Uncovering Lesbian History, circa 1909

Larry Harnisch uncovers a real gem of a story from 1909. Two women in Los Angeles were arrested for dressing up as men. There were laws on the books against women dressing as men. One woman supposedly was going to ride the rails from LA to San Francisco to visit her husband. She figured she couldn't ride them in her dress so her and a friend dressed as men. Then they started drinking beer with some other women, made a lot of noise which caused someone to call the police, and then were discovered and arrested for violating the crossdressing ordinance.

This is an incredibly fascinating stuff. First, I don't believe the visiting the husband story for a minute. I suspect this was an alibi in case these women were caught by the police. Second, we know much more about gay history than lesbian history because gay men were harassed by police much more. Because gays and lesbians couldn't really talk about their lives publically in 1909, we don't know much about it except through police records. So to see more information uncovered about early 20th century lesbian history is fantastic. Even if these women were not lesbians and really were just dressing as men to ride the rails, we still have an anti-cross dressing law on the book that at least applied to women, if not men. The women were released by the cops, but only by promising to leave the city, which suggests that a) they were poor and b) the cops really did see them as a threat.

Great stuff, if sad as well.

Tom Waits Hilarity

Tom Waits is often hilarious, but Tom Waits + Martin Mull + Fred Willard = awesomely insane.

The Myth of the Ecological Indian, Ecuador Style

In the new Ecuadorian constitution is a provision granting rights to nature. Specifically:

“Nature, or Pachamama . . . [now] has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.”

What does this mean in reality? That remains to be seen. Frankly, I'm skeptical it will add up to anything much. So long as Rafael Correa or people of his ideological ilk remain in power, I imagine the government will use the provision when it wants to crack down on foreign oil companies and other multinational corporations. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that they will use the law to prosecute local developers or everyday interactions between people and the land, regardless of how damaging they might be.

In a rhetorical sense, Ecuador's law is groundbreaking. And rhetoric matters. But I don't think we should read too much into it.

What we really shouldn't do is go down the path of this Utne Reader article and claim that became part of the Constitution because Ecuador's indigenous people are more in touch with nature than the rest of us:

Adopting Ecuador’s constitutional approach in many countries would require nothing short of “a fundamental change in both the legal and cultural atmosphere,” Margil says. The prevailing view that nature is property is deeply rooted in the Abrahamic tradition of monotheistic faiths, which include Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This tradition shaped an understanding of nature as a divine gift to be dominated for the benefit of humankind. This is not, however, the only way to conceptualize the natural world.

Many indigenous cultures take a more eco-spiritual approach, positing nature as sacrosanct and viewing humans as members of a balanced, natural system. It’s no fluke, notes Earth Island Journal (Winter 2009), that the Andean earth goddess Pachamama, or Mother Universe, figures into the new constitution. The indigenous concept of sumak kawsay, or harmonious/humane living, also appears. With 40 percent of its population indigenous, Ecuador was almost certainly predisposed to becoming an early adopter of nature’s rights on a constitutional scale.

Oh boy. This is known as the Myth of the Ecological Indian. Off and on going back to the Enlightenment and Rousseau's idealized noble savage, whites have seen indigenous people as having a special relationship with nature. Note that this has rarely been supported by evidence, bur rather has existed as a philosophical construct to serve western needs to analyze themselves. In the late 1960 and early 1970s, the environmental movement resurrected this myth in order to critique how whites destroyed nature. Its most famous manifestation is the Crying Indian ad, seen here:



Native Americans have used this myth to further their own political aims, and good for them. This includes the indigenous people of Ecuador, which have effectively worked with environmental organizations over the past 20 years to fight petroleum companies who want to exploit their lands.

In the end though, the Myth of the Ecological Indian is just that, a myth. In reality, Ecuadorans want to control their own oil supply and not let Texaco or Shell come in and take all the resources and the profit. Who can blame them for this? But their own development of oil is hardly likely to be more nature-centric than Texaco's.

In any case, the Myth of the Ecological Indian also dehumanizes indigenous people, taking power to control their own lives away from them. When native peoples haven't acted like environmentalists thought they should (for example, when the Makah people in Washington started whaling), environmentalists say they aren't acting like Indians. What does that even mean? It means that for 200 years whites have had very particular, if shifting, ideas of what "Indians" act like without actually considering that the might act just like you and me.

I was dismayed though not surprised to see this myth perpetrated once again. It's been under heavy critique in the last 10 years, but among a lot of young idealistic environmentalists it holds an awful lot of water. I try in my environmental history classes to beat this myth to a pulp, but it persists.

Update: Upon further research, I had forgotten that President Correa, who pushed for these changes to the Constitution, actually has been working with multinational mining companies to expand their operations in indigenous territory, leading to riots and deaths in the protests against this. All this shows is that the constitutional bit on the environment is almost without meaning and that the author of the Utne article bought into it hook, line, and sinker with very little research.

Technology is Not the Answer

The American technology fetish continues unabated and almost unchallenged. We think we can solve all of our problems through new technologies. This includes environmental problems. For instance, the Times is all excited about a West Virginia coal plant refitted to bury some of its carbon emissions. Basically, the carbon dioxide will be pumped into the ground several hundred feet below the surface. If this works, the argument goes, we can counteract many of our global warming issues. Clean coal indeed!

There are myriad problems though. As the article suggests in a brief respite from fawning over the idea, no one actually knows what's going to happen to that carbon dioxide. Will it stay in the ground? Some fear it could lead to earthquakes. What we do know is that it will lead to some kind of unintended consequences. All of our big technological projects throughout history have led to unintended consequences. The ultimate example is climate change; no one intended that this would happen or even guessed that it could, but it surely is despite that. Trend's discussion below of dams and the destruction of river deltas is another great example. Something will happen with that carbon. Burying it underground and then forgetting about it is not going to solve our problems.

In other words:

Technology. Is. Not. The. Answer.

We cannot continue to rely solely on technology to get us out of the messes we make because that technology usually creates more messes.

The other major problem with this technology is a continued focus on consumption rather than production as the real problem with burning coal. As a society, we do not care what damage natural resource production causes, whether that's oil in Kuwait, minerals in Bolivia, or coal in West Virginia. Out of sight, out of mind. It's the tangible signs of pollution that we care about--refineries belting out poisonous gases, discolored rivers, the feeling that each summer is warmer than the last. But the people of West Virginia are seeing their lives destroyed by the coal companies, the land undergoing permanent alterations that leave it a man-made desert. Isn't this important too.

Clean coal is a lie. Don't believe it. We have to get off coal as soon as possible. This needs to be a national priority. Technology is not going to solve our problems. Even switching to wind and solar energy will have unintended consequences. But nothing is worse than burning coal.

Historical Image of the Day

Chinese woman in California. No date, but probably 1850s or 1860s

Sinking Rivers, Dams, and Future Environmental Disasters

One more reason dams are not the solution to energy needs:

Most of the world's major river deltas are sinking, increasing the flood risk faced by hundreds of millions of people, scientists report.

Damming and diverting rivers means that much less sediment now reaches many delta areas, while extraction of gas and groundwater also lowers the land.

Rivers affected include the Colorado, Nile, Pearl, Rhone and Yangtze.

Others include the Rio Sao Francisco in Brazil, and the Colorado river. The former is no major surprise; Brazil continues to look to dams (and nuclear energy) as its energy source for the forseeable future, rather than turning to better environmental energy sources like solar and wind power. As for the Colorado, it's particularly problematic for Mexico, because while the delta of the Colorado runs off in Mexico, the U.S. dams and diverts much of the water for its own sources. It would be nice if the U.S. and Mexico could come to some sort of agreement that would witness more equitable water management, but that just won't happen; Mexico doesn't have the international presence of say a Brazil or a China, and there's so little of the river that runs through Mexico that the U.S. probably feels it has the right to all that water; what happens to Mexicans who live near the delta and who will be most impacted by the sinking river basin is of little importance to us. It's harsh, and it's ugly, but that's just how the U.S. thinks and has thought for years when it comes to shared water resources with our southern neighbor, and I don't see it improving any time soon.

