was a young woman of privilege who was part of the royal court. Her two brothers slew each other in a conflict over the fate of the kingdom. The king decreed that the body of one brother, who had opposed him, must lie in the dust to rot and not be given decent funeral rites. Antigone — following an older just tradition — defied the king’s command and buried him — thus providing him entry into the afterworld. She dared to act and broke what she considered the patriarch’s unjust law.

Under interrogation her sister begged her to lie and deny the act in order to save herself. This she would not do. Antigone’s punishment was to be entombed/buried alive in a cave without food or water until she starved to death. The citizens had great sympathy for Antigone and the king’s son loved her. Fearing for the legitimacy of his rule, the king had his soldiers open the crypt but it was too late. Antigone had chosen to take her own life rather than die by starvation.

Through the ages, Antigone has been a symbol of women’s resistance. I believe that by representing collective struggle with thought-through programs for liberation, Marilyn stood on the shoulders of Antigone.

If Marilyn links you in your own way, as she does me, with time’s rich legacy of freedom struggle — she also links us with our losses.

Questions of who she was for/with each of us, how she lived, what she tried to accomplish and what commitments were willingly shared, must neither be quickly resolved nor stubbornly avoided. The work of mourning involves, along with other things, how each person finds meaningful answers, individually and with others, to the question of what Marilyn’s memory and spirit calls us to do and be. I feel that this is what honoring her legacy means.

For now, the traumatic circumstances of Marilyn Buck’s final year make all this exceedingly difficult.

When she died, some months before her 63rd birthday, she had served a total of nearly 30 years behind bars. The last 25 years were a continuous long march from arrest/capture in 1985 to her release in mid July 2010. Severely weakened by cancer, she finally left the prison camps and was able to live among us, outside the wire, for 20 days.

During this time Marilyn visited with a lot of dear friends, supporters and family. She got to embrace some of her co-defendants who’d been released years earlier. She spoke on the phone, corresponded by email with more, and was cared for by deeply loving people among whom were my daughters, Ona and Gemma. As she has been for the past quarter century, her close comrade and attorney, Soffiyah Elijah, was a constant protecting presence.

There’s just no getting around the great misfortune of her life’s ending only 20 days after she left that federal prison system which had held her continuously under the gun since 1985. Her will power was enormous and to remain vitally alive it had to be.

Can we even allow an hour to extend our imagination towards all the wonderful everyday things that she hoped to be able to do? What it would mean to be able to eat a good salad, to sit in the park, to spend as much time as she wanted with whomever she wanted, to walk outside in moonlight, to go dancing?

She could stretch out in her own home; one that wasn’t controlled by heavily armed state authorities. She was thinking about what kind of j-o-b might work out. Marilyn’s family, people in the Bay Area and around the country, political prisoners and social prisoners with whom she’d spent much of her life, all expected her long internal exile to end in celebration and happiness. Above all. Above all this. Marilyn wanted to live.

She’d been thinking about how to heal herself from the chronic, complex stress of prison and what she wanted to accomplish with her life. In other words: during the early part of the last year and a half, Marilyn had begun allowing herself to really believe that she was finally getting out.

Marilyn Buck with Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) at Dublin FCI, 1994.

I think sometimes that even those of us who do prison work and have visited political prisoners over many years may not always consider how difficult it can be, for people enduring very, very long sentences in hardened institutions, to dwell on their past and/or the future. No matter how many visiting rooms I enter, there is a real gap between people who live inside the wall and those of us outside. The weight of what has been lost and will never come to be can build melancholy and despair in the healthiest of hearts.

So when Marilyn could finally dare to consider what taking her dreams towards a real future outside might mean — many of us felt her exhilarating gust. As political supporters and friends we had an emotional stake in her freedom and in her victory over the FBI and Bureau of Prisons. This national political police-prison regime, so central to the deep, permanent state structure of Empire, has never stopped trying to break her and the more than 100 other U.S. political prisoners down.

I can feel Marilyn resisting the hint of any effort to make her heartbreak and suffering special by reminding us that

what’s happening to me is what happens to thousands of imprisoned women and men who get sick in the system… remember that there are 2 million people caught somewhere in the prison-industrial complex — if you’re going to write about me, remember I stand and fall with them.

Even as a release date of August 8, 2010 came into range, Marilyn’s medical symptoms were emerging with force. She was acutely aware that other political prisoners with legally sound parole dates had, at the last minute, been denied release due to political pressure and legal trickery.

One of the well-known agonies of imprisonment is that medical care — as it is for millions of the non-insured — is often atrocious. I live in California where the state prison system, which holds nearly 200,000 people, has been under a court appointed special receiver for years because of woefully inadequate medical facilities.

Political prisoners with life threatening illness have faced foot dragging, neglect, and worse from their jailers. Lolita Lebron spoke about the severe medical abuse and radiation burns suffered by Puerto Rican Nationalist Party leader, Don Pedro Albizu Campos, when he was held in U.S. prisons more than a half century ago. My dear comrade, Black Panther/BLA political prisoner Bashir Hameed, who died of cancer in 2008 was, at one point, assaulted by police in his hospital room.

