A Spooky Song for Halloween: Jack Malmsten's "Satan Takes a Holiday"

Spooky exotica. How delightful. 

A Song for the Evening ...

Sigur Rós' "Svefn-g-englar."

Remembering Brown v. Board of Education

The Warren Court, which decided the Brown cases

Brown v. Board of Education stands as one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in our nation's history. The 1954 case struck down Plessy v. Ferguson and "Separate but Equal," and mandated that public schools be desegregated. The case was remarkable not only for its substantive ruling, but the manner in which the Court made its determination. The ruling was unanimous, and written in a manner intended to be understood by all people. As we wrestle with a radical Supreme Court that continually issues unsettling decisions, let's look back at a case in which the Court sided with justice and equality, and did so in a manner that is almost unheard of nowadays. 

Linda Brown, one of the plaintiffs in Brown,
walking with her sister to school

Brown was a consolidation of five cases, from four different states. It was a class action lawsuit. Each case centered around the same issue: African-American school children wanted to attend schools that only allowed white children. At this time, "separate but equal" accommodations based on race were constitutional. Jim Crow laws were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson. In considering the issue of school segregation, the Court in Brown was also considering the validity of the Plessy decision. 

Let's consider the events that provided the backdrop to the Brown decision: deep racial strife, southern unity against desegregation, the Cold War and McCarthyism. Brown was being decided during a particularly volatile moment in U.S. history. 

The plaintiffs in Brown argued "that segregated public schools are not 'equal' and cannot be made 'equal,' and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws" under the 14th Amendment. In examining the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the issue of segregation, the Court determined that Congress' intent could not "be determined with any degree of certainty." Furthermore, the Court concluded that there was even less guidance "in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education." The Court instead looked at education in its current state and the effect that segregation had on students. It adopted an evolutive method of constitutional interpretation to decide the case. 

The Court's description of education is significant. Education is not considered a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution (though some state constitutions deem it as such). Absent a positive state law, states are not required to maintain a school system. The Brown Court describes education in a manner that alludes to the profound importance of education, without specifically deeming it a fundamental right. 

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. 

The Court continues, 

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. 

Chief Justice Earl Warren

The Court unanimously ruled that separate is never equal, and that segregated educational facilities create a sense of inferiority among black children that inhibits their "educational and mental development." The Court unanimously struck down "separate but equal" as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It articulated its ruling in a short and intelligible decision. This was a ruling for the people. 

Kenneth Clark observing a child during the "doll test"

It is important to note that the Court was influenced by Kenneth and Mamie Clark's "doll test." In these tests, the Clarks looked at what color of dolls black children from segregated schools chose to play with. The black children typically preferred white or lighter-shaded dolls over black ones. They also associated the white dolls with being "good" and "pretty," while describing the black dolls as "bad" and "ugly." The Clark's study came under attack for its methodology, but nonetheless proved very influential to the Warren Court. 

Some states refused to comply with the Brown decision. They would simply maintain segregated schools or shut down facilities to avoid integrating them. The Warren Court responded to such defiance in what is commonly called Brown II. The Court issued a structural injunction against schools that failed or refused to integrate. It created a series of basic principles and let local district judges enforce and apply them. All courts would cooperate to achieve a constitutional goal by employing immense equitable power to reform the structure and operation of non-complying schools. Schools were required to "admit . . . on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed" (emphasis added). 

Opposition to Brown persisted. Over 100 Congressmen signed the Southern Manifesto, in which they pledged to fight racial desegregation and the Brown decision. Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus deployed the National Guard to prevent The Little Rock Nine from attending a racially-segregated school. The students were permitted to attend only after President Dwight Eisenhower deployed federal troops to escort them and assumed control over the Arkansas National Guard.

Brown has also come under attack quite recently. Amidst a backdrop of school resegregation, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that seriously undermined the Brown decision. In 2007's Seattle-Louisville Cases, the Court held the schools' voluntary racial balancing programs unconstitutional. Thus, schools that want to address school segregation or promote racial diversity will essentially have to do so without using race as a criteria. 

In spite of these current developments, Brown will remain a high point for our Supreme Court and our nation. It encompasses the most important elements upon which a fair society is based: justice, equality, and democracy. 

