Obama Government Bombs Pakistan

Obama bombs Pakistan – from warrantless wiretaps to bombing in countries we are not at war with and who understandably object to this invasion and murder of their people. I am not euphoric yet.

Substitute “Austin” for “Pakistan” in the phrase “missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan”. Personally, I suspect their are plenty of terrorists in Washington D.C.

Alan Pogue / The Rag Blog

Leaders from Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area along the border with Afghanistan met with Pakistani Army officials last February. On Friday, the US launched air attacks in Pakistan within the Waziristan area in a concrete demonstration of the Obama administration’s Pakistan policy. Photo: John Moore/Getty Images.

Two US Airstrikes Offer a Concrete Sign of Obama’s Pakistan Policy
By R. Jeffrey Smith, Candace Rondeaux and Joby Warrick / January 24, 2009

Two remote U.S. missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan yesterday offered the first tangible sign of President Obama’s commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups there, even though Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral U.S. actions.

The shaky Pakistani government of Asif Ali Zardari has expressed hopes for warm relations with Obama, but members of Obama’s new national security team have already telegraphed their intention to make firmer demands of Islamabad than the Bush administration, and to back up those demands with a threatened curtailment of the plentiful military aid that has been at the heart of U.S.-Pakistani ties for the past three decades.

The separate strikes on two compounds, coming three hours apart and involving five missiles fired from Afghanistan-based Predator drone aircraft, were the first high-profile hostile military actions taken under Obama’s four-day-old presidency. A Pakistani security official said in Islamabad that the strikes appeared to have killed at least 10 insurgents, including five foreign nationals and possibly even “a high-value target” such as a senior al-Qaeda or Taliban official.

It remained unclear yesterday whether Obama personally authorized the strike or was involved in its final planning, but military officials have previously said the White House is routinely briefed about such attacks in advance.

At his daily White House briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs declined to answer questions about the strikes, saying, “I’m not going to get into these matters.” Obama convened his first National Security Council meeting on Pakistan and Afghanistan yesterday afternoon, after the strike.

The Pakistani government, which has loudly protested some earlier strikes, was quiet yesterday. In September, U.S. and Pakistani officials reached a tacit agreement to allow such attacks to continue without Pakistani involvement, according to senior officials in both countries.

But some Pakistanis have said they expect a possibly bumpy diplomatic stretch ahead.

“Pakistan hopes that Obama will be more patient while dealing with Pakistan,” Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington, said in an interview Wednesday with Pakistan’s Geo television network. “We will review all options if Obama does not adopt a positive policy towards us.” He urged Obama to “hear us out.”

At least 132 people have been killed in 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes inside Pakistan since August, all conducted by the CIA, in a ramped-up effort by the outgoing Bush administration.

Obama’s August 2007 statement — that he favored taking direct action in Pakistan against potential threats to U.S. security if Pakistani security forces do not act — made him less popular in Pakistan than in any other Muslim nation polled before the election.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated during her Senate confirmation hearing that the new administration will not relent in holding Pakistan to account for any shortfalls in the continuing battle against extremists.

Linking Pakistan with neighboring Afghanistan “on the front line of our global counterterrorism efforts,” Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “we will use all the elements of our powers — diplomacy, development and defense — to work with those . . . who want to root out al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other violent extremists.” She also said those in Pakistan who do not join the effort will pay a price, adding a distinctly new element to the long-standing U.S. effort to lure Pakistan closer to the West.

In blunt terms in her written answers to the committee’s questions, Clinton pledged that Washington will “condition” future U.S. military aid on Pakistan’s efforts to close down terrorist training camps and evict foreign fighters. She also demanded that Pakistan “prevent” the continued use of its historically lawless northern territories as a sanctuary by either the Taliban or al-Qaeda. And she promised that Washington would provide all the support Pakistan needs if it specifically goes after targets such as Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be using Pakistani mountains as a hideout.

At the same time, Clinton pledged to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan, long dwarfed by the more than $6 billion funneled to Pakistani military forces under President George W. Bush through the Pentagon’s counterterrorism office in Islamabad.

“The conditioning of military aid is substantially different,” as is the planned boost of economic aid, said Daniel Markey, a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow who handled South Asian matters on the State Department’s policy planning staff from 2003 to 2007.

Bush’s focus on military aid to a Pakistani government that was led by an army general until August eventually drew complaints in both countries that much of the funding was spent without accountability or, instead of being used to root out terrorists, was diverted to forces intended for a potential conflict with India.

A study in 2007 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that economic, humanitarian and development assistance under Bush amounted to no more than a quarter of all aid, less than in most countries.

The criticism helped provoke a group of senators who now have powerful new roles — Joseph R. Biden Jr., Clinton and Obama — to co-sponsor legislation last July requiring that more aid be targeted at political pluralism, the rule of law, human and civil rights, and schools, public health and agriculture.

It also would have allowed U.S. weapons sales and other military aid only if the secretary of state certified that Pakistani military forces were making “concerted efforts” to undermine al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In her confirmation statement, Clinton reiterated her support for such a legislative restructuring of the aid program, while reaffirming that she opposed any “blank check.”

Some Pakistanis have been encouraged by indications that Obama intends to increase aid to the impoverished country, said Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani who directs the South Asia Center of the Washington-based Atlantic Council of the United States. Nawaz said Pakistanis may be willing to overlook an occasional missile lobbed at foreign terrorists if Obama makes a sincere attempt to improve conditions in Pakistan.

“He can’t just focus on military achievements; he has to win over the people,” Nawaz said. “Relying on military strikes will not do the trick.” Attaching conditions to the aid is wise, Nawaz said, because “people are more cognizant of the need for accountability — for ‘tough love.’ “

[Rondeaux reported from Islamabad. Special correspondent Haq Nawaz Khan in Islamabad contributed to this report.]

Source / Washington Post

Thanks to Alan Pogue / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Michelle Obama’s Yellow Dress : Shades of Oshun

“Oshun” by Brigid Ashwood.

Oshun is an Afro-Cuban goddess of love, maternity and marriage.

By Karen Lee Wald
/ The Rag Blog / January 24, 2009

Since several people commented that Michelle Obama was wearing a yellow dress designed by a Cuban American, and that yellow is the color of the African and Afro-Cuban goddess or orisha, Oshun, I thought it worth passing on some information about Oshun, for whatever it is worth to you.

Specialists in the topic can add more, this is just from googling it:

Oshun — with a nod to Wikipedia — is beneficient and generous, and very kind. She does, however, have a horrific temper, though it is difficult to anger her. She is married to Ṣàngó, the god of thunder, and is his favorite wife because of her excellent cooking skills. One of his other wives, Oba, was her rival. They are the goddesses of the Ọṣun and Oba rivers, which meet in a turbulent place with difficult rapids.

Santería

In Cuban Santería, Oshun (sometimes spelled Ochún or Ochun) is an Orisha of love, maternity and marriage. She has been syncretized with Our Lady of Charity (La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre), Cuba’s patroness. She is associated with the color yellow,

[Karen Wald edits Cuba-Inside-Out.]

Kate Betts wrote in Time:

First Lady Michelle Obama picked fashion insider Isabel Toledo, 47, to design her Inaugural ensemble. The glamorous, creamy yellow dress and matching overcoat were made of satin-backed wool guipure, a kind of lace used most often in French haute couture. Obama accessorized the look with a sparkling crystal necklace and green leather gloves and shoes. […]

Cuban-born Toledo, who has been designing for 25 years and worked for a time at Anne Klein, is known in fashion circles as a “designer’s designer” for her wit and whimsical sense of pattern, fit and fabric. The Manhattan-based designer also made the black tunic and palazzo pants that Obama wore to a fundraiser last June. But for her husband’s swearing-in ceremony, Obama chose an elegantly sunny yellow, a color that for centuries has represented optimism.

Toledo, who works out of a studio on Broadway and 28th Street along with her husband, fashion illustrator Ruben Toledo, was an unlikely choice for today’s ensemble because she is not a mainstream designer. In 1998 the fashion maverick stopped presenting biannual collections, instead choosing to create on her own schedule. […]

“I was so honored to hear that she’s a fan,” Toledo said after learning that Obama had worn one of her designs during the campaign. “She chose to wear a dress made by a Latina and made in the U.S.,” the designer told the New York Daily News. “She chose to support the industry here.”

And George Spyros, in The Huffington Post.

Questions of taste aside, we think it’s great that Cuban-American Toledo did the dress for the first African-American first lady: it’s an inclusive gesture to our country’s latinos and a hopeful nod toward our neighbors in Cuba to the south.

And, to follow the tangent, more about Oshun, this from Lowell:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar… but if the Cuban-American designer was thinking of or under the influence of Ochun, I’d like the add this: Ochun is the most powerful, most revered oricha. She was not married to but had affairs with Chango and Oggun, was married to to Orunla, Inle Abata and Babaluaye. Chango was married to Oya Yansan. Ochun was given the river as a domain by Yemaya and Aggayu. Ochun has the last word in all affairs, so she is ONE oricha you never want to piss off, she is the oricha who always wins. Annoy Obatala, but if Ochun has your side, you will come out alright.

One of my favorite patakins [stories/folktales] is when humanity had come to dishonor the gods and be lured into new ways. When death and drought came, the people prayed to the gods for relief; none took pity, having lost faith in human beings. Uniquely, Ochun, the youngest oricha, took her beautiful messenger bird to Heaven to speak on humanity’s behalf. God heard her and brought rain and relief. The beautiful bird Ochun used was forever scarred by the journey so close to the sun: this is how the vulture came to look as it does. The vulture is one of her messengers, as are the partridge and quail.

The arts of divination were the sole propriety of Orunla, until Ochun studied after him with certain limits: so while babalawos may read the full range of texts, priests of oricha retain this limit. One of Ochun’s titles is Apetiba Orunla, wife of Orula, who was a king and was able to spread his divination message thanks to his wife, Ochun’s study. Iyalodde [the crowned woman] is another of Ochun’s titles. Just as Orula would not have had success without Ochun, his priests, the babalawos, have a special place for Ochun in their worship … Obama?

Ochun is the only oricha of LIFE and the FIGHT FOR LIFE. Ochun is the oricha of SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Fidel is from the region of Cuba where Ochun’s basilica is located. When he started fighting, his mother took offerings to the basilica for Ochun [la virgen de caridad del cobre. The persistent rumor is Fidel is a babalawo.

The Rag Blog

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

Ruthy and the Pedal People : Taking Out the Trash

Ruthy Woodring: Garbage duty in the Massachusetts winter. Photo courtesy the Pedal People.

I like Ruthy’s special combination of valuing personal independence and community interdependence. I’ve rarely met a young woman who seems as fearless and sanguine about the world, even though she is wise to the hard things in life.

By Susan Van Haitsma / The Rag Blog / January 24, 2009

This week, my partner and I had a most interesting house guest. Ruthy Woodring arrived Monday night by train and made her own way to our house via foot power. She travels light, with her home-made back-pack, a small sleeping bag and a folding scooter. In past trips, she has sometimes traveled with her folding bike. She’s not only a bicycle advocate, she has helped create a bicycle-powered livelihood.