From her own experience, and knowledgeable of the cruel battles other political prisoners have waged for treatment, Marilyn was constantly forced to weigh how to effectively advance her health care needs before a totalitarian administration adept at both routine and calculated neglect.[5]

After MANY months of worsening symptoms during which she regularly requested and insisted on evaluation/treatment AND WAS DENIED, she finally received a cancer diagnosis around New Year 2010. Major surgery followed about three weeks later and Marilyn reported that she was told the doctors were optimistic that they’d removed the malignancy.

To my limited knowledge she had no follow up scans or any professional post surgical care by her doctors for well over a month. It’s difficult to see how this can be said to meet any standard of acceptable medical practice. She received help changing her postoperative dressing from fellow prisoners. The Bureau of Prisons was very slow to diagnose her. They were slow to move and treat her. On March 12th she was informed the cancer had metastasized to her lungs.

Very early on the morning of March 13, 2010 — the day of the Spark’s Fly gathering in Oakland (an annual event organized by women to support women political prisoners) which drew nearly 500 supporters from around the country to celebrate her impending release and the dawn of a new life — I was one of the friends she called to tell the devastating news. In only six months time, plans for life after prison turned into a last ditch battle to survive and get out at all.

Soon thereafter, Marilyn went to the Carswell federal medical facility in a suburb of Fort Worth, Texas. She would be transported from this medical prison to a local hospital for cancer treatment. Two women who she knew well were also being held at Carswell and they helped her very much.

Miranda and I were able to visit Marilyn in Texas on May 1, 2010. We spent time together on Mayday and the next. Marilyn said, “if it was up to my will, I’d have this thing beat.” Gaunt and fatigued she used oxygen to help with breathing. She held herself with that incredible dignity and steadiness all who know her have experienced.

Marilyn said, “so many women here are medicalized into the role of patient and the setup here is about making us this way. I do not want to become this. I think about how my mother kept herself out of the hospital until nearly the end because she didn’t want to become like that.” She went on to confirm that, “In the eight weeks after surgery in Stanford (Stanford University in California) when I had no follow up tests — the cancer ran wild.”

She was very very sick and we could see with our untrained eyes that this was a battle our elegant sister was unlikely to survive.

The question of government’s role in Marilyn’s death is in the air. It merits a real discussion about whether and how we might hold the state responsible for its (mis)treatment of her. This stark tragedy and rupture of hope has led some to believe she was killed by the government. Others dismiss this way of looking at it as conspiracy theorizing and paranoia. I have heard people, including former political prisoners, express either of these opposing viewpoints.

In a way this process parallels the anger and sadness I feel. Saying “they did it” mobilizes rage against the system, honestly recognizing the very difficult prognosis of people with leiomyosarcoma, even under the best treatment situations, brings me to powerlessness and great sorrow. Ultimately, while this polarized way of looking and feeling is not so helpful, grieving — for me — involves allowing myself to go through all of it.

We do know that living for long periods in hostile institutional environments of deprivation and stress degrades the immune system, damages emotional well-being and can shorten the lifespan. Marilyn respected her doctor in Texas, felt that she had her best interests at heart and was giving her the right chemotherapy treatment. We do know that a stress-free, loving environment, excellent diet and adjunctive treatments were not available. We do know that personnel at Carswell made cruel comments to her expressing “surprise” that she was still alive.

Last year, during the many months prior to her diagnosis, when she was working through her own channels to get the administration to act, Marilyn didn’t want her supporters to launch a public pressure campaign. I know that during the summer and fall of 2009 when this possibility was raised, her response was to tell us to wait. She was concerned that such a mode of action could be counterproductive.

Throughout her life Marilyn took responsibility for her choices. And although I have kicked myself for not struggling with her more about this, it was her decision. In the face of our real powerlessness to reverse the outcome, her traumatic reality needs to be suffered, held, and borne.

But what we can refuse to accept — and work to change — is the incarceration of the remaining political prisoners. We can come together to free them and to try our best to make sure that no more die behind the walls. We can hold the repressive apparatus responsible. By doing so we contribute to a political and ethical environment that will help the untold resisters of today and the future who will undoubtedly rise and be jailed by our government. By holding the state responsible we challenge their vast, malignant system of social control that holds more than 2 million people: the majority of whom are poor and people of color.

keyword: She put her foot down and lived

Marilyn was out of prison for 20 days and in this time she lived to the loving limits of the possible. Miranda and I were honored to be able to visit her as I know others were. We brought the glorious quilt, Marilyn Freedom, made by women in the Bay Area, and presented it to her. I said, Marilyn you always were my John Brown. It pleased her when I thanked her for getting our comrades and me out of a Junction, Texas, jail in March 1969 (with a lawyer and bail) where we’d been held for a week.