Did Brazil Play a Minor or a Major Role in the Return of Manuel Zelaya?

More news agencies are reporting on Manuel Zelaya's return to Honduras, and there will be many interesting developments over the next few days and perhaps weeks, accompanied by a decent amount of speculation as to what might happen next.

However, one aspect in all of this may go relatively ignored, with little comment on, but it's something I raised in these comments. Specifically, what, if any, role did Brazil play in this?

As we all know, Zelaya is staying at the Brazilian embassy in Honduras, a brilliant move considering that embassy grounds are soverign soil of the country they represent. Thus, while the Honduran military did not mind breaking the law to exile Zelaya back in June, to try to arrest him at the embassy (as Micheletti blustered) would effectively be an act of war, and while Brazil hasn't been involved in an open foreign war since World War II, I know who I'd pick in a Brazilian-Honduran war.

That said, it's clear that Brazil has some role in this whole incident, obviously. There are three alternatives I can come up with (though there may be others I haven't thought of):

1) Brazil had no idea Zelaya was coming back, and when he showed up at the embassy doors, they just decided to let him in. This strikes me as plausible - Brazil, like the rest of the world, has held that the June coup was illegal and that Zelaya, and not Micheletti, is the proper president of Honduras. Zelaya may have gone there just hoping, and if it didn't work out, he could hope to get to another friendly embassy before he was arrested. This does raise the question that, if many embassies would accept him, why go to Brazil first? It may be because Brazil is a big power (bigger than, say, Costa Rica or Italy or most other countries), and he knew it was friendly to his cause. It may also be because, again, the Brazilian embassy allegedly sits next to Micheletti's private home. This would make it the obvious first choice of Zelaya if he wanted to thumb his nose at Micheletti.

2) Zelaya actually tried to go to other embassies for protection before Brazil's, but was turned down. This is possible, too, and could help explain why early reports said that Zelaya was in Honduras, but with no knowledge of where he was staying. There's not much that distinguishes this from the first possibility; still, I'm inclined to believe the first possibility over this one, primarily because Brazil seemed like such a sure bet in terms of friendliness, Honduras' inability to bully Brazil, and Brazil's high standing in the diplomatic community.

3) Brazil knew well in advance, through direct or indirect contact, that Micheletti was coming, and was prepared to accept him should he arrive safely in Tegucigalpa. Whether or not Brazil was active, they would make sure he was taken care of upon his arrival in the embassy. Perhaps they actively wanted to help undermine the Micheletti government, though this strikes me as the most implausible likelihood. Brazil's foreign minister, Celso Amorim (who is in New York, preparing for the UN's meeting on climate change) denied any previous knowledge, and right now, I don't see any reason not to believe him. More importantly, if the Brazilian government was actively trying to undermine a regime, it would mark a major departure from Brazilian foreign relations over the last 7 years. If there's anything one can say about Lula's approach, it has been that he has been the consummate diplomat during his two terms; even politicians in neighboring countries look up to the way in which he conducts foreign relations. To suddenly throw all caution to the wind in any event seems extreme; to do so with the Honduran case in particular pushes the envelope of believability.

4) Brazil knew shortly before or after Zelaya's official departure (from where is still unknown) that he was coming to Honduras, and quickly prepared for his arrival. Again, I just don't see why they would do this; the foreign relations minister insists it's not the case, and again, it would mark a major departure from all that Brazil has stood for in international relations over the last 7 years under Lula.

Ultimately, of these four scenarios, the first one seems most likely to me, though I wouldn't be remotely surprised to learn that it was the second. If it's either three or four, I will be more than surprised, and were it to be either of those scenarios, it would raise all kinds of interesting (and perhaps troubling) questions about the direction Brazilian foreign relations were heading. Still, while not the most commented-upon aspect of Zelaya's return, it does offer some fascinating questions about that return as well as possible insights on the role of Brazil in Latin America, in the defense of democratic processes, and in international relations more generally.

Zelaya Back in Honduras

So, after the coup in June, events in Honduras had pretty much entered into a holding pattern - Micheletti refused to make any major concesssion, Mel Zelaya did a major PR push around the world and continued to get support, but Honduras continued to creep towards their election this year (more than 80 days have passed since the coup, and fewer than 70 remain until the election). It seemed as though things were going to just stall into the elections, with no real resolution to the coup.

Until Mel Zelaya apparently sneaked into Honduras overland and made it to the capital, Tegucigalpa, where he is now at the Brazilian embassy (which, last I checked, was Brazil's sovereign territory, and the Honduran military cannot invade it, though it's not like they haven't knowingly broken the law before).

Think that's interesting? It's even more interesting that apparently, Brazil's embassy is allegedly right next to Micheletti's house.

As both the CSM article and Plan Colombia point out, the question now is, "so....what's next?"

The one thing I'd say is, this makes Micheletti look even more ridiculous. His insistence that his government is legal has always been nothing less than laughable, and the only "authority" he really had was successfully keeping Zelaya out and blustering about "democracy" while stonewalling until the elections. Yet in spite of his continued suggestion that Zelaya could not return and if he did, he'd be arrested, Zelaya managed not only to return, but to get to the capital itself. Next to Micheletti's home. This is just egg all over the face of Micheletti, and now leaves him with virtually nothing. And his bluster now that he's going to have Zelaya arrested (in spite of Zelaya again technically being on Brazilian soil, where Honduras has no jurisdiction, and surrounded by supporters in the compound) makes him look like a five-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. Maybe Micheletti will rebound, but right now, he looks about as foolish as any politician and national leader can look.

Beyond that, it's tough to say what will happen. As Plan Colombia points out, it could very likely lead to a standoff, given Micheletti's intransigence, and that would be bad, as there would most likely be showdowns and violence in the heart of Honduras. Micheletti could relent and just step out of power, but that would be highly uncharacteristic in light of his actions up to this point. He could agree to negotiations, which is what Zelaya is asking; what those negotiations would look like is hard to say, though the failed San Jose accords would probably be a starting point.

Two things are certain: Zelaya is in a better negotiating position (and a better position overall) than he's been since the coup (and even before it); and whatever the outcome, what had previously been a static and frustrating situation in Honduras has suddenly had new life breathed into it, with an end to an illegal government and a return to the democratically elected government a not-unreasonable possibility.

Texas State History Standards

The crazy is heating up over the new Texas history textbook adoption standards. This is important because Texas is such a huge market that publishers will likely kow-tow to whatever the state decides. This means that a bunch of right-wing yahoos in Texas control history textbooks in the nation's public schools. Isn't that great!!!

Anyway, I'm going to try and cover this closely over the next weeks and months. We see today that conservatives are again pushing the argument that Thurgood Marshall and Cesar Chavez are not worthy of being taught. Certainly not as important as Newt Gingrich. Seriously, this is what some are arguing. At least progressives are fighting back.

Blowing Up Neo-Confederate Myths

Edward Sebesta does really wonderful work on his blog "Anti Neo-Confederate." This is the kind of writer that is really undervalued. Working in relative obscurity on incredibly important but rarely discussed issues, he does an invaluable service blowing up neo-Confederate myths.

Today he takes on the myth that in 1928 Congress declared the Civil War, "The War between the States." Even if true, I don't see how this bolsters the neo-Confederate case since dismissing ideas about the Civil War from the 1920s does not seem hard to do. Yet they use this anyway. From Sebesta's characterization of the argument:

"On March 2, 1928, Senate Joint Resolution NO. 41 was adopted by Congress and entered in the Congressional Record. It reads as follows: A war was waged between 1861-1865 between two organized governments: the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. These were the official titles of the contending parties. It was not a "Civil War" as it was not fought between two parties within the same government. It was not a War of Secession, for the Southern States seceded without a thought of war. The right of a state to secede had never been questioned. It was not a War of Rebellion, for sovereign, independent states, co-equal, cannot rebel against each other. It was the War Between the States, because 22 non seceding states made war upon 11 seceding states to force them back into the Union of States"

In any case, Sebesta simply went to the Congressional Record. Low and behold, it's not there. It seems to be a lie. Or at least a misunderstanding. But in any case, it's another neo-Confederate myth that is just that. A myth.

Historical Image of the Day

This week's historical images are dedicated to the history of Chinese-Americans.

Anti-Chinese cartoon by Thomas Nast, 1869

Food Activism for Lazy People

So I'm increasingly fascinated by the politics of food. I grow massively annoyed by the marketing of "green" as an upscale lifestyle choice--I'm out of work right now aside from whatever freelancing I can cobble together, and I cannot afford to buy my groceries at the local organic food co-op, which sells the same things as Whole Foods but is even more expensive (though at least it's not a rotten corporation). I buy cheap food at the cheap bodegas and might have to make a trip to the grocery superstore a few blocks over, and cheap food mostly translates to cereal, rice, pasta, and frozen vegetables so I don't die of scurvy.

I do spend a few extra bucks on fresh apples and other fruit, at the local farmer's market if I can manage it.

Then the other problem: I don't cook. I am almost 30 and I doubt that at this point I'm going to turn around and decide I love cooking, and though Michael Pollan's right about a lot, he's not going to be able to talk me into liking cooking the same way that hundreds of earnest people have not been able to talk me into liking the Beatles.

Much the same as the Beatles, I understand that cooking is important. I just don't enjoy doing it. Moreover, at this point I feel GUILTY for walking away from the computer to spend half an hour or more in the kitchen when I have work to do, and when I've reached my quota for the day, I don't feel like doing any more work.

And there are many people out there who have less money, less education, and less free time than I do.

So, where's MY cookbook? I don't need 30-minute meals, I need 5-minute meals. Organic farmer's markets aren't going to solve my food dilemmas as long as the food at the crappy corporate grocery is cheaper.

I'm interested in urban gardening and real food co-ops and ways that people can provide real food activism that isn't preachy and condescending. I'm interested in ways we can make our food better for us, better for the environment, and available to all. Eating healthy shouldn't be a privilege, and climate change will never be addressed if only the top 5% of the country can afford to "live green."

I'm betting Erik has some thoughts on this, since the intersection of his academic work--labor issues and environmental issues--is really what I'm talking about. But I want to hear from everyone. Unless you're going to tell me to learn to cook (or just listen to the Beatles one more time, man...)

Random Music Observations (XI)

-I actually enjoy Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music.

-There's only one good song that Noel Gallagher was involved with, and it wasn't even an Oasis song (it was this song).

-On a related note, of all the "electronica" albums that were "the future of music" in the 1990s, Dig Your Own Hole has held up the best (though Fat of the Land is still pretty good, too).

-Jimi Hendrix's live-albums are better than the studio albums (see, especially, Band of Gypsies).

-Tonight's the Night is great, but On the Beach is Neil Young's best album.

Least Surprising News of the Day

Miami Cubans are still idiots.

An Interesting and Troubling Apology from Former Tupamaro (and Uruguayan Presidential Candidate) Jose Mujica

Uruguay is gearing up for a presidential election here, and on the eve of elections, the leading candidate, Jose Mujica, had some interesting comments to make on his view of economic policies, the role of the government, and his role in the guerrilla/political Tupamaro movement in the 1970s.

For those on the right in the U.S. who get worked up into a Cold-War-level froth over the fact that Latin America is electing leaders from the left, Jose Mujica offers just one more example of how stupid that froth is. Mujica, a 74-year-old senator and the leading candidate for president heading into Uruguay's elections in October (where a run-off is likely), offered some comments that raised eyebrows this week, including his insistence that

“If belonging to the left means defending a strong government intervention in the economy and a strong state tendency in economic affairs, that’s not for me [...] I’m more a libertarian than a man who thinks the state is the solution. My Socialist ideas support self-management and I don’t mix it with the power of the state. The job of government is to help with social distribution, to avoid the accumulation of social rust-belts which the market can’t address, and they finish being extremely dear for the rest of the community.”

This is not surprising, as the U.S. press in general has shown a remarkable ability to totally misinterpret the political spectrum in Latin America and to paint broad homogeneous strokes over what is a very heterogeneous group of leaders and political parties. This misunderstanding not just of the Latin American left, but of Latin American politics in general, is easily understood - one simply have to know that Brazil's center-right former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso and his party, the PSDB, are often described as "center-left" by otherwise-respectable news sources in the U.S.

What's (perhaps) more interesting is Mujica's admissions about the Uruguayan dictatorship this week. In addition to being a senator and presidential candidate, Mujica was a leader in the Tupamaros, the urban political/guerrilla group of the 1960s and 1970s. Although the Tupamaros did participate in kidnappings and interrogations (always without the use of torture), and killed some (including an FBI agent who was involved in training the Uruguayan military how to torture), they were effectively weakened beyond any real threat by 1972 due to increasing repression. Although virtually finished as a guerrilla group by 1973, the Uruguayan military nonetheless used the Tupamaros as its raison d'etre for establishing its own military dictatorship in 1973. Once in power, the military began repressing all social sectors and political parties, using the Tupamaros as window-dressing for its broader authoritarian goals.

However, his role in the Tupamaro political/guerrilla group has not been a major concern, and this week, he made a fascinating admission. When asked what his greatest "repentance" is, Mujica responded, "That because of the armed struggle the (Uruguayan) people were condemned to 16 years of dictatorship and we couldn’t kick them out. I failed as a militant. Besides we learnt that when you try building a society without social classes, the bureaucracy monsters appears and gobbles all ideals, and you enter a world of disillusion."

What's interesting here is the notion that the Tupamaros are somehow the ones who are to blame for the (bloodless) military coup in Uruguay. Again, by 1972, the Tupamaros' "guerrilla" activities had effectively been halted as the military had begun cracking down under a democratically-elected president who was increasingly ineffective and a puppet to the military. Only in 1973, a year after the effective end of the previous phase of Tupamaro methods, did the military come to power. I don't know the full scholarship on what caused the Uruguayan military to take control, but from what I've read, the military only used the Tupamaros as a pretext for its own designs on power, something that I think the timeline supports. I don't know if this is an ego-trip on Mujica's part, or if it's genuine sincerity (it seems like the latter, though those two items aren't mutually exclusive, either), but I find it fascinating and mildly disturbing that a participant in the leftist movements of the 1970s is apologizing for the military's actions, actions over which he didn't really have control. Did the Tupamaro movement heighten the tension in Uruguay? Sure. But asking them to apologize for their "causing" the dictatorship is like asking Chile's Unidad Popular to apologize for causing Pinochet's dictatorship, or for the workers and students and Joao Goulart to apologize for Brazil's dictatorship. It's not just that it makes no sense; it's not even that it therefore asks participants in those movements in the past to have been able to predict the future in 1963 or 1973 or 1971. It's that it in some way puts the responsibility for the thousands of murders, tortures, and disappearances at the doorstep of groups that, at the time, felt they were doing what they had to do to fight for social and economic justice. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the actual policies and methods of the left in Latin America in the 1960s, 1970s, or even today, to lay the responsibility of those tortures and murders at their feet strikes me as not only offensive, but absurd.