I had met Ruthy a couple of times before — once in Chicago when she was living at a Catholic Worker house. I remembered the beautiful garden she was cultivating there at the time, a productive plot of earth tucked into the urban landscape. Now, she and her partner, Alex Jarrett run a bicycle powered trash and recycling pick-up service in Northampton, MA. They began the business in 2002 and call themselves Pedal People.

Check them out on the web. They’ve established a brilliant niche in a green economy. Northampton doesn’t have municipal trash pick-up, so Ruthy and Alex entered the market by offering to take trash and recycling to the city’s transfer center via bike trailer — year-round. We’re talking winter in Massachusetts, and that’s serious business when you’re hauling 250 pounds through slush and snow. A page on their web site describes what they wear for the weather. If they can carry loads by bike all year in that climate, there is not much standing in the way of other such businesses operating in smallish towns all over.

Ruthy borrowed my bike while she was here to explore Austin, and she was quite impressed with our trails. The home she and Alex bought in MA was chosen because it backs up to a Rails-to-Trails corridor. Their household also has experimented with solar energy — using a single solar panel that they can move around, which powers their fridge (a chest-style, low-energy model) and a couple of LED lights. They have a garden and compost intensely.

I like Ruthy’s special combination of valuing personal independence and community interdependence. I’ve rarely met a young woman who seems as fearless and sanguine about the world, even though she is wise to the hard things in life and has been willing to give up her own freedom for a time when she spent 6 months in a federal prison for crossing the line at the School of the Americas. She thinks carefully about the resources she uses — food, water, even small, day-to-day materials. She left us with some colorful, home-made envelopes she had created during her train trip (she travels with a few tools, like scissors and a bike wrench) from pages of calendars she’d retrieved from her recent recycling pick-ups (a winter bonus).

Check out this article about Pedal People published in the last issue of Orion magazine. And here’s a quote from Ruthy I like from one of the interviews posted on the Pedal People site. When asked if she sometimes uses cars, Ruthy responds,

“Oh, sure, sometimes I carpool, hitch, take the bus or the train. But I try to keep my transportation simple and nonviolent. When I’m in a car, looking out at the houses and trees speeding by, I feel for those whose lives I’m unknowingly impacting — the people who live next to the highway who never hear quiet, the people who have to breathe the air I’m polluting, the people who lost their land to highway construction, their farms to sprawl and strip malls, the animals who can’t roam because they can’t cross the highway… I don’t think any of us uses resources in a way completely consistent with our beliefs. But for me, since I can bike and I like it, this is one way I can minimize my complicity in the violence done to our planet.”

Ruthy took off for Mexico on a late-night Greyhound, and we hope to hear about her adventures when she passes back through Austin on her way north next month. Since her visit, my partner and I have been even more aware of our own footprint on the earth, thinking about ways we can, like Ruthy and Alex, creatively problem-solve to live more compatibly with our neighborhood and planet. As always, the power of example is the greatest teacher, and Ruthy opened us to a wellspring of happy possibility.

[Susan Van Haitsma also blogs as makingpeace at Statesman.com and at makingpeace.]

The Rag Blog

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

Ending the War on Drugs: The Story of Howard Wooldridge


Saddling Up for Legalization
By Tom Moates / January 2009

“Cops say, ‘Legalize Pot,’ ask me why.”

The big plain letters spelling this message across an otherwise basic T-shirt popped out at the onlooker, and were easily discernable at considerable distance from wherever the rider sat atop his horse. This simple yet potentially volatile statement sparked conversation, and debate—and the cowboy cop carried it like a human/equestrian billboard through towns, cities, and even deserts all across America…that is, literally across America, the whole way from ocean-to-ocean in one continuous journey.

Howard Wooldridge, a retired officer and detective with a stellar 18-year record, may seem an unlikely candidate to carry a pro-legalization message to the masses. Equally unique is the Paul Revere/Pony Express kind of method he thought up for getting the dialog going with America. But that’s Wooldridge: sincere, outspoken, fluent in four languages, armed with hard facts, and always fearlessly blazing new trails. Plus, Howard and his horse, Misty (Smooth Georgia Mist) already had ridden across the country once, so they knew exactly what lay in store for them on this journey.

In the ranks of Long Riders, Wooldridge holds the distinction of being not only a well respected member of The Long Riders’ Guild, but the only Long Rider known to have traveled coast-to-coast across America in both directions, ever. The Royal Geographical Society (the world’s largest geographical organization, established in 1830, acknowledged the significance of Howard’s saddle-tramping by honoring him as a Fellow. His one-eyed horse, Misty, is famous too for making both journeys, although she walked along beside another saddle horse for the latter part of the second trip. Misty is likewise famous for writing the memoir of their first ride together, Misty’s Long Ride (Howard helped her with the spelling).

The first Long Ride the pair made stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific in 2003. The second trip from the Pacific back east to the Atlantic in 2005 was spurred by Wooldridge’s motivation to get out and talk to people in America about his firm conviction that the United States can benefit in many extremely important ways by changing its current drug policies.

This equestrian adventurer is hardly alone in the ranks of police feeling this way. He is part of an organization called, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP, www.leap.cc), which lobbies hard to change entrenched views and convince lawmakers of real benefits that can result for law enforcement officials, tax payers, and the rest of the country from a change in drug policies.

Wooldridge’s own words certainly best describe his endeavors. The following interview provides some insight into his most unique modern equestrian expeditions.

What got you fired up to ride across country to begin with? And then again?

“Without dreams, the spirit wanes and eventually dies. At 52 I had ridden a horse around the pyramids and walked in the shadow of Mt. Everest. The concept of riding my horse across North America began as a daydream, then an idea, then a project that I made happen.”

“The second trip was pure politics. I knew that while riding across the country, I would generate media attention and thus move my issue of ending Modern Prohibition.”

Tell a little about your partner in this, Misty.

“Misty was bred, born and spent her first two years just north of Fort Worth, Texas. She is three quarters paint and one quarter we don’t know, making her a registered Pinto. Her markings are Tobiano. At 15.2h she was big enough to make the journey, especially with me walking every third mile. She has a natural calm and giving disposition, crucial for the Long Ride next to busy U.S. highways. I received her at five and she was only halter broke. My former wife Lin and I started her. After three months I switched from using a soft bit to a Hackamore bridle. She has not had a bit in her mouth since 1999.”

“Shortly after arriving at our ranchette in Fort Worth, she suffered a severe blunt trauma to her right eye, probably from a kick. Six weeks later the surgeons removed the eye. After a few weeks of adjustment, she accepted her new condition, depending on me to keep her out of trouble. I never allow anyone to ride her outside of a controlled environment because of the eye.”

How would you describe the experience of Long Riding in a few words? Would you recommend it to others?

“Becoming a Long Rider is a life-changing experience. The road teaches humility and fellowship as horse and rider depend on the kindness of strangers to succeed.”

“Would I recommend it? (Wooldridge laughs at the word choice.) Yes. Anyone can do it. One only needs a good pony, an iron discipline and faith in oneself.”

The second ride had the purpose of creating awareness for ending prohibition; can you accurately explain what that means as you promote it?

“This modern prohibition – War on Drugs – has been the most disastrous, dysfunctional and immoral social policy since slavery. The policy generates the majority of felony crime, thus lowering our quality of life. My profession could lock up many more public safety threats like the DUI, child molesters, etc, if we did not spend close to 10 million hours chasing non-violent, adult drug users.”

“I have arrested child rapists. I have an idea of how much pain, suffering and future anguish the victims experience. Knowing that the perpetrators of this are going uncaught and unpunished because my colleagues focus on drug users drives me forward with an unwavering energy and commitment.”

What inspired you to that idea?

“18 years of police service translates that, till the moment of my passing, I will bleed blue if you cut me. I have a strong desire to ‘protect and serve.’ Since I can no longer arrest a DUI, moving the prohibition policy into the history books will improve public safety which is always my goal.”

How were you typically received across the country?

“The first ride was mixed, though overall positive. Wearing the shirt that said: COPS SAY LEGALIZE POT, a gentleman in Colorado, and months later one in Oregon, threatened to go home, get their gun and shoot me out of the saddle. That I was wearing my own 9MM Sig Sauer may have given them pause.”

“Regular folks took us in regardless of my politics. They simply saw a cowboy and horse that needed a good meal and a dry, comfortable stall.”

How did the Long Ride ultimately pan out as a catalyst for conversation and change?

“It was a fantastic tool, which sparked hundreds of conversations. The vast majority walked away with an understanding that changed their opinion.”

Did Misty help open the door for communication when you, a stranger, rode into new places that wouldn’t have happened if, say, you rode up on a Harley or a Toyota or with a backpack walking or bicycling?

“No question Misty was the key to meeting people. Needing water, I knocked on the doors of dozens of homes. Most of the time the person home was a woman, either alone or with small children. I looked tired & worn out but they always looked past that to see Misty. Without exception they opened their door and helped us. Several times I came inside and they fed and watered me. It was amazing.”

“Bicyclists do have some of the same experiences but nowhere near as often. The horse is THE generator of trust.”

What is your current life/work like? How have the Long Rides changed you?

“Currently I work some 50+ hours in the Washington, DC area, spending my hours in the US Congress. There I educate staff and Members of Congress on the need to end Modern Prohibition. The work is challenging and stressful. I always have to be ‘on.’ In its own way, it is much like police work.”

“On the other hand it is a joy to use every bit of knowledge and ability that I have built up over 57 years. I manage to speak my foreign languages on a regular basis. I am constantly creating new concepts to better project the message. Staffers and I have discussed non-drug issues from no-till farming to ocean fish farms to tax polices. I have to be ready to sound intelligent on everything.”

“Has the journey changed me? The Rides reminded me that the vast majority of people are good, giving and trusting. The Rides reminded me that no matter how distant the goal, taking it one day at a time, the goal comes closer every day. Then one morning there is the ocean. Ending Modern Prohibition is much like that as I work the halls of Congress. One day the policy will be over and we will return to Texas.”

Source / Horse Connection

Thanks to Mariann Wizard / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Bolivia : The Victory of Leftist Populism

Bolivian peasant passes by campaign posters for President Evo Morales.

Remember Latin America? Something’s happening down there.

By James Retherford / The Rag Blog / January 24, 2009

See ‘From Rightist Chaos to Leftist Constitutionalism:
The Institutionalization of Bolivian Populism’ by Chris Sweeney, Below.

Will the new administration embrace fundamental democratic change south of the border? Or will neo-liberalism regain cachet with Hillary in charge of the State Department.

Not as “politicized” as Cuba and Venezuela, Bolivia is nonetheless a barometer for how U.S. attempts to apply the Monroe Doctrine in the 21st century.

The following is a fascinating and comprehensive analysis of the historical evolution and establishment of leftist populism in Bolivia. Author Chris Sweeney is a Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

From Rightist Chaos to Leftist Constitutionalism:
The Institutionalization of Bolivian Populism

By Chris Sweeney / January 23, 2009

A Historic Moment

Since the start of the new millennium, popular movements in Bolivia have learned to mobilize en masse to form a united front of class and ethnicity to oust two presidents and reject a third candidate. Bolivians have also elected one of their own, who without strong middle class and mestizo support, probably would not have won. Evo Morales, a full-blooded Aymaran indigenous, became Bolivia’s first native president in December 2005 with 53.7 percent of the vote, an unprecedented majority in a country where support from a quarter of the electorate is considered respectable. He took office in January 2006 and has since acted to change the internal structure of the country to reflect the ambitions and interests of those social movements which are intent on rallying behind him.

On October 21, 2008, Bolivia came one step closer to holding a referendum that eventually could have the potential to shape the country for generations to come. On that date, January 25, 2009, Congress approved when the vote would be staged to determine whether or not the country adopts a new constitution. The proposed draft is designed to redress centuries of structural oppression and humiliation faced by Bolivia’s indigenous and working class majority. A second vote would be staged on the referendum on whether to hold a second referendum which was also approved on the same day regarding whether to deal with the unresolved issue of limiting excessive and disproportionate land ownership. People will be given the choice between capping future individual landholdings at levels of either 5,000 or 10,000 hectares.

If it passes as expected, the new constitution will furbish a profound improvement for social progress for those, like the indigenous, who were previously disenfranchised in the country. The new structure would mean the consolidation and institutionalization of Bolivia’s indigenous nationalist movement, composed of workers’ unions, indigenous communities, and popular interest groups across the country. Such a feat has only been made possible because of Morales’ political grouping “Movement towards Socialism” (MAS) ability to harness the momentum of Bolivia’s current social movements towards the political advancement of his cause. As a result, Bolivia now stands ready to implement dramatic social reforms, which have been hundreds of years in the waiting.

A Land Divided

Bolivia has experienced a history of biased development and political corruption that continues to haunt the current MAS administration. As a result, the country has a long legacy of mobilization and activism. Until 1982, it had experienced more coups than it had years of democratic governances. Today, political instability continues to reflect the status quo. This is exemplified in the fact that although technically democratically elected, there have been six presidents in the last eight years. This high turnover can, in part, be attributed to the fractured state of Bolivian society, which is divided along geographic, ethnic, ideological and class-based lines.

Bolivia’s indigenous comprise almost two-thirds of the national population, yet historically have been relegated to the periphery of Bolivia’s civic, economic and political institutions. The two largest indigenous groups are the Quechua, comprising 30 percent of the total population, and the Aymara, another 25 percent. These communities live predominantly as subsistence farmers in the Cochabamban valley and the western highlands of La Paz, Oruro and Potosi respectively. This population ranges from poor to extremely destitute and routinely have been excluded from authentic political, economic, and social processes throughout much of Bolivia’s history. The situation east of the Andes, meanwhile, is quite different. There, a wealthy minority, largely of European descent, has partitioned the country’s best agricultural land and natural gas reserves for their own benefit. A system of elite control Bolivia’s leading businesses, media outlets and traditional political parties, while these residents in the east enjoy a higher standard of living than most South Americans.

The stark contrast of rich and poor Bolivian society is certainly not a recent phenomenon and neither is resistance against the status quo. To appreciate Bolivia’s recent ongoing turmoil, it is important to understand the specific facets of social movement and protest in the country as today’s trends are certainly in part shaped by the successes and failures of years past.

Domination and Resistance

The first major phase of social protest in Bolivia started in 1780 as an indigenous movement against Spanish colonial rule. In August of that year, Tupaj Katari led an insurgency in the Potosí department which sparked a chain of local movements that soon spread unrest across the western altiplano and beyond. Indigenous militias, aided by their intimate knowledge of the land and backed by popular support, were successful in clearing the Spanish from the countryside. However, when it reached the edge of the city of La Paz, the indigenous uprising failed. Katari led a five month siege on La Paz, the stronghold of colonial power, yet was unable to take control. He was ultimately captured in 1781, and the Spanish retained control of the country until 1825, when Bolivia’s independence was declared. This early insurgency set the pattern for subsequent Indian risings. They fought for communal sovereignty and cultural recognition and were led by a strong and charismatic figure. Although the main movement was able to mobilize the countryside en masse, it ultimately failed because it was unable to forge any urban allies.

Over a century and a half later, a different type of social movement broke out. In 1952, an urban insurrection was formed by organized labor, students, intellectuals, and a progressive middle class under the leadership of Víctor Paz Estenssoro. The latter had been elected president on the National Revolutionary Movement (MNR) ticket, yet was prevented at the time from assuming power by the incumbent government. The MNR was a quasi Marxist political party committed to nationalize Bolivia’s mining industry and combat international imperialism. The 1952 uprising was a movement of class consciousness that soon succeeded in placing Estenssoro in power. This was in marked contrast to Katari’s earlier rebellion, which fought in vain for indigenous sovereignty, and while he never succeeded because he lacked support in urban areas, the MNR ultimately failed because it did not address the institutional barriers that excluded the indigenous, on a defacto basis, from civil society. Moreover, Katari was unable to maintain any sort of rural support and neglected to forge close ties among the campesino and alliances with the miners.

In 1964, at the start of his third term, Estenssoro was overthrown by a military coup, followed by nearly two decades of coups and right-wing military dictatorships. However, not all was lost during this time in terms of social activism. In 1973, an indigenous revolutionary group known as the kataristas issued the ‘Manifesto of Tiwanaku,’ a radical document that merged peasant class consciousness with indigenous ethnic consciousness and identified both colonialism and capitalism as responsible for continued exploitation. The kataristas were able to forge alliances with the working class, petty merchants, and the non-indigenous peasantry, forming a powerful alliance between otherwise disconnected groups. Such alliances would set the pattern for successful social movements in the future.

‘Transition’ in the 1980s

The kataristas led a series of mass mobilizations in the late 1970s, and procedural democracy was restored in 1982. In that year, the Democratic Popular Unity (UDP) ticket, a loose coalition of 20-odd leftist and non-aligned political parties and movements, was elected to power with the goal of resuming the nationalist project of the MNR 30 years prior. However, the UDP proved unable to maintain any sort of collective unity, which became the Achilles’ heel of 20th century social movements in Bolivia. Debt and hyperinflation ravaged the country and internal rifts, combined with active opposition forces, crippled the UDP until it folded its reformist attempt and called for early elections in 1985.

The subsequent regime was headed by former MNR president Paz Estenssoro, who now was bitter in his old age. With the help of Planning Minister and future President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, the 78-year old Estenssoro “set out to dismantle whatever remained of the revolution he had forged three decades earlier.” In a manner similar to Augusto Pinochet, and persuaded by the same ‘Chicago Boys’as in Chile, Estenssoro implemented a harsh series of austerity measures drafted by students of Jeffrey Sachs, who was then at Harvard University. In the process, the power and profits of key resource industries were concentrated in the hands of an elite minority of owners in the eastern lowlands and abroad. The political left, still stymied by the failures of the UDP, was unable to present any sort of formidable resistance or alternative model, and the social safety nets that had previously addressed Bolivia’s social crises, at least on a surface level, were all but vanquished.

The result was the best and worst of free markets. Inflation rates dropped from a whopping 8,170 percent to a more manageable 9 percent within a year. Meanwhile 35,000 factory workers and 20,000 miners lost their jobs due to privatization. This, combined with the worst El Niño in 200 years, coincided with a downturn in global tin prices. The cost of commodities in Bolivia soared, the middle class slipped into poverty and thousands were forced to relocate in search of work. According to journalist Benjamin Dangle, the displacement of Bolivia’s once-radical, now-unemployed working class served to “spread the embers of the fire around Bolivia.” The effect of this was that the most ardent opposition to the country’s ruling political elites was no longer limited to a particular region or industry; but rather was diffused throughout the country, along with their nationalist sentiments and honed union labor organizational skills. Many went to look for a new life in the city, namely El Alto and Cochabamba, while others went to work on the plantations in the eastern lowlands. Meanwhile, most militants of the displaced workers resettled in Bolivia’s central regions to work alongside indigenous cocaleros (coca growers). Among them was a young Evo Morales.

The Emergence of ‘Indigenous Nationalism’

Coca farming attracted a sizeable portion of out-of-work campesinos because it offered steady employment and relatively high wages. Not long after, coca became one of Bolivia’s most profitable exports and supported entire regional economies through the influx of cash and the jobs which it created. Coca would be flown out of the Chapare in light aircraft by Colombian cartels to foreign destinations, where it was processed into cocaine. The next stop would be to the United States where a frenzied consumer base avidly awaited its appearances. The US responded to its growing consumer problem with the ‘War on Drugs,’ which was international in scope. Instead of addressing demand at home, the northern behemoth opted to target suppliers of cocaine, as well as growers of coca.

Eradication however, was not well received by indigenous communities, which historically had depended on the social and economic value of coca. The plant is relatively easy to grow, and its leaves are used to remedy the burdensome effects of heavy labor at high altitude. According to current president and cocalero leader, Evo Morales, citing the economic stimulus and the sense of collective identity it provides, coca is “the backbone of quechua-aymara culture.” Accordingly, eradication efforts by the US Drug Enforcement Agency during the ‘coca zero’ campaign were not well received. Cocaleros perceived eradication as an attack on their indigenous culture and way of life, and strongly resisted it. Former miners experienced in unionization and aggressive resistance campaigning a way of mobilizing the frustrations of indigenous cocaleros into a formidable social movement. As momentum grew, the power of the cocaleros was consolidated to form a new political movement that eventually became the current political party: the Movimiento al Socialismo (Movement towards Socialism – MAS). The MAS was created to be the political conduit to the coca growers’ union and other, mostly indigenous peasant social movements. Under the leadership of Evo Morales, MAS would later gain national prominence as a viable political alternative to the existing order.

However, not every Bolivian displaced by neoliberal processes went to grow coca. The city proved to be an equally popular choice, and new liberal policy contributed to the near doubling of Bolivia’s urban population. The country’s regional control points – La Paz, Cochabamba, and Santa Cruz – took in displaced farmers and workers. El Alto, a poor suburb of La Paz, grew substantially, and would prove particularly important, due to its proximity to the capital. This process of urbanization would prove critical for the successes of Bolivian social movements. It allowed for the crossing of indigenous groups with the proletariat on a grand scale, and instead of breaking down traditional ties within specific groups, allowed for solidarities to be forged between groups around a shared sense of exclusion and marginalization. The radicalism and organizational skills of the working class became infused within the collective identity of the indigenous masses to create a sense of ‘indigenous nationalism’ in urban centers which paralleled that of the coca regions. The U.S., as the leading proponent of neoliberalism and coca eradication policies, was branded as imperialist, and vast regions of frustrated Bolivians were able to unite under the same cry.