We were on our way to the SDS national council meeting in Austin and were busted at a roadblock. Things looked like they might turn violent in a small town Texas way. She laughed in that knowing, sly way of hers. Miranda gave her a long massage and the three of us held each other in silence, sharing a deep recognition of love and farewell.

Now, months later, on fog-glistened evenings like this in San Francisco when I can only bear to be alone — and when solitude too is unbearable — great rip tides of grief keep on coming in as though pulled by the pull of the weeping moon.

The moon is water. A sob throws open windows to the monsoon. Fragments of breath drift off. A house of living spaces falls into silence; memories of Marilyn’s last year hurling past into that unforeseen horizon. Her-eyes-on us. I spray-paint the wall red: she deserved more.

From the websites and the blogs I feel the many who are weeping and honoring yet, in this same moment, can’t those who knew or met her even once hear her voice speaking directly without panic, as though she has not fallen?

If I could I would organize a demo of we small earthlings against her death and we’d storm heaven to return her to live among us.

Yesterday, the sky over the city was enormous. A woman in a wheelchair was shopping for marigolds at the farmer’s market. Open my eyes. The mirage builds itself; it is weightless and real.

Marilyn’s articulate face turns from a wheelchair backlit by the sun of freedom in Brooklyn.

I want to impress her face into the great wall of the universe so that she can be seen from all points, accessible deep into tomorrow.

In 2004, Marilyn wrote an essay, The Freedom to Breathe[6]

I am skinny-dipping. Stripping off my clothes, running into the water, diving down naked to disappear for a few breaths from the shouts and sounds of the world. Shedding clothes, embarrassments, care. The surface breaks as I return for air. For a few moments, I am free, opened, beyond place, beyond space…

Deepening my breath, lengthening my spine, I learn to discard my preconceptions and expectations – all the many hopes and fears and attachments that have given shape to my life. I learn to lay aside anxiety about what I am missing, what I do not have, what might happen to me in here. I confront the fact that I am, in truth, uncertain about whether I really want to release my fears, my anger. I am conflicted. Without the armor of my anger and self-righteousness, I become intimate with the many forms of suffering in this prison world – and so I feel vulnerable, exposed.

Each day presents a new confrontation with reality. I want to run; instead, I breathe. One breath – the freedom to choose my response in that moment. In sitting, I encounter joy; I know that through this practice I can arrive at a place of genuine peace. The path is before me. It is my choice to follow.

In the “everywhen,” which comes late at night when I cannot sleep, I see Marilyn walking under a wide canopy of amiable stars. She’s not in this world, but I can see her very clearly from here in San Francisco.

A woman of 62 years, whole, restored, vigorous, and trembling with excitement. She’s talking with other animated souls of the big-hearted revolutionary dead from all the ages that have come and gone on earth. They’re wondering together about how they might assist us.

I’m still running with her chimes of freedom.

[Felix Shafer became an anti-imperialist/human rights activist while in high school during the late 1960’s and has worked around prisons and political prisoners for over 30 years. He is a psychotherapist in San Francisco and can be reached at felixir999@gmail.com.]

Footnotes

[1]Two of Marilyn’s comrades, Susan Rosenberg and Silvia Baraldini together with Puerto Rican Independence fighter and teacher Alejandrina Torres, were held in the underground Lexington (Control) High Security Unit, which was condemned by Amnesty International and denounced as a psychological torture center by the campaign which eventually forced its closure of in 1988. As this unit was being forced to close, the Bureau of Prisons was building many more control unit prisons. See the 1990 documentary film, Through the Wire, by Nina Rosenblum, on PBS.

[2]On Self-censorship, by Marilyn Buck. Published by Parenthesis Writing Series. ISBN 1-879342-06-5. 1991. Currently out of print.

[3]See her CD: Wild Poppies available from Freedom Archives & chapbook: Rescue the Word available from Friends of Marilyn Buck at marilynbuck.com

[4]Her poetic collaborators intend to see Inside Shadows published by a major poetry press sometime in 2011. This is one aspect of our continuing collaboration with Marilyn. Check www.marilynbuck.com for this and other important ongoing information.

[5]A growing number of U.S. political prisoners have died of cancer and other illnesses in prison. An incomplete list: Albert Nuh Washington, Kuwasi Balagoon, Merle Africa, Teddy ‘Jah’ Heath, Richard Williams, and Bashir Hameed. Others have faced and are facing life-threatening challenges both inside and after release on parole.

[6]Tricycle: The Buddhist Review,
Vol. XIII, No.3, page 84, Spring 2004

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Donna Cooper : Infographic Reveals Safety Net for the Wealthy

Chart from Center for American Progress.

Infographic worth a thousand words!
Tax entitlements rip the safety net

By Donna Cooper / Center for American Progress / March 8, 2011

House leaders are unfortunately restricting their proposed budget cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 to nonsecurity discretionary spending in an attempt to tame a $1.3 trillion deficit. This approach is especially shortsighted since the Federal Treasury loses twice as much revenue due to tax breaks as Congress appropriates on all non-security discretionary spending.

