Showing posts with label Political Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Action. Show all posts

04 October 2009

Understanding the Politics of the Vocal Discontents

Remember Scout and Jem Finch?

They who burn books .... will also, in the end, burn people.” -- Heinrich Heine

Fear, Ignorance and the Summer of Our Discontent
By John Atcheson / October 4, 2009

Fear

To those of us in the reality based community, watching the tea-baggers, death panelist propagators, birthers and assorted other whackjobs conjure up government fascism out of whole cloth, even as they unwittingly defend the unbridled fascistic behavior of corporations, defies logic.

Seeing them this past Summer act out their delusions at town hall meetings and on the Nation's Mall -- waving Don't Tread on Me signs; invoking the Founders as they engaged in the most undemocratic behavior; vilifying the President-- perplexes those of us who inhabit the real world. Where, we ask ourselves, does such a deadly brew of willful ignorance and passionate intensity come from?

Good question.

There are cultural, sociological and psychological explanations for their political pornography, and it is useful to examine them.

The most important fact to understand, is that these are the people who were left behind by change. In fact, one of their more popular signs is "Keep the Change". Although they don't realize it, the change they rail against is not the one Obama talks about - rather it is the one that has occurred in the last two generations.

Less than fifty years ago, these largely white and religious cohorts inhabited a world in which they were the majority. A world in which everyone knew why we were placed on this Earth, Who put us here, and what we ought to believe - a world in which everything was mapped out, a world in which they were the cartographers and the keepers of the sacred knowledge.

In those halcyon days of yesteryear, when people defined who it was that constituted "us" and who it was that made up "them," they found themselves in the majority. And it was good.

But society has moved on.

We now live in a multi-ethnic world dominated by rapid change, chaotic cultural shifts, materialism, uncertainty, and perhaps most of all, loss of control. Our children hop into cars and out of our lives. They log onto the web and get exposed to a universe of things that range from the divine to the heinous. Our families disintegrate as they chase jobs, and so too, do our communities and our mores. Transience replaces permanence in people, places and things. We get Relativity, but it comes with relativism.

The certainties that formed their shared reality two generations ago have been swept away. Most people moved forward in lockstep with reality. But those left behind are threatened, scared, and angry at forces they only dimly understand, and their response is to see the world, not as it is, but as they wish it were - as it used to be in a more certain time.

Ignorance

Education played a large part in whether people could adapt to the new world, or whether they couldn't. A Washington Post ABC poll taken in late 2008, found that white people without a college degree favored John McCain by 17 percentage points, while those with a college degree preferred Barack Obama by 9 percentage points.

The dispossessed need narratives and scapegoats to make their plight comprehensible and they need easy targets to blame. The Republicans and their corporate overlords have given them one: Government is the last stereotype - the new nigger, spick, wop, or mick.

The election of a black President to head the all-purpose bogeyman -- evil big gubmint - has allowed fear mongers to literally put a face on this scapegoat, and unleashed an irrational frenzy among the dispossessed. Thus, this past summer thousands on the national Mall and at town hall meetings were joined by only one real common issue -they've accepted an all-purpose scapegoat for their fall from grace: Government is the protector of the source of all their fears and problems: the "others," the "not us," and now it's run by one of "them."

That's why immigration pops up in any issue including health care. That's why the vague fear of Muslims taking over the country. That's why a single group can stand in unison as they protest the strangest of bedfellows: fascists, socialists, and "libruls," that are in some dim way supposed to be connected to health care. That's why they are suddenly concerned about deficits and fiscal responsibility after silently watching as their idols - Reagan and Bush - literally blew up the federal budget. That's why they resent taxes, so much of which they fear is destined for "the others," even though most of the crowd appeared to be at or near the medicare/social security age.

The Roots of Discontent

But here is the ultimate irony - the changes that have left the tea-baggers and other assorted tin foil hat types feeling rootless, disenfranchised, and fearful were unleashed in large measure by the doctrine they defend: Reaganism.

Or more precisely, Corporatism.

The answer to Tomas Frank's iconic question: What's the Matter with Kansas is that Corporations have skillfully and systematically exploited the sense of fear and disenfranchisement that a "market uber-alles" creates to effectively neuter the only power capable of challenging them and containing their excesses: government.

And it isn't just the whackjobs who have been complicit.

While the roots of corporate oligarchy go back to our very founding, and their power derives from some post-Civil War era Supreme Court Decisions which essentially gave corporations rights of personhood, it saw two great incarnations - first, beginning in the Gilded Age and extending right up to 1929; and again, since the 1980's when it became a doctrine on steroids under Regan.

Corporate power reached its zenith during the laissez-faire 1920's, and led to an unprecedented concentration of wealth in the upper 1% of the population and an unconstrained private sector and - inevitably - to the Great Depression. Roosevelt put in place programs which created a level playing field and a constrained private sector that operated in a manner consistent with the public good, and those programs contributed to four decades of sustained growth and a burgeoning middle class.

But for the last three decades, this nation has retreated from those New Deal programs. Progressives watched mutely as wages flatlined, as jobs disappeared overseas, as wealth was once again ripped from the hands of the poor and handed to the richest 1%; as the financial world was de-regulated; as government was vilified; and as the political process got hi-jacked.

The real tragedy is that while progressives hunkered down, afraid to confront the popular and appealing message of Reagan and his ideological descendants, corporations funded a coordinated takeover of the Republican Party, the popular press, and the machinery of government.

The corporate fleecing of America remains the greatest story never told.

Indeed, Bush slipped two ardent corporatists into the Supreme Court while progressives and the news media focused on wedge issues like abortion. As a result, we now have the most corporate-friendly Supreme Court in a century. Last week the Court took the unusual step of rushing a case to judgment that could substantially expand corporate political influence.

It's a War, Stupid

What progressives have failed to comprehend, and what Obama's compromise-driven approach to governance fails to appreciate is that there is a war on for the hearts, minds, and soul of America. In this war, Republicans are bit-players - minions of corporate power. Democratic Blue Dogs are their brethren - sniffing eagerly at the nether regions of the corporate body for tasty crumbs. The real war is one between government and Corporations. And Corporations, having bought off the upper class and both parties, and skillfully manipulated the fearful to encourage divisiveness, are winning.