The growth of this common identity coincided with increased opportunities for political empowerment. In 1993, Sánchez de Lozada became president and enacted the Law of Popular Participation (LPP), which decentralized state power to provincial and municipal levels. From a conservative standpoint, the LPP was meant to create a new space for the opposition by working to incorporate social movements into the mainstream. It was believed that disharmonies and internal power struggles for electoral support would consume the energies of social movements, and perhaps weaken them in the process, creating a stable environment conducive to foreign investment. For some time, the LPP worked as planned. Whereas social movements did achieve some gains – the coca growers’ union won municipal seats in the Cochabamba area in 1995, and six peasant leaders (including Morales) were elected to congress in 1997 – such progress was slow. The new minority leaders were hampered by internal disputes and powerful pundits faithful to the old social order. Otherwise, the status quo was maintained. The empowerment of local political structures demonstrated adherence to “democracy and good governance” by the Bolivian government which was well received by international investors. The LPP provided, however, a foundation from which social movements would legitimately challenge the hegemony of traditional ruling forces in the new millennium, and made real the potential for the “democratic revolution” espoused by Morales.

A Breaking Point

Government violence and mismanagement occurred during the Cochabamba Water War in 2001, and the Water and Gas Wars between the La Paz police and the military in 2003. These events elevated social movements and affiliated political parties to a position of national prominence. In late 1999, President Hugo Banzar, under pressure from international lending organizations, granted control of Cochabamba’s water utilities through a concession to the US-based Bechtel, and rates subsequently were to increase by as much as 200 percent. An ad hoc resistance group, the Coalition for the Defense of Water and Life, protested with marches, strikes and roadblocks. Banzar ordered 1,200 military personnel to regain control of the city; in the ensuing conflicts one person was killed and hundreds injured. In response, 100,000 citizens – including factory workers, farmers, cocaleros, peasants, unionists, former miners, students, intellectuals, civic organizations, neighborhood associations, and environmentalists – converged on the city’s central square where the government realized it had to cancel the concession. Although the Water War was regional in participation, it became the first crack in Bolivia’s neoliberal developmental model.

This crack was blown wide open in 2003 during the September and October Gas War , in which protestors from the La Paz suburb of El Alto and elsewhere resisted the export of gas by pipeline through Chile, a historic rival. In October 2003, scores of protestors were killed by government forces, and Bolivia’s once-limited pockets of resistance exploded onto the national scene. More than 1,000 members of the middle class, mostly white urbanites, conducted a series of hunger strikes in solidarity with the indigenous protestors, who organized marches, strikes, and road blockades. Although the October protests were enough to oust President Sanchez de Lozada from power, both the Water War and the Gas War made it clear that social movements were not enough to create the structural reform that Bolivia demanded. True, the insurgents and demonstrators were enough to paralyze the function of the state temporarily, but without a long-term alternative model, they ultimately lost their momentum. A new political map that prioritized the demands of the protesting social groups was desperately needed.

The Institutionalization of MAS

In every advanced society, the fate of workers, the jobless, and the poor hinges on the capacity of progressive political forces to harness the agency of the state to reduce economic inequality, bridge glaring social gaps, and protect the most vulnerable members of the civic community from the unfettered rule of capital and the blind discipline of the market. -– Loic Wacquant, Review Symposium 2002.

In 2002, MAS achieved important gains within the political arena. For the first time, the party expanded beyond its mountainous origins to the lowland Amazonian jungle of Chaapre. MAS candidates won seats in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and Morales lost the presidential race by only 1.6 percent. The formal advance of MAS into the political arena reflects its ability to mobilize a variety of protest groups into a common cause. Historians identify the 2002 election results as a “clear sign” that social movements “were tilting the balance of political forces” in Bolivia.

Once in opposition, Morales proceeded to play the political arena so as to advance his party. According to Petras and Veltmeyer, “The line taken by Morales and the MAS executive [following the 2002 election] is very different from the revolutionary line of mass mobilization taken by Morales not that long before as leader of the cocaleros.” He began to advocate for change and reform from within the system, applying “parliamentary rather than mobilizational pressure.” Indeed, Morales took a conciliatory position to the administration of Carlos Mesa, the successor of Sanchez de Lozada. He supported many of Mesa’s moderate proposals, and only disagreed when popular support demanded that he do so. Morales went to the extreme to distance himself from his radical origins. He even ceded his leadership position of Bolivia’s various revolutionary movements to his old adversary, Felipe Quispe. As his prominence grew, Morales gave up some of his old tactics, such as mass rallies and roadblocks, for a more subtle approach: the ballot-box.

There are, of course, difficulties in transforming the energy of social movements into electoral victories. In modern politics, every vote counts equally, and the voice of one lone protestor is reduced to scarcely better than the murmur of a normally disengaged voter. Knowing he had widespread support among rank and file indigenous voters, Morales shifted his attention to the middle class during the 2005 presidential election, which turned out to be a very significant move. He sold his party as the only one that could tame social turmoil, reminding frustrated middle class voters that the only organizations which had proven capable of destabilizing Bolivia’s government were in fact a part of MAS. Indeed, Petras and Veltmeyer list a multitude of social movements in which MAS, “without a doubt,” carries significant political influence.

Evo Morales as President

The 2005 presidential election had an 85 percent voter turnout, the highest Bolivia had ever seen. Winning 53.7 percent of the vote, Evo Morales became Bolivia’s first indigenous president, the only candidate ever to be elected with a majority of the vote and the first winner with origins outside the traditional political system.

Legitimacy brings with it certain responsibilities and drawbacks. As president, Morales is called on to represent all Bolivians. He must satisfy the far left, from which he receives his most ardent support, by making good on the full range of his electoral campaign’s social and economic promises. In addition, however, Morales must appease the more conservative flanks of the opposition which controls practically every privately owned money-making venture in the country not controlled by the State. In fact, Morales has been far from moderate; he reclaimed ownership of Bolivia’s hydrocarbon industry in 2006. Few presidents on the left have made meaningful concessions to the political right, but Morales has, at times, maintained a hard-line approach in government negotiations with labor unions and increased coca eradication efforts in certain regions. Most notably, Morales ceded certain major concessions of his draft constitution in order to set the right to agree to a date for staging the referendum. Such actions have outraged many radical groups, including militant miners’ organizations and cocalero unions. The cocaleros, where Morales got his start, remain firmly with Evo, even though some believe that this represents a step backwards for Bolivia’s social movements, as well as providing the potential for much needed reform that will weaken the left. According to Petras and Veltmeyer, “participation in electoral politics is designed to weaken and demobilize revolutionary movements; every further step in electoral politics is a step backwards or away from … the popular movement.”

The fact of the matter is Morales holds a position far more powerful than most social movement leaders could ever dream of. He is president of a country rich in natural gas, he has widespread support in the legislature’s lower house and has the approval of the electorate on a scale never before envisioned in the country. As a leader in a country where most are out of work, Morales has had an incredibly difficult path to achieve political preeminence. He and his party have gone through stages of necessary radicalism and a movement away from militancy. As with any minority opposition group, MAS in its time has made ties with a variety of actors in seeking increased numbers to support its cause. In the 1990s and 2000s, Bolivians harbored a sentiment of ‘indigenous nationalism’ and sustained a common voice that was against neoliberal policies imposed by the US. Morales and MAS best articulated the shared vision of Bolivia’s primary social movements, and transformed their popular support into key electoral victories. It is to be expected that sacrifices and concessions are required along the way of institutional progress. Morales has sacrificed his most polarizing alliances as bargaining chips to reach a consensus with political foes to neutralize their power and gain hegemonic control for his own side, but this has cost him.

The goal is a new constitution. Although MAS has ascended within Bolivia’s political framework and Morales to the top of its structure, the people, ideas, and movements that the party represents have not yet been institutionalized. This cannot happen until a new constitution is promulgated which is aimed at redressing Bolivia’s uneven development over the years. The country’s social, economic, and political structures demand reform in order to include the entire populace. Whether or not the proposed constitution will be able to accomplish this, if it passes, is a matter for the future. What is clear is that the potential for change exists in the proposed document because the movement became institutionalized once it entered the political process. Morales has followed the most pragmatic route to success of this goal – turning the angst of Bolivia‘s indigenous and working class majority into support at the ballot box. His rise in popularity from three years ago, 54 to 67 percent, as seen in an August 2008 recall vote, has given him the de facto mandate to proceed with reform as planned. The combined ability to mobilize social agents, court the middle class, and negotiate with the traditional aristocracy has made MAS more effective than any of its revolutionary counterparts. In the past it had worked as a social movement by knowing how to act outside the law, and then later succeeded as a political party by knowing when to work within the law. By doing so, MAS is now favored to change the law and to revolutionize the nation’s political structures.

The primary roadblock in Bolivia’s future is an amalgamation of business interests operating under the auspices of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee. SCCC is a powerful grouping of a minority class in the country’s largest and most economically significant city. The group effectively leads the opposition against the government. Gabriela Montano, a government representative in Santa Cruz, has accused the Civic Committee of operating a campaign to de-legitimize the government so as to weaken its ability to enact desired reforms. This can be understood as recognition on behalf of MAS’s opposition that the institutional route taken by the leftist party is working and is most likely to win out

The rich and well placed are scared that their wealth will be expropriated through legal means, and some have turned to advocating violence. Radical youth groups act as de facto street gangs fighting for turf against the ruling political movement. Following August’s contentious recall referendum, the young thugs went on a rampage. In city centers across Bolivia’s eastern region which represents a conservative stronghold, they vandalized, burned, and took over government buildings. They also blew up a gas pipeline going to Brazil, and stoked a climate of fear and polarity across the country. On September 11, a paramilitary band loyal to Leopoldo Fernández, prefect of the Pando department, shot and killed at least 18 peasant MAS supporters. Morales authorized the use of force, a power the leader of a social movement does not wield, and declared martial law in the region. This contrasts sharply to October 2003, when the notorious Sanchez de Lozada ordered martial law against the protests which MAS had helped instigate.

The outrage provoked by the continued violence against MAS has helped to ensure widespread support for pro-government forces. The improper use of state violence in 2001, and especially 2003, opened the door for a new party like the MAS to surface and enter the national political arena. Middle class voters, tired of instability and desiring reform, gave the party an unexpected boost on election day in 2005. The more recent violence once again has rallied support for the MAS, both domestically and abroad.

Similar to his legitimate use of military force, Morales’ institutional positions give him near universal support from the international community that he would not have received as the leader of a confrontational social movement. The calls for autonomy from the eastern departments and the violence to which they led in Pando have worked counterproductively throughout the international community, in Morales’ favor. In light of these challenges to the government, leaders from across Latin America, Europe, and Asia reaffirmed their support for the democratic processes of the current administration. By backing Morales, elected foreign officials are not only supporting their own democratic systems. Indeed, many scholars identify international support for Morales, and the condemnation of the violence committed by the opposition, as the primary reason why the opposition had been weakened enough to set a date for the national referendum on the draft constitution.

Conclusion

Over 10 years ago, Evo Morales and the MAS party made the choice to enter the political arena to advocate the social change they desired. This institutional route to national reform caused Morales and his MAS to lose some allies on the party’s fringe; but it also has provided the opportunity to enact real and lasting change. The driving force behind Morales’ administration has been the implementation of a new constitution, which will be voted on in a matter of hours.