The chart above compares the 10 safety-net programs slated for deep cuts with the cost of the tax breaks that should also be considered for reduction or elimination to bring the budget into balance. The column on the left is a list of safety-net programs that have already been targets of the House leadership’s budget ax. The column on the right is the cost to specified tax breaks (see bottom of page for sources).

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that tax breaks are not on the table during any budget negotiations. In fact, Congress has the Congressional Budget Office prepare an official spending estimate for the cost of all programs or their expansions. Meanwhile, Congress enacts and continues tax breaks without any requirement that the cost of tax breaks be calculated and shared with members before a vote.

That’s why, over the last 16 years, the cost to the Treasury of the mortgage interest tax deduction, for example, doubled from $48 billion in 1995 to nearly $100 billion this year and no one made a peep about getting control of this loss in revenue. The stunning growth in this tax break is unchecked and unquestioned.

This tax break is also increasingly benefiting individuals who don’t need any federal incentives to purchase a home. In 2011 the mortgage interest deduction will help families who purchase a vacation home avoid taxes to the tune of $800 million. Meanwhile, the House Budget Committee chairman’s 2011 budget bill included $730 million in cuts to housing programs for the elderly and disabled.

There are many other examples where the cost of tax breaks are skyrocketing and disproportionately benefiting companies and people who don’t need them (see chart above):

  • Congress should rein in the $4.6 billion in tax breaks given to companies who move jobs offshore instead of making cuts to the $4 billion in job-training programs.
  • Oil companies get more than $2 billion in tax write-offs for drilling expenses yet Congress is considering cutting the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the $2 billion federal program that helps poor families pay their winter heating bills.
  • Large biofuels companies, such as Archer Daniels Midland, benefit from the ethanol tax break that now costs nearly $5 billion a year. And oil companies such as ExxonMobil benefit from more than $9 billion in tax breaks for oil exploration.

Some tax breaks make sense. Those that stimulate economic activity that otherwise wouldn’t happen without the tax incentive may be worth the lost revenue, especially if that economic activity creates American jobs and provides assistance in sectors of the economy that show potential for growth.

That’s exactly what the Research and Development Tax Incentives or the Renewable Energy Tax Credits provide. Income tax breaks that help keep working families afloat, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, use the tax code effectively to stabilize the economy.

It’s regrettable that the congressional budget process doesn’t permit a robust debate about the choices we can and must make to bring the budget into balance. The Center for American Progress is thus pushing for a process where tax breaks are “scored” so members of Congress know and consider the cost of tax breaks as part of the annual congressional process to pass a budget.

A transparent budget process approach should be instituted now given the enormity of the budget challenge. It makes no sense to eviscerate safety-net supports when billions in unnecessary tax entitlements can be cut to preserve these important and socially responsible federal expenditures. Congress must face up to the cold hard fact that it’s time to make the tough choice to end tax entitlements—such as the one for “NASCAR racing facilities” — so federal funding for critical items such as child-nutrition programs are spared.

[Donna Cooper is a Senior Fellow at American Progress. This article and infographic were originally posted at Center for American Progress.]

Sources for tax breaks

Row 1: Figure represents half of the estimated $23 billion cost of weakening the estate tax for 2011 and 2012. See: Gillian Brunet and Chuck Marr, “Unpacking the Tax Cut-Unemployment Compromise,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, December 10, 2010, available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3342.

Row 2: Figure represents 1 percent of the fiscal year 2011 tax expenditure estimate for the mortgage interest deduction, over 10 years. The vacation home deduction accounts for at least one percent of the tax expenditure cost. See: Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012 (Executive Office of the President, 2011), table 17-1; Congressional Budget Office, “Budget Options” (2000), REV-02.

Row 3 (now re: estate planning): General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2012 Revenue Proposals (Department of Treasury, 2011).

Row 4 (now re: itemized deduction limit): General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 Revenue Proposals (Department of Treasury, 2010).

Row 5: Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimated Budget Effects of the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010,” JCX-54-10, December 10, 2010 (subpart F active financing exception).

Row 6: General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2012 Revenue Proposals (Department of Treasury, 2011).

Row 7: Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimated Budget Effects of the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010,” JCX-54-10, December 10, 2010 (half of total cost of two-year extension).

Row 8: General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2012 Revenue Proposals (Department of Treasury, 2011).

Row 9: General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2012 Revenue Proposals (Department of Treasury, 2011) (10-year cost).

Row 10: Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, (Executive Office of the President, 2011), table 17-1 (expensing of multiperiod timber growing costs and capital gains treatment of certain timber income).

Row 11: Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimated Budget Effects of the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010,” JCX-54-10, December 10, 2010 (half of total cost of recent two-year extension).