Brown Timeline: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/timeline.html

Brown I: http://www.nps.gov/brvb/historyculture/upload/brown%20US%20supreme%20court.pdf

Brown II: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13102254740887304967&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Something To Relax To ...

Kid Koala, one of my favorite artists. As a fellow turntablist, I admire his innovation and passion for musical exploration. He makes some truly beautiful compositions. And for those who are skeptical of, or look down upon, turntablism and sample-based music, I would suggest reading "Reality Hunger," by David Shields. It is the literary equivalent to a sample-driven album. 

Songs for the Struggle: There is Power in a Union

I think it's a good idea to kick off the weekend with a protest song. There is power in a union.

Coming up on Last Throes ...

Busy, busy, busy. I've been attending conferences, conducting research and am now on my way to a protest. I'll have some new content coming up very soon. In the meanwhile, I recommend browsing through Last Throes' growing archive for an interesting read or two.

Towards a Comprehensive Definition of Terrorism

    The definition of terrorism must encompass the acts of all perpetrators, irrespective of power, location or circumstance. The definition must be absolute, with no exemptions for state actors or “freedom fighters.” It must cover acts that are carried out by persons under occupation or totalitarian rule. The definition must cover all acts along the spectrum of power, including those involving the powerful against the weak, as well as the weak against the powerful. The failure of the international community to have a universal definition undermines the fight against terrorism. We must establish a definition of terrorism that covers all acts, whether against individuals or property, and stop placing different values on victims or giving priority to the acts of certain parties. The definition should be based on Article 2 of the Draft comprehensive convention against international terrorism, with the explicit inclusion of state action.¹

The dynamics of power should never justify the terroristic acts of any individual, group, or state. Yet the current application of the term terrorism is relegated almost exclusively to non-state actors.² As Noam Chomsky stated, “[t]erroristic acts by the Emperor and his clients [i.e., states] are termed ‘retaliation’ or perhaps ‘legitimate preemptive strikes to avert terrorism,’ quite independently of the facts….” By omitting the terroristic acts of states from legal instruments that fight terrorism, the international community undermines its campaign to eliminate terrorism. A universal standard must be applied to successfully, and legitimately, combat terrorism. A definition of terrorism would be well served to include the spirit of Chomsky’s article, and treat the acts of the state the same as those of individuals or groups.³ This is not to say that the targeting of civilians by the powerless should ever be condoned. It is to say that the very same acts committed by states should be held to the very same standard: as an act of terrorism.

The definition should not exempt so-called “freedom fighters.” Developing countries have urged an exception when “individuals or groups struggling for their right of self-determination” commit the acts.⁴ Yet as the customary international legal definition of terrorism has evolved, the “freedom fighter” exception has rightfully been excluded.⁵ The definition of terrorism must prohibit all conduct that targets civilians, irrespective of the purported righteousness of one's cause, or the conditions to which the population that the terrorist claims to be acting on behalf is subjected. The remedy for ending a people’s suffering under totalitarian rule or occupation is not the legitimization of certain terroristic acts. The international community can address such conditions, as well as the root causes of terrorism, without permitting the very act of terrorism.

The definition should apply to domestic and international terrorism alike. Irrespective of the nature of a terroristic act, conflicts rarely remain confined to one country’s borders. Such acts increasingly affect the whole world. The international community has a vested interest in combating all terrorism, and should include both domestic and international terrorism in its definition.

Terrorism should include the targeting of persons and property, so long as the acts are intended to “intimidate or coerce.”⁶ The Draft convention rightfully includes attacks to public or private property. Some believe that there are fundamental differences between attacks on persons and attacks on property. Yet both kinds of attacks can cause massive suffering of civilians. Symbolic attacks on girls’ schools, or the destruction of public utilities can be just as devastating as suicide attacks. The definition of terrorism should focus on the motivations of the attacks, and whether they are intended to intimidate, coerce, or compel a population, state or organization’s actions.

The definition of terrorism must “be devoid of political subjectivity and bias.”⁷ The UN General Assembly, and indeed the international community, will be unable to effectively combat terrorism if all conduct is not held to the same standard. “[S]ome acts must be absolutely forbidden, whatever their alleged goal.”⁸ The definition of terrorism should reflect this principle so as to advance the pursuit of legitimacy and maximum prevention of harm. The targeting of civilians for religious, political, or ideological goals, by individuals, groups or states, should never be permitted. The UN General Assembly’s definition of terrorism should be based on Article 2 of the Draft comprehensive convention against international terrorism, so long as the action of states is included. This definition will ensure that terroristic conduct by all parties is universally condemned, and further the international community’s goal of protecting all civilians from violence. 