The January vote marks a critical moment in Bolivia’s history, one which could overturn forms of structural oppression and exclusion, and transform society for generations to come. To reach this point, Bolivia has endured a long history of social unrest and protest. A series of economic and political liberal reforms in the 1980s and 1990s led to the amalgamation of existing social movements and the formation of some new ones. Extreme cases of repressive government violence in struggles over basic resources served to mobilize these forces en masse and draw to them the support of some of the middle class. Different social movements representing varied interests and shaped by different pasts were brought together because of, and in response to, government policy and mismanagement under Sanchez de Lozada. In this case, geographical concerns of displacement, migration, urbanization, resource management, government militarization and other controversial issues taken together help explain the current revolutionary epoch in Bolivia.

Now a formidable political party, the MAS has emerged from the chaos of broad social unrest and now represents much of the thrust of Bolivia’s social movements in the political arena. The movement, having secured at least short term power, now looks to implement reform that would institutionalize the fundamental changes sought by social movements around the country and make them permanent.

Source / Council on Hemispheric Affairs

The Rag Blog

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

Robert Redford : A Reprieve for the Utah Wilderness

Mesa Arch at Canyonlands National Park.

Finally, the greater good has prevailed over the profit of the few. For eight long years, the Bush administration acted not as the steward of our natural heritage, but as the broker of shady land deals. Those days of deep cynicism and self interest are over.

By Robert Redford / January 22, 2009

For the past several days, America has been swept up by a wave of hope and possibility. It was fitting, therefore, that a federal court acted last weekend to protect more than 110,000 acres of stunning Utah wilderness that otherwise would have been sold by the outgoing Bush administration to the dirty fuels industry.

These pristine lands sit on the boundaries of some of our nation’s most spectacular parks: Arches, Canyonlands, and Dinosaur National Monument. They are redrock icons of American ruggedness. Yet the Bush administration announced in November that it would auction them off to be torn apart by the oil and gas industry, further polluting delicate environments and endangering public health.

My friends at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and their partners quickly filed suit to avert this tragedy, and last Saturday night they succeeded. Judge Ricardo Urbina issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the Bureau of Land Management from moving forward with the contested leases to the oil and gas industry.

What inspired me most was when Judge Urbina wrote that the “development of domestic energy resources… is far outweighed by the public interest in avoiding irreparable damage to public lands and the environment.”

Finally, the greater good has prevailed over the profit of the few. For eight long years, the Bush administration acted not as the steward of our natural heritage, but as the broker of shady land deals. Those days of deep cynicism and self interest are over.

In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama spoke about the responsibility of all Americans to help build a better future for our nation.

I take very seriously my responsibility to help protect the lands I love which belong to all of us, the American people. I have hiked and ridden on horseback through these redrock canyons for decades, and the battle to keep them wild for generations to come always has been deeply personal for me. Destroying our natural heritage will do nothing to solve our energy challenges for the long-term, which to me, is even more reason to act.

I will continue to keep a vigilant watch over these lands, while working to build a cleaner, greener energy foundation for America. With endless untapped reserves of efficiency, solar, and wind power, we do not need to choose between affordable electricity, and one-of-a-kind landscapes. We can have both.

Now that is a greater good worth fighting for.

Source / The Huffington Post

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

To The Rag Blog Community

“The people working on The Rag Blog ‘get it.’ They understand the creative and interactive side of today’s new media. More important, they understand its role as a dynamic and participatory instrument of social change.”

Carl Davidson, Progressives for Obama, writer and political organizer


To members of The Rag Blog Community:

Since the beginning of 2008 The Rag Blog has grown from 50 hits a day to 25,000 visits a month. We have become an influential force in the progressive blogosphere.

We are activist journalists committed to social change. Austin, Texas, is our base but our community is worldwide.

We are published by the New Journalism Project, a nonprofit corporation, and we depend entirely on your support.

Now, for the first time, we are reaching out to our supporters for help.

If you are in Austin, come to the RAGBLOGAPALOOSA
Featuring the Melancholy Ramblers:
Tuesday, Feb. 3, 6-9 p.m., at Scholz Garten, 1607 San Antonio Blvd.
[See poster below.]

And please donate to The Rag Blog through PayPal.

Or send a check to:

The New Journalism Project
P.O. Box 14672
Austin, TX 78761-4672

[The Rag Blog is published by the New Journalism Project, a Texas non-profit corporation in the process of securing 502(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Donations will be treated as tax-deductible retroactively to the date of incorporation. The NJP has not yet received a determination on its request for tax exempt status.]

“Austin’s Rag Rolled off an offset press in 1966 blending cultural and political coverage to become the feisty irreverent voice of a movement making change and writing about it. The Rag Blog has taken that same voice into a digital medium. As we face unprecedented challenges and opportunities, The Rag Blog gives us a new platform for ideas and community building.”

Alice Embree, activist, writer, contributor to The Rag, The Texas Observer and Sisterhood is Powerful.

“The Rag holds a major place in Austin’s political and cultural history and its return is a reason to celebrate. It is the perfect antidote to the meek lack of resistance that saw decent Americans steamrollered for the last 30 years.”

Eddie Wilson, founder and owner, legendary rock hall Armadillo World Headquarters (1970-1981); owner, Threadgill’s, Austin, Texas.

The Rag, founded in 1966, was one of the first and most influential members of the sixties underground press. The Rag Blog has channeled that historic spirit into something altogether new, tapping the exciting potential offered by the radical new digital media — to build a community for progressive social change.

But if we are to continue to flourish, we need your help.

Thank you for being a part of The Rag Blog community,

David P. Hamilton, President
For the Board of Directors, the New Journalism Project

Thorne Dreyer and Richard D. Jehn, Editors
The Rag Blog

“The Rag Blog is in many ways what The Rag was in the middle 1960s, a light in the darkness. It is not only readable but funny. It is the single best place for insights in the entire blogosphere that I follow.”

Paul Buhle, Historian, Brown University professor, and publisher of non-fiction comix; editor of Radical America (1967-1993)


The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Global Warming: A George Will Harrumph

Graphic by Larry Ray / The Rag Blog.

Will says there is no man made global warming, and that it is all going to be OK? All the scientific warming measurements for 2008 are inconsequential? And he is called the most influential writer in America?

By Larry Ray / The Rag Blog / January 22, 2009

I sometimes read Newsweek magazine’s back page column by George F. Will because he can be a fine writer. In 1977, Will won a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Heretofore, I usually have been only mildly irritated by his generally conservative timbre and his trademark tendency toward sesquipedalian prose. But with his PhD from Princeton and his M.A. from Oxford, he instinctively must scatter about long, generally unfamiliar words like journalistic territorial scent marks on the page. Will has been called, perhaps “ … the most influential writer in America” by the Washington Post writers group. And that is what troubles me.

Will’s recent column in the January 26th edition of Newsweek see-saws between tepid stamps of approval for George W. Bush’s spare positive moves, and a final verbal lashing for his incompetence and failed leadership. His latest column artfully winds its way through his assessments of the name, “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” to the failures of hurricane Katrina disaster assistance, the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, and then in a seeming involuntary, uncontrollable Tourette Syndrome burst of keyboard tapping, this paragraph is awkwardly forced into the column:

Within the lifetimes of most Americans now living, today’s media-manufactured alarm about man-made global warming might be an embarrassing memory. The nation will then be better off because Bush—during whose administration the embarrassing planet warmed not at all—refused to be stampeded toward costly “solutions” to a supposed crisis that might be chimerical, and that, if real, could be adapted for considerably less cost than will be sunk in efforts at prevention.

Wait, did I just read that? Yep. Will says there is no man made global warming, and that it is all going to be OK? All the scientific warming measurements for 2008 are inconsequential? And he is called the most influential writer in America?

Will chooses his words carefully. He qualifies his claims with “man-made,” “supposed crisis” and “if real,” all code that positions him way to the right. But then he suggests the supposed crisis “might be chimerical” (imagine your own mythical fire-belching she-goat animal made from mismatched body parts) to remain true to his logocentrism, while leaving a door open for maybe, kinda, sorta some kind of climate change. The derailing of his column’s train of thought from reviewing Bush’s two-term presidency to suddenly, jarringly pitching his denial of global warming is what troubles me.

Ultraconservative eagerness to jump on most any convenient juicy liberal-bashing rumor and rush it to press showed itself, sadly, in Will’s Washington Post column this past June when he wrote that “Drilling is underway 60 miles (97 km) off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.” Dick Cheney, and GOP House leader, John Boehner both cited the same wild claim to the press, wanting to believe the right wing fiction. All three were forced to offer retractions after Democats and energy experts pointed out the gross error. But the egg had already dried on their faces by then.

A little more poking around shows that George F. Will is, in fact, a darling of man-made global warming denier web sites like climatechangefraud.com who declare they are, “dedicated to debunking, reviewing, and responding to the shrill cries of the media and the global warming zealots who have embraced anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as an eco-religion and not as a scientific endeavor for answers.” I wonder if Will wrote that paragraph for their web site? Most folks just say manmade instead of anthropogenic.

All the debunkers hate Al Gore with a frightening, almost pathological stridency. The professed belief that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming is almost like a secret fraternity handshake among rabid ultraconservatives. In a December 29th, 2007 column Will wrote, “Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize that should have gone to nine-time Grammy winner Sheryl Crow, who proposed saving the planet by limiting—to one—”how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting.”

And from that strange, tasteless toilet paper comparison, Will also has sweepingly minimized concerns of the world’s top atmospheric and environmental scientists with observations like, “The warming that is reasonably projected might be problematic, although not devastating, for the much-fretted-about polar bears, but it will be beneficial for other species. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment anticipates increasing species richness.”

George’s father, Frederick L. Will, was a professor of philosophy, and specialized in epistemology, at the University of Illinois. Ironically, Will certainly must know that epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. Today Will sadly seems to be unable or unwilling to make that distinction in his writing.

[Retired journalist Larry Ray is a Texas native and former Austin television news anchor. He also posts at The iHandbill.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Rabbi Arthur Waskow : Religious Leaders Reflect on King’s Vision, Obama’s Promise

Martin Luther King: Can Obama fulfill his mission?

Our Monday gathering was surcharged with the sense that change had already begun in America, and that beginning at noon Tuesday, we could work toward making King’s vision a reality.

By Rabbi Arthur Waskow / The Rag Blog / January 22, 2009

On Monday evening, one thousand people jammed All Souls Church in Washington, DC, for our renewal of the teachings of Martin Luther King in his Riverside Church speech of April 4, 1967 — exactly one year before his death. He spoke about undoing racism, militarism, and materialism in American society and moving to create the Beloved Community.

Our Monday gathering was surcharged with the sense that change had already begun in America, and that beginning at noon Tuesday, we could work toward making King’s vision a reality –- instead of struggling desperately as we have the last eight years to prevent America from descending further into war, torture, starker class divisions, and shredding the web of life on earth.

This effort began with a flash of thought that The Shalom Center brought to The Tent of Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah last spring. The Tent enriched and developed it, and then the Washington event was imagined and organized by the Olive Branch Interfaith Peace Partnership.

We intend to revitalize Dr. King’s vision as a guide to “We the People” — for as President Obama said on Tuesday in his Inaugural Address, it is WE, not him, who will make change happen. Below you will find some passages from both speeches. We suggest comparing them to see whether and how Dr. King’s vision can become a yardstick to measure change in these next years.

[We are posting on You-Tube some of the Monday talks as swiftly as we can get the videos together (and special thanks to Charles Lenchner for his work on that). The first two items are my talk in two parts here and Source and here. ]

Monday’s array of religious leadership and passion was extraordinary. It stretched from the heads of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, Common Cause, and the Fellowship of Reconciliation to institutional leaders like Sammi Moshenberg of the National Council of Jewish Women to prophetic figures like Rev. Andrew Marin (an evangelical minister committed to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian sexuality in God’s love), Marie Dennis, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Sahima Faheem Sundas, Rev. Rita Nakashima Brock, Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, Rev. Jim Forbes, Dr. Vincent Harding, Monsignor Ray East, Rev. Osagyefo Sekou, Rabia Harris, and Celeste Zappala. There was music by the All Souls Choirs and by Sweet Honey in the Rock member Ysaye Barnwell. There was a litany of “Ashes, Stones, and Flowers” written by Rev. Patricia Pearce of Philadelphia.

Prayers of heart and soul, wisdom of the intellect, song-filled throats, and dancing bodies joined to celebrate God and the renewal of America. Two of my grandkids – eight and four years old — were there. A specially made videotape from 93-year-old activist Grace Boggs of Detroit was there.

We were not alone. In places as disparate as Judson Memorial Church in New York City and Interfaith Paths to Peace in Louisville, hundreds gathered, studied Dr. King’s Riverside Church speech of April 4, 1967, and pledged themselves to work for the revolution of values he had envisioned.

Below you will find my own connections and comparisons between several passages in Dr. King’s Riverside speech and passages in President Obama’s inaugural address.

They seem to share a strong commitment to ending the sharp divide between the wealthy and the poor, though Dr. King’s remarks are much more pointed.

They share a desire for more diplomacy in world affairs and less dependence on military force – though Dr. King is much stronger in conviction that war will not work to advance our freedom or the world’s. [It is an interesting exercise to insert the word “terrorism” wherever King has “communism.” How does this make us think and feel?]

The President raises an issue that was not on Dr. King’s radar screen a generation ago: the dangers our use of fossil fuels is posing to the web of life itself.
King’s Vision as a Yardstick To Measure Obama’s Policy

MLK: I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing-oriented” society to a “person-oriented” society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

…True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.

Obama: Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do…

MLK: A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

[…]

There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. […]

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. … We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.

Obama: To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. … With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet…. For the world has changed, and we must change with it…

MLK: Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain.”

Obama: Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

I hope you will use this information for study and for developing approaches to action. I would very much like to hear your responses.

Shalom, salaam, peace,

Arthur

The Rag Blog

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

Tom Hayden : Is Obama Rethinking Afghanistan?


‘Obama seems to be repositioning himself in the direction of Afghanistan diplomacy while not retreating from his campaign rhetoric.’

By Tom Hayden / January 20, 2009

President Obama pledged to “forge a hard-earned peace on Afghanistan” today, a potentially significant reformulation of his war aims.

Peace advocates favoring a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be cautiously hopeful as they step up criticism of the expanding war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As a candidate, Obama continually pledged to escalate the military conflict by sending at least 20,000 more US troops. That will not change. But there is a major difference between an open-ended occupation and a presidential commitment to a “hard-earned peace.”

The attention of the global peace movement is sure to focus now on the substance of that diplomatic settlement.

The next days also will reveal the President’s level of commitment to a 16 month troop withdrawal from Iraq and the closure of the Guantanamo prison facility.

Source / The Huffington Post

Also see Memo to Obama : We Must Rethink Afghanistan Policy by Sherman DeBrosse / The Rag Blog / Jan. 21, 2009

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Great Job, Junior!

Creator’s Syndicate / The Bush Legacy / About.com.

‘I mean, how incompetent do you have to be to send truckloads of ice to Maine and Montana while Hurricane survivors are still without power in Mississippi and Louisiana?’

By Steve Russell / The Rag Blog / January 22, 2009

AIDS in Africa.

I recently made the bald unsupported assertion that Bush II must have been correct about something or done something right.

Directing serious resources to fighting AIDS in Africa. Serious problem to which Clinton gave lip service but Bush gave money. An expenditure that has no short term benefit for the US.

Yes. Bush did something right.

It only took me two days to come up with that.

When I look back on the last eight years, I am flabbergasted at how God-awful the Bush Administration was in every sense. I thought Reagan was the Prince of Darkness but at least he put some people in high positions who were fundamentally competent, so you knew basic stuff would get done even if the government overall was steering in a direction you did not like.

I mean, how incompetent do you have to be to send truckloads of ice to Maine and Montana while Hurricane survivors are still without power in Mississippi and Louisiana?

And how can you look back on it and regret an unfortunate photo? Land Air Force One? What about a few pallets of bottled water and MRE’s for the people in the Superdome? How stupid is that?

Heckuva job, Bushies!

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged | Leave a comment

Frank Cieciorka’s Self-Inscribed Eulogy

Frank Cieciorka

In Memoriam: Frank Cieciorka
By Bruce Anderson / December 3, 2008

Frank Cieciorka died [at the end of November 2008] at his home in Alderpoint, Southern Humboldt County. A modest, soft-spoken man whose passing will sadden everyone who knew him, Frank was born in 1939 in Binghamton, New York but grew up in nearby Johnson City, a town then dominated by a shoe factory where the artist first experienced the world of work. Frank was an early hero of the Civil Rights Movement, and had been a radical of the best independent type America can produce all of his adult life, a skeptic for justice, a resistor of all the oppressive little orthodoxies, some of the smallest ones oppressing us right here in Ecotopia.

I’m happy he lived long enough to see Obama elected president, not that Frank would, or could, switch off his critical faculties. Frank became a well-known artist, best known for his lesser work, his art for the emblematic, pivotal events of the 1960s. None of the obituaries I’ve seen mention his wonderful paintings of the people and land in and around Alderpoint, the very best I know of in inland Northern California.

I knew Frank wasn’t well. The last time I saw him in Garberville he could barely get up the stairs to Andy Caffrey’s place. The emphysema that finally carried him off had cost him most of his lung capacity. He said he hadn’t stopped smoking soon enough for his lungs to regenerate.

I hope what follows, most of it in Frank’s own words, will serve as the obituary this remarkable man deserves.

* * *

“My parents were first-generation Americans. My grandfather immigrated from Poland, an area near the Russian border, to escape being drafted into the Russian army, a 25-year hitch under the Czar. ‘Cieciorka’ is Russianized Polish that was something like Cicherski in the old country. To pronounce ‘Cieciorka’ substitute the letter h for both the i’s.”

“My first hero and role model was Doc Ricketts in Steinbeck’s novel, Cannery Row. That book made me realize I was a bohemian at heart.”

Accepted as an art student at the Pratt Institute in the big city but unable to attend because tuition was beyond his 18-year-old ability to pay, Frank headed west to San Jose.

“My father was working for IBM in their warehouse at Binghamton, and when IBM opened up their plant in San Jose they wanted experienced workers to staff it so they offered to help with moving expenses for anybody willing to transfer to California. This was early IBM, 1957. My parents jumped at the chance and moved to California. But the move was so expensive they had to pilfer my college savings account. I’d worked all through high school, mostly at the shoe factory where I started when I was 14. I made a dollar an hour, but I paid my parents $5 a week room and board from the time I was 15 until I graduated from high school. It was the way they were raised. My father always told me about how he turned over his whole paycheck to his mother when he was a kid and she’d give him 50¢ back from his paycheck. On his wedding day he turned over his last paycheck to his mother and got his last 50¢ back. My father said his parents had a clothesline in the attic, one for each kid, and every time they spent any amount on the kid, including the cost of his birth at the hospital, they would take a clothespin and hang the receipt up on the clothesline. The last receipt on the clothesline was the one for the lunch bucket they bought for the kids when they went to work. My father said after he was married he had to buy back all the receipts on his clothesline!”

In sunny California, the times were a-changin’…

“They sure were, and me with them. My parents were pretty much apolitical. They were nominal Democrats but voted for Ike. They wholeheartedly disapproved of my political activities. It got to the point where we were semi-estranged for a while. I was drafted in 1961. I took the physical at the Oakland Induction Center and passed that. The last thing we were supposed to do in the process was sign the loyalty oath after looking over a questionnaire prepared by the Attorney General. I looked it over and raised my hand and said, ‘You’re asking me about my political beliefs and associations here, which I have a constitutional right to, and which are none of your business. I’m not going to sign this. The sergeant or whatever he was said, ‘All right, you go to that group on that bench over there. And then the Army kidnapped me. They took me to a motel and held me there overnight before they let me go. Army counterintelligence investigated me for a year and a half and finally cleared me of whatever it was they were investigating me for. The FBI, on two occasions, went to my father’s workplace and asked the manager if they could talk to him. They would interview him while he was on the job and make him look bad in front of his fellow workers. My father was very unhappy with me. It wasn’t until I went to Mississippi and my name got into the paper in a positive story about Freedom Summer that my parents finally decided that I wasn’t such a bad guy after all. The president of IBM himself walked into the warehouse where my father worked to shake my father’s hand for having such a great son.”

He was hanging out with all the wrong people by ’61 or so.

“People forget that there weren’t that many radicals at that time, and that the individual police departments of the Bay Area had what they called ‘red squads.’ They kept files on the people who showed up for demonstrations, small as those numbers were, and if you showed up in the wrong places often enough you got yourself a red squad file and an FBI file.

“The Communist Party in San Jose called themselves a club. They had meetings on Sunday mornings so it would look like they were going to church. I worked with a lot of them. I was pretty close to them. I also worked for CORE and Friends of SNCC. So I’m sure when the FBI was investigating me when they came across these associations. I considered myself a radical revolutionary communist with a small c. I’d read a lot of Marx and Lenin and all the things you were supposed to read to keep up with the people involved in these groups. In fact, I organized the first W.E.B. Dubois Club in San Jose. Terrence Hallinan — K.O. Hallinan — got me to do that. He was the main organizer of young people in the Bay Area for the old CP. He called me one day and said they wanted to get a W.E.B. Dubois club going in San Jose, but they didn’t want a party member to do it; they wanted a fellow traveler, who couldn’t get smeared as a… And basically that was my role, to be a fellow traveler, and to do things that an actual party member couldn’t do without being smeared. So I did it. I formed the W.E.B. Dubois Club. I applied for membership in the party, and even got an interview with a party member, a printer, a guy I’d worked with a lot. He did the official interview, but towards the end of it he said, ‘You know, intellectually you may be a Marxist, but in your heart you’re an anarchist. You wouldn’t be happy in the party.’ I got a dozen or so people on campus to join, but it collapsed when there was some kind of convention or congress where a resolution was proposed to throw all the Trotskyites out of the club. There was an acrimonious discussion, arguments, fistfights — and 9 of the 12 members from San Jose walked out in disgust, leaving only the three Trotskyites. And that pretty much ended the Dubois Club in San Jose.