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Paul Beckett : Madison and the Revolution at Home

Photo by Paul Beckett / The Rag Blog.

The revolution at home:
Dispatch from the Madison front

By Paul Beckett / The Rag Blog / March 8, 2011

MADISON, Wisconsin — My wife Kathie and I have been to the Capitol square in Madison, sometimes inside, sometimes outside the Capitol building, most days since February 13 when the demonstrations began. It’s been cold, often snowy, usually with a wind chill of 20 degrees or less. Pretty uncomfortable. And they’ve been some of the best days of our lives.

We are proud of Wisconsin. We have new hope (dare we hope so much?) for America. According to Michael Moore , everyone is a Wisconsinite now. Welcome! Badgers of the world, unite!

Background to protest

Scott Walker provoked the demonstrations Friday, February 11, when he tabled his 144-page “Budget Repair Bill” and insisted it be passed the following week without significant alteration. The first thing that leapt out of the bill was its frontal assault on Wisconsin’s public service unions: the bill would eviscerate the unions and effectively eliminate the collective bargaining process.

Quickly it became apparent that there were many other right-wing dreams buried in the bill that would be instantly made law.

SB11 attacked public-sector pensions and health care (resulting in public service pay reductions of 8-10%); provided authority for the Walker administration (without further legislative consideration) to sell off public owned power plants on no-bid contracts; and it separated the University of Wisconsin-Madison from the State of Wisconsin University System.

There were many other far-reaching provisions as well, together with ominous undertones foretelling drastic cuts that would be included in the biennial budget still to come: cuts to local schools and services, and to Wisconsin’s very successful Medicare initiative (Badger Care). Many suspected that Wisconsin’s huge and fully-funded public service pension fund would soon have crosshairs on it.

Understanding spread that, first, most of the provisions had little or nothing to do with “repairing” the present-year budget; and, second, all were part of a national right-wing agenda best articulated by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and funded by billionaires such as the Koch brothers. (The latter, Charles and David, were heavy funders of Walker’s election campaign, and they had just opened a lobbying firm a block away from the Wisconsin Capitol.)

As all of this came out, the Budget Repair Bill seemed radical to the core in turning back Wisconsin’s progressive traditions and in transferring important legislative powers to the Governor’s administration.

Walker threw a match into this pail of gasoline by preemptively remarking that if there were worker trouble he would call out the state’s National Guard.

In the state Assembly, the Republican majority was strong enough to pass the bill without a single Democratic vote, or even the presence of a single Democrat. But in the Senate, while Republicans held a 19 to 14 advantage, at least one Democrat had to be in the chamber to count toward quorum to legally pass the bill.

The Democrats made themselves scarce. The Republican leader of the Senate instructed his father (since Walker’s election, the head of the State Patrol) to bring them in. Suddenly, on Thursday, February 17, all heard the news: the 14 Democratic Senators were safely out-of-state, in Illinois. The bill could not be passed.

Meanwhile, demonstrations had begun. They started small with a few of Madison’s “usual suspects” (people like myself) and members of the UW-Madison’s Teaching Assistants’ Association. But in a day or so protesters numbered in the thousands: unprecedented in recent history.

The numbers grew exponentially as understanding of the bill’s implications sank in. Teachers caught a collective cold; the schools had to close; high school students marched down in phalanxes to join the crowds. University students were there en masse, and parents brought their children. The Capitol’s marble rotunda became a gigantic resonator for the opposition: packed on three levels, festooned with signs, reverberating with drums and chants: “Walker is a weasel, not a badger!” “What’s disgusting? Union busting!” “Kill the Bill!”

And among the teachers, the parents, the school children, the university students, the retirees and other townspeople were: the unions! The unions really got it from day one: they knew that this battle had the significance of the 1981 air controller’s strike: a last ditch struggle to hold on to the remnants of our trade union movement (and with it, much of the progressive achievement of the twentieth century).

The unions knew this was not a local issue, not a Wisconsin-only issue, and not a budget issue. (Early on, the public service unions indicated they would agree to the salary cuts — for health and pension payments — that the Budget Repair bill demanded; they thus took the genuine deficit-reduction issues off the table.)

Walker had cunningly tried to separate the police and fire fighter unions from the rest by exempting them from the bill’s provisions. What a great moment it was (we were there, and up front) when a long line of fire fighters, many in uniform, carrying solidarity placards, marched in a file through the crowd which cheered them ecstatically. And this happened over and over again: fire fighters, police, prison workers condemned the anti-union provisions.

Taken in by a prankster, Walker said to a caller he thought to be David Koch that the demonstrations were dying down and consisted mainly of out-of-staters. (See the complete transcript of the call.)

He wished! The demonstrations were only getting going!

The joy of protest

What does it look and feel like? First, really huge crowds. Thursday, the 17th, when the 14 Senators fled, the crowd is 25,000. The next day, 40,000. On Saturday, 68,000. The following Saturday, more than 70,000. (This despite the constantly below-freezing temperatures). The wide streets that make the square around the Capitol are packed all the way around. The crowd moves slowly, drumming, chanting, waving signs. The procession moves (wouldn’t you know it!) in a leftward direction.