Of course, this isn't what is raising eyebrows in Uruguay (it's his comments on Argentina's Kirchners, about whom he has little nice to say). And to be clear, I don't think that anybody else from the Latin American left in the 1960s and 1970s is going to be offering this kind of "apology." Still, I find it interesting and unique, and more than a little offensive to those whose actions were certainly part of broader processes that led to repressive, authoritarian regimes, but who were in no way singly "responsible" for those regimes or their subsequent actions.

Another Small Step in the Fight to Reign in Police Violence in Rio de Janeiro

It took four years, but this week, two former Rio de Janeiro police officers were sentenced to 500 years in prison for their roles in the massacre of 29 people in one of Rio's suburbs in 2005.

The ex-police officers joined three other former colleagues already sentenced to long terms in the case, which was dubbed the Baixada massacre after Rio de Janeiro's poor northern outskirts where prosecutors say a group of police officers fired on pedestrians, bar patrons and a crowd in a public square in 2005.

As the report also points out, nobody in Brazil can serve more than 30 years in prison, so the sentences for the two men (of 483 and 540 years) are obviously symbolic. Still, the fact that another case involving police killing innocents has resulted in prison is a small step in the right direction. Hopefully such cases will become more frequent, especially for those who kill innocents in the favelas.

Facial Hair of the Weekend

Continuing the theme of Civil War generals with facial hair, American patriot William Tecumseh Sherman. Too bad today's military code insists on the clean-shaven leadership.

Henry Ford, Bastard

Steve Gimbel asks a very good question:

I am still at a complete loss as to why the name Henry Ford is celebrated and not vilified in American culture.

Indeed, and this bugs me too. I think there are two fairly simple reasons. First, his assembly line (which he did not invent) is a major event in our national technology fetish. We love technology and put its innovators up on a pedestal. Ford occupies the highest pinnacle of that and his personal behavior and loathsome actions haven't dented that much. Second, people still like Ford vehicles today and given how closely attached so many Americans are to their auto brand of choice (something I've always found strange), there's a lot of general good feeling toward the man by the public.

But he was a pretty horrible person. He's most famous for being the nation's most important anti-Semite and he was awarded (and he accepted) an Iron Cross by Hitler. But he also led the anti-union charge in America. He was a big proponent of 100% Americanism during World War I and hired cartoonists to draw anti-radical and anti-union cartoons for movie theatres during the war. He ordered brutal attacks upon UAW organizers late in his life. And he treated his workers like children, sending out spies and social workers to check on them and make sure they were living up to his moral standards.

Basically, there's very little that's good about Henry Ford. Despite this, he's a national icon.

Historical Image of the Day

Menu from wedding reception of Maria Ewing Sherman and Thomas William Fitch, Washington, DC, 1874.

I guess I wasn't aware how much turtle and oysters people ate in the 19th century. I think everyone of these menus has had multiple oyster dishes and most have had some kind of turtle as well. Another thing that has interested me, though I don't think it's on this menu, is the specificity of the species of duck people are eating.

Iranian Funk

Wow, this looks like some great lost music.

Also, it's fantastic that 70s album covers in Iran were as ridiculous as in the U.S.

Music Festivals

Sasha Frere-Jones is making sense:

I don’t go to lots of music festivals. If I need to lie on a big field with my friends, drink beer, and see into the eye of the universe, I can usually pull it off without the help of AEG Live. As for hearing music outside, the signal coming out of a big P.A. system faces many obstacles. Amplified sound has to battle with nature (noisily fertile wheat fields, rain) and man (cars being dismantled by meth-heads, talking). How can you deliver decent sound to all those people dispersed over a big, variegated area full of dead spots? Live sound engineers are brave and admirable people.

Sound is one reason I find it hard to love music festivals. The other reason is a logical take on the cost-benefit ratio. Bands who play these festivals also appear at indoor venues where sound is more easily managed; the particular bills of particular festivals never seem like magical opportunities. What’s the point of suffering through unpredictable sound, short sets, and spinners if you can spend less time and money seeing your band of choice in a venue designed for live music? (I can wait the extra months.) I like music and I like sunshine and I like people (within reason) but music festivals have led me to rethink these positions.

I feel exactly the same way. Is there anything good about music festivals? I guess you see a lot of acts for a relatively little bit of money. But you barely see them. They play for 40 minutes and you are 1/2 a mile away. It's usually hot or rainy. The sound usually sucks. You get bleedover from other stages.

Meanwhile, I could see these bands play when they come to town, get awesome sound, be 20 (or at least 200) feet from the stage, and get a 2 hour set. I know which sounds better to me.

Major Changes in the AFL-CIO--Progressive Blogosphere Doesn't Care

The AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh has produced one seismic change and one significant change in the labor movement.

First, the fourteen year reign of John Sweeney as AFL-CIO president has ended. I think Sweeney deserves a good bit of credit for moving labor from the staid Cold War consensus years of George Meany and Layne Kirkland and focusing more heavily on organizing. But labor continues to struggle with deeply entrenched leadership. Sweeney did everything he was going to do by 2000, but has stuck around for almost ten more years. Moreover, Sweeney was unable to stop labor's decline in the U.S., but I don't think he deserves much blame for this--the conditions for organized labor in the United States are worse now than any time before the Civil War. Even when the government actively oppressed labor, at least workers understood all the great things unions could do for them. Today, they don't. The anti-union brainwashing of the past sixty years has proven incredibly effective.

His replacement is Richard Trumka. I generally like Trumka. He's the former Steelworkers president. I met him in 2000 and found him to be personable, energetic, and committed to working-class people. He was a big player behind the federation's recommitment to organizing. I am a bit concerned with his commitment to decentralized leadership, given that he's been the heir apparent for the entire Sweeney regime. To what extent will he represent new ideas? And given that he's 60 years old, will he stay in power for 15 or 20 years as well? One hopes not.

Nonetheless, Trumka's opening speech was certainly positive. He wants to push for even more organizers, adjust to a service-based economy, organize people of color and women, and have a big focus on immigrants. Moreover, he sees the need for a true international union and wants to organize workers in the developing world.

Well, that's certainly an ambitious agenda. And probably not attainable. But it's also important that the AFL-CIO maintain an active role in American life during the economic downturn. Assuming the recession hangs around awhile and assuming Americans actually learn any lessons from it, perhaps we may a resurgence in unions as workers realize that unregulated capitalism has failed them on multiple levels.

The other big piece of news is the return of UNITE HERE to the AFL-CIO. In 2005, the union left the federation as part of the Change to Win Coalition, a group of unions ironically led by SEIU, Sweeney's own organization, that were frustrated with labor's decline and Sweeney's lack of action to solve labor's problems. While I supported this at the time, mostly because I figured it couldn't hurt, Change to Win has done approximately nothing to improve labor's situation. I don't think it's hurt, but SEIU and Change to Win leader Andy Stern hasn't shown any more ability than Sweeney to solve these intractable problems. Whether UNITE HERE's defection from Change to Win and return to the AFL-CIO is directly related to Trumka's coronation, I do not know. But UNITE HERE also split itself earlier in the year over philosophical issues that arose out of UNITE and HERE merging several years ago. Many left to join SEIU. But clearly Change to Win has little reason to exist at this point. United labor is probably more useful than split labor, though again, it may not matter a whole lot either way.

Finally, it's somewhat disheartening that these events have received virtually no coverage in the progressive blogosphere, outside of labor blogs. Nothing from leading individual bloggers like Yglesias and Klein, nothing from TPM, nothing on Kos, nothing on Huffington Post, nothing at Think Progress. If I've missed something, let me know, but these key events in liberal politics are receiving absolutely zero coverage from people that should care deeply. I know that health care is dominating the agenda, and well it should. But it's hardly the only thing people are talking about and there's really no excuse for this--except to say that the progressive blogosphere seems as indifferent to organized labor as most of the rest of America. Nothing makes me feel more pessimistic about labor's future than this; even its allies don't care about it. Unless they need a check.

Note: if I have missed any coverage from the major blogs on this, please let me know. But I don't think I have.

The Myth of Bipartisanship

As Lemieux suggests (and as he's stated more directly elsewhere), the whole idea of New Deal and Great Society programs passing with bipartisan support entails a willful misunderstanding of the politics of those times. First, the post-civil rights party realignment completely shifted the playing field--before this both parties had both pro and anti-civil rights members, based largely but not entirely on region. Bipartisanship took place in this context because it was incredibly difficult to get all members of either party to agree with each other. Politicians had more in common with members of the other party who were from their region than with their fellow party members from across the country. Johnson could pass civil rights legislation with bipartisan support because northern Republicans and northern Democrats would vote for it, even if southern Democrats and some western Republicans would not.

Conservative commentators misinterpret this history to talk about how no legislation should pass without bipartisan support, but partisanship meant something quite different in 1935 or 1965.

Moreover, the one unique thing in American history about the modern Republican Party is its nihilism. Never before have we had a political party want to destroy the other side simply for the sake of its destruction, offering absolutely nothing or no alternatives in return. That doesn't mean that political parties haven't hated each other before--the Whigs pretty much only agreed that they hated Jacksonians, but in reality that led to intensive intra-party infighting. This is a unified opposition that has only one goal: destroy Obama. The closest thing we've seen to this in the past was pre-Civil War southern fireeating Democrats. But despite their northern lackeys like James Buchanan, Lewis Cass, Franklin Pierce, and Stephen Douglas, ultimately this extremist wing was dominated by southerners. This eventually tore the Democratic Party apart. The Republicans are definitely not in this position.

Expanding the House?

So, conservative activists are filing a lawsuit to expand the House of Representatives in order to ensure truly equal representation for all people. Because representation is decided on proportional population per state, some people get underrepresented. A problem? Perhaps. But this is a fantastically bad idea:

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity.

“When you look at the data, those are pretty wide disparities,” said Scott Scharpen, a former health care financial consultant from California who has organized the court challenge. “As an American looking at it objectively, how can we continue with a system where certain voters’ voting power is substantially smaller than others’?”

Of course, a larger House may not thrill Americans who are tired of Congress, and may make an already unwieldy body more so. “You may create a more equitable system that’s less governable, and I’m not sure the country comes out ahead,” said Kenneth Prewitt, a former Census director who now teaches at Columbia University.

Prewitt is clearly correct. You know, America is basically ungovernable today. Putting another 500 or 1300 members into Congress is only going to make things worse.

I did find it interesting to find out why Congress actually stopped growing in size in the 1910s: too many immigrants that rural states did not want to see represented. Racism works in strange ways.

Colbert on Corporations and the 14th Amendment

In one of the greatest episodes of Colbert I've ever seen (from Tuesday), he explains the 1886 decision to give corporations the same rights as people under the 14th Amendment and what that means in regard to the soon to be announced Supreme Court decision throwing all out corporate limits in campaign spending. It's probably the most succinct, and of course funniest, explanation of these issues I've ever heard.

I highly recommend checking it out.

Historical Image of the Day

Food and drink menu from United States Hotel, Washington, 1852. The dinner was dedicated to the election of Franklin Pierce as president.

If I were at Franklin Pierce's inauguration, I think I'd be having some saddle of venison from the tenth legion Virginia, ornamented beef tongue, terrapins stewed in diadem, and partridges in pair French style. I mean if the country is going to hell, why not eat? But the real question I would have trouble answering is whether to have celery dressed or celery in stalk. How can one make such a difficult decision?

I also like that it wasn't an open bar.

In truth, if I was at the Franklin Pierce inauguration, I'd probably be trying to feed him poison, but that's for another post.

Connecticut Smackdown?

This is amusing. Linda McMahon, The CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and wife of fake sports impresario Vince McMahon, is throwing her hat into the GOP primary race for Connecticut Senator. The winner will face 5-term Senator Chris Dodd.

This is interesting to me because of the precedent-- looking at the roster of celebrities that have dabbled in politics, it seems rather one-sided in that they tend to be conservatives. I live a scant 40 minutes from Palm Springs, the stomping grounds of the late Sonny Bono, a Republican mayor and congressman. Of course, Californians are contending with our celebrity GOP governor as well. NFL Hall of Famer Lynn Swann was the Republican nominee for PA governor in 2006, and is rumored to be considering challenging Arlen Specter. Clint Eastwood was the mayor of Carmel, having run and won as a Republican. The most obvious parallel is Jessie Ventura's tenure as governor of Minnesota.

For the left, we have Al Franken, after a tooth-and-nail fight with Norm Coleman. Jerry Springer doesn't really count, as he was a politician before he was a celebrity, and he isn't in politics anymore. I know I'm missing likely a lot of examples, but it seems on the face of it, the GOP has more celebrities involved in politics than the left. In many ways, George W. Bush was something of a celebrity, in that he was the son of a president with no accomplishments of note when he defeated Ann Richards for the Texas governorship.

This is all of little consequence, though I find it odd that there is this refrain in the discourse about out of touch celebrities (elitist Hollywood liberals, etc.) coming from the right. As far as the Connecticut senate race goes, I hope Linda McMahon wins the primary; Dodd is by some measure vulnerable, but I can't see salt of the earth New Englanders voting for the CEO of the WWE.

Japan Forced to Confront Its Eating Habits

Japan is freaking out because the world's fish are disappearing. To be specific, the numbers of bluefin tuna that the Japanese love for sushi are declining rapidly, largely, though not entirely, because of the insatiable Japanese market for them. Of course, the Japanese are going to do nothing except demand that no measures are taken to change this. They wouldn't want to give up their fish for 5 years in order so that they can eat them for longer after that period!

This shortsightedness is hardly a Japanese characteristic. We are no different except that most of our meat comes from land-based mammals. However, our own love for Filet-o-Fish at McDonald's is sending other species near extinction. Within 15 to 20 years, we will have very few choices for eating fish. I wonder what our reaction will be? Anger at the past for not dealing with the problem? Probably. But we'll probably have the same habits in 20 years and will be rapidly ending the existence of any number of other species.

Drought, Climate Change, and Societal Problems

The problems Kenya faces right now are probably indicative of common situations the world will have to face as the century winds on.

Kenya is in the middle of a terrible drought. This happens from time to time, though certainly climate change can make droughts worse. There are lots of people and cattle in Kenya as well, putting too much pressure on the limited resources of the country. When drought hits, people start killing each other over control to resources. In the last week, more than 30 Kenyans have died in tribal raids to steal cattle in order to replenish depleted herds.

We can't blame any one drought or hurricane or natural disaster on climate change, even though they are likely to become more common. But we can directly link climate change to melting glaciers, a situation which is making Kenya's water supplies even more threatened. Right now, with the drought combined with dwlindling glacial melt, there isn't enough water to run the nation's power plants. People are getting increasingly desperate and turning to violence as a result.

It's going to be a real worldwide challenge to deal with these conflicts in coming decades, both within and between nations.

Fighting Malaria Without DDT

There's been a lot of talk over the last few years about the need to use DDT to fight malaria. The argument goes like this--"First world environmentalists are putting birds ahead of people. DDT kills mosquitoes that kill people. We need to use DDT to save people's lives."

The problem with this calculation is that buys whole-hog into the technology fetish of American (and Western) culture that has been prominent for the last 200 years. We constantly believe technology can solve all our problems. If there are mosquitoes giving people malaria, let's use powerful pesticides to kill them, regardless of the consequences. If we need more water, let's build a bigger dam. If it's too hard to fry an egg, let's get one of those microwave egg cooker deals.

Not only do these technologies have unintended consequences (such, as say, sending birds to extinction), but they are often unnecessary. The World Health Organization has announced that they can fight malaria without DDT. A pilot project in Mexico and Central America has led to a drastic reduction in malaria over the past few years through a variety of methods that do not require poisons.

Not only is this a great thing because it saves lives, but it's also great because it challenges the technology fetish. This is a great piece of evidence in support of creative thinking and policy planning and against a reflexive reliance on chemical technologies.

We Are Not a Nation Founded on Christian Principles

Yet another piece of evidence to this fact:

The Treaty of Tripoli. Passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Via Helmut.

Panic Blogging: 1857

By request, a discussion of the Panic of 1857.

The boom and bust cycle of the pre-Depression American economy is remarkable. Every 15 to 20 years there was a huge bust: 1817, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1929. And a few smaller ones in between like 1883. Exuberance, get rich quick schemes, and shoddy financial policy, followed by bankruptcy and mass suffering was the American way.

It's possible that the Panic of 1857 holds a few lessons for today. This was a rapid but relatively brief downturn, which is different than the long-term depressions caused in 1837, 1873, 1893, and 1929. But recovery was slow (a jobless recovery one might say). Ultimately, little changed in the economic system because of this depression, but the political outcome was significant. In the end, ramping up production to fight the Civil War pulled the nation out of the slump.

The actual reasons for the boom came from the huge riches of the California Gold Rush, which began in earnest in 1849 and rapidly increased the monetary supply in the United States, leading to loose credit and high inflation. In addition, the problems with railroad overbuilding and speculation that would plague America in its later depressions was a problem here as well; a lot of people lost their shirts when those investments fell through. On top of all of this, American agricultural exports to Europe collapsed with the end of the Crimean War, drastically lowering prices in that sector.

The political impact had to do with the fact that the South had very few railroad investments, because they mostly decided they didn't want anything to do with American industrial or transportation technology. If anything, Southern railroad infrastructure was far underbuilt in 1857. In time, the South would rue these decisions as the northern industrial force crushed the Confederacy. But in 1857, Southern fireeaters laughed at the North and claimed that the Panic and the South's lack of suffering from it was proof that the slave-based plantation economy was far superior. This only emboldened Southern radicals more, convincing them that they could survive as their own nation.

What kind of long-term political implications the Panic of 2008 will cause I do not know. We clearly have learned nothing on the economic side of things; the entire economic system is racing their engines, ready to continue the dubious practices of inflated commodity prices, rapidly rising home prices, and credit-based consumer spending that blew the economy up in the first place. It's possible that a longer-term recession will create a real crisis of confidence in the corporate-dominated political system of modern America, but I find this quite unlikely. Only if voter anger over these issues convinces the hordes of Reagan and Clinton era Democrats who are beholden to corporate donations to reject Friedmanite economics will a major political shift take place.

Historical Image of the Day

Mrs. S.L. Skilton's Eating House, Boston, 1860

Today, I believe I'll have some tripe (cooked very rare), some calf's head, and some lettuce on the side.

The Bolivian Environment

Linda Farthing has an excellent article on the environmental challenges Bolivia faces. A lot of the nation's history can be summed up by extractive industry and the problems therein.

When Evo Morales was elected, giving indigenous people the first leader who cared about them in the nation's history, there was hope that he would pay some attention to environmental issues. But the problem is vast. Farthing points out many important issues. First, how do you tell people not to pollute or deforest lands when they are so incredibly poor? Second, the entire history of the country has been defined by wealthy people ignoring the law for their own benefit. Not surprisingly, that's seeped down to the poor. Third, Bolivia's only economic resources are extractive in nature--mining, natural gas, cocaine. Fourth, American demand for cocaine while at the same time trying to eradicate it has led to mobile processing labs that pollute like crazy without any supervision at all. Fifth, Bolivia's people understandably are demanding development projects that help them.

What to do? Latin American leftist leaders have traditionally organized around issues of land reform and resource redistribution. But as I've pointed out repeatedly, this is usually a disaster for the environment while not really making people any wealthier. Still, how can I as a privileged first-world environmentalist tell the deeply impoverished people of Bolivia that they can't have what I have? To do so would be environmental imperialism. Yet, I also feel pretty strongly that these development projects aren't going to help people live more comfortable lives.

The Fringe Backbenchers Get Scrutinized

As I pointed out earlier today, a real benefit of Joe Wilson's outburst is that we have a reason to examine the true fringe of the Republican Party. What we find out is that these people aren't really even Republicans. They have only a marginal allegiance to the party unless they can take it over. The Republicans know this and thus allow the wingnuts to run the show so the party doesn't collapse.

Joe Wilson's closet friend in the House is Florida congressman Jeff Miller. Miller has proudly put up a pro-Wilson sign in his office. I've been searching to see what connections Miller might have with neo-Confederate ideology. So far I haven't found any, but he is closely connected to the Constitution Party. This is a right-wing extremist party that exists along the Buchananite-Fallwellian wing of the party. In fact, Miller was a featured speaker at 2004 Constitutional Party Chuck Baldwin's megachurch early in the decade (and maybe since then, I'm just not sure). Among other speakers have been Buchanan and Falwell, Roy Moore, Fob James, Howard Phillips, and Joe Scarbourough, among other lunatics.

The Muppet Show

Jon Gutierrez lays out the 10 weirdest moments in Muppet Show history. And he gets the utterly bizarre nature of the show right:

How the hell did The Muppet Show ever get on the air? Imagine it from a TV executive's point of view: a weekly variety show, in an old vaudeville theater, featuring puppets, and a mix of A, B and C-list celebrities that catered to both kids and adults. That's not a pitch... it's a just list of random words that don't go together

You should check out the top 10, but here's a few of my favorites.

Here's Miss Piggy sexually harassing Rudolf Nureyev:



Vincent Price covers James Taylor:



Peter Sellers musing on identity and the comedian before reciting Richard III and squeezing chickens at the same time:



And Alice Cooper trying to get Kermit to enter into a Faustian bargain:



I can't imagine any show assuming knowledge of Faust in 2009, not to mention a show ostensibly for kids. It's my feeling though that no one knew what that meant in the 1970s either, but TV writers engaged in sort of cultural uplift during this period until executives told them to knock it off.

Via Edge of the American West

Film Review: 500 Days of Summer

I had pretty high hopes for 500 Days of Summer. And no, I'm not putting the "500" in parentheses, which is stupid and pretentious. But the pretension of the parentheses actually resembles the film itself.

I have a complex relationship with romantic films. Although people are often surprised when they hear this, I actually love a good romance. If done correctly, it can be wonderful. I look for films that delve into real human emotions, witty conversation, humor, telling both sides of the story, or some combination of the above. Sadly, few American romantic films do any of this. The brilliance of Annie Hall and Manhattan aren't their jokes, though of course these are great. It's the beauty of the romantic stories Woody Allen could tell at this point in his career. It's hardly fair to compare other films to these, or to the great films of Eric Rohmer for example, but those are the gold standard. One would like to see romantic films at least try.

And I thought 500 Days of Summer would try. Instead, it relies on cliche after cliche in its effort to tell a hipster love story. The hipster part is central; in fact, this seems to be the point of the film. The use of split screens on multiple occasions, the retro dresses Zooey Deschanel wears, Joseph Gordon-Levitt's skinny ties, the construction of Ikea as the ultimate cool place to shop, the music, the use of non-white people as silent backgrounds for their romance, this is painful stuff. Director Marc Webb even updates the Annie Hall-style monologues to the camera, but to utterly pointless effect. Moreover, the cliches don't stop in the realm of hipsterism. The film also suffers from cliches of the lazy filmmaker, which is even less forgivable. The tired use of a narrative for background is a prime example. Many commentators have complained that Gordon-Levitt's little sister calling him a "pussy" feels false and unnecessarily crude. I totally disagree with this, but what I do find problematic is the old device of relying on a child to be a wise advice-dispensing psychologist. How many times have we seen this?

The film is not a complete failure. Some of the scenes work really well, particularly those heavy in dialogue. The actors are generally fine, even though the episodic nature of the script leaves parts of the romance quite underdeveloped. The script also undermines the power of the romance. It was hard to be anything more than a distant observer of what Gordon-Levitt felt because the script was superficial too often.

Finally, a real weakness of the film is that it is only told from one perspective. Deschanel comes in and out of the story, but you never get much of a sense of her character as a person, except for one really annoying black and white piece with narration, a total failure of a scene for which she is not to blame. Why can't writers and directors tell these stories from a woman's perspective? Or both parties equally? She seemed at least as sympathetic as him, but we don't really know in the end. Instead, it was another story where a woman breaks a man's heart and he struggles to get over it. This is a rich mine of film, but there's great gender imbalance in these stories. Of course, there's an entirely other genre of romantic comedy related to this, but these movies almost try to be terrible; certainly there's little as witty as Annie Hall or Knocked Up or even 500 Days of Summer coming from a woman's perspective. This is no small reason why Juno is so freaking great--women are the heroes in a movie that tells a smart and funny story.

Shorter Republicans: Treason in Defense of Slavery Should Be Honored

One thing about the Joe Wilson outburst is that it's bringing race and the racism Obama facies into the sunlight for all to examine. I don't know that the outcome of this will turn out positive, but it's real interesting in any case.

Certainly, it's giving Republicans every chance they want to defend the Confederate flag and other symbols of treason. We know now that Joe Wilson is a neo-Confederate. He is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, one of the most racist organizations in the country. He was one of only seven legislators in South Carolina to vow to keep the Confederate flag over the state capitol of that state, a venerable tradition that goes all the way back to 1962.

Attacks on Wilson for his boorish behavior have upset fellow wingnuts. Increasingly, his defenders are also upset that his history as a supporter of treason in defense of slavery have come attack. Take Iowa congressman Steve King. King is really upset because, you know, Obama hates white men. As a white male, I should feel oppressed let me tell you... But anyway, here's King's own words on the matter:

“Instead of marching forward and following the principles of Martin Luther King Jr., [Obama] has set up a political system of delivering political favoritism to minority-serving groups. It divides Americans, and it insults us,” King said.

“There’s been legislation that’s been brought through this House that sets aside benefits for women and minorities. The only people that it excludes are white men,” he added. “Pretty soon, white men are going to notice they are the ones being excluded.”

Yeah, well. Now King's defense of oppressed white men extends to Joe Wilson:

“He is an officer and a gentleman and everyone who knows him knows that…being a son of the South puts you in a different position when it comes to the Confederate flag. It means something entirely different to the people who have ancestors who fought in the Civil War on the south side of the Mason-Dixon line. So I think Maureen Dowd is trying to whip this up and I also know she’s trying to put race into it. I didn’t know what race she was talking about when I first read her line on that.”

A son of the South does put you in a different position when talking about the Confederate flag. Just ask such sons of the South as Martin Luther King, Fred Shuttlesworth, Ralph Abernathy, John Lewis, and, I don't know, every single other black person who grew up there. Not to mention a not tiny group of whites who reject the racism the Confederate flag stands for.

But Wilson, King, and others want a race war. They want power back and they think that stirring up racism is the way to do it. I'm not sure that they won't succeed.

Via Andrea Nill

Historical Image of the Day

Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York City, October 19, 1903

Anyone for an appetizer of cromesqui of terrapin a la Baltimore, a main course of boiled ham and spinach, with some mashed turnips for veggies? I didn't think so.

For What It's Worth (And It's Really Not Worth Anything)

Apparently, there was some silly (is there any other kind?) awards show last night, and some hip-hop guy caused a big fuss.

However, in the 15 seconds of decency of said show, Matt & Kim apparently won a "breakthrough video" award for their very fun(ny) and best-single-of-2009 (and top album of the year) "Lessons Learned." Man, I wish I could have seen the faces of the tourists in Times Square that day....

Crystal Lee Sutton, RIP

Crystal Lee Sutton, the inspiration for the film Norma Rae, has passed.

Sutton's story of standing up for herself and the rights of her fellow workers is a great example of the difference one person can make. She's a true labor hero. Sadly, as a textile worker, her fate would not have been to stay in the mills even if management hadn't fired her, because, in the end, they wanted to move those plants to the developing world as fast as possible. In those countries, they can just kill the labor organizers.

It's also interesting to think about Norma Rae today. Made in 1978, it's only 30 years ago. But there's no way that movie could come out today. A major motion picture about a labor organizer? With a major star? No freaking way. Young Americans barely know what a labor union is and what they know is usually right-wing lies that they have heard somewhere. There once was a day when labor and the struggles of working-class people could be a mainstream and even popular topic in the American media and arts. That day has passed.

More Ichiro Greatness

The great Ichiro strikes again.

Last night, he became the first player ever to have nine consecutive 200 hit seasons. The old record holder was Hall of Famer Wee Willie Keeler, who did this between 1894 and 1901. Second on the list is Wade Boggs. Again, anyone who thinks Ichiro is not a hall of famer is insane. He's in elite company. He may or may not get to 3000 hits, but if he doesn't, the only reason is because he played in Japan for so long before coming over to the U.S. Statisticians have projected that if Ichiro started in the U.S. when he was young, he'd likely threaten Pete Rose's all-time record. And that's without sucking for years but putting himself in the game because he was managing as well as playing.

Anyway, I know my posts lack in Ichiro-worship, so I thought I'd try to make up for it a little.

Historical Image of the Day

With the death of Ted Kennedy and the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln being commemorated in the last two weeks of historical images, we've had a lot of dead white men. That's not cool. So the next couple of weeks I am going to try and do some really different things.

This week's theme is historical menus. I love this stuff. Click on it to get a better view.

Ebbitt House, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1866

I think I'll have the boiled beef tongue, wild Red Head duck broiled with currant jelly sauce, and South Down mutton roast.

Note, Americans have always liked their meat.

I'm also amazed that Guinness is on the menu (50 cents!). I had no idea it had that kind of long history in the U.S.

The Derek Jeter of College Football

I ended up watching the last quarter of the Ohio State-USC game. I need to preface this by saying a few things. First, one of the best effects of being out of the country for awhile was I quit caring about college football for a number of reasons (sheer distance, the clearly-awful lack of a playoff, and the fact that it's better for my personal health and stress levels not to care). I also had no illusions about a national title for Ohio State, and I'm honestly fine with that - I'd rather see an Indians championship, a Cavs title, even a Browns appearance in the Super Bowl (stop laughing - I only mean some day). If Ohio State wins it sometime, great, but I have other priorities. Finally, I had no illusions going into this game that Ohio State would win, and honestly, I think the 18-15 loss was respectable, and much more than I expected.

That said, Matt Barkley can go to hell.

It's not because he "led" the Trojans to a win. It's not because he had a very good game as a college freshman. It's not even because he looks like a total douchebag who would literally die if he went to a college not located in Southern California. It's because of the Jeter-level tongue-bath the media began giving him immediately after the game.

Everybody knows the media just loves a quarterback - can't stop talking about them. The way the media usually tells it, the quarterback either totally won the game for you, or totally blew it for you. There may as well be no other players on the field. Even yesterday, when Adrian Peterson unsurprisingly dominated the Browns, the meme was "Brett Favre, with all his experience, knew to just hand it over."

And so it's been for Barkley. "He led his team!" "Such poise!" "A star is born!" "He's SO clutch!" "He won it for USC!!!!" Which would be fine....except he didn't win it for USC.

Joe McKnight did.

Again, I'm not saying this out of any bitterness. I watched that entire fourth quarter, including the final drive. USC was on their 5 yard line, facing 95 yards to win. It was Joe McKnight with a big run to get them away from their own end zone. It was Joe McKnight who made a very good catch and then ran it up for about 10-15 yards. It was Joe McKnight who stymied Ohio State that entire drive. Yes, Barkley got two first downs with quarterback sneaks, but that's not exactly impossible on 3rd-and-short plays. I'm not saying Barkley was a non-factor, or that he was horrible. But the way the media has talked about it, you'd think he'd thrown for 550 yards and 17 touchdowns. Overall, it's been an enormous disservice to McKnight's performance, about which nobody is talking. I thought the hype would die down once the game was over and people could look back at it and say, "wow - McKnight really made the big plays for them." But the media hasn't done this; indeed, the hagiography has only grown since Saturday night. Basically, Barkley is a white quarterback at USC - a perfect storm of extremely undeserving media hype (hello, Matt Leinart 2.0). Whereas McKnight was just a (black) player who made the biggest plays to help his team win on that last drive.

It's really a no-brainer which story the media would flock to.

Domestic Violence--A Pre-Existing Condition?

In case we needed any more evidence that the American health insurance system is a complete disaster, Washington DC and nine other states have declared being a victim of domestic violence to be a pre-existing condition.

That's reprehensible on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start.

The states are:
Arkansas
Idaho
Mississippi
South Carolina
North Carolina
South Dakota
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Wyoming

What a surprising group of states there! These 9 states are totally known both for their generous social services and for their compassion! The one question I have is where's Texas?

Why DC also did this is unknown.

Via Feministing.

Medicare For All

George McGovern calls for a simple solution for the nation's health care crisis: Medicare for everyone.

This is interesting. I'm not enough of an expert on health care policy to know how feasible this is. Certainly one wonders about the costs. But Medicare has been a massive success that everyone loves. Even right-wingers defend Medicare, they just laughably separate it from government-run health care. I think the real win out of this proposal is rhetorical; it forces the right to put up or shut up on Medicare. If they oppose its expansion, is it because they oppose Medicare entirely? A good political move I think.

Of course, since our health care policy is being decided by a rather dim senator from a rural, all-white state in a remote corner of the country who receives a huge amount of campaign contributions from the health care industry, I'm sure nothing good will happen. But McGovern is on to a really good idea here.

The Bush Environmental Legacy

The Times explorers the nightmarish Bush environmental legacy, compiling an excellent report on the massive EPA violations the administration allowed. To be specific, the Bush administration both hamstrung the EPA and got the word out to the states that violations would be pretty much ignored. Because of this, water is polluted throughout the country. Water quality has reached lows not seen since before the Clean Water Act was passed; in some places, particularly in the Appalachian coal country, it is far worse. The picture here from the Times article is the effects of this water tattooed upon a young boy's body.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, it was concerns like this that fueled the environmental movement. That could happen again today. But polluters are smarter today. Rather than dump coal slurry directly into the rivers, the coal companies are pumping it back into deserted mines. No one sees it, but it is still disposed straight into the water supply.

Clearly this needs to be a top priority for the Obama Administration. Activists interviewed in the article express some hope. But with climate change the top priority for Obama, they also wonder to what extent his appointees will pay enough attention to water to make a difference. What the EPA needs is a massive influx of funding to enforce laws against polluters. Perhaps funding the EPA through violations would be a good idea--there are dangers with agencies getting funding from those they punish (see the police and drug seizures), but this is a case where it could make a real positive difference.

Historical Image of the Day

Henry Fonda in "Young Mr. Lincoln," a John Ford film from 1939.

Notre Dame

I guess Notre Dame isn't going to win the national championship this year. My faith in Lou Holtz's football prognostications is severely challenged...

Historical Image of the Day

Plaster mask of Lincoln, 1865. Although it seems like a death mask, it was actually made in February, before his death.

Facial Hair of the Weekend

Civil War general Ambrose Burnside, in his later years.

The Congo War

If you haven't read Howard French's piece in the New York Review of Books on the war in the Congo, you really should.

As French points out, this is the most deadly war since World War II. Yet virtually no one in America is even aware of it, not to mention cares. It's largely (though certainly not entirely) caused by Rwandan president Paul Kagame's desire to control the economic resources of the eastern Congo. This is all related as well to Mobutu's terrible rule in the Congo (then Zaire) for 35 years, the genocide in Rwanda, the complexities of east African politics, and the West's indifference to these issues. For American and European lawmakers, Kagame has created stability and economic growth in Rwanda. It's even starting to attract tourists. The Times had a piece on tourism there a few months ago. But this is all happening through the killing, exiling, and raping of millions of people and the plunder of another nation's resources. The world is starting to realize that and Kagame has had to rein in his militias and allies and start figuring out how to exploit the Congo semi-legally, which I imagine he'll be able to accomplish.

In any case, it's a fantastic article on an issue we should all know more about.

2009 NFL Preview--AFC East

New England Patriots (12-4): Was last year a simple setback, or have we witnessed the end of a dynasty. The loss of Brady last year might indicate the latter, but the return of everyone's favorite supermodel impregnating quarterback also comes with an agin team that lost a number of leaders on defense and just sent one of their best defenders to Oakland (poor, poor Richard Seymour) in the hope of gaining future glory. Randy Moss and Wes Welker are both getting older, the rushing game is poor as always, and all we're left with is the return of Brady. They'll win the division this year, but the Grim Reaper may be knocking at the door. They have to answer it sometime.

Miami Dolphins (9-7): Miami will take a step back this year. Not because they're necessarily a worse team; I think they're better, but because last season's bounceback was as anomalous as the previous year's disaster. Now they'll come back to where they belong: a better than average team with a fair shot at another playoff birth. Pennington remains efficient and, though many teams have drafted players and installed formations for a Wildcat option, the Dolphins' draft of Pat White will keep them ahead of the curve. The defense is somewhat solid without much big name talent and a few big holes. This and their lack of credible receivers are the two big causes for concern.

Buffalo Bills (7-9): Two weeks ago, I would have picked Buffalo as second in the division, but the firing of their OC is huge cause for worry. Edwards has struggled in his career and, though he is running in a comfortable no-huddle offense with one of the best receiving tandems in the game, this team may be a mess. Luckily, this is TO's last stop. He's getting older and knows he isn't the number one option for Edwards. He must recognize these things and, if he does, he should be an excellent addition for the remainder of his career. For whatever problems face the offense, such as oft-suspended Marshawn Lynch, I like the defensive unit quite a lot. Their success is going to depend on the offense not forcing them on the field for the whole game but, if they can stay fresh, they might have a decent shot.

New York Jets (5-11): Mark Sanchez has fail written all over his stupid Trojan face. When a team carries a draft policy of taking the best-looking player available, you know they have problems. I know they want another Joe Namath, but as Tony Romo can tell you: magazine covers do not translate into playoff wins. Second-rate offensive and defensive units make for a fourth-rate teeam. Possibly the most overrated group in the NFL.