“It was a great time, though, and I loved college. I liked it so much I spent 7 years getting a four year degree. I took all kinds of courses: literature, film, music, biology, history, philosophy, logic, political science, economics and, of course, the art courses I needed for my art major. My favorite class was Professor Richard Tansey’s art history course. He gave me a lasting appreciation of the art and culture of Western Civ that’s withstood the current political rectitude. I lived in apartments right off campus close to downtown. My roommate during my last year was Luis Valdez, who went on to become a well-known movie director. We shared an apartment above the Jose Theater — three movies for a dollar.

“I’d been very active in Friends of SNCC for about a year before Freedom Summer, mostly in fundraising and general support. I knew a lot of the people who were active in SNCC. When they announced Freedom Summer I applied and was accepted, but that was also the summer that the Progressive Labor Party was organizing a trip to Cuba, and I applied for that too, and was accepted for the Cuba trip. Luis had applied for the Cuba trip and he decided to go to Cuba and I decided to go to Mississippi.

“To go with SNCC to register voters in Mississippi, we had to first go to Oxford, Ohio, for a week of orientation. I was assigned to Holly Springs in the northern part of Mississippi, about 50 miles south of Memphis. It was the largest voter registration project in Mississippi. We covered about five different counties from our headquarters in Holly Springs. In fact, Goodman and Schwerner had gone down to Holly Springs a couple of days before the rest of us, then to Philadelphia, Mississippi, to check out a church burning there. And just as we were getting loaded on the chartered buses to go to Mississippi from Ohio, we got the word that Goodman, and Schwerner and Cheney were missing.

“I immediately ran to the bathroom with diarrhea. What have I gotten myself into here? But we drove down overnight, arriving at Holly Springs at 3 in the morning.

“Holly Springs was a good sized town of 20,000 or so. It had a nice downtown, a courthouse square with old trees, civil war statues ringed by stores. The further away from the center of town you got the more seedy it got. And rundown. And of course we were living in the black part of town, which was pretty decrepit.

“Whenever we walked downtown to go shopping, we’d get all kinds of dirty looks. We wore chinos and white shirts, the standard uniform for white SNCC people. The blacks all wore bib overalls. The whites looked like college students pretty much. But they knew who we were. You had to register your car within 30 days of arriving in the state and you had to get Mississippi license plates. They had reserved a particular sequence of numbers for civil rights workers. Our cars would be recognized anywhere in the state by our license plate numbers. There was no way we could be anonymous. Younger black people were all for us; they’d cross the street to shake our hand. But the older ones were very wary of us. We’d try to organize a mass meeting by going door to door and people would just nod and agree with us — ‘Yeah, I’ll be there. You can count on us.’ But only a few older people would show up.

“The one time I got beat up it was by a couple of beefy young guys. But usually you could walk down the street and feel fairly safe. You’d get insults tossed at you, but you never thought somebody was going to just come out and sucker punch you. At our meetings, that’s when it would get hairy sometimes. There was one meeting at a black church at night out in the woods that I won’t forget. As the meeting was breaking up and people were leaving, the Klan showed up. They were in street clothes but somebody recognized them, or at least some of them, as being members of the Klan. As we drove out of the parking area, they drove in. So we drove like hell and got out of there, and were back on the highway before we realized we’d left a guy behind, a black guy named Elwood Berry. I think he was from Cornell. Some of us had to go back. We snuck back through the woods; we could hear the Klan stomping all over the place, looking for anybody left behind. There were at least a dozen of them.

“We assumed they were armed. That was always the assumption. We found Berry hiding in the woods, and we got him out of there. The time I got beat up I had just been put on staff as a field secretary. It was the end of summer and volunteers were going home and going back to school. I said I wanted to stay on so they made me field secretary. $10 a week was the pay.

“An election was coming up, and just across the river in Arkansas a black candidate was running for the Agricultural Board. It was very powerful position because the commissioners assigned cotton allotments; they told farmers how much cotton they could grow. It was important to black sharecroppers to be represented on this board. A black candidate was running and a big a turnout of black voters was needed to elect him. A lot of sharecroppers lived way out in the boonies and didn’t have transportation to the polls. So a whole bunch of SNCC field secretaries from Mississippi were brought in to help out with the logistics of the election. My job was to drive out to certain plantations, fill the car with sharecroppers and anybody else who was eligible to vote, drive them to town, wait until they voted, and drive them home again. And then take another load into town and back — all day. One group I brought in, I dropped off at the polling place to vote, then I parked in the parking lot across the street from the polling place to wait for them to drive them home again when they were finished voting. There were a bunch of people milling around outside. The chief of police was there. I was sitting there in my car, a SNCC car. Two guys came up and opened the doors, both doors, and jumped and squeezed me in the middle and started beatin’ on me inside the car. They couldn’t haul off and slug me because there wasn’t enough room to do that in the front seat, so they dragged me out of the car, took my glasses off and proceeded to beat me. I assumed the fetal position on the ground, and they proceeded to kick me and stomp me and were bending over to punch me. But they were frustrated because they couldn’t really get at me, so a couple times they picked me up in the air and lifted me up over their heads and just threw me down, which would break open my fetal position so they could get in a couple good punches before I could curl back up again. For me, it was one of those rare out of body experiences. I felt like I was somehow hovering about six or eight feet above my body watching these two guys beat me up, feeling no emotion. I remember thinking to myself, ‘Well, the chief of police is across the street watching this, so they’re not going to kill me.’ And I was clearly thinking ahead. ‘Let’s see, I’m supposed to be in Gulfport tomorrow morning for a staff meeting. I’m obviously going to be too damaged to drive so I’m going to have to drive with somebody else.’ While these guys are just pummeling me! Finally the chief of police walked over and said, ‘OK boys, we’ve had enough fun now’ and arrested me for failure to yield the right of way.” (Laughs)

“He took me to jail. A SNCC officer called the SNCC office in Atlanta. Atlanta called Friends of SNCC in San Jose, San Jose SNCC called my congressman, Don Edwards, who is a really good guy. And Edwards called the Sheriff’s Department in Grove, Arkansas. I was in jail for 20 minutes. The chief of police comes in and says to me, ‘You must be hot shit. I just got a call from your congressman who said if we don’t take you down to the hospital and get you checked out for injuries he’s going to have a Congressional committee down here tomorrow morning investigating us.’ They took me to the hospital and cleaned up my cuts and bruises and checked me for broken bones, and I got bailed out. I was amazed at how quickly they reacted.

“I’m glad I had the Congressman I had at the time. I forfeited bail. Five bucks for failure to yield right of way. But the worst jail I was in was the one in Holly Springs. It had been condemned; the toilet was plugged up and the place stunk something fierce. Steel bunk, no mattress. I was the only guy in it. They didn’t put me in the main jail. The walls were just covered with graffiti. There was a rag in the sink and I wet it and washed off a spot on the wall and wrote some freedom slogans on it. When I finally got bailed out, I was walking down the steps, and the sheriff comes running down and grabs me by the collar and says, ‘You son of a bitch! You can’t write that stuff on the walls of my jail! You’re under arrest!’ I was charged with defacing the Marshall County jail.

“The best jail I was in down there was in Oxford, Mississippi, home of Ol’ Miss and William Faulkner. I was in that jail for five days. It was very clean and the jailer’s wife was a great cook. That was some of the best food I had the year I was in Mississippi.

“I didn’t tell the other inmates that I was a civil rights worker. I guess the sheriff in the jail in Oxford didn’t either, although by the end of it one guy figured it out. He let me know he knew why I was there. But he was more curious than hostile. He couldn’t understand why someone would risk going to jail for registering black people to vote. He was a young guy, about my age. And there was one old guy of about 60 who was in jail because he had a 13 year old girlfriend. She’d stand out in the parking lot and wave to him, and he’d stand on this bench and look out the window and wave back.

Frank Cieciorka

“I was in the Oxford jail for the crime of carrying a placard. It was an 8×11 sheet of paper pinned to my shirt that said I was a voter registration worker. This is a funny story itself. We were going to have a big freedom day. Everybody would gather at this church and then the people who were going to attempt to register to vote would march up to the courthouse and try to register to vote. They wanted a SNCC worker to lead the parade, as it were. ‘It’s an absolute certain arrest,’ they said. ‘We need a volunteer to be arrested.’ I had just received another draft notice and was supposed to show up in Memphis the next day to be inducted into the Army. So when they said it was a sure arrest, and they wanted a volunteer, I raised my hand — anything to avoid the Army. So they taped this paper to my chest and I led a group of about 20 or so people down to the courthouse; as soon as I walked into the registrar’s office they arrested me. I did five days on that one. Paul Krassner bailed me out.

“When Friends of SNCC read that I was in jail and my bail was $500, they called Krassner and asked him to make a donation. He had re-produced a poster of my cartoon, “One Nation Under God,” and had been selling them for $1 each in The Realist since March of ’64, and I was arrested this time in July of ’64, only a few months later. Anyway, he sent $500 down, which he said were proceeds from the sale of the poster. I’ll be damned, I said. It had made at least $500 in only two months. Krassner stipulated that when the bail was returned it should be considered a donation to SNCC.

“Even when you tried to get away from it the violence kind of followed you around. One time we had a staff meeting down in Gulfport; then we decided to go to New Orleans for a party. An interracial group of us went on into New Orleans. Just walking down the street we got chased by a bunch of young thugs until we finally got to a crowded street where we could split up and mingle with the crowd. We thought that New Orleans was more sophisticated than that!

“And another occasion, Halloween, somebody drove by in the middle of the night and fired a couple of shotgun rounds into our house. A black guy who was going to run for some office in the Holly Springs area was found dead in a field. He’d been run over repeatedly by pickup trucks. There was always something. A lot of people on our side had guns, too. You could hardly blame them.

Occasionally there’d be a federal marshal present if we had announced an event likely to result in an incident. If we announced a Freedom Day or a mass registration, something like that, a federal marshal or FBI agent would show up to observe. That’s all they would do — observe. At one attempted registration people were getting beat up on the courthouse steps by the cops using clubs as a couple FBI agents stood there watching. We ran up and said, ‘Hey! Look! Our civil rights are being violated! We’re being beaten up by the cops for trying to register to vote. Do something! They said, ‘We can’t do anything. We’re the Federal Bureau of Investigation, all we can do is investigate. We have no power to make arrests.

“Stokely Carmichael’s famous Black Power declaration was in the summer of ’65, a couple of months after I left Mississippi, but I was still considered to be on staff. A lot of the freedom school teachers were saying that what they needed was some material on black history that was accessible to people with limited reading skills….. My wife at the time and I wrote it and illustrated it. We finished that and felt we’d pretty much done what we could in Holly Springs. We went back to San Francisco and started work on The Movement newspaper, which had begun as a Friends of SNCC newsletter. It was mostly concerned with the Civil Rights Movement.