The shape of the Wall Street bailout; the corporate-friendly nature of the health care debate; the weakness of the climate bills, the obscene size of our defense budget have all been dominated by our complete failure to address the one big issue - to engage in the war of ideologies that must be waged. If people have been fooled, progressives have no one but themselves to blame. They've only heard one side of the debate.

Progressives have simply lacked the courage to take this war on. Even though it is obvious that the laissez-faire dogma of Hoover/Reagan/Bush brought on the Great Depression and the Greatest Recession respectively, Democrats cower when confronted with complaints about big Gubmint' or "socialism," or "fascism"; and they nod placidly when people say that the magic markets will bring about all good things by pure serendipity if we just leave them alone.

As for raising taxes to provide services demanded by voters? Fugeddaboutit. Ditto on regulating the excesses of the financial sector.

Reagan advocated an essentially amoral framework for society - not amoral as it is often used to mean immoral but amoral in its literal sense -- operating outside of a moral context. This essentially undid much of what Roosevelt had achieved: tethering the unbridled power of corporations to the government so that it might be forced to meet basic ethical and pragmatic limitations that served the common good.

With the popularity of Reaganism, we spent three decades shrinking government and glorifying and unleashing the private sector.

The reality of the new world order is that tyranny is, in fact afoot. But it is the handmaiden of corporations not government. And it is about to become much worse, as the Bush Supreme Court Appointees rush to expand corporate control over the political process.

Ironically, government is the only entity capable of protecting people from the new fascists - unconstrained corporations.

The Founders were fond of checks and balances. Thus, the three branches of government were set up to operate as counterweights, preventing any one branch from getting too much power. One must believe that they would have built in checks against corporate power if it had existed then in anything like the form it does now.

Yes, there is a war for the mind, heart, and soul of this country. We must decide, once and for all, whether we wish to be a nation of and for the people, or one of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.

The Progressive and Democratic response to this war has been a three decade swoon that makes them the modern-day equivalent of Neville Chamberlain, appeasing the Reaganistas at every turn. It has not worked; it will not work.

The Health Care Debacle - Poster Child for Progressive Cowardice

Watching the tea-baggers, one is tempted to dismiss them as little more than slack-jawed yokels at a three-card-monty festival - another case of dumb asses getting the wool pulled over their eyes.

But watching the health care bill turn from populist reform to industry pork aided and abetted by the Democrats we elected, we have to wonder whether we're really any smarter.

At its root, the health care debate is simple. Right now, we have a middle man - the health insurance industry - that imposes a 30% surcharge (nearly $400 billion each year) on health care, while adding no value whatsoever to health. In fact, they restrict care. Operating beside it are government run programs which have a transaction cost of only 3.5%, with better outcomes and higher customer satisfaction. The same is true for pharmaceuticals - Bush's program prohibits the government from negotiating lower prices and prohibits customers from buying imports, which gives big PhRMA some $700 billion in excess profits.

So the question is, do we want to pay a 30%, $350 billion surcharge for poorer and more uncertain care, or do we want to pay a 3.5% transaction cost for better care and better service? It's that simple.

But we've watched mutely as 3,300 health care lobbyists (more than six lobbyists for each member of Congress) storm the Hill, spending more than $4 million a day solely to obfuscate the issue and preserve their amoral profits.

This summer we yielded control of the Bill to six Senators - who represent only 2.6 % of Americans and who have received more than $8.5 million in campaign contributions from the health care industry - and allowed them to strip out consumer protections in the Bill even as they load it with industry party favors.

We watched in silence as Obama and the Dems unilaterally jettisoned the single payer plan, and we watched as the gang of six stripped out the anemic alternative -- a public option -- even though the majority of Americans initially favored both. How is it that our elected representatives do not - will not - represent us?

We accept at face value the idea that the Bills all preserve choice, when in fact industry gets first choice of whether you get to keep your insurance, or whether you get to opt for the public option (if their even is one). Obama has stood idly by while this corporate takeover of the debate proceeded - in fact, he cut his own backroom deals with big PhaRMA - privately agreeing, as Bush did, not to use government's bargaining authority to reduce drug costs in exchange for their support.

This is a war; but health care is only a battle. On its face, it appears that on one side are lunatic tea-baggers full of equal parts passionate intensity and ignorant delusion; on the other are those lacking all conviction. But the reality is, that above it all, conning the yokels with distractions, and buying off the last pockets of government power are the corporate forces of tyranny - neither evil nor good, just doing whatever we allow them to do.

We will lose this war, until and unless we constrain corporate power - until we name the beast and demand that our representatives represent us.

This is our last chance. Obama's address to Congress was a start. But it will take a great leader - not simply a great rhetorician - to win this war and he can't do it alone.

Obama has suffered comparisons with Franklin Roosevelt since he crossed the threshold of the White House, but as many have pointed out, when Roosevelt was confronted with demands from the activists in his party, he said, "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it."

If we expect Obama to do his part, we must do ours. If 70% of us want serious health care reform, we can't simply talk to pollsters about it. If we are upset that Wall Street is being made whole with our taxes and disbursing mega-bonuses to fat cat CEOs, while the rest of the economy - the real economy - languishes, we can't passively wait for justice to arrive by Limo or Lear Jet.

We must demand that we get our government back; we must confront and drive a stake into the thoroughly discredited theology of Hoover/Reagan/Bush; we must be sure our voices are heard. We must turn the money changers from the sacred halls of governance. We must insist that media become something more than stenographers turning tricks for their corporate Johns. At the end of the day, corporations only have money - we have the vote.

Tea baggers have been manipulated by corporate interests precisely because they are the most aggrieved and disenfranchised members of society.

Corporations have bet that the slightly more affluent progressives have enough skin in the game that we'll stay on our couches and mumble epithets. We can make fun of the tea baggers, but at least they are out there.

As Labor Day drifts into hazily recalled burgers, beer, and bogus sales from retailers, we should remember what it stands for. It is time to organize. If our representatives are on the take, we must get rid of them. If our leaders won't lead, we must lead them.

We can stop the corporate K-Street takeover of America. But we must first believe that it exists. We do not face evil, we face something far more dangerous - an entity that is devoid of all values and ethics save one: the relentless drive to accumulate wealth and power for its own sake. Adam Smith was wrong - without the government to set boundary conditions and establish an even playing field, there is no common good in capitalism. Only tyranny and subjugation.

We must work to check the unbridled power of money in our political system or see it destroyed. Our voices and our votes can triumph - but only if we get off the couches and, to borrow a phrase from the tea-baggers, Take Back Our Country.

Of course, we do have an alternative.

Care to pick a card, yokel? Any card?

[John Atcheson's writing has appeared in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the San Jose Mercury News, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, as well as in several wonk journals. Email to: atchman@comcast.net.]

Source / Common Dreams

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

10 September 2009

Beyond Hutto : Reforming Immigrant Detention

Demonstrator at T. Don Hutto detention facility on World Refugee Day, June 20, 2009. Photo by Melissa Del Bosque / The Texas Observer.

Beyond Hutto:
Activists reflect on the continuing struggle against immigrant detention centers.


By DC Tedrow / The Rag Blog / September 10, 2009

In response to mounting criticism of harsh policies, the Obama administration announced in August that the United States would begin reforming the government's immigrant detention system. Although details are sketchy and changes will be introduced slowly, one immediate and appreciable shift in policy was the announcement that Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will no longer send immigrant families to the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, just northwest of Austin.

That the administration mentioned Hutto specifically is not surprising; news media, religious groups, and progressive activists have criticized the facility for locking up children since Hutto began detaining families in May 2006. In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against ICE on behalf of families detained at Hutto, which led to improved conditions at the facility. After investigating the prison in June 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) announced in a press release that, even though conditions had improved since the ACLU lawsuit, the continued detention of asylum seekers and their children at Hutto violated principles of international law.

In addition to the ACLU and the IACHR, the organizations Grassroots Leadership and Texans United for Families have helped lead the charge against the Hutto facility. Below, Bob Libal of Grassroots Leadership and Lauren Martin of Texans United for Families discuss Hutto, the Obama administration’s announcement, and prospects for future organizing.

Bob Libal is the Texas coordinator for Grassroots Leadership, a southern based social justice organization taking on private prisons, and an activist in the movement to end immigrant detention at Hutto. Lauren Martin is a member of Texans United for Families, an Austin-based coalition working to end family detention, and is a PhD student in geography at the University of Kentucky.


Talk about the history of the T. Don Hutto facility.

Bob Libal: Basically, Hutto was a medium-security prison that Corrections Corporation of America took over in the late '90s. It was a failing private prison that couldn't retain much of a population base. CCA had contracted with U.S. Marshals, with ICE to house adult detainees, and both of those contracts had fallen through. Then, in the spring of 2006 they reopened it with the announcement that they were going to be detaining immigrant families, including small children for ICE. This was a pretty big expansion of the family detention system in this country.

In August, the Obama administration announced that the U.S. government would no longer be holding immigrant families at facilities such as Hutto. Why did they make this move?

Bob Libal: I think they made this decision because of political pressure, because organizers had made Hutto a lightning rod of controversy. The decision basically takes family detention policy back to pre-9/11 levels. Before the announcement last month, there were two family detention centers in the country: Hutto and the Berks County Detention Center in Pennsylvania, which has 80 beds. Last year, ICE proposed three new family detention centers around the country. What we were looking at, up until this announcement, was an expansion of the family detention system.

The announcement is that they would be either transferring families to Berks or releasing them on alternatives-to-detention programs. Berks is full right now: it's at capacity at 82 beds, so in reality what that's translated to is they're releasing families into alternatives-to-detention programs or releasing them with notices to appear at their immigration hearings. They also are taking the new family detention centers off the table. I think it's a pretty substantial victory. The New York Times described it as the first major departure on immigration policy from the Bush administration.

Is this going back to the idea of "catch and release?"

Bob Libal: I've heard John Morten, who is the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, say “No, we're not returning to that.” But I think the people who are getting out of Hutto are getting out on notices to appear. I think that it's still unclear how this sort of processing is going to take place. Say that you're apprehended or apply for asylum on the border. What happens to you? Are you then just released into an alternatives-to-detention program, or are you sent to Berks and then released? I think we don't know that yet. What it does mean is that, at any one time, there are a lot fewer families in detention.

Lauren Martin: I think it's important to differentiate, too, between "catch and release," which is really vague and could mean anything, and the bond and parole procedures that have been in place and are available to many immigrant detainees. That's often what families are released on. There is some degree of supervision, and they also pay quite a bit of money either in bond or for parole to participate in those programs. So "release" is misleading. Just because they're not in Hutto, there are still other forms of institutional supervision. Alternatives-to-detention programs have a wide range of forms of supervision.

"Catch and release" is this phrase that critics of this policy bandy about.

Lauren Martin: Right. And the justification for opening Hutto was that they need to move from "catch and release" to "catch and return." There's a presumption of illegality -- that all these families would be released into the population and abscond. Michael Chertoff said that. A vast majority of the families that have been detained at Hutto are asylum seeking families, so it's a lot more complicated than this simplistic illegal-versus-legal dichotomy.

Hutto has not been shut down, though. It's been converted into a detention center for women, correct?

Lauren Martin: Yes. After the legal settlement mandated that they do periodic reviews -- every 30 days they have to review whether a specific family qualifies to be released on bond or parole -- once they started doing that, they did start releasing families a lot faster, which made the population drop. So they filled Hutto halfway with immigrant women. As families are released, it will be filled completely with immigrant women without children. That's what they've announced. It's not closed.

What now? Will Grassroots Leadership continue to focus on Hutto?

Lauren Martin: I work with Texans United for Families, a coalition of people that have been fighting family detention at Hutto. I can sort of speak for the coalition, but not Grassroots Leadership. We're trying to figure out what the announcement really means, so we've been staying in close contact with Washington, D.C.-based advocates who have closer relationships with ICE, and the attorneys in the lawsuit who are actually representing folks at Hutto, to see what's going on there and to make sure that everything continues to go well. The next project is to figure out how to use the energy from the victory -- because it is still a victory, even it's a partial one -- how to roll that in to serve the next campaign. What are the lessons we've learned? How do we build on it and expand it?

We also have to think about, what do we do when there are not families detained? That was clearly something that mattered to a lot of people. And widening the question to detention requires very careful strategies about messaging, although there's plenty to organize around.

Do you think there's a climate for expanding this message to include more than just families? To target detention itself?

Lauren Martin: I think so. There have been a lot of really successful campaigns in the United States around other family-related issues, not necessarily family detention. In New York, Families for Freedom is a close ally of ours, and they've been organizing around the Child Citizen Protection Act, which is basically an act that says if someone has a citizen child, then the immigration judge will get some discretion to not deport the parents. Right now, in many situations, judges get no discretion. They don't get to say, "This person clearly has family ties, they have a few kids who need them, so it would be better not to deport this person." Immigration judges' hands are tied by the way our legislation is written right now.

Family unity is supposed to the backbone of our immigration system. However heternormative a form a family it may be, it is still what both conservatives and liberals think of as the touchstone of the immigration system. So I think that's actually a really powerful discourse that we can use to expand to other injustices in the immigration system, because it's something that everybody understands, whereas immigration law is totally obscure and difficult to understand.

Bob Libal: We will certainly continue to draw attention to the broader issues of immigrant detention and private prisons. And I believe that we will continue to draw attention to Hutto, since it's right outside of Austin and still a private prison that holds immigrant detainees. But I think that it is important to think strategically about how we can best push back on that system. I don't think we've figured out exactly what the next big campaign is going to be, because there are so many immigrant detention centers. It's important to both target geographic locations -- like a facility -- but also work towards policy change.

I think that is one of the lessons of the Hutto campaign: You can target a facility to make it very infamous, which the movement did to Hutto. But at the same time, it was drawing attention to a broader policy, which is family detention. I think we've pushed back family detention policy by drawing attention to Hutto. Hopefully we'll be able to do that again in the future: by targeting a facility and pushing back on a policy like mandatory detention, secure communities, or any of these other really horrendous programs that lead to the incarceration of immigrants on a mass scale.

[DC Tedrow edits The New Texas Radical where this article also appears.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

08 September 2009

FILM / Abe Osheroff : One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing



One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing
An inspirational political life captured on film

by Barbara J. Berg / The Rag Blog / September 8, 2009

[A review of Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing. Produced and written by Robert Jensen and Nadeem Uddin. Directed by Nadeem Uddin. Featuring Abe Osheroff, Martin Espada, Eduardo Galeano.]

Abe Osheroff leans forward in his chair as he ponders how we can lead the politically engaged life he considers central to being fully alive. Such musings are common, but what’s striking is that the 90-year-old Osheroff is not simply looking back and reflecting on his rich life of activism but thinking about what still lies ahead for him.

So begins the deeply moving documentary Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing, Abe Osheroff’s story of breathtaking courage and commitment. With Osheroff’s opening monologue, director Nadeem Uddin brilliantly establishes the dominant theme of this work: How does an individual live righteously in an unrighteous world?

Osheroff spent his entire life answering that question -- not with erudite philosophical treatises -- although as he demonstrated many times, he was more than capable of doing so -- but with a simple unfailing passion to better humankind. To become a citizen of the world in the truest, fullest sense of the word. Wavering, quitting, or succumbing to the fear often stalking him were never options. He needed, as he said, to like the face he saw in the mirror each morning.

His was an inner determination sculptured by the inescapable inequities of his youth in a Brooklyn ghetto. The grinding desperation of the factory workers, the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti, the shameless evictions of impoverished tenants, these whittled away all traces of passivity and self-preservation to leave a fierce uncompromising will. From his earliest days he became determined to fight what those on the left call “the good fight.” And he did so wherever it took him.

First to Spain to join the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in its stand against fascism. This decision, daring in itself, became fraught with even more danger when his ship was torpedoed, requiring Abe to swim two miles to shore. He fought in several battles before a bullet destroyed one of his knees.

Abe came back to the states and immersed himself in the labor protests of the late 1930s. With his early call for workers’ compensation, even some of this friends thought he was “nuts.” But Abe never backed down from demanding rights for the downtrodden and disenfranchised.

Using his skills as a carpenter, he traveled to Mississippi during the Freedom Summer in 1964 to construct a community center. Danger dogged him at every turn; his car was blown up the night he arrived, the house he was staying in was riddled with a thousand bullets, but he stayed with his work.

And he built homes, again, in Nicaragua, in the poor rural communities -- 30 houses altogether, including the roads and bridges to reach them. Osheroff was a vocal opponent of the war in Vietnam, and continued his activism up until the end of his life at the age of 92, speaking out against the Iraq War.

More than seven decades of Osheroff’s political organizing are brought to life by this captivating documentary. Haunting music by David Brunn, and skillful use of news footage, some culled from Abe’s own earlier award-winning film Dreams and Nightmares, bring a dramatic focus to the narrative. We listen to Osheroff in conversation with the great Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano and listen to poet Martin Espada read his tribute to Osheroff. But mostly what we hear is Abe -- authentic, irreverent and always challenging complicity in the face of injustice and inequality.

Much as One Foot in the Grave is the story of Osheroff’s life, it’s also a probing and unflinching look at the philosophy behind that life -- a philosophy that demands peace instead of war, human cooperation instead of exploitation. Old though he was, Osheroff refused to live in the past. Year after year, he spoke at college campuses and high schools, as he worried with and for his young audiences about our nation’s misdirections. He told students that history is made through organized anger, that dissent brings growth, and, my favorite, that solidarity is love in action.

Abe Osheroff died in April 2008. But because of the dancing beat of his courage and refusal to compromise with injustice, through this poignant documentary he will be heard by new generations. As Osheroff hoped, all that mattered to him will remain fully alive.

[Feminist historian Barbara J. Berg’s new book is Sexism in America: Alive, Well, and Ruining Our Future (Lawrence Hill Books). She is also the author of The Remembered Gate: Origins of American Feminism; Nothing to Cry About, and The Crisis of the Working Mother. For more information go here.

[
Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing, is distributed by the Media Education Foundation. For more information on Osheroff and the film, contact producer Robert Jensen at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu. The transcript of an extended interview Jensen conducted with Osheroff is online at Third Coast Activist, and a print version of that interview in pamphlet form also is available.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

11 January 2009

Robert Jensen : Beyond Grief and Rage: Palestine and the Politics of Resistance

Israeli and American Flags Lapel Pin / Judaica Heaven!.
The grief is achingly real, and the rage is morally justified. Our task today is to think about how to channel the power of those emotions into effective political action.
By Robert Jensen / The Rag Blog / January 11, 2009

[A version of this essay was delivered to the “Day of Action for Gaza” gathering in Austin, Texas, on Jan. 10, 2009.]

We need to analyze and strategize about political realities, but let’s begin with an emotional reality: For the past few weeks the scenes from Gaza have been driving many of us mad.

For all the horrors in the world, there has been something especially brutal and barbaric about Israel’s use of fighter jets and other sophisticated weapons to pound this small strip of land, to target the 1.5 million people crowded there, to destroy a society. Out of that grief flows rage, not just at the sadistic Israeli violence but also at the “we must stand with Israel” declarations coming from Republican and Democratic politicians alike.

The grief is achingly real, and the rage is morally justified. But it’s also true that for anyone who is aware of the suffering of this world, such emotions are part of daily life. To know -- to make the choice to know -- about the extent of injustice and the depth of misery all over the planet is to accept that we will wake every morning to that grief and rage.

Our task today is to think about how to channel the power of those emotions into effective political action. That is no small task after so many years of struggle and so many failures to change our government’s policies.

Let’s start by remembering the other places where that suffering has been so intense: Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America, southern Africa, southeast Asia. I mention those places in particular because much of the suffering there has been a result, directly or indirectly, of U.S. economic, military, and foreign policy. Those are some of the places that have borne the brunt of the U.S. empire’s violence since the end of World War II. As a U.S. citizen, those are the places to which I have the clearest moral connection; those of us who claim the United States as home must come to terms with that suffering.

“The West” has been involved in empire-building for 500 years, and for the past 60 years the United States has led that imperial project. It is a project soaked in blood. One of the great apologists for the empire, the late political scientist Samuel Huntington, was at least honest in acknowledging that: “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”[1]

Our first task is to refuse to forget, which means recognizing that, in the context of U.S. policy, there is nothing special about Palestine. It is one place where the West and its surrogates have used organized violence to achieve political and economic aims. U.S. support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine has to be seen as part of that imperial project; those of us in the United States who want to defend Palestine have to resist the U.S. empire.

Too often activists in the United States have ignored this. For example, the group “If Americans Knew” has done fine work to distribute information about the occupation, but consider this sentence from its mission statement: “It is our belief that when Americans know the facts on a subject, they will, in the final analysis, act in accordance with morality, justice, and the best interests of their nation, and of the world.”

If only that were true. In fact, many Americans routinely endorse actions in support of the U.S. empire that are immoral and unjust but which they believe are in their best interests, the world be damned. Many others work hard not to know -- a willed ignorance -- in order to avoid having to face difficult issues. To trust in the moral sensibilities of the U.S. public is to ignore history; in the realm of moral vision, Americans are not special.

Let’s recognize that resisting the U.S. empire puts us in conflict not only with the politicians from the major political parties but also with the majority of U.S. citizens. The problem is not simply that many Americans do not know the real history of the Israel/Palestine conflict (though it’s true that they don’t) or that the U.S. corporate news media outlets present a consistently distorted view of the conflict (though it’s true that they do). The problem goes deeper, to the core of this country and to the lies we tell ourselves about ourselves.

So, to work for justice for Palestine is to work against the U.S. empire. And to work against the U.S. empire is to dig in for the long haul. Our task is not to play to Americans’ sense of being special, but to help this country come to realize that if there is to be a decent future for anyone -- indeed, if there is to be a future at all -- the United States has to step back from its position of arrogance and affluence. We must imagine what it would be like to live as one nation in the world, not as an arrogant nation that attempts to dominate the world. We must imagine what a good life would look like if we were to give up our commitment to affluence and work toward a just and sustainable world at the end of the high-energy/high-technology era.

All of that is hard to focus on when Israeli bombs are dropping on Gaza, as the U.S. government continues to provide military, diplomatic, and economic support to Israel. It is difficult to take the long view as the grief of the people of Gaza intensifies by the moment.

But I believe that authentic hope lies in seeing one movement with many fronts. The goals must be justice and sustainability, which are inseparably linked. The struggle goes on in Palestine and Iraq, in Venezuela and Bolivia, in Oakland and Austin. The targets are the empire and economic interests it serves. We have to continue to struggle against the corrosive effects of arrogance and affluence, in others and in ourselves.

We all have limited time and energy for political work, and we direct that energy toward activities that are meaningful to us. One person cannot do everything, but each one of us can work within our political groups and communities to develop the analysis needed to integrate these many campaigns for justice and sustainability, linking our efforts with others’.

With that analysis, there is the possibility of authentic solidarity. And that solidarity is our only way to tame the rage, our only way to live with the grief.

[1] Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), p. 51.

[Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. His latest book, All My Bones Shake, will be published in 2009 by Soft Skull Press. He also is the author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002). Jensen can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online here.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

10 December 2008

Greek Riots Expand; Address Corrupt Political System

Thousands march at funeral of Greek youth Alexandros Grigoropoulos; demand end to culture of corruption. There's more to the Greek uprising then the alleged murder of an anarchist youth. Photo by Reuters / AP.
'A switch has been flicked and the pressure cooker’s boiled over,' said David Lea, an analyst at Control Risks in London, who compares the riots with those in Parisian suburbs in 2005.
Greek riots fueled by graft, economic woes
By Natalie Weeks and Maria Petrakis / December 10, 2008

With tear gas and smoke lingering in the air, Spiros Politis stood in front of his Athens drugstore, ready to open after rioters firebombed the building next door.

In the small hours yesterday, the 46-year-old defiantly put out the blaze as youths pelted police with stones and threw Molotov cocktails in some of the worst violence since student rebellions helped topple a military junta in the 1970s.

“Traditions that bound society have deteriorated,” said Politis, owner of Pharmacy Philellinon adjacent to Syntagma Square, a focal point of clashes in the Greek capital following the Dec. 6 police shooting of a 15-year-old boy. “There is no political will to resolve the issues, and I mean political in a greater sense of the whole community.”

The chaos in Athens and Thessaloniki -- along with a slowing economy and deepening dissatisfaction with a dynastic political order -- is shaking Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis’s government, which holds a one-vote parliamentary majority. Opposition leader George Papandreou’s Panhellenic Socialist Movement, or Pasok, is leading opinion polls for the first time in eight years.

Papandreou, the son and grandson of former prime ministers, yesterday called for early elections, saying that the government of Karamanlis, nephew of yet another former prime minister, “has lost the confidence of the Greek people.”

State workers are planning a national strike today, aiming to bring to a halt cities across the country that are waking up to the prospect of clearing up the debris from more destruction overnight. The workers are protesting Karamanlis-introduced taxes on the self-employed and small businesses aimed at helping meet budget-deficit targets.

‘Boiled Over’

“A switch has been flicked and the pressure cooker’s boiled over,” said David Lea, an analyst at Control Risks in London, who compares the riots with those in Parisian suburbs in 2005. “There are certain places where anarchists are more likely to inspire violence, and that’s Greece.”

Behind the riots is anger at an embedded culture of corruption. Greece, which joined the European Union in 1981, is the most corrupt in western Europe and ranks 24th of the 27 EU countries, according to Berlin-based Transparency International’s annual corruption perception index.

“It’s a plague on both houses,” said Professor Kevin Featherstone, director of the Hellenic Observatory at the London School of Economics. “It’s a sense of frustration. How do you change a system that has corruption so deeply embedded?”

This month, an all-party parliamentary committee will say whether any lawmakers have been involved in a corruption scandal involving a land swap with a monastery that left taxpayers 100 million euros ($130 million) poorer.

Youth Unemployment

Both New Democracy and Pasok are struggling to keep a lid on the increasingly angry youth population. The unemployment rate for the 15 to 24 age group was 19 percent in August, according to the latest figures from the National Statistics Service in Athens. That’s the highest percentage among all age groups, the statistics show.

The overall jobless rate was 7.2 percent in June, while the economy is growing at an annual rate of about 3 percent, according to national statistics.

Rioters fire-bombed stores in Athens and Thessaloniki, the country’s second-largest city, and threw rubble at police for a fourth day following the death of Alexis Grigoropoulos in an Athens suburb.

Arrests, Injuries

Police said 87 people were arrested in Athens for attacking officers, vandalism and looting. A total of 176 people were detained while 12 police were injured, police said. Mega TV reported that total arrests in Greece reached 157. Violence erupted again after the boy’s funeral yesterday in the capital.

Pavlos, who asked for his last name not be used because of fear of arrest, was among the crowd of black-clad hooded youths cheering when flames licked the three-meter high Christmas tree in Athens’s central Syntagma Square on Dec. 8.

“This isn’t violence, this is destruction,” said Pavlos, 20, who studied hotel management in the Greek capital. “The trigger was the death of the kid, but the reasons are much deeper. Consumerism, the police, the government, the way the state functions. There are no opportunities.”

Grigoropoulos was killed after a group of about 30 teenagers attacked a patrol car with projectiles in the Exarhia district of Athens, according to the Interior Ministry.

The area is adjacent to the National Technical University of Athens, the site of the 1973 student uprising against the military junta. Now the rioters, many in their teens, are hooked up via the Internet and mobile-phone text messages.

The government is promising a quick investigation into the circumstances of the shooting but Politis, the pharmacy owner, said politicians need to go beyond just finding out what happened that night in Athens.

“How do you fix it? How does the government pay for it like they say they will?” he said. “Christmas is over.”

Source / Bloomberg

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

24 August 2008

Dem Convention Protesters: "Fuck Fox News"

Boy, how right did the protesting youth get this? Fox News, "fair and balanced," deserves every bit of abuse that anyone cares to dish them. "Fair" refers to their disdain for the facts, while "balanced" reflects their racism and hatred of other, particularly black, Muslim, or Latino.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

Denver Democratic Convention Protesters


Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

15 August 2008

Drug Policy: Dictated by Tabloid Irrationality

Although this article is about British drug policy, its basic content and conclusions apply perfectly to US drug policy. Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog


The Case is Overwhelming: All Experts Agree: Legalize Drugs
By JULIAN CRITCHLEY / August 15, 2008

Eight years ago, I left my civil service job as director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit. I went partly because I was sick of having to implement policies that I knew, and my political masters knew, were unsupported by evidence. Yesterday, after a surreal flurry of media requests referring to a blog I wrote that questioned the wisdom of the UK's drug policies, I found myself in the thick of the debate again, and I was sorry to discover that the terms hadn't changed a bit.

I was being interviewed on the BBC World Service, and after I tried to explain why I believe that drugs should be decriminalised, the person representing the other side of the argument pointed out that drugs are terrible, that they destroy lives. Now, I am a deeply boring, undruggy person myself, and I think the world would be a better place without drugs. But I think that we must live in the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. And so my answer was, yes, I know that drugs are terrible. I'm not saying that drugs should be decriminalised because it would be fun if we could all get stoned with impunity. I'm saying that we've tried minimising harm through a draconian legal policy. It is now clear that enforcement and supply-side interventions are largely pointless. They haven't worked. There is evidence that this works.

Unfortunately, evidence is still not a major component in our policy. Take cannabis. When I was in the Anti-Drug Unit, the moves towards making it a class C drug began, and I hoped that our position on drugs was finally moving in a rational direction. But then Gordon Brown ignored his scientific advisers to make it a class B again. It was a decision that pandered to the instincts of the tabloids, and it made no sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt at all that the benefits to society of the fall in crime as a result of legalisation would be dramatic. The argument always put forward against this is that there would be a commensurate increase in drug use as a result of legalisation. This, it seems to me, is a bogus point: tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to Government control, education programmes and taxation than they would be otherwise. Studies suggest that the market is already almost saturated, and anyone who wishes to purchase the drug of their choice anywhere in the UK can already do so. The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is ridiculous.

Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether they involve diet, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, sexual activity or pursuit of extreme sports. In all these instances, the Government rightly takes the line that if these activities are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by a legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and – crucially – do not harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the Government take a different line.

The case is overwhelming. But I fear that policy will not catch up with the facts any time soon. It would take a mature society to accept that some individuals may hurt, or even kill themselves, as a result of a policy change, even if the evidence suggested that fewer people died or were harmed as a result. It would take a brave government to face down the tabloid fury in the face of anecdotes about middle-class children who bought drugs legally and came to grief, and this is not a brave government.

I think what was truly depressing about my time in the civil service was that the professionals I met from every sector held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those people were forced to repeat the mantra that the Government would be "tough on drugs", even though they all knew that the policy was causing harm.

I recall a conversation I had with a Number 10 policy advisor about a series of announcements in which we were to emphasise the shift of resources to treatment and highlight successes in prevention and education. She asked me whether we couldn't arrange for "a drugs bust in Brighton" at the same time, or "a boat speeding down the Thames to catch smugglers". For that advisor, what worked mattered considerably less than what would play well in the right-wing press. The tragedy of our drugs policy is that it is dictated by tabloid irrationality, and not by evidence.

Julian Critchley was the former director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit.

Source / CounterPunch

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

23 June 2008

Food For Thought


Turning Your Lawn into a Victory Garden
Won't Save You -- Fighting the Corporations Will

By Stan Cox / June 23, 2008

The corporate agriculture industry would like nothing better than to see us spend all of our free time in our gardens and not in political dissent.
I didn't mean to lead anyone down the garden path. Adding my small voice to those urging Americans to replace their lawns with food plants wasn't, in itself, a bad idea. But now that food shortages and high costs are in the headlines, too many people are getting the idea that the solution to America's and the world's food problems is for all of us in cities and suburbia to grow our own. It's not.

Don't get me wrong: Growing food just outside your front or back door is an extraordinarily good idea, and if it's done without soil erosion or toxic chemicals, I can think of no downside. Edible landscaping can look good, and it saves money on groceries; it's a direct provocation to the toxic lawn culture; gardening is quieter and less polluting than running a power mower or other contraption; the harvest provides a substitute for industrially grown produce raised and picked by underpaid, oversprayed workers; and tending a garden takes a lot of time, time that might otherwise be spent in a supermarket or shopping mall.

So it was in 2005 that our family volunteered our front lawn to be converted into the first in a now-expanding chain of "Edible Estates," the brainchild of Los Angeles architect/artist Fritz Haeg. We already had a backyard garden, but growing food in the front yard (which, as Haeg himself points out, is a reincarnation of a very old idea) has been a wholly different, equally positive experience.

Our perennials and annuals are thriving, we've gotten a lot of publicity, and I've been talking about the project for almost three years. Yet neither of our gardens, front or back, can stand up to the looming agricultural crisis. Good food's most well-read advocate, Michael Pollan, has written that growing a garden is worth doing even though it can make only a tiny contribution to curbing carbon-dioxide emissions. He might have added that growing food is worth it even if it does very little to revive the nation's food system.

World cropland: the pie is mostly crust

The edible-landscaping trend is catching on across the country, and with food prices rising, it has taking sadly predictable turns. A Boulder, Colo. entrepreneur, for example, has tilled up his and several of his neighbors' yards and started an erosion-prone, for-profit vegetable-farming operation. It will supplement his income, but it won't make a nick in the food crisis.

That's because the mainstays of home gardening -- vegetables and fruits -- are not the foundation of the human diet or of world agriculture. Each of those two food types occupies only about 4 percent of global agricultural land (and a smaller percentage in this country), compared with 75 percent of world cropland devoted to grains and oilseeds. Their respective portions of the human diet are similar.

Suppose that half of the land on every one-acre-or-smaller urban/suburban home lot in the entire nation were devoted to food-growing. That would amount to a little over 5 million acres (pdf) sown to food plants, covering most of the space on each lot that's not already covered by the house, a deck, a patio, or a driveway. (And in many places it couldn't be done without cutting down shade trees and planting on unsuitably steep slopes).

That theoretical 5 million acres of potential home cropland compares with about 7 million acres of America's commercial cropland currently in vegetables, fruits, and nuts, and 350 to 400 million acres of total farmland. The urban and suburban area to be brought into production would not approach the number of healthy acres of native grasses and other plants that are slated to be plowed up to make way for yet more corn, wheat, soybeans, and other grains under the newly passed federal Farm Bill.

A nationwide grow-your-own wave would send good vibes through society, ripples that could be greatly amplified by community and apartment-block gardening. But front- and backyard food, even if everyone grew it, would not cover the country's produce needs, much less displace our huge volume of fresh-food imports.

We could, instead, plant every yard to wheat, corn, or soybeans, which would account only for a little over two percent of the US land sown to those crops. Other policies, like dispensing with grain-fed meat and fuel ethanol, would free up far more grain-belt land than that.

Not even a poke in the eye

I've played a part in the promotion of domestic food-growing, and I now I seem to hear daily from people who believe that it's the best alternative to industrial agriculture (as in, "I'll show Monsanto and Wal-Mart that I don't need their food!"). Even though most prominent home-lot food efforts, like the "100-Foot Diet Challenge," also try to draw attention to bigger issues, the wider message can get lost in the excitement. Whatever its benefits, replacing your lawn with food plants will not give Big Agribusiness the big poke in the eye that it needs, nor will it save the agricultural landscapes of the nation or world.

To do that, the big-commodity market must be not just modified but overthrown. Until then, most of that two-thirds or more of the human calorie and protein intake that comes from grains and oilseeds (directly in most of the world or among Western vegetarians, largely via animal products for others in this country) will continue to be served up by a dirty, cruel, unfair, broken system.

Essential for providing vitamins, minerals, and other compounds, a highly varied diet is important, and home gardens around the world help provide such a diet. But with a world population now approaching seven billion people and most good cropland already in use, only rice, wheat, corn, beans, and other grain crops are productive and durable enough to provide the dietary foundation of calories and protein.

Grains made up about the same portion of the ancient Greek diet as they do of ours. We've been stuck with grains for 10,000 years, and our dependence won't be broken any time soon.

The United States emulate Argentina and a handful of other countries by raising cattle that are totally grass-fed instead of grain-fed and thereby consuming less corn and soybean meal. But most of the world is utterly dependent on grains. The desperate people we saw on the evening news earlier this year, filling the streets in dozens of countries, were calling for bread or rice, not cucumbers and pomegranates.

Capitalism: It doesn't go well with food

Humanity's attachment to cereals, grain legumes, and oilseeds has acquired a much harder edge in the industrial era, but as a base for political and economic power, the staple grains have always been unsurpassed. Because they hold calories and nutrients in a dense package that can be easily stored for long periods and transported, the more fortunate members of ancient societies could accumulate surpluses. Those surpluses are recognized by the majority of scholars as necessary to the birth of market economies, which allowed the prosperous to exercise control over society's have-nots. Eventually, states used control over grains to exert political power over entire populations.

Few foods could have filled that role. Noting that before grain agriculture came along, ancient Egyptians might have gathered a surplus of various foods from nature, most of them highly perishable, economic historian Robert Allen once wrote, "If all a tax collector could get from foragers was a load of waterlilies that would wilt by next morning, what was the point of having them?" The Pharaohs managed to exert control over the area's population only after people started farming wheat and barley.

The even bigger problem with grains -- which are short-lived annual plants, grown largely in monoculture -- is that they supplanted the diverse, perennial plant ecosystems that covered the earth before the dawn of agriculture. We've been living with the resulting soil erosion and water pollution ever since.

Then, when grains became fully commodified a couple of centuries ago, things really started to go downhill. In discussing his new book Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System, Raj Patel cited India as an example: "The social safety nets that existed in India under feudal society had been knocked away by the British. If people couldn't afford food, they didn't get to eat, and if they couldn't buy food, they starved. As a result of the imposition of markets in food, 13 million people across the world died in the 19th century. They died in the golden age of liberal capitalism. Those are the origins of markets in food."

Indeed, if capitalism were a wine, it would be a wine that doesn't go well with any type of food.

Most food today is produced not as an end in itself but as a by-product of a global economy with the singular goal of turning maximum profit. That is a dysfunctional arrangement, as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of ecological economics explained almost 40 years ago in his book The Entropy Law and the Economic Process: "So vital is the dependence of terrestrial life on the energy received from the sun that the cyclic rhythm in which this energy reaches each region on the earth has gradually built itself through natural selection into the reproductive pattern of almost every species, vegetal or animal ... Yet the general tenor among economists has been to deny any substantial difference between the structures of agricultural and industrial productive activities."

Industrial or commercial output can be increased by building more capacity, stepping up the consumption of inputs, taking on more workers, and pushing workers harder and for longer hours. Farming, by contrast, is inevitably bound by the calendar -- by month-to-month variation in the capacity of soil and sunlight to support the growth of plants. It depends fundamentally on the productivity and the habits of non-human biological organisms over which humans can exert control only up to a point.

That clearly isn't the ideal pattern for efficient wealth generation, so the past century has seen relentless efforts to mold agriculture into the factory model as closely as possible and, where that can't be done, to graft more easily regimented industries -- farm machinery, fertilizers, chemicals, food processing, the restaurant industry, packaging, advertising -- onto an agricultural rootstock. In the US, the dollar outputs of those dependent industries are growing at two to four times the rate of agriculture's own dollar output, putting ever-greater demands on the soil.

With a wholesale shift toward mechanization of US agriculture, 75 percent of economic output now comes from fewer than 7 percent of farms; furthermore, there has been a steep rise in the proportion of farms owned by investors living in distant cities (some of them perhaps avid urban gardeners).

Because, as Georgescu-Roegen showed, there's a fundamental difference between the farm and the factory, the well-used term "factory farming" represents more an aspiration than an accomplished fact. Nevertheless, agribusiness's attempts to defy natural rhythms and achieve industrial efficiency have been ecologically devastating. The biofuel craze, encouraged by subsidies that continue in the new Farm Bill, compounds the problem.

"We must cultivate our garden," and ...

To repair the broken system that supplies the bulk of the nation's diet will require Americans to step out of the garden and into the public arena. Beyond working to get a better Farm Bill passed five years from now, we have to work together to break the political choke-hold that agribusiness has on federal and state governments.

With land and wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands (and with more prisoners than farmers in today's America) we have actually reached a point at which land reform is as necessary here as it is in any nation of Latin America or Asia. Only when we get more people back on the land, working to feed people and not Monsanto, will the system have a chance to work. Most home gardeners know that the root of the problem is political, but the agricultural establishment would like nothing better than to see us spend all of our free time in our gardens and not in political dissent.

Ironically, it's that great troublemaker Voltaire who has too often been trotted out (and too often misquoted) as an advocate of withdrawing from the tumult of society, into tending one's own property. Voltaire was indeed a gardener, and he did end his most famous novel by having Candide, after surviving so many far-flung hazards, utter those famous words to his fellow wanderer Dr. Pangloss: "We must cultivate our garden."

However, with the publication of Candide in 1759, Voltaire entered the most politically active part of his life, as he "went on to a series of confrontations with the consequences of human cruelty that, two hundred-odd years later, remain stirring in their courage and perseverance," in the words of Adam Gopnik.

If Voltaire could find the time for both gardening and radical political action, then all of us can do it.

[Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book, Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, was just published by Pluto Press.]

Source. / AlterNet

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.