1 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996. www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/57/a5737.pdf. pg. 6.

2 Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World. Noam Chomsky. 

3 Id. 

4 Terrorism as an International Crime. Antonio Cassese. 

5 Id. 

6 Pirates and Emperors.

7 A Policy-Oriented Inquiry of International Terrorism. M. Cherif Bassiouni.

8 Terror/Torture. Karima Bennoune.

Songs for the Struggle: Woody Guthrie's "All You Fascists Bound To Lose"

Over-educated, Under-employed and Indebted: American Youth's Stifled Potential

In just over a decade, student loan debt has risen five-fold, and is about to surpass $1 trillion. Americans now owe more in student loan debt than they do in credit card debt. The last statistic is particularly shocking given the fact that Americans' credit card debt is once again skyrocketing. All signs point to a coming student loan crisis. Recent graduates are saddled with increasing amounts of debt while struggling to find work that will enable them to pay back their loans, much less use their newly-acquired degrees.

Students are borrowing more than ever to go to college. Tuition at public universities has more than doubled over the last two decades. Two-thirds of graduates with four-year degrees leave school with student loan debt. In 1993, less than half did so. 2011's graduates will leave school the most-indebted ever, burdened with an average of $23,000 in loan debt. That's about three times the amount they owed a decade ago. And, unsurprisingly, the number of students who are defaulting on their student loans rose nearly two percentage points from the previous year to 8.8 percent. That percentage is almost double for students who attended a for-profit college or university, a fast-growing industry that has come under fire for its unsavory business practices.

As their student debt mounts, graduates face an increasingly brutal job market. The New York Times reported,

Among the members of the class of 2010, just 56 percent had held at least one job by this spring, when the survey was conducted. That compares with 90 percent of graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007. . . . Many have taken jobs that do not make use of their skills; about only half of recent college graduates said that their first job required a college degree.

Thus, college grads face rising student loan debt, unemployment and under-employment, in addition to stagnating wages and other negative economic trends. These factors combine to create a burgeoning economic and social crisis. And it's not confined to this country. Educated and struggling youth from around the world are becoming increasingly restless. Unemployment, particularly among college graduates, has been a source of riots in numerous countries, and even regime change in Egypt. Americans have followed suit and taken to the streets as part of the Occupy movement. Student loan cancellation has been a continuing demand of the participants.

These uprisings are born of desperation, and are unlikely to cease until the youth's economic situation improves dramatically. In America, student loan debt relief is a fundamental component of the Occupation's clarion call for economic justice. And their message is beginning to resonate with many Americans. Graduates should no longer be forced to put their lives on hold in order to pay back their loans: to work jobs that aren't in their fields of study or don't require a college degree, just to make their monthly payments. Yes, they voluntarily took out loans to complete their education. But they are not responsible for the 2008 economic collapse and the ensuing recession. The collapse, caused by the malfeasance of financial institutions and their sycophants in Washington, has made the job market what it is. Moreover, the ballooning debt obligations of students are a symptom of the same misconduct that created the economic crisis: unfettered greed, inadequate government oversight and ineffectual government policy. And now the burden is unsustainable.

By enforcing such loan obligations, we are impeding the potential of millions of young and educated Americans. We are, in the process, stifling the potential of our country. If we relieve graduates of these burdens, we have the opportunity to unleash a creative and entrepreneurial energy that our society desperately needs. Our graduates will have the ability to purchase products, start businesses, and pursue creative endeavors that were once unattainable. 

We have a duty to provide the next generation greater opportunities than were given to previous one. Relieving our young graduates of their student loan debt is a first step toward meeting our obligation.

A Song for the Evening: Jarvis Cocker's "Tonite"

Like Humans Do: The Deterioration of Language in our Political Discourse

The Republican presidential debates illustrate perfectly a central problem of American political discourse. Our policy discussions have been dumbed down to the point that candidate platforms seem tailored around slogans, instead of the converse. We require no substance, and receive no substance, from our elected officials.

Take the current discussion on health care reform. It basically boils down to whether "Obamacare" is like "Romneycare," and whether either of these policies is compatible with some meaningless idea of "freedom." The very fact that we use "Obamacare" instead of, say, the Affordable Care Act, is indicative of the problem with the way we communicate. We hardly discuss policy costs, the bases of the reforms, or the way that they actually benefit or burden people.

A second example: Herman Cain is running on his 9-9-9 tax plan. The name is catchy. And most economists say that the proposal is completely unworkable. Yet Cain continues to promote it without being held accountable, and people are still taking him and his ideas seriously (apparently very seriously, according to the latest polls). At bottom, we have stopped using adult language and critical thinking when considering issues and candidates.

I imagine part of the reason that voter turnout is so low and Congress' approval rating is below 20% is because we rarely hear any substance-laden discussions from our elected officials. Again, to receive substance, we must require substance. We must reject talking points and demand facts. As the body politic within a democracy, it is our duty to hold our elected officials accountable. But we cannot do so unless we change the language of our discourse; up the sophistication and begin interacting like humans do. 

And now, David Byrne. 

A Song for the Evening: Astor Piazzolla's Libertango

The Immigration Battle in Context: A Look at Past Nativist Movements

Alabama has been in the news as of late because of its harsh new immigration law. The state has touted its law as the strictest in the nation. Other states have passed similar legislation, including Arizona, with its infamous SB 1070. Most proponents of these laws cite economic and security concerns as the primary reasons for their support. Yet it is impossible to extract the racial component that accompanies the latest anti-immigrant push. Pat Buchanan is still on cable television talking about the dwindling white population. Hate crimes against Latinos are on the rise. And the use of “illegal” as a noun and not an adjective might as well be an epithet.

Let's put aside the legality of current state laws: forget the fact that the Constitution gives the federal government plenary power over immigration policy, and that any state immigration law that conflicts with the federal scheme is preempted. Let's try to put the current wave of state anti-immigration laws into historical context. These laws are part of an anti-Latino nativist movement. Before current opposition to Latino immigrants, there was a movement against Asian immigrants. Before Asians there was a movement against Irish, Germans, and Catholics. Today's movement is spurred by the same motivating factors as previous ones. In light of current developments, let's look at some past nativist movements to find parallels with the present conflict over Latino immigration.

Nativism is a close cousin of xenophobia. Nativist policies seek to defend the interests of “native-born” citizens against those of immigrants, nowadays undocumented immigrants. Nativism is fueled by various influences. In the U.S., these movements are most commonly in response to economic concerns, perceived threats to national security, and racial biases. When the economy is in a rut, or the nation is in the midst of military conflict, immigrants are singled out. They come to be described in negative generalizations during waves of nativism, and are eventually seen as a liability for the country. Nativists create stereotypes of different immigrant populations. These caricatures of certain groups create a false common knowledge that then fuels nativism. Immigrants become a perceived threat to the public. Citizens then demand government action. Nativist movements in turn gain political momentum and elected leaders respond with legislation that targets certain ethnic groups.

The first official nativist movement began in the 1830’s. The century of immigration was underway. Americans began to feel that the large influx of immigrants posed both an economic and security threat to the nation. Immigrants entering the country were generally working menial jobs for low wages. Some argued that immigrant workers were pushing down wages.

Many also began to emphasize the origins of new immigrants. The majority of immigrants during the early to mid-nineteenth century were from Ireland and Germany. Of the nearly eight million immigrants who entered the country between 1820-70, two-thirds were from these two countries. This was now the era of “new” immigration from Northern and Eastern Europe. Established Americans became concerned about the geographic and cultural differences between traditional immigrants and new immigrants from Europe.

New immigrants tended to live in ethnic communities with other immigrants of similar backgrounds. These ethnic enclaves helped new immigrants retain their language and customs while easing the process of adapting to life in the United States. Many Americans, however, saw these communities as a threat to national unity. A large segment of the new immigrants could speak very little or no English at all. Furthermore, they were seen as not fully integrating into the country by living in separate communities. Prominent nativist Lyman Beecher claimed that immigrants were “more familiar at Rome and Vienna, than with us.” Beecher and other nativists argued that immigrants shouldn’t be given the same rights, especially voting rights, because their customs couldn’t coexist with those of the American culture.

Most immigrants from Ireland practiced the Catholic faith. Anti-Catholicism was prevalent in America even before the second wave of immigration. The majority of Americans were Protestant. As a result of the increasing number of Roman-Catholic immigrants, an anti-Catholic sentiment emerged and take center stage in the nativist movement. Nativists argued that the values of the Roman Catholic Church and the republic of the United States were incompatible. Thomas Whitney claimed that “Republicanism is freedom: Romanism is slavery.” Samuel F.B. Morse argued that there was a great increase in Catholic institutions throughout the country. Nativists claimed that more Catholics were serving in public office. They believed that there was an international political conspiracy by the Roman Catholic Church to change the makeup of the U.S. and influence elections.

A political movement emerged from the anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant sentiment. The Know-Nothing, or American, Party became the prominent anti-immigrant voice in the 1850s and 1860s. The Know Nothings, like many nativists of this time, believed that “Catholicism was not compatible with the basic values that Americans cherished most.” The Catholic Church's supposed influence in America became a national security issue. Know Nothings believed that Catholics were attempting “to gain control of American politics and thereby impose their views upon the rest of America." Nativists also feared that if a war started between the US and a European country, immigrant communities would fight for Europe rather than the US. Immigrants from undesirable countries were also blamed for crime, in addition to low wages. 

The Know Nothing Party's primary goal was to preserve American nationality by curbing immigration and eliminating the role of Catholics and foreigners in high-ranking positions (especially public office). They claimed that Americans were being driven from their homeland by waves of foreign immigrants. By modifying immigration and naturalization laws, foreign influence in politics could be reduced while assimilation would be induced. Anti-immigrant forces believed that stricter immigration laws would create a national identity. Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790 to increase the numbers of residency needed to gain US citizenship to 5 years. The 1798 Alien Act gave the President the power to remove any immigrants deemed to be a threat to national security. Know Nothings even tried placing a 21-year restriction before new immigrants could gain the right to vote.

The Know Nothing Flag

The second nativist movement was focused on Asian immigrants. Many Chinese began to immigrate into the US to satisfy the country’s labor needs. As their numbers increased, stereotypes about Chinese began to take root. Movements to restrict Chinese immigrants rights began soon thereafter. 

Americans' growing hostility to Chinese immigrants was part of the overall racializing of America. Pseudo-scientific theories of a racial hierarchy were introduced. Many nativists embraced Johann Frederich Blumenbach’s theory of the five categories of race: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. The eugenics model was based on the belief “that intelligence, morality, and other social characteristics were permanently fixed into race.” These theories eventually led to a pyramid of racial superiority. Whites (Caucasians) were at the top, with all other races below. Also, the depictions of immigrant cultures (exotic people) at US World’s Fairs (Columbian Exposition, St. Louis World’s Fair) helped to fuel stereotypes in America. 

There were two prevailing factors that led to the restriction of Chinese immigrants. First, Americans believed that Chinese were not fit for US citizenship. The increase in Chinese immigration posed a threat to what nativists saw as the preferable ethnic construction of America: “a white nation descended from Europe.” The Naturalization and Citizenship Act of 1790 set the tone for future immigration policy. The words were clear: citizenship was liberally granted to “all free white persons.”

Second, many believed that Chinese workers were stealing jobs from Americans and pushing down wages. Like German and Irish immigrants, Chinese were seen as a cheap source of labor. Many nativists believed that Chinese and other Asians were used to living on very little, and therefore willing to accept very low wages for their labor. This, however, presented an economic conflict. America was labor scarce during this period. Chinese laborers were an integral part of important U.S. industries. They satisfied US labor needs in the west's agricultural industry, as well as the mining industry in the midwest. In fact, Chinese workers made up ¼ of the California's workforce in the 1870s. Yet the nativists' public outcries led to congressional action. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 eliminated almost all Chinese immigration to the U.S. In the two years after the Exclusion act was passed, Chinese immigrants went from over 30,000 to just 3,000. 

The Chinese Exclusion act was the first law passed to limit Asian immigration to the U.S. It prohibited Chinese laborers from entering the country. The Act was certainly motivated in part by economic concerns. Yet racial undertones continually accompanied the economic justifications. It was the first piece of federal legislation to exclude a specific nationality. Samuel Gompers said in 1908 that the Chinese “will work so cheaply as to bar off all efforts of his competitor.” In the same breath, Gompers claimed that Chinese labor wasn’t even fit for white workers. During the debate over the Chinese Exclusion Act, Hon. James G. Blaine argued that “the Asiatic can not go on with our population and make a heterogeneous element.” Cultural disparities once again fueled notions of white superiority.

Congress eventually limited immigration from the rest of Asia through quotas. Immigration quotas were enacted to preserve the racial composition of the U.S. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 sought to restrict immigration by country based on the 1890 U.S. Census. This census, unlike the three censuses thereafter, ensured that most immigrants entering the U.S. would be from preferable European countries. Many nativists argued for the restrictions to prevent “new immigration that threatened to lower the standard of living and dilute the 'basic strain' of the American population." In other words, quotas would keep America white. All peoples of East and South Asia were barred from gaining citizenship after the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act.

As Asian labor was virtually eliminated, worker shortages arose, especially in the agricultural sector. The 1924 Act placed no restrictions on Mexican immigration. Thus, Mexican workers came to fill America's labor needs. Yet as the Mexican population became more prevalent, nativist opposition mounted.

Like previous nativist movements, Americans began to blame Mexicans for depressing wages and taking jobs from Americans. They also saw the new immigrant population as a threat to ethnic composition that the 1924 Quota Act sought to preserve. Mexican population doubled from 1920 to 1930. As hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter the country, opposition took hold and demanded that the government respond to such concerns. 

Foreign contract labor was banned in the US since 1885 because of its connotations with slavery. The ban, however, was lifted to implement the Bracero Program (1942-1964). This program permitted companies to contract Mexican laborers to work in the US: it established a temporary worker program. The Bracero Program essentially created a new second-class citizenry of Mexican laborers in the U.S.: they had no rights of a U.S. citizen, yet provided great benefits to our economy.

Congress enacted the The Bracero Program in hopes of supplementing the country's labor needs in a controlled manner and curbing illegal immigration from Mexico. The federal government also began deporting and “assisting in the repatriation” of hundreds of thousands of Mexicans. They called this “Operation Wetback.” Not only were illegal immigrants deported during this undertaking. Many American citizens were forced back to Mexico to escape the hostile environment they face in the US. Moreover, the Bracero Program didn't reduce illegal immigration. It actually promoted it. Employers simply bypassed the regulations (wage requirements and working conditions) set forth in the program by hiring undocumented workers.

I posted this historical overview so that we can put our current debate over Alabama's state law into context. Legislators' arguments for passing these bills are not new. They use the same justifications that have been used over and over: economy, security,  and racial purity. And, if we continue on our current path, we will be regretting these laws just the same. 

But the nativist march goes on. Let's see where it takes us.

Stephen Fry on Language

This is wonderful. 

A Song for the Evening: Chet Baker

Chet Baker's "Born to be Blue." Have a great night.

A View from the Bottom: Observations Inside a Broken City

I work in social services in the midwest. I live in one of the many post-industrial wastelands still reeling from its disappearing manufacturing base. I work with people in poverty in an area overrun by hardship and violence. It's the kind of neighborhood that your parents tell you never to go to. Yet kids grow up there and are lucky if they get out.

Needless to say, my services are in high demand. I work with people from all segments of society; families living in generational poverty, workers displaced from outsourced manufacturing and even once affluent families who've been hit hard by unexpected layoffs. 

The city's poverty rate is over 25 percent. It's one of the ten most-impoverished cities in the nation. Its foreclosure rate is sky-high, with empty homes littering most neighborhoods. Vacant storefronts occupy once-prime real estate. Downtown is bereft of activity outside of a couple sporting venues and bars. The city's population has declined nearly ten percent over the last decade. Its suburbs, however, continue to grow, feeding off of the carcass of a once-great city. 

When you work amidst so much suffering, you have to stay somewhat detached. Otherwise, the seemingly endless stream of poverty-stricken families will make you miserable. Yet even if you have superior coping skills, certain moments get to you. 

I will never forget when young, skinny girl came into my office with makeup running down her face, holding her daughter's hand. She said, "I don't have any food." I tried to refer her to a couple pantries, but she left, possibly because she was embarrassed, and said she would find something. I closed the door to my office, feeling devastated that I had failed her.

A young couple came in with three children on one of the coldest days of winter. They were all sick. Their heat and electricity had been shut off. They had no money and didn't know who to contact. I helped them get their utilities turned back on, but it was obvious that they needed much more than that. I never heard from them again.

These are the stories that make up the numbers. The people who choose between food or medication, medication or utilities, lights or heat; all a staple of modern American society. Our communities are filled with stories of untold suffering. Yet, at the same time, those caught in the struggle display a resilience that I didn't know was possible. I guess if you can make it in today's America, you can make it anywhere.

These are the stories that our elected officials need to hear; the stories that should inform their policy decisions. They must see communities as they are before they can decide what they should be. If our leaders can show even a fraction of the strength and determination of the people that I work with, then I see hope for this city. If not, I fear the worst is yet to come. 

A Song for the Evening ...

Yeah, you know this one.

A Song For The Evening ...

What Goes On, by the Velvet Underground. Have a great evening.

A Path Forward for the Lost Generation

America's youth stands at a crossroads. They have been dubbed "The Lost Generation." They carry the burden of overwhelming student loan debt, which has increased from $200 billion to $833 billion over the last decade. The average bachelor's degree recipient carries $27,000 in debt, more than three times the amount they did 10 years ago. 18 to 24 year-old Americans face a poverty rate of over twenty percent, and an unemployment rate nearly double that of the national average. The job market show no signs of picking up and anti-poverty programs are being cut.

The generation has, however, begun to respond. Occupy Wall Street has spread to over 200 locations. The movement is a response to our dead end economy. Protesters from the Occupation, most of them young, have no other option but to take to the street. We are at a unique moment in our history: the moment when the era of unfettered capitalism and multinational corporations has run its course, and can no longer mask the harm that it has caused. It is in some sense a moment of liberation. The path is blocked. The only way to get out is to forge a new path.

In a time of few opportunities comes a rare opportunity. Young people have begun to occupy spaces that they have normally been excluded from. There's a real power in such an act of defiance. But it doesn't need to end there. The Occupation can serve as an example, even a blueprint, for a movement that can and should spread to other areas of life. If this generation is indeed lost, then it's up to them to create their own path forward.

Coming Up On Last Throes ...

I'm working on an essay, and should have it ready to publish shortly. Thanks for your patience.

Because It Should Be The Weekend ...

This song rather exemplifies my mood. Lindo Sonho Delirante by Fábio. Have a great, and hopefully short, Friday.

Okay, Now I Really Want The NBA Back

I've loved the NBA since I can remember. I have albums full of basketball cards, from the era before Larry Bird's back went to hell. I still have J.R. Rider's jersey. I pay for f'n League Pass. I love the Pistons, and can finally root for the Cavs now that Lebron James has left (In Northwest Ohio you can root for Detroit and Ohio teams).

The NBA's labor dispute has certainly grabbed my attention. But it has done so because of my support for labor rights, not necessarily my love of the game. That is, until now. We need a fair labor agreement to salvage the season. We need to see the brilliance of players like Rajon Rondo. Thanks to Deadspin for posting this.

New Music From Atlas Sound

Deerhunter's Bradford Cox has an upcoming album under his solo monicker Atlas Sound. Here is a track from "Parallax," which will be released on November 8th.

Update: Here is the official website http://4ad.com/parallax/

A Song for the Evening

Tim Maia's "No Caminho Do Bem," which I believe translates to "in the path of the good." Enjoy and have a great evening. 

Putting President Obama's Healthcare Fight Into Context: A Look Back at President Jackson's Nullificatory Crisis

President Obama signed The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) into law in 2010. The Act seeks to overhaul key aspects of the American healthcare system, insure an additional 30 million Americans and provide new safeguards for patients.

The most controversial part of the legislation is what been termed the individual mandate. This provision requires that, absent a valid exemption, every person be covered under an insurance policy. Nearly 30 states have brought suit against the PPACA. Legislators from across the nation have introduced bills to repeal the Act or ban the implementation of certain provisions, particularly the individual mandate. Other states have or will vote on ballot initiatives regarding the Act, like my state of Ohio will this November. The Supreme Court of the United States will consider the PPACA, and the constitutionality of the individual mandate, in its upcoming term.

In light of President Obama's fight with the states over the PPACA, it may be helpful to look to history for a bit of context. President Andrew Jackson had a similar battle, indeed a Nullification Crisis, with the states over tariffs. President Obama's fight is also over nullification, with the individual mandate being just a part of the greater push by states to undermine federal authority. Let's explore, shall we?

Andrew Jackson assumed the presidency during a time of instability and change. The industrial revolution, market revolution, and transportation revolution all came to a head during his time in office. The transformation of the US economy divided the nation. Many Americans were finding it more and more difficult to manage within the market economy and were falling into poverty. Those in favor of the agrarian way of life wanted little government intervention in their daily lives. Merchants involved in international trade, on the other hand, were in favor of protective tariffs and more government intervention into economic matters. Jackson's response to these economic concerns would lead to a bitter feud over states' rights and slavery. A nullification crisis would ensue, and ultimately polarize the country even further between north and south.

Congress passed The Tariff of 1828. It proved highly divisive, and was labeled by southerners as the Tariff of Abominations. It was a high protective tariff aimed to help New England merchants. It was also an attempt by Jackson to win the political support of these merchants from former President John Quincy Adams and nationalists. Many southerners objected to the inequalities created by the bill. Critics argued that while the tariffs benefited northern industries, they hurt those in the south. George McDuffie’s “40-bale theory” claimed that southern planters were robbed of 40 bales of cotton per every 100 that were sold.

In response to such concerns, South Carolina issued the Ordinance of Nullification. The doctrine declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void. Jackson responded with the Force Bill, in which Congress authorized 50,000 troops to use in order to collect the tariff in South Carolina. In 1833, the issue was addressed but not fixed. Tariffs were to be gradually reduced over the next two years, in 1833 and 1834. Jackson’s attempts at compromise would be to no avail. Tensions over states' rights would continue to grow. The loudest voice against the tariff would end up being Jackson’s former vice president, John C. Calhoun.

As tempers flared in the south over the tariff, John C. Calhoun issued a doctrine of nullification called the “Exposition and Protest.” This document essentially stated that protective tariffs were unconstitutional because they benefited one industry at the expense of another. Many people would be taxed, yet few would benefit. Calhoun’s doctrine laid out a four-point system that began with nullification and ended in secession.

This became a battle of ideologies between Jackson and Calhoun. At a dinner in 1830 celebrating Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, the two men articulated their views of the nation and where power should ultimately rest. Jackson declared “our federal union: it must be preserved.” Calhoun immediately shot back, stating “the union, next to our liberty, most dear.” Jackson believed that the people created the nation and therefore the states. Calhoun, on the other hand, saw the United States as a union of the states, not its citizens. The unification of the states created the nation. If the union was not in the best interest of a state, then that state had the right to secede from the union.

The tariff crisis was but a symptom of a larger issue: states' rights and slavery. Slaveholders believed that federal power was a direct threat to the institution of slavery. A strong central government in the hands of northerners would ultimately lead to the abolishment of slavery. This was the divisive issue of that era, and split the country along the Mason-Dixon line. The nullification crisis during the Jackson Presidency may not have caused the Civil War, but it certainly encapsulated the fundamental differences between the North and South that did.

President Obama's battle over the PPACA bears some striking similarities to resembles Jackson's: a deeply polarized country and government; state governments attempting to undermine federal governmental power; and, ultimately, a fight over the direction of the nation. Just as during the Nullification Crisis during the 17th century, both sides of the PPACA debate are articulating different views of where governmental power should reside and how our nation should be governed. This is another nullificatory crisis, with the PPACA being part of a larger push by legislators to assert the power of states to override federal law. While history may not foreshadow the ultimate result of the battle over the individual mandate, it can certainly help us put it into a broader context.

Feller, Daniel. The Jacksonian Promise: America, 1815-1840. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Takaki, Ronald. A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. US: Little Brown and Company, 1993.

Watson L., Harry. Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America. New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1990.

Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005.

 

An Evening Observation from Occupy Toledo

This evening at Occupy Toledo

When I visited Occupy Toledo this evening, I couldn't help but notice that it was loud. Really loud. The noise wasn't coming from the protesters. It was coming from a construction crew across the street. Apparently, the parking garage directly across from Occupy Toledo is undergoing a serious overhaul. Is it a coincidence that such an intense project is going on as protesters plan to sleep downtown for a second night? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful night and the protesters are going strong.