“I was Stokely’s driver on a couple occasions. I was considered one of the better drivers in tight situations because I had gotten people out of scrapes by my recklessness behind the wheel. I was his bodyguard on two occasions when he came to speak in San Francisco. Once was in Oakland at a Black Panther meeting. I had a Colt .45 ‘Commander.’ The short one. I tucked it in my pants in the small of my back. San Francisco SNCC needed two or three guys to be bodyguards so I volunteered. We got to the auditorium where Stokely was going to speak and the Panthers are searching everybody as they go in, patting them down. I got to the door and the guy pats me down and never touches the small of my back. And after it was over and we were leaving I went over to the guy who frisked me and turned around and flipped up my shirt and showed him the gun and said, ‘Next time, pat the small of the back, too.’

“Another time Stokely was speaking at the Fillmore auditorium. There was going to be a dance, a fundraiser. Hugh Masekela was going to entertain. Stokely was going to speak and I was one of the bodyguards. They had rent-a-cops also for security. We approached the rent-a-cops beforehand and said, ‘Look, we three guys are armed. We’re Stokely’s bodyguards. If anything goes down, know that we’re on your side. The rent-a-cops said, OK, but if anything happens, we’re trained professionals. Anyway, later on in the evening I’m out on the dance floor twisting and turning and jumping all over when all of a sudden this 45 comes out of the small of my back and clatters across the floor. The crowd just rolled their eyes. I liked Stokely a lot. At the time I supported his position. I thought that the black nationalist movement at the time was healthy. I still do to some extent. The last time I saw him was around ’67 or so. I did a photo shoot with him for the newspaper and that was the last I saw of him.

“And the Haight. I thought it was great. Just the sheer energy that they had. I thought, ‘God! This is where we should be proselytizing, propagandizing, try to harness this energy and develop some political consciousness. But the left for the most part just held the hippies in disdain. I also thought it was sort of schizophrenic — camping, smokin’ pot, droppin’ acid, working on the newspaper, going to demonstrations. In fact, it resulted in a major psychotic break for me in 1969. People’s Park was it. When that was over I cracked completely. I was really nutso for several months. People were taking care of me. In and out of the hospital. Bouncing me around. I’d get so outrageous and so out of control that my friends finally decided they couldn’t handle me and they busted me into Mt. Zion. I spent two weeks there and realized that I had to get my act together or I’d spend a lot longer time there. I got out and more or less kept it together. I decided I’d get back in the movement and back into political activity rather than leave town as a basket case. And I did for another two years. I helped form an organization called People’s Press, a collective of about a dozen people who produced and printed and distributed our own material. We started with a pamphlet on the history of Vietnam. Terry Cannon wrote it. I illustrated it. We printed it. We had our own printing press, our own darkroom. Our group was more than half women, too. Each member apprenticed him or herself to a printer to learn the trade. I apprenticed myself to a guy named Earl Hendra who had a big dark room in the Mission District. I learned all the camera work necessary for printing. Then I bought a camera, a huge camera 16 feet long. I built a darkroom around it and taught everybody else how to use it. Several women apprenticed themselves to printers and learned how to run first the multilith and then the bigger presses and came back and taught everybody else how to run them. That’s how we learned the trade, by teaching each other. It worked very well.

“By 1972, I was pretty much back together. But I realized that I just didn’t have the enthusiasm for the political work that I had before. The war was still going on. Nixon was re-elected. I had become a backpacking fanatic shortly before that. Part of my therapy in getting back together was some friends took me backpacking, and I realized that when I was out in the wilderness, like the Sierras, or the Trinity Alps, I felt totally, absolutely sane. Then we’d be driving back to the city after spending four or five days out in the wild and just that sea of red tail lights heading into the city would make me just feel the panic rising in me. So I went backpacking every chance I could get. Then it occurred to me that I should just move to the country and go backpacking every day if I wanted to. I’d met some people from Alderpoint and they invited me up for a visit. I liked the town and thought, ‘Gee, this is as good a place as any if I’m going to move to the country.’ I asked if there was any place available I might rent, and they pointed me in the direction of a little three-room cabin for $25 a month. I had about $50 to my name at the time, but I went up and rented it, drove back to the city, and within a month I closed up all my urban business and got in my Volkswagen bus and started a new life in Alderpoint. I purchased this property Karen and I live on now shortly after I got here in ’72. I asked the owner in Santa Rosa if he wanted to sell it and he said, ‘Yeah. Sure. $1500.’ Half an acre with a three-room cabin on it. I borrowed $1500 from my parents and bought it.

“I borrowed some more money to get the initial building materials to get started on my studio. I learned enough carpentry working with an architect who was remodeling a ranch house out here to pick up enough work to buy another batch of materials to work on my own place. When the materials and money ran out I’d go hustle some more carpentry work. And I picked up a little freelance commercial art work from the city now and then to supplement that. All the hippies moved west of 101. Redway and west of there to Whale Gulch and that area. Hardly anybody of the back-to-the-land type came this far east of 101.

“In 1978 a CHP officer busted me for cultivation. I had finished building my house, but I couldn’t afford to live in it so I rented it out to a woman on welfare with three kids. Her rent was just enough for me to make my loan payments that I couldn’t quite afford to make at my income level at the time. I was still living in the old three room cabin down below the house I’d built on my half-acre. I decided that the only way I could pay off this place and live in it was to grow some pot. I planted a bunch of plants in with my tomatoes, and planted a row of sunflowers along the garden edge to act as a screen so it couldn’t be seen from the road. This woman who rented my house had a ten year old boy who was riding a motorcycle around Alderpoint one day. The kid was stopped by a CHP cop who brought him home. It was July 3rd, 1978. My sunflower screen had only grown about shoulder high. As the officer was escorting the kid down the path from the parking area to the house he looked over at the tomato patch and saw the pot plants. He went back to his car and radioed the sheriff’s department to come and bust me. They did, and they took me off to jail in Eureka.

“The two deputies got here in a hurry. They roared up and said, ‘All Right! What’s happening?’ The CHP officer says, ‘We’ve got these people here and they have some pot plants. The woman and her kid are in the house.’ One of the deputies said, ‘Why did you call in, Officer needs assistance? We thought you were in trouble! I ran somebody off the road trying to get here!’ The CHP guy, an old sergeant who everybody around here hated, says, ‘Well, you know how tough these feminists can be these days.’ I told the deputy, ‘Look. I own this property. She’s my tenant. I’m totally responsible for anything that happens here.’ She wasn’t arrested. I was. I spent the weekend in jail because it was the July 4th weekend. My bail was $2100. I couldn’t afford it. The guy in the next cell asked me, ‘What’s your bail? I said, $2100. He said, ‘What are you in for?’ I said I was in for cultivation. He said, ‘Jesus! I’m in here for assault with a deadly weapon and my bail is only $700!’ Finally the judge got back to town after the weekend and let me out on my own recognizance.

“It took me eight court appearances and the better part of a year before it was finally dismissed as an illegal search and seizure. The CHP officer had no business bringing the kid home. Their own rules in cases involving minors say they are supposed to choose the option that least restricts the freedom of the minor. He’d thrown the kid in his patrol car and driven him home. So, the judge decided that was illegal search and seizure.

“I met Karen in ’79. Mutual friends had been suggesting we meet each other because we’re both artists. I had seen some of her stained glass work and really liked it. Then somebody needed to get a newspaper article to me and she lived way out in the boonies and she said I’ll just leave it with Karen Horn who lives in Redway and the next time you’re in town you can stop by and pick it up. So I went to her house and she asked me to have a cup of tea. We sat around and talked and I liked her. We went out to dinner and we started seeing each other regularly. We had a long distance relationship for four years. She was in Redway I was in Alderpoint. Every Thursday, my town day, I would go to town, take care of business and she would cook dinner and I’d spend the night. And then on Saturday she and her daughter Zena would come to Alderpoint and I would cook dinner for her and Zena and they’d spend the night and go back to Redway on Sunday. After four years of that we decided we should try living together. In ’84 Karen moved in with me. By then I was in the big new house with the big new studio and we thought we’d be able to share the studio because it was 16 x 32 feet. But we soon found we both needed more space than that. So we built the new studio.

“I’ve learned a lot from Karen. My strong suit is drawing. I’m only OK in color and not good at composition. My favorite compositional device was a vignette with things just sort of fading out at the edges. I wasn’t worried about squares and rectangles and so forth. Karen is very rigorous in her compositions.

“At San Jose I kind of coasted on my drawing ability. I probably could have gotten a lot more out of the art department if I’d applied myself more. But I was too much into political activity. That took up most of my time. And I was just overwhelmed by all the possibilities for learning… everything! Here you are at a university that teaches classes in science and literature and history and I wanted it all. So between politics and the liberal education, I’d say I slighted the art more than I should have.”

Lincoln Cushing asked Frank about Frank’s famous clenched fist woodcut.

“Moving leftward from my infatuation with Ayn Rand as a freshman, I became active in the peace movement around 1959. When the House Committee on Un-American Activities held their hearings in San Francisco in May 1960 I joined the 5,000 strong demonstration in front of City Hall motivated mostly by civil liberties and free speech. There was a sizable group of Communists, Trotskyists, Anarchists, and other assorted reds off to one side thrusting fists into the air and chanting radical slogans. I remember feeling somewhat uncomfortable being associated with this group who seemed to be much more radical than I and I moved to another part of the crowd. I didn’t attend the next day, May 13, because I had an important art history mid-term that I didn’t want to miss. That night watching the news on TV I was outraged at seeing my friends washed down the City Hall steps with fire hoses. The next day I joined the demonstration and this time positioned myself in the midst of the reds and had my fist in the air with the rest of them. Thus I can pinpoint my radicalization to Friday, May 13, 1960. Shortly after that I joined the Socialist Party and, having turned 21 that year, voted for Norman Thomas in the November election. It wasn’t all that long before I was voting for Archie Brown and Gus Hall. From that time the fist was one of my fave icons and I used it in cartoons and posters whenever I could. When I got back from Mississippi in ’65 the fist was a natural for the first woodcut in a series of cheap prints. It wasn’t until we made it into a button and tossed thousands of them into crowds at rallies and demonstrations that it really became popular. When I visited the lefty button maker in Berkeley who made them he showed me his wall of all the buttons he’d ever made. Literally dozens of organization had either incorporated the woodcut into their logos or used it in some fashion to promote some cause or issue.”

Frank is survived by his wife, Karen Horn of Alderpoint; his step-daughter, Zena Goldman Hunt of Italy; and his brother, James Cieciorka of San Jose.

Source / Anderson Valley Advertiser

Please also see James Retherford : Steven Heller, The New York Times, and our Little ‘Blog of Record’ / The Rag Blog / Nov. 28, 2008.

And also see Legendary Artist of the New Left : Frank Cieciorka Dead at 69 / The Rag Blog / Nov. 26, 2008.

Many thanks to Marilyn Buck for sharing this article with us / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments