Tuesday, April 21, 2009

A Rare Moment of Political Activism (Rather than Political Theorizing) from Mr. Trend

I almost never do this (and feel a bit embarrassed doing it now), but....

...in light of the release of the torture memos, Jay Bybee's central role in their awful, (il)legal logic, and his current status as a member of the Ninth Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals, I'm asking any and all of you who are interested and have the time to write your Senators and Congresspeople and ask them for his impeachment. For those who are interested or don't have the time to include their own message, I included mine below (though I recommend changing the bit about being a Latin American historian, unless you actually are one). The more people that make their voice heard, especially on Bybee, the better the court system and the country will be for it.


Dear Senator Schumer,

I am writing to ask you to please join efforts to impeach Jay Bybee. I know that you were one of the 79 senators to approve his original nomination to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, and you no doubt had your reasons and your own information. However, in light of the recent declassified torture memos that President Obama released, including the 18-page memo by Mr. Bybee himself, that offered a logic for why torture that the United States conducted was legal, make clear that Mr. Bybee should in no way be responsible for major legal decisions.

I am a historian who studies Latin America, and my focus is on military dictatorships, all of which used torture themselves in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Throughout those years, numerous politicians, including President Jimmy Carter and senators like Sen. Ted Kennedy, openly declared methods like those mentioned in Mr. Bybee's memo (including "walling" and confinement in small spaces for extended periods of time) to be torture. Yet, as I'm certain you are aware, upon the U.S.'s performance of similar deeds, Mr. Bybee was at the forefront of defending these same methods that had been "torture" for other countries when it came time for the Bush administration to defend its use of the same practices.

Mr. Bybee's appointment to the Federal Court system has put American citizens like myself at the risk of having our fates decided by his legal logic, a logic that has already defended the use of torture. This kind of behavior and these legal positions cannot and should not be allowed on any court bench, much less a Federal Court bench.It is for this reason that I am asking you, as one of the two Senators from the great state of New York, to please join the efforts to impeach Mr. Bybee, so that his legal reasoning can never affect the lives of American citizens in the way it has already affected the lives of those who were tortured in Guantanamo. Thank you.

Respectfully yours,

Mr. Trend

[OK, I actually didn't sign off w/my pseudonym. But there it is.]

Historical Image of the Day


Lakota winter count, American Horse, covers the period 1775-1878.

Brazil - Highest Use of Pesticides in the World

Of the many environmental issues facing Brazil, this isn't usually anywhere on the list:

Brazil became in 2008 the world’s top consumer of agriculture pesticides (ahead of the US), and continues to use a range of dangerous pesticides banned in other countries, according to a study released Friday. [...] Acccording to the Anvisa report released to the press, 64% of sweet peppers contained chemical residue above the limit allowed by Anvisa. In total, 15% of the fruit and vegetable samples investigated by Anvisa exceeded the allowed limits.

Although this is news to me, it's in no way surprising news. The Brazilian agro-industrial elites are one of the most contemptible and powerful groups in Brazil. That they are willing to use these pesticides to maximize profit and production with no consideration for the effects they'd have on the workers or on the populace that eats these fruits and vegetables is far from shocking - elite landowners have already repeatedly displayed a general disregard for the lives of others.

This is of course terrible news for the poor agricultural workers who work in producing this food, though. The landowners in these agricultural areas (almost always in the Northeast, North, and West) have ridiculous amounts of power at the local levels, controlling almost all levels of regional politics, and the workers to my knowledge are unable to unionize or really offer much of a challenge to the landowners. I openly admit my knowledge of rural labor practices in Brazil isn't the best, but while things have changed some since the 1960s, there is no doubt that the landowners still have an inordinate amount of power, and any rural-poor resistance I'm familiar with is not tied up in unionization, but more in the Landless Workers Movement (MST), whose angle is more about getting their own land than fighting for better pay, safer conditions, or unionization.

The report says that ANVISA [National Health Surveillance Agency] is "considering" banning 13 of these pesticides in Brazil. I hope they are able to do this, but I have my doubts, especially if the decision requires congressional approval, since a not-insignificant number of senators and politicians are tied directly or indirectly to the major agro-industrial companies, sometimes even heading these companies while serving as governor, as in the case of Mato Grosso state's governor, Blairo Maggi, head of the Maggi food corp. [As an added "race in Brazil" bonus, notice the race of the people the company invites to work for them on the Maggi homepage and compare that to how most Brazilians actually look.] Still, the report should raise more than a few eyebrows in Brazil, and some of these pesticides will get banned. But overall, I'd say awareness among the general population of what is being used in the production of food in Brazil is even lower than in the United States.

Quick Thoughts on 'Balance' and Wingnuttery

So this morning I heard NPR quote without argument the idea that the tea bag protests were "populist outrage" at government spending. And of course, I dispute that idea--if there was so much populist outrage at government spending, where were these people back in 2004 when Howard Dean ran on a platform of among other things, returning to a balanced budget, while Bush was racking up record deficits?

The populist anger welled up because people who are struggling to pay the rent were watching their governments pay billions of dollars to the same companies that caused the recession that was making it hard for people to pay the rent.

The press has a long history of simply ignoring protests or, when they do cover them, making them sound like they're a few nut jobs who hate America. So when Fox News decided to cover the tea bag protests and legitimize them, the other news stations responded--even the hosts, like Olbermann and Maddow, who live to discount the junk spewing from Fox wound up oddly legitimizing the protests by talking about them. People who were pissed about bailouts suddenly heard their anger reflected--but deflected from the plutocrats who richly deserved it onto Obama's budget, which would, among other things, give those people struggling to pay the rent a tax CUT.

Where does balance come in? Well, as Jay Rosen pointed out, "he said/she said" has long been a substitute for actually finding out which side is telling the truth. And Digby noted that the press also uses the lack of official voices making an argument as an excuse not to cover the argument--hence the usual coverage of political protests not legitimated by an Establishment political figure.

So when Republican Congresscritters jumped onto the tea parties as a way to seem in touch with the people, the protests gained even more legitimacy, and news stations were "forced" to cover them. Now they're news! Politicians are there! Look, Rick Perry wants to secede!

And so suddenly protests that were populated mostly by John Birchers and Ron Paulies and people generally opposed to the very existence of government are being covered as if they're seriously representative of the opinions of half the American people. "Balance," right? We have to cover all the people's opinions!

Except the relative loudness (and in many cases, well-fundedness) of certain voices doesn't mean they actually represent large portions of American people.

But if you have enough money and elected officials, you can get any view into the sphere of legitimate debate (to cite Rosen again). Meanwhile, the actual left-wing equivalent of the tea party protesters are more like the few anarchists in any crowd of protesters, and protest movements full of average people (and far larger than the tea parties) are ignored or only covered when violence breaks out.

Basically, this is a perfect storm of the problems with the press: pack coverage leads mainstream journalists to follow the lead of Fox News, of all ridiculous outlets. Ideals of "balance" lead journalists to cover these protests far more than they actually deserve relative to how many people actually attended them. "Official" voices serve to legitimate wild, outlandish ideas. (Secession! Could you imagine if Deval Patrick suggested that Massachusetts secede?) And of course, money talks. Left-wing anti-government types tend to also be opposed to corporatism, while right-wing anti-government types seem to have no problem with mass corporate rule.

And so we have a situation in which a very narrowly held view suddenly is being discussed constantly, while very widely held views (like the idea that we should actually investigate the torture regime of the Bush administration) get ignored.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Sheer Greed

Unbelievable.

Chrysler is rejecting $750 million in federal aid because 25 top executives would have to agree to pay limits. Saving thousands of jobs--meaningless. Even working for their shareholders--not on their mind. But limits on their pay??? Impossible! Worth closing the company over! Ivory backscratchers are expensive these days!!!!

I don't think we needed more evidence of the vile greed of corporate executives, but if we did, here it is.

This kind of thing is what makes me so angry when people blame the United Auto Workers for the problems of American car manufactures. The union is caving left and right, hoping to save their workers' jobs. But executives think they have the right to astronomical salaries and would prefer to kamikaze the company rather than accept pay caps. I would say that I hope the company goes belly up, but I don't want thousands of Americans and people around the world to lose their jobs. I just want the executives drawn and quartered.

The N-word

Ok, this might be a difficult post, and I apologize in advance if I offend anyone, but I would rather talk about it than not talk about it because I think it is important.  

Recently two of my good friends (both people of color) were arguing about the n-word and whether or not it can be used in certain situations or never.  One was arguing that in some situations, the meaning of the word has changed and that it can be used in a positive way to refer to a friend or whatever.  The other was saying that the history of the word can never be separated from the word, and therefore it should never be used.
About the first argument:  
First, I hate censorship.  Not only because I like cussing (which I do), but also because I think it is dangerous to limit freedom of expression.  Huckleberry Finn was one of the most commonly banned books during the 20th century because of the number of times that the n-word appears.  People that argued for the book to be banned would often use the fact that the n-word appears however-many hundred times.  However, if you actually read the book for it's content instead of counting "n*****," you know that the book was actually ahead of its time in terms of race relations (especially in the South) and carries a very strong anti-racist message.  Just because Mark Twain actually used the language of the people doesn't change that.  This book was really commonly banned from being taught in schools, but I would rather my children read books like this that show a more accurate history than one that has been censored and polished.
Second, I love word reclamations.  I love that languages are always changing.  The word "queer" was originally a derogatory term given to homosexuals and people perceived to be homosexual, but the LGBT community has reclaimed the word, which I think is absolutely beautiful.  The word can no longer be used against them because they own it.  This is what my first friend was arguing had already happened with the n-word.  He says that his family and friends use it all the time and it never has a negative connotation.  I think that's great - who am I to tell them what to call each other?
And about the second argument:
The n-word is VERY offensive.  And people have a right to be offended by it, especially people that identify with the people that the word was used for.  And as much as the word as been popularized and as much as it shows up in music and in movies, the word is still often used in a very hateful way toward Blacks.  My second friend told me that once at a party, her friend asked some people to stop singing the n-word in Kanye West's song "Golddigger" because it was really offensive to him.  They laughed and kept singing all the words.  This is unacceptable.  Whenever someone politely asks you to stop saying one racially-charged and very offensive word, why the hell wouldn't you stop?  There is no situation in which you NEED to say it, and it's pretty easy to just not say it, so when someone asks, just don't.
So I don't know who's right.  I still think it is dangerous to say we absolutely cannot say the n-word in any situation.  This would only make the terrible history associated with the word invisible.  And who am I to tell Kanye that he can't use the word as he wishes?  But as a white person with no personal connection with the word, who am I to tell someone that they shouldn't be offended by it?  Comments welcome of course.

... and just about everything else

Carrie Budoff Brown's newest article on Politico deals with the lack of GOP counter-message on healthcare; it is an interesting read, and points to some of the severe problems Republicans are having in mounting an effective counterattack against President Obama's health care plan. She also writes about the "health care entrepreneur" who is spending serious cash to oppose the Obama plan. Seriously, the fact that we can have "health care entrepreneurs" that run for-profit hospitals and urgent care clinics is ludicrous.

Then there is today's Thomson Reuters poll, which finds that 20% of Americans have delayed some kind of medical care because of cost. Things are looking good for some kind of substantive health care reform. I'm not totally in love with the Obama plan (being one of those single-payer pinko bastards myself), but it is a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

The title of the Politico article is "GOP stumbling in health care fight"; my question is which fight are they winning? They hate taxes, we got that (though the tax protest that happened in Riverside, CA took place in a public park-- I'm sure the irony was lost on the crowds, though). Here in California, the ire was directed at least as much towards Governor Meathead as Congress and the President. For leadership, the GOP has gone to the Norquist-Gingrich well-- it seems the infatuation with Palin and Jindal has subsided, and they are getting back to their rich, pasty old white guy roots. Same tired ideas, just 15% more shrill, and mostly without substance. Should the very small trickle of positive economic news and indicators start turning into a steady stream, Republicans could stand to lose even more seats in 2010.

Moments in American Labor History: Ludlow Massacre

A new occasional series here will examine key moments in American labor history. Ten times a year, I will write about an event in American labor history on its anniversary. I've actually planned this since the start of the year, but this happens to be the earliest date of the ten.

On this date in 1914, the Ludlow Massacre took place. Throughout the early 1910s, the southern Colorado mine fields were on the verge of war. Workers lived in terrible conditions while the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, owned by John D. Rockefeller Jr., made large profits. Betwen 1884 and 1912, 42,898 coal miners were killed by accidents in the mines, of which 1,708 died in Colorado, a number over twice the national average. When miners tried to take the mine owners to court, the owners bought local juries and the owners were found guilty in only 1 of 95 suits during these years.

While the radical Western Federation of Miners were active in the area, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) organized these particular workers. In order to break strikes and dampen further labor radicalism, CF&I hired workers from around the world, a common tactic designed to limit communication between workers (something that only made the mines even more dangerous) and play on long-standing race hatred to undermine organizing. Nonetheless, these largely central and southern European and Mexican miners worked together to fight for their rights by the 1910s.

In 1913, the miners went on strike over a variety of issues, ranging from better way to lesser hours to the enforcement of Colorado state laws in the camp, which among other things banned company scrip and allowed for safety regulations. The company refused to negoitate. The company kicked the miners out of their homes and they set up a tent town in a relatively flat area on the edge of the hills. CF&I called in Baldwin-Felts agents as strikebreakers. This notorious company was active throughout the early 20th century and brutalized workers across the country.

Despite rising violence, the strike held through the winter and into the spring. On April 20, 1914, local milita moved into position around the tent town. Fearing an attack, the miners opened fires with their few guns. A firefight raged throughout the day. The head of the strikers, Greek immigrant Louis Tikas, and two other men were captured by the militia and shot dead, though Tikas was likely killed before he was shot by a beating from a rifle.

Fearing an attack for a long time, miners dug pits for their wives and children to hide in. When the militia burned the tent town during the battle, 3 women and 11 children suffocated in one of these pits. In addition to these 15 innocent dead (and it is for them that the term "massacre" was used to describe the incident), as well as Tikas and the two other workers killed with him, 3 company guards and one militiamen were killed by the strikers in self-defense.

Godfrey Irwin, an engineer who witnessed the Ludlow Massacre described it as such:

Then came the killing of Louis Tikas, the Greek leader of the strikers. We saw the militiamen parley outside the tent city, and, a few minutes later, Tikas came out to meet them. We watched them talking. Suddenly an officer raised his rifle, gripping the barrel, and felled Tikas with the butt.

Tikas fell face downward. As he lay there we saw the militiamen fall back. Then they aimed their rifles and deliberately fired them into the unconscious man’s body. It was the first murder I had ever seen, for it was a murder and nothing less. Then the miners ran about in the tent colony and women and children scuttled for safety in the pits which afterward trapped them.

We watched from our rock shelter while the militia dragged up their machine guns and poured a murderous fire into the arroyo from a height by Water Tank Hill above the Ludlow depot. Then came the firing of the tents.

I am positive that by no possible chance could they have been set ablaze accidentally. The militiamen were thick about the northwest corner of the colony where the fire started and we could see distinctly from our lofty observation place what looked like a blazing torch waved in the midst of militia a few seconds before the general conflagration swept through the place. What followed everybody knows.

Sickened by what we had seen, we took a freight back into Trinidad. The town buzzed with indignation. To explain in large part the sympathies of even the best people in the section with the miners, it must be said that there is good evidence that many of the so-called ‘militiamen’ are only gunmen and thugs wearing the uniform to give them a show of authority. They are the toughest lot I ever saw.

No one can legally enlist in the Colorado state militia till he has been a year in the state, and many of the ‘militiamen’ admitted to me they had been drafted in by a Denver detective agency. Lieutenant Linderfelt boasted that he was ‘going to lick the miners or wipe them off the earth.’ In Trinidad the miners never gave any trouble. It was not till the militia came into town that the trouble began.


In the aftermath of the massacre, the workers went ballistic, burning and bombing mines throughout the southern Colorado mountains. At least 50 people died in the next week or so. Finally, President Woodrow Wilson sent in federal troops to calm the situation. Rockefeller, who probably didn't know or really care what was going in Colorado, was deeply embarrassed over the incident and the bad publicity that his company received when their doings went public. He turned to paternalistic labor relations as a result, which did not give workers any power, but did improve their lot a bit. The strike itself finally died in December 1914, with little concrete won. However, the sacrifice the workers and their families made did lead to the company paternalism, which I argue is better than nothing and for which the UMWA deserves credit.

The Ludlow Massacre became one of the most famous incidents of labor repression in the history of American unionism. Woody Guthrie wrote this powerful song about it:

It was early springtime when the strike was on,
They drove us miners out of doors,
Out from the houses that the Company owned,
We moved into tents up at old Ludlow.

I was worried bad about my children,
Soldiers guarding the railroad bridge,
Every once in a while a bullet would fly,
Kick up gravel under my feet.

We were so afraid you would kill our children,
We dug us a cave that was seven foot deep,
Carried our young ones and pregnant women
Down inside the cave to sleep.

That very night your soldiers waited,
Until all us miners were asleep,
You snuck around our little tent town,
Soaked our tents with your kerosene.

You struck a match and in the blaze that started,
You pulled the triggers of your gatling guns,
I made a run for the children but the fire wall stopped me.
Thirteen children died from your guns.

I carried my blanket to a wire fence corner,
Watched the fire till the blaze died down,
I helped some people drag their belongings,
While your bullets killed us all around.

I never will forget the look on the faces
Of the men and women that awful day,
When we stood around to preach their funerals,
And lay the corpses of the dead away.

We told the Colorado Governor to call the President,
Tell him to call off his National Guard,
But the National Guard belonged to the Governor,
So he didn't try so very hard.

Our women from Trinidad they hauled some potatoes,
Up to Walsenburg in a little cart,
They sold their potatoes and brought some guns back,
And they put a gun in every hand.

The state soldiers jumped us in a wire fence corners,
They did not know we had these guns,
And the Red-neck Miners mowed down these troopers,
You should have seen those poor boys run.

We took some cement and walled that cave up,
Where you killed these thirteen children inside,
I said, "God bless the Mine Workers' Union,"
And then I hung my head and cried.

From Colony to Superpower, Part XVIII

This is the eighteenth installment in the 20 part series Rob Farley and I have commenced to review George Herring's From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. See the Herring Review tag below for previous entries. Rob's discussion for the week is here.

This week, Herring discusses the Ford and Carter years. Not the greatest period in American history to be sure. Ford had to deal with the problems created by Nixon while Carter's efforts were undermined by the rise of conservatism that led to Reagan's election in 1980.

Ford comes across pretty good here. He started the process of bringing draft evaders home, he continued working toward detente with the Soviets and had a good personal relationship with Brezhnev, he wisely chose to let the South Vietnamese government fall without another U.S. intervention, and he acted decisively in the Mayaguez incident, when the Cambodian government took a U.S. ship and held its crew as hostages.

On the other hand, Ford faced an angry Congress. Conservatives were angry over Vietnam and despised detente. They wanted a tough foreign policy. Ford worried about a primary challenge from Reagan in 1976. The left was upset that Ford didn't do enough on human rights or reducing nuclear arsenals.

Meanwhile, there was Scoop Jackson, the good senator from Boeing. Jackson, a hero to neoconservatives, wanted to ride a wave of anti-Soviet feeling into the White House in 1976. Although a Democrat, he was as hawkish as one could be. He was also a captive of hard-line pro-Israel forces and pushed a pretty racist program for the Middle East. No one in this chapter comes across as more contemptible than Jackson, who would happily oppose a principle he once espoused if it would further his ambitions. Ford faced other challenges from Congress as well. Angry about executive abuses of power after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the secrecy of the Nixon years, Congress looked to reassert itself. Sometimes this was good, such as when Congress stopped Nixon and Kissinger from supporting a covert operation to undermine socialism in Angola. However, the ability of people like Jackson to demagogue foreign policy for their own personal gain certainly shows the downside of Congressional leadership on these issues. Rob also talks about Jackson in great detail.

Oddly, Herring doesn't mention the biggest black mark on the Ford years--East Timor. Ford and Kissinger acquiesced in Indonesia invading the newly freed nation of East Timor and subjecting its residents to terrible horrors. In fact, Indonesia is barely mentioned at all in the book. Given its important strategic location, that it is the largest Muslim country in the world, and its sordid and tangled post-war history with the United States, this is quite surprising.

Carter comes across a bit worse than Ford. To some extent, Herring's criticisms are true--Carter had no foreign policy experience and was very bad at selling tough foreign policy decisions to the American people. On the other hand, Carter also faced some very difficult situations--not only a low opinion of America throughout the world, but the rise of Reagan and conservatism, and the success of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Carter could have put together a more cohesive foreign policy team to be sure--Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski couldn't stand each other and this led to infighting throughout Carter's term.

Carter did some really good things. Naming Andrew Young as UN ambassador went a long way toward improving US-African relations. Carter continued trying to salvage detente in his early years in office. He rightly gave the Panama Canal back to Panama. His historic negotiations in the Middle East led to Egypt recognizing Israel's right to exist for the first time. He stood up, in the face of conservative opposition in Congress, to the white supremacists ruling Rhodesia and South Africa. He normalized relations with China, building upon Nixon's actions there, to help isolate the Soviet Union.

Looking at Panama, we can see the struggles Carter faced, not in spite of, but because of his accomplishments. The Canal clearly needed to go back to Panama. We stole the land from the nation in 1903 when we hewed it off of Colombia for our purposes. This split the new nation in two, causing consternation and anti-American feeling for decades. By the 1970s, large-scale protests against the United States were taking place in Panama. Controlling the Canal outright was more trouble than it was worth. But for conservatives, it was another example of the U.S. caving to the Third World and Carter was accused of betraying American foreign policy interests. Reagan used this issue as one where he differed from Carter and tapped into much resentment in the country over Panama in his election campaign. The more I read about Carter and America in the late 70s, the more respect I gain for Carter and the more I think he was simply facing a nation sick of anything resembling postwar liberalism. Complaints about Carter's weak leadership and ineffectiveness should properly be interpreted through this framework.

Of course, Carter's great failure was in Iran. Like every president since Eisenhower, Carter supported the Shah. By the mid 70s, it was clear that the Shah's regime was in shambles, but the U.S. didn't know what to do. When the Islamic Revolution succeeded, and especially when dozens of Americans were taken hostage in late 1979, Carter looked weak. Desperate by now to stop the rise of Reagan, Carter eventually decided to look tough. Without even consulting Secretary of State Vance, he ordered an air rescue operation. It completely failed when the planes were spotted, when a sandstorm forced them to turn back, and when a midair collision killed 8 US troops who had to be left behind. Vance resigned on principle. Carter looked weaker than ever and Reagan blew him away in the 1980 elections.

There's a whole lot more to say about these years, including about Afghanistan, Israel's failure to live up to the Camp David agreements, and Carter's relationship with the South American dictatorships, but I'll send it back to Rob for more on that.

Historical Image of the Day


This week's series will be of Native Americans in U.S. history.

"Indians Traveling," General Seth Eastman, 1850s.

Some Thoughts in the Wake of the Summit of the Americas

The Summit of the Americas wrapped up yesterday, and I have just a few preliminary thoughts on it right now.

-The meeting seems like a huge success (in the best sense of the word) for U.S. foreign policy and for creating a new form of U.S.-Latin American relations that we haven't ever really seen in our diplomatic history. As of yet, there isn't much talk about policy issues that were accomplished, but in many regards, whatever policy was or wasn't formed is irrelevant. The fact that Obama was pretty much able to talk to everybody and establish excellent, cordial, intelligent, and respectful links with the other leaders is seemingly mundane but amazingly important. After 8 years of non-relations and alienation under Bush, it seems to me that the U.S. is in its best position for Latin America ever; from the Latin American standpoint, it seems that the U.S. under Obama finally gets that the region is to be treated respectfully and equally, and not as some inferior region that the U.S. can impose policy on at will. What is more, Obama seems respectful and understanding of differences between countries, knowing that only one way ("my way") is not the only solution. And Obama's openness to listen to all leaders, be it Alvaro Uribe or Raul Castro, now and down the line, marks a major shift in the U.S.'s vision of Latin America, in which we aren't dividing leaders by "ours" or "not ours," but rather acknowledging that each nation has its own leaders, and even if they disagree with us or we with them, their and our legitimacy as potential collaborators is not diminished. Again, this was all talk this weekend, and policy could derail a lot of things, but U.S.-Latin American relations are in the best position I think they've ever been in. And that alone renders the Summit an unqualified success.

-That said, there's not much to say about the policy. I haven't read the Statement yet, but if Boz's analysis is fair, it's a massive failure (albeit one that can't take too much away from the successes of the weekend).

-The one specific area I've read some about is environmental issues. In dealing with energy issues this year, reports are that Obama listened more than offered his own suggestions, taking in what the regions leaders had to say, whether it was Lula discussing biofuels, or Mexico's Calderon continuing to push for a regional "energy market."

-Republicans still just don't get it, having begun to come out already in condemning Obama for his brief-but-congenial encounter with Chavez and his efforts to thaw relations with Cuba. For over 50 years, from the Cold War to the "war on 'terror'," a "with us or against us" mentality has been destructive diplomatically, economically, socially, and politically, and has often led to the deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands throug the U.S's positions. While both Democrats and Republicans were guilty in the past, given the previous 8 years, Republicans have absolutely no pot to piss in when it comes to telling Obama how he should be running foreign policy, in Latin America or elsewhere. Until Republicans can prove they can come up with constructive policies (foreign or domestic) that actually take a stance other than "if Obama does it, it's wrong," then they have absolutely no political, moral, or ideological ground to stand on. [Although I didn't see it until after I wrote my own post, it turns out that Randy and I are in virtually complete agreement here.]

-If/As the details of individual meetings and discussions between become more available, I may have more. That said, again, even if the actual declaration was a dud, the Summit was great for the region, and one of the brightest beacons of hope for U.S. foreign policy in some time.

Outsourcing “fluff” journalism to civilians?

A lot of citizen journalism Web sites are not exactly known for high quality content.

Which is why, having spent some time on the Bleacher Report, I’ve been amazed by not only the quality of writing, but also the research that goes into each individual story, and the analysis and discussion that follows. There’s a valid reason for this - it exclusively covers sports, and if there is one subject area that almost any civilian would be interested in – and passionately at that – it’s got to be sports. Think about the cheering that went on way into the night when your home team last won the World Series, or the many mornings you woke up having lost your voice, tirelessly rooting for your college football team.

A topic such as sports is thus ideally suited to citizen journalism – people already have a vested interest in the subject, they enjoy talking about it, and since they have followed their team or player trough the years, their knowledge of the topic is usually better than that of a reporter who may have just moved into town, or be disinclined to the sport in question.

A host of different newspapers and Web sites have tried their hand at citizen journalism, but very few report on serious content. As Linda Parker, online communities editor for Gannet’s Cincinnati Enquirer found, when readers were encouraged to contribute to the paper's Web site with the “Get Published” tool, they were more interested in sharing stories about their appearances on television shows and the local opera (what would normally be considered “fluff” journalism), but among these stories was also information about a fundraiser for a child’s bone marrow transplant.

While most of this may not be news that moves and shakes the world, it’s still information that many people are interested in, and that local newspapers spend a lot of time, personnel, and resources in reporting. Might they be better off allowing citizens to offer the bulk of reporting in these areas, and confining trained journalists to the more important stories so they could perhaps offer high-quality journalism where it matters?

Of course, it is amazing to see a community rise and report on a pressing public issue, and keep the authorities in check, as citizens in Fort Myers did to quell the rising prices of public utilities a couple years ago. But such stories are few and far between.

But the important thing to note about such stories is that citizens were inspired to contribute to it of their own accord because it was an issue that was deeply affecting pocketbooks.

Jeff Howe, crowdsourcing pioneer, has often said that the most successful way for news organizations to crowdsource, is to give the audience free rein over content. “Don’t try to control the discussion, just become the room in which it takes place,” he writes in his book.

It’s noteworthy to ask if writing about your pet or the local fair helps you become a better citizen and contribute to the electoral process in meaningful ways.

Perhaps not. But there are more ways to get citizens interested in important news stories than making them write it – perhaps allocating more resources to those stories, and hence doing better journalism might achieve that.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

US-Latin American Relations ARE Important

Yglesias, in analyzing U.S.-Latin American foreign relations in the wake of the Summit of the Americas, says this:

At the end of the day, our interests in Latin America are pretty limited

Whoa. Now, in the sake of proper context, he's saying we need to get beyond a Cold War paradigm for thinking about Latin America. But nonetheless, America's relations with Latin America are incredibly important. Trade, immigration, drugs, American investments in the region, regional security, natural resources--all of these issues are huge. The Bush administration certainly lowered the region's profile in American national security priorities, and while it's unlikely that we have to worry about an armed China-Venezuela alliance, that doesn't mean that the region is not vitally important.

Social Status and Equality in the U.S.

In American Culture Patterns, authors Stewart and Bennett argue that "most Americans see themselves as members of an egalitarian middle class" and everyone is presumed to have "equality of opportunity" although "not everyone is presumed to be of equal talent and ability." Of course this is why some people are so in love with the U.S., and of course this isn't true. Most people in the U.S. think they are part of the middle class, even if they are far more privileged. And most people think of their money as completely self-earned, even if they were born into an already wealthy family. Both of these show the value of "equality" in the U.S.. The authors contrast this with other countries, such as Germany, Great Britain, and Japan, in which social status can allow or deny a person the ability to wield more influence. But since when do wealthy Americans not get to "wield more influence" than poorer Americans? The U.S. emphasis on equality is extremely superficial because when people think about their peers, they are probably thinking about the people that live in their neighborhood and travel the same social circles. So this emphasis on equality really only masks the inequalities that exist.

In Mexico, people tend to be more aware of their social status. Poor people know they are poor and are more likely to talk to you about it, even if they know you of from a wealthier class. The Spanish language also perpetuates inequality between classes. Their are two different forms of "you," and which one is used can often depend on whether or not you are speaking to someone of a different class than yourself. For example, the owner of a house would never refer to their cleaning person with the more respectful and distant "Usted," but the cleaning person would be expected to use that when they were talking with the homeowner. Therefore, in an interactions between these two people, they are both aware of their respective classes.
So I am wondering which is a better way to look at class differences. In U.S. we tend to ignore class differences, while in many other cultures, they are much more prominent. But to what extent does hiding class differences ignore structural problems and possible solutions? And to what extent does openly talking about class perpetuate class differences and stereotypes?

Historical Image of the Day


Secretary of Agriculture Clifford Hardin introducing Woodsy the Owl, who many people of my age remember for his "Give a hoot, don't pollute" slogan. Not sure if that is still around today. 1971.

The Shock Doctrine 10: Slamming the Door on History

(Previous posts here, Matt's posts here, Trend's "How to Overthrow a Government" here.)

"These worst of times give rise to the best of opportunities for those who understand the need for fundamental economic reform." -Stephan Haggard and John Williamson, The Political Economy of Policy Reform, 1994


This is the quote at the beginning of this next section of The Shock Doctrine, and it once again reminds me why I'm really reading this book.

One of the quotes at the beginning of this chapter reminds me why we need that fundamental economic reform here and now.

"There's a certain chemical that gets released in your stomach when you make ten times your money. And it's addictive." -William Browder, U.S. money manager, on investing in Poland in the early days of capitalism.


Klein focuses here on Poland under Communism, noting that repressive governments were repressive governments whether they claimed to be leftist or right-wing. At first she focuses on the rise of the Solidarity movement, and then notes that "authoritarian regimes have a habit of embracing democracy at the precise moment when their economic projects are about to implode."

The U.S. under Bush was hardly an authoritarian regime like that of the U.S.S.R. or the Latin American dictatorships, and yet the release this week of the torture memos should remind us all of what they do have in common. And this line reminded me that we got a Democrat with progressive tendencies into the White House just when the economy was crumbling around us. One of my biggest fears is that the economy will end up Obama's problem because his economic team embraces too much of the same.

Anyway, back to Poland for a moment. Poland's economy was in free fall just as Solidarity won sweeping victories in the first real elections since Communism, and the IMF wasn't going to help them enact their kind of reforms--worker's collectives instead of central ownership? Bah! You need rich plutocrats!

Enter once again Jeffrey Sachs, this time with the help of George Soros--yes, that George Soros. Sachs was originally enlisted by the Communist government, and then began working with Solidarity, promising them loans if they followed his plan.

I don't really need to reiterate what his plan was by now, do I? The promise of "a quick and magical cure" was too much, and the government went with the Sachs plan. (Another reminder that anyone who claims to have a quick fix is selling something--or looking to buy it at fire-sale prices.)

Of course, then we got the fall of the Berlin wall and the mass of changes at the end of the 80s, and Fukuyama's ridiculous "End of History" (another rule--anyone who declares that they've found the end of history is selling something, too, whether it be Marx or Friedmanites).

I noticed at the tea party protests this week a distinct note of assumption that Obama was both socialist and Fascist, coupled with an apparent lack of comprehension of the contradictions there. I'm reminded again of the woman in the movie theater trying to explain Communism to her son when I went to see Miracle (the story of the 1980 U.S. hockey team).

"They weren't free," she said, which is both true and completely not the point. But that's all these people hear when they hear the word socialism. And it's because of this time period more than any other, when the fall of Soviet Communism became equated with a necessary reversion to free-market capitalism (often without democracy, as in China). We know how untrue this is.

Klein bursts the myth of the Tienanmen Square protests as a pro-Western liberalization movement, and instead notes that much of the dissent was rooted in opposition to the economic "reforms" as well as desire for free speech and elections. The repression, though, wasn't a myth.

I have to go back to the torture memos here, because the one difference between the U.S. and the other governments who applied the Shock Doctrine is that for the U.S., shock reforms were always appropriate for other countries, other people, but not for us. Reading the torture memos, it is shocking to see the justification hinge on the citizenship of the people being tortured and the location of the torture, as if it's OK so long as it's far enough away from us. The Shock Doctrine has always been something practiced on other people.

And yet it snuck up on us piecemeal, bit by bit, a tax cut here, a privatization there, some deregulation by both Democratic and Republican presidents. And so reading these chapters of history in other countries, so much of it reminds me of us.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Historical Image of the Day


"Prairie Fire," an 1857 lithograph by Henry Lewis.

Angie Zapata

I've been meaning to blog about this for a while, and I haven't been able to find the words. But after reading Emily's post at Questioning Transphobia, I have to say something.

Angie Zapata was a transgender woman killed by a man after he discovered that she was transgender. His trial just started, and the defense is attempting to, in essence, say that he deserves to be let off because she "tricked" him.

Emily writes
:

Quite obviously, this clears the way for the inevitable “trans panic” defense, a form of victim blaming that only appears to have legal credibility when applied to trans people. So yes, I realise it is the defense’s job to cast doubt onto every piece of evidence that the prosecution raises, and even to attack the credibility of the victim and any material witnesses. But this is not doing that. It does not raise the question of whether Angie was of good character or not–it suggests from the start that she never could have been. This is pandering to the worst in cissexist biases, and painting transness of itself as deserving of death.

This is hate speech legitimating hate violence, pure and simple.


I agree, and I don't have much to add to her post. I wrote about this before at my blog, and there are links to the original posts about the murder here.

I wish I had anything coherent to say, but the torture memos have already fucked me up this week, so the only thing I can say is what kind of a world do we live in where it's OK to kill someone because she "tricked" you? Where that makes you a "victim"?

Shorter Rick Perry: Reconstruction Never Happened

Rick Perry continues to stand behind his secessionist comments, saying that Texas is the only state with the right to secede because of some obscure bit in the 1845 agreement to annex the place to the United States. Perry claims that Texas can split into 5 states. While it's slightly unclear from that treaty that such a move would require congressional approval, of course Congress would never actually allow it. He also forgets about something called Reconstruction. Given that Texas already committed treason to defend slavery, they lost those rights in 1861. They didn't just rejoin the union in 1865. They had to come to new terms to reenter the union, and in fact were one of the last 3 states to do so. I would think that from any legal standpoint, the agreement to reenter the union in the 1869 would supercede that previous treaty. No one seems to be talking about this. I know Texas and the rest of the South would prefer to forget Reconstruction, but it's kind of important and it those reannexation agreements should provide strong legal standing to repressing secessionist Texans.

It's not only Perry of course who is tossing around the idea of leaving the union. Here's Hot Tub Tom DeLay saying the same thing:



Perhaps the reason no one is mentioning the Reconstruction agreements is that everyone really wants Texas to leave the nation. Perhaps the U.S. and Mexico could become closer as nations by acting together in a two front invasion of Texas, burning everything to the ground. Would anyone actually oppose this?

On the other hand, I'm not super thrilled with becoming a refugee, straggling to the Oklahoma line, and avoiding the guns of crazy Texans determined to massacre those who defend the union and don't subscribe to their treasonous cause. It's not as if they haven't done this before.

The Torture Memos

I read them. All of them. I screamed at the screen and my notes are filled with quotations from the memos followed by insults in all caps. Trend noted on my Facebook page: "Welcome to how I feel."

Of course we all knew that horrible things were done with the express permission of the Bush legal team. But it doesn't make reading it in self-righteous bureaucratese any easier.

I wrote about it over at GlobalComment.

“Shocks the conscience.”

That’s the test that Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel in Bush’s Justice department used to decide whether or not an “enhanced interrogation technique” was torture. I won’t be the only one to suggest, after reading three memos by Bradbury and one by now-Federal Judge Jay Bybee, that perhaps Bradbury doesn’t have much of a conscience to be shocked...

In all of the memos, the description of waterboarding is chilling in its deliberate, specific confidence. The assurances that you can’t use the techniques on United States citizens just reminds me that in war, it’s all about Othering the opponent.

As long as it’s not you, it’s OK. When you read the calm descriptions of the techniques, you realize that the people writing the memos are supremely confident that these techniques will never be applied to them. They won’t. They may well be applied to our troops captured in battle, with the justification that we did it first, but Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury will never be waterboarded, never be deprived of sleep for days...

The first Bradbury memo notes that, “Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak’, lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.’” With this one sentence, the entire memo takes on a whole new meaning—as if the “enhanced interrogation techniques” are suddenly less about gaining actionable intelligence and more about one giant pissing contest between the U.S. and the “terrorists.”...


You can read my whole piece here. You can also read the memos in their entirety, with very little redacted, here. This was, as Greenwald noted, a win for civil liberties.