There are some pre-printed signs, mainly from the many (more than 60) unions that are participating. They predominated on the first day or so, but quickly were swamped by thousands of wonderful, whimsical hand-made signs. Each communicates its maker’s own sense of the essence of the problem or the solution.

Humor is adopted as a weapon by many. Plays are made on the name of Scott Walker’s corporate backers, the Koch brothers (the funders of Americans For Prosperity, which already is taking out ads and organizing bus tours to support Walker).

“Scottie, kick your Koch habit.” Or, referring to the infamous 20 minute phone conversation with “David Koch:” “Scott: Koch dealer on 2.”

Many, a little ribald for these pages, play on the Koch brothers’ name mispronounced. Many other signs, always greatly appreciated by the crowd, proclaim: “I voted for Walker. And am I sorry.” You see the figure “14” everywhere: “14 Heroes!” Or just “14.” We all know who they are.

By the time of Saturday’s big demonstration on March 5 (when Michael Moore spoke) the variety of hand-made signs has come to seem infinite. Even dogs are displaying signs, on the order of “I smell a weasel!” or “Bad Scottie! Bad! Bad!”

Inside and out, music and drumming has a spontaneous character. Many of the drums are plastic drywall tubs, sometimes with a tin can inside to impart a ring. We also saw pans, cow bells, snare drums, African drums, even a ukulele. South African vuvuzelas blare discordantly.

Here and there, inside and out, speeches are being given. Most loudspeaker systems are minimalist, hand-held. Some speakers (or, shouters) use only old-fashioned unamplified megaphones (probably made at the kitchen table an hour ago).

Amid the drumming and the chanting in the Capitol, most speeches can’t be heard by most people. But that doesn’t stop us from cheering and applauding. We feel sure the speech was right on, saying just what we think!

Getting warm In Madison (I don’t mean the weather)

Monday, February 28, a new stage was reached. The Capitol reverberated throughout with the people’s voices. Governor Walker would present his budget on Tuesday evening. How could the television-watching public be allowed to see and hear the tens of thousands of citizens that would be outside the chamber?

Solution: close the Capitol to the public. He did. That added more fuel to the fire. The Dane County sheriff withdrew his men and women from the job of closing the entrances, making the unhelpful statement: “My deputies are not a palace guard.”

The Capitol police, assigned the job of clearing the rotunda of the tens, sometimes hundreds, of protesters who had camped there for two weeks, declined to do so, saying the protest had been remarkably peaceful, safe and respectful, and they saw no necessity of arresting and dragging out the campers.

A Dane County judge decided it was not legal to close the building to the public. He issued an injunction against the closure. This was overruled (not legally, of course) as Walker’s Department of Administration simply announced they were in compliance, but then did not open the building.

Some remarkable scenes ensued. Senator Glenn Grothman, a Tea Party Republican, left the Capitol for some reason and for some time could not get back in. He knocked on a window to attract the attention of his staff inside, and they assumed he was a demonstrator and ignored him. Meanwhile the crowd walked with him, wherever he went, and shouted “Shame! Shame! Shame!” (This was the refrain of the Democrats in the Assembly after the Budget Repair Bill there was passed — or “passed” — in a surprise vote at 1 a.m.

Finally, Grothman was rescued by a Democratic Assembly member who came out, calmed the crowd, and brought him back into the building. Afterwards, somewhat strangely, Grothman referred to the “slobs” who had “attacked” him, even though the crowd is dressed in pure Wisconsin and is almost embarrassingly middle class in character.

A Democratic Assembly member meanwhile was denied entrance to the Capitol completely; she had her official ID card but insisted it should not be required for her, as a Wisconsin citizen, to enter. Another Democratic Assembly member was tackled and taken to the floor by police (on video), even though he WAS showing his state ID card.

By the end of the week the Department of Administration had to retreat from their manifestly not-legal closure of the building. They then imposed a “security” system so elaborate as to make entrance an onerous, hour-long job. By Saturday March 5, this too was backed away from as a much more reasonable security check was administered by friendly police officers.

The Republican Senate then passed a resolution defining the absent 14 as in contempt, and ordering their arrest. But police spokesmen indicated they would not attempt to arrest them.

Still one more Walker initiative did not work out well. Probably feeding into Tea Party stereotypes involving long-haired, bad-smelling “radicals,” his administration announced that it would cost $7.5 million dollars to remove tape and repair other damage done to the beautiful Capitol building interior during the occupation.

Alas for Walker, both the painters union and an expert in landmark building preservation surveyed the building and reported that damages were slight to non-existent.

Finally, a Fox TV interview show about Madison by Bill O’Reilly cut in footage showing “unruly” (read dangerous Communist?) protesters. Unfortunately, in the scenes shown there was no snow, trees were leafed out, and palm trees could be seen. Oops: not Madison! (Ever since this report, some protesters have carried plastic palm trees.)

Beginning of a movement (or not?)

Where are we now? On Saturday, March 6, it is clear from speeches and conversations that most people feel that we are winning. Whistling in the graveyard? We can’t know for sure. But things seem to be swinging our way.

Walker was forced to present his biennial budget before getting the special powers provided in the Budget Repair Bill. Now, throughout Wisconsin communities are realizing the extent of the hit they are about to take, especially to their schools. Teachers all over Wisconsin are already getting layoff notices.

“Luxuries” like school athletic programs may have to go. Ambulance service may be cut. Smaller towns’ personnel budgets typically are about half police and firefighters and they are exempt from the anti-collective bargaining provisions (even if Walker gets them). Most communities already have multi-year contracts with their public workers anyway.

Demonstrations are beginning in the small towns. The polls make very bad reading for Republicans. Stay tuned.

My wife and I are old enough to remember the anti-Vietnam protests of the 60s. How does this compare? Larger, we would say, and happier. The participants are passionate about the issues: the attack on workers’ rights to collective bargaining and on their pensions and health care; cutting Medicaid eligibility and funding; pushing a state deficit down to the local level; and pushing the deficits born mainly of tax concessions to the rich and the corporations onto the schools and the young.

But also, humor seems to bubble through it all, and there is an enormous sense of fellowship. The police have mainly been wonderful (that’s a contrast!). The crowds are a complete cross-section of Wisconsin’s working (or studying) population, and all ages are participating.

Everyone admits that, while they are campaigning seriously for the old Wisconsin (good schools, good government, clean government, union rights, democracy), they are also having the best time that they’ve had in a long time. Emma Goldman would have loved it.

Is this the beginning of a nationwide mobilization of the center and the left against right-wing extremism? All here in Madison hope so. We’ll have to wait to see. In the meantime, we feel that our protest here is, indeed, exactly “what democracy looks like!”

[Dr. Paul Beckett lives in Madison, Wisconsin. He can be reached at beckettpa@gmail.com.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Ted McLaughlin : Is Unemployment Actually Climbing?

Political cartoon from Gallery View.

Poll puts lie to government figures:
Gallup shows unemployment is on the rise

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / March 7, 2011

The official government unemployment figures have not been released yet for the month of February, but if they’re anything like the January figures then they probably can’t be trusted anyway. In January the government figures showed that the unemployment rate had fallen to 9.0%, even though there were barely enough jobs created to keep up with the number of new people entering the workforce (if that many).

How can it be that the figures dropped then? The government doesn’t bother to count ALL of the unemployed — only the ones getting unemployment benefits or using unemployment centers to try and find work. Those who have decided the unemployment center can’t help them or have given up altogether on finding a job aren’t counted.

The Labor Department, that compiles the unemployment statistics, even admitted that the 9.0% figure just showed that a whole lot more people had given up in January rather than showing a real reduction in the number of people out of work.

So how are we to know what the real unemployment is in America? Is it improving or getting worse? One resource that is probably more accurate than government figures is the Gallup Poll.

Gallup does a survey of the population by contacting about 18,000 people each month (which gives their survey a margin of error of only 1% — very accurate). And Gallup paints a very different picture of unemployment in America than the flawed government statistics do.

Gallup shows unemployment has been steadily climbing since the end of December. They showed a 9.6% unemployment rate at the end of December and a 9.8% rate at the end of January. The end of February marked a return to double-digit unemployment with a rate of 10.3%. That is virtually the same rate as this time last year (10.4%), which means that the economy is just spinning its wheels and going nowhere regarding job creation.

Underemployment: where things get scary. Graphic from Gallup.

And when you add in the number of people who are working part-time because they can’t find full-time work (about 9.6%), which Gallup calls the underemployment rate, the numbers get pretty scary. That figure now rests at 19.9%. Last year at this time it was 19.7%.

And considering the fact that most of the few new jobs being created pay less, in both wages and benefits, than the jobs lost due to the recession and outsourcing (which continues unabated) it becomes obvious that the job market is not only not improving — it is getting worse.

And with the return to power of Republicans (at least enough power to block any job stimulus programs) the job market is not going to improve anytime soon.

The Republicans want to return to their policy of “trickle down” economics — which is to slash government spending while continually lowering taxes on corporations and the richest Americans. Today we tend to think this policy started with the Reagan administration, and it is true that’s when America started a return to that policy. But the policy is much older than that. It was the flawed policy of the Hoover administration (and previous Republican administrations), and it was directly responsible for turning a serious recession into the Great Depression.

Today our government is beginning to repeat that disastrous bit of history, only this time we have added to it a policy of encouraging American companies to outsource good jobs, so they can turn them into low-wage jobs (with no benefits) in other countries. How can we expect a better outcome now than 80 years ago?

The truth is that the Republicans, with the help of some misguided “blue dog” Democrats, have put us on the path to destruction — and there’s not a thing we can do about it for the next couple of years. Even if the Democrats have enough backbone to block many of the worst Republican cuts to necessary government services (which is in doubt), the Republican control of the House of Representatives will allow them to kill any effort by Democrats to stimulate real job creation.

Buckle your seat belts because we’re in for a very bumpy ride, and the best we can hope for is to survive that ride until enough Americans realize what the Republicans are doing to the economy. I just hope they wake up before we hit the ground and crash.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Alice Embree : Texas Actions Mark 100 Years of Celebrating Women

More than 1,000 marched in San Antonio March 5, 2011, to observe International Women’s Day. Photos by Susan Van Haitsma (top) and Alice Embree / The Rag Blog.

International Women’s Day:
100 years of celebrating women

By Alice Embree / The Rag Blog / March 7, 2011

See gallery of photos below.

SAN ANTONIO — March 8th is International Women’s Day. CodePink and BookWoman are collaborating on an event in Austin to mark this day.

San Antonio observed International Women’s Day on Saturday, March 5, with its 21st annual celebration — a march of more than 1,000 that embraced issues of reproductive rights, attacks on transgendered people, local union struggles for nurses and hotel workers, and women’s demands for peace and justice. The spirited march through San Antonio culminated with poetry, music, and speeches. CodePink Austin participated for the second year.

I was unaware of International Women’s Day and its roots in U.S. labor struggles until 1970. As the women’s liberation movement was beginning to reshape my consciousness, I participated in a small celebration in the basement of an Austin campus-area church.

The March 8 events gathered scope and were observed throughout the 70s with activities that included women’s theater, skits, and workshops on global struggles for women’s rights from Asia to Iran to Austin. Workshops highlighted gay and lesbian rights and the dual oppression experienced by women of color.

It was a period in which women challenged countless barriers, including those to employment. Women filed lawsuits, or threatened them, to become Austin bus drivers, emergency medical technicians, firefighters, and cable splicers. Out of Austin came the historic legal challenge to abortion laws, Roe V. Wade. Women set up peer counseling services and demanded services for victims of rape and domestic abuse.

International Women’s Day is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. In many countries, it is a national holiday, a time when women and men honor the struggle for equality, justice, and peace. The United Nations has observed March 8 as International Women’s Day since 1975, a year designated by the UN as International Women’s Year.

The idea of an international day for women was advanced by socialist parties in the United States and other countries and propelled by the historic struggles for women’s suffrage and workplace rights at the turn of the century. In 1911, more than one million people attended worldwide rallies demanding the women’s right to vote, hold public office, and organize on the job to end discrimination.

Less than a week after these rallies, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in New York City took the lives of more than 140 women garment workers. It was a horrific fire with a devastating loss of life because women had been locked into the building. 100,000 people participated in the funeral march for the women workers. PBS has recently aired a documentary on this event.

In 1912, in the textile mills of Lawrence, Massachusetts, 20,000 workers walked out of the mills protesting wage cuts. Most of them were women. The strikers had a committee of 56 representing 27 languages.

The strikers — mostly immigrant women — won significant concessions and a placard, “Bread and Roses,” inspired a poem by James Oppenheim that was later set to music by Caroline Kohlsaat. The song, “Bread and Roses,” captures the spirit of International Women’s Day.

In 1917, with two million Russian soldiers dead as the result of World War I, women chose the last Sunday in February to strike for “bread and peace.” Four days later, the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional Government granted women the right to vote. That historic Sunday fell on the 23rd of February on the Julian calendar then in use in Russia, but on March 8 on the Gregorian calendar in use elsewhere.

Fast forward to today. We can see the legacy of the second wave feminist victories from women’s leadership in countless progressive organizations to a woman president of the Texas AFL-CIO. But we are witnessing historic backlash with assaults on reproductive choice and funding for programs as important as domestic and international family planning.

At the University of Texas, the Center for Women’s and Gender Studies was singled out for severe cuts. In Wisconsin, we not only see an assault on workers’ rights, but on teachers — a field in which women workers are the majority. It is my hope that this International Women’s Day will mark the beginning of an era in which progressive fights converge as effectively as Austin’s pro-choice rally merged with the Wisconsin workers support rally on Saturday, February 26.

The rising of the women is the rising of us all!

[Alice Embree is a long-time Austin activist, organizer, and member of the Texas State Employees Union. A former staff member of The Rag in Austin and RAT in New York, and a veteran of SDS and the women’s liberation movement, she is now active with CodePink Austin and Under the Hood Café. Embree is a contributing editor to The Rag Blog and is treasurer of the New Journalism Project.]








Peeking through the pink peace symbol above is The Rag Blog‘s Alice Embree.

International Women’s Day in San Antonio. Group of photos above by Susan Van Haitsma / The Rag Blog.





Lower group of photos by Alice Embree / The Rag Blog.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments