Michael Wright wrote: > The phrase "racial profiling" is both emotionally- > charged and inflammatory. I don't know exactly > what Mandel means by his attributing to me a > "position" on "racial profiling." I have never > used the phrase in this dialogue. Excuse me! There are a number of words that are emotionally-charged and SHOULD BE, such as massacre, genocide, lynching, etc. Are you arguing that "racial profiling" does not exist, and what other way would you describe a process of negative selection, i.e, discrimination, based on the color of one's skin? > > My statement which inspired objections from Mandel > was that in this country repression against dissent > has been color-blind. In opening his attack, > Mandel, for his convenience, rephrased my statement > by deleting the part about DISSENT. Later I was > accused of "white chauvinism." Now I am told > that I have a "position" on "racial profiling." You obviously do have a position and it's stated above. > > SNIP > > To pretend that whites who seriously oppose the > system enjoy some special protection based upon > race is, I believe, a grave error and arises not > from careful analysis but from knee-jerk, shallow > political correctness. I don't think Mandel or I meant to leave the impression that white activists were immune from attacks and certainly the earlier labor struggles of the century proved that. But given that history, one didn't see white workers hanging from Southern trees. Their fruit was only one color. You are desperate, for your own personal reasons, to establish some equality of victimhood between whites and blacks in the US. The question for me is why? Jeff Blankfort > > ~ Michael Wright > Norman, Oklahoma > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:22:12 EST > From: PNFPNF@AOL.COM > Subject: [sixties-l] Re: Bay Guardian, Unions > > Dear Peter, > I believe that the unions that represented the Bay Guardian workers in the > 1975-76 organizing drive, unionization, strike, and eventual union-busting by > the publisher, may have files on this; they were Newspaper Guild Local 52 > (based in San Francisco, which I know did have materials on this in its > archives) andInternational Typographical Union Local 21 (based, too, in S.F.). > Basically, a few staffers (mostly, I think, editorial rather than > production or adv. persons) began organizing in spring 1975; the paper had > won considerable money in a lawsuit settlement and moved to a new building, > but, curiously, there seemed "not enough funds" for salary or benefit > increases. Momentum grew, including workers throughout the paper's > departments. In the fall, workers confronted Brugmann with signed union > cards (I forget what percent had signed by then) and call for a union > election. Amid mumblings re being a poor little paper (and, I think, > suggestions of the "what about a company union?" sort--but I'm not sure on > this), suddenly (day after Thanksgiving, I think), Brugmann fired a bunch of > people--five, I think, including some senior staff/reporters--most (never > all, in such cases, of course) of whom were leaders in the organizing drive. > People did not go out on strike then, but went on with the unionizing drive. > There were a number of written materials went out, during this time, > including a "pro-management" piece by Burton Wolfe, very long, that I am told > is a classic in anti-labor-speak, and a pro-union reply by Jerry Sager, a > pro-union supervisor (who was, of course, fired a couple months later for his > views--and the paper then tried to fight his getting unemployment!). The > workers did get their union. Then negotiations began for a contract. > Management stalled; a federal mediator was eventually brought in; the > pro-union supervisor and a few more workers were terminated, other workers > quit in protest, but still (by this point, early spring 1976) the union did > not strike. Then, June 15, after negotiations that went on until 1 a.m., > finally the union called a strike. [Note: I say "union" but there were > basically two, one for the editorial workers (Newspaper Guild), the ITU (much > more militant) for the others; mostly, they worked together very well.] > I was covering this whole thing for Grassroots, a Berkeley leftist paper, > and my stories were picked up by other left papers up and down the coast; so, > at 1 a.m. (I was dozing), the union person phoned me to say "We have just > walked out"; this was very nice, as I had just been starting to read Tom > Wicker's (spelling?) book on the Attica riots and had got to the part where > he is having dinner or something and the governor (or whoever) phones to ask > he come to Attica. > The strike went on with great public support, but Brugmann retained a few > management staff, and hired scabs and had the backing (doubtless financial as > well as consultation from skilled strikebreakers) of the American (?name?) > Newspaper Publishers Association...and, some have said (but it is NOT my > impression) perhaps the Newspaper Guild was not entirely enthusiastic to put > too much effort into helping "alternative" workers who were seeking a > contract, with a nonprofit, that was well under Guild wage-scale. The > AFL-CIO and Central Labor Councils locally strongly backed the workers. > Cesar Chavez offered--in August, I think--to come and help in the > negotiations, but Brugmann...refused this; (the union kindly gave me, on this > story, the scoop). > There were strike benefits, but people in the arts have ambitions, and > they needed to eat and pay rent, and so some strikers drifted to other jobs. > Remember that, the way this country works, in a union election in this sort > of situation, the scabs--"replacement workers"--get to vote just as people > do. So, when "new union elections" were called, as they can be, a year after > the union had been voted in, both strikers (those still in the Bay Area) and > scabs got to vote...and the union lost. > The paper, up until 1975, had been highly respected as the underdog > fighting progressive paper it claimed to be. After 1976--in fact, once the > strikers went out--it could only survive by becoming a "freebie", a shopper > with events listings--and slowly, as the years went by, again a paper with > some news (though no longer sold but a giveaway). As I said in the post you > saw, I walked off in disgust when Brugmann spoke (though doubtless he does > think of himself as a supporter of progressive media); I am not alone in > this. > Nor is the Bay Guardian particularly unique. There were many, many > worker-management struggles--and in 1969 the strike that led to founding of > the Berkeley Tribe--on the early (and perhaps the later) Berkeley Barb, to > name one example among many. Organizing in "progressive" media, > nonprofit organizations, etc., is very difficult for many reasons, including > the workers' love of their work and desire to protect and nurture the > organization that has goals they believe in; but it is, now as in the 1970s, > 1960s, etc., quite as needed there as in the corporate world. > Paula > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:33:46 EST > From: PNFPNF@AOL.COM > Subject: [sixties-l] Re: Bay Guardian, unions > > I have sent the list, probably with insufficient introduction, my reply to a > highschool student researching this subject--a subject most relevant to what > is happening with Pacifica, what happened on underground papers in the late > 1960s, and generally the roles of nonprofits and unions and, perhaps > peripherally, of identity and labor issues/perhaps. It is really good to > know that highschool students are exploring and learning from this list, n.b. > Paula > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:49:28 -0500 > From: Marty Jezer <mjez@sover.net> > Subject: [sixties-l] After the Election > > - --=====================_35411666==_.ALT > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I don't usually publish my articles on sixties-l but this seems relevant and > perhaps > will help get us past the vote for Gore/vote for Nader argument. Note that > this was > written for a general. rather than a progressive/lefty audience. > > From the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer, 11/3/00 > > AFTER THE ELECTION > By Marty Jezer > > Tuesday promises to be a close election. On the left side of > the political spectrum, people are agonizing. Gore? Nader? What > to do? Vote your conscience. Lesser of two evils. Vote your > hopes. Bore and Gush are identical. A Republican victory would be > dangerous. > > A month ago, when Gore was ahead, a vote for Nader, at least > in states like Vermont, seemed safe and easy. It astonishes me > that Bush has made it a contest. If Gore loses, he's got no one > to blame but himself. It's not the issues that have cost him; > it's his public persona. A seeming captive to the pollsters and > image-makers who advise him, Gore comes across as an intelligent > man with a hollow core. Whether true or not, this is the public > perception, and it could cost him the election. > > A gift for fund-raising (one shared by Gore) does not make > George W. Bush presidential. A product of affirmative action for > white males with rich and influential fathers, Bush lacks the > experience, the intelligence, the knowledge, the wit, and the > character to hold our highest elected office. Hopefully, he > understands his limitations and will surround himself with his > Daddy's old advisors. This won't happen with Congress. It's good- > bye "compassionate conservatism" when the likes of Trent Lott, > Tom Delay, and Dick Armey take power. > > In areas of foreign policy and global economics, there is > little difference between Bush and Gore. Indicative of their > support for an imperialistic foreign policy, both believe that > the loony-tune invasion of Grenada was a justified military > action. Both are also obsessed with Fidel Castro. The major > trouble spot outside of the Middle East is Colombia where Clinton > and Gore are already sending money, weapons, and advisors. With > Colombia's oil-rich neighbor, Venezuela, cozying up to Castro's > Cuba, there is potential for further American aggression no > matter who is commander-in-chief in the White House. > > Gore and Bush also share common ground in supporting > corporate control of the national and global economy. This is the > issue of the future, around which a progressive movement is > likely to grow. Free trade, it should be said, is not the > problem. Trade should be encouraged; it creates wealth and breaks > down national barriers. What's crucial is who makes the rules. > Worker rights and environmental protections have to take > precedence over corporate profits. Gore, Bush and their > respective parties are beholden to corporate money and lack the > political autonomy to challenge corporate priorities. > > That's where campaign finance reform comes in, full public > funding. There's no hope for reform in a Bush administration. > John McCain aside, the Republican idea of campaign reform is to > prohibit labor unions from making contributions. Gore has > promised reform, and even endorsed full public financing; but > Clinton made similar noises and then did nothing. Full public > financing (the Clean Money Reform) won't happen until Congress > feels the heat of public pressure. As a consumer advocate, Nader > did not lead on this issue. I hope he will after the election. > > A vote for Nader is a direct challenge to corporate > dominance. But it's also a symbolic one. Nader has no political > leverage as a political candidate. He will have leverage after > the election leading an anti-corporate movement. It would be > great if Nader got 5% of the vote and enabled the Greens to > become eligible for some public money in the next election. But > the money is paltry; the goal not essential. More important than > Tuesday is the leadership Nader provides when the election is > over. > > A leader of a new movement must be willing to talk straight > to the public, even if he has to tell his most enthusiastic > supporters truths they don't want to hear. Nader has been a > disappointment in this regard. His argument that there are few > differences between Bush and Gore holds water only if one is > looking at the election from a revolutionary perspective. And > Nader's no revolutionary; he's more a progressive Democrat whose > issues have been abandoned by his party. > > On specific issues like taxation, social security, > environmental protection, health care, human rights, and > education, there are important differences between Bush and Gore. > Even on issues of corporate dominance, Gore's support (however > compromised) for the public sector creates possibilities (from > regulations to tax credits) to pressure and encourage > corporations to adopt clean technologies. Under Bush's plan for > free market regulation, corporations have no incentive to risk > investments in green technology. The crisis of global warning > cannot wait for ideal solutions. Gore understands this; Bush > doesn't. > > The Supreme Court is another issue where Nader has been > disingenuous. Citing Warren and Brennan as great Republican > Justices is sophistry. They lived in a different era, when > racists and reactionaries were Democrats. Abortion is not the > only issue where the Supreme Court is a factor. Challenges to > Buckley v. Valeo, the horrible court decision which equates free > speech and money, are making their way to the Supreme Court. > Overturning Buckley would make it easier to get special interest > money out of politics. Bush is in debt to the right-wing and one > likely pay-off is his Supreme Court nominations. > > But, if you're like me, you've heard these arguments -- and > are still agonizing. Come Tuesday, in the privacy of the voting > booth, we'll all vote our consciences. Some of us will vote > strategically. If our state is safe for -- or lost to -- Gore, > we'll vote for Nader. Others of us will vote for Gore to stop > Bush and assure a better future. > > Either way, what counts is what happens after the election is over. We can't > give up on issues of importance. Whether it's President Gore or Bush or the > Congress > is Republican or Democrat, there will be work to be done. Once > the passions and arguments of this election are exhausted, those > of us who want peace, fairness, equality, and economic justice > will have to get over this election and start working together. > > - -30- > > Copyright (c) 2000 by Marty Jezer > > Marty Jezer * 22 Prospect Street * Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 * website: > <http://www.sover.net/~mjez > Subscribe to my Friday commentary (it's free), just send me your e-mail address > by reply > - --=====================_35411666==_.ALT > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" > > <html><div>I don't usually publish my articles on sixties-l but this > seems relevant and perhaps </div> > <div>will help get us past the vote for Gore/vote for Nader > argument. Note that this was</div> > <div>written for a general. rather than a progressive/lefty audience. > </div> > <br> > <div> From the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer, 11/3/00</div> > <br> > <div>AFTER THE ELECTION</div> > <div>By Marty Jezer</div> > <br> > <div> Tuesday promises to be a close election. On > the left side of</div> > <div>the political spectrum, people are agonizing. Gore? Nader? > What</div> > <div>to do? Vote your conscience. Lesser of two evils. Vote your</div> > <div>hopes. Bore and Gush are identical. A Republican victory would > be</div> > <div>dangerous. </div> > <br> > <div> A month ago, when Gore was ahead, a vote > for Nader, at least</div> > <div>in states like Vermont, seemed safe and easy. It astonishes > me</div> > <div>that Bush has made it a contest. If Gore loses, he's got no > one</div> > <div>to blame but himself. It's not the issues that have cost > him;</div> > <div>it's his public persona. A seeming captive to the pollsters > and</div> > <div>image-makers who advise him, Gore comes across as an > intelligent</div> > <div>man with a hollow core. Whether true or not, this is the > public</div> > <div>perception, and it could cost him the election. </div> > <br> > <div> A gift for fund-raising (one shared by > Gore) does not make</div> > <div>George W. Bush presidential. A product of affirmative action > for</div> > <div>white males with rich and influential fathers, Bush lacks > the</div> > <div>experience, the intelligence, the knowledge, the wit, and > the</div> > <div>character to hold our highest elected office. Hopefully, he</div> > <div>understands his limitations and will surround himself with > his</div> > <div>Daddy's old advisors. This won't happen with Congress. It's > good-</div> > <div>bye "compassionate conservatism" when the likes of Trent > Lott,</div> > <div>Tom Delay, and Dick Armey take power. </div> > <br> > <div> In areas of foreign policy and global > economics, there is</div> > <div>little difference between Bush and Gore. Indicative of their</div> > <div>support for an imperialistic foreign policy, both believe > that</div> > <div>the loony-tune invasion of Grenada was a justified military</div> > <div>action. Both are also obsessed with Fidel Castro. The major</div> > <div>trouble spot outside of the Middle East is Colombia where > Clinton</div> > <div>and Gore are already sending money, weapons, and advisors. > With</div> > <div>Colombia's oil-rich neighbor, Venezuela, cozying up to > Castro's</div> > <div>Cuba, there is potential for further American aggression no</div> > <div>matter who is commander-in-chief in the White House. </div> > <div> </div> > <div> Gore and Bush also share common ground in > supporting</div> > <div>corporate control of the national and global economy. This is > the</div> > <div>issue of the future, around which a progressive movement is</div> > <div>likely to grow. Free trade, it should be said, is not the</div> > <div>problem. Trade should be encouraged; it creates wealth and > breaks</div> > <div>down national barriers. What's crucial is who makes the > rules.</div> > <div>Worker rights and environmental protections have to take</div> > <div>precedence over corporate profits. Gore, Bush and their</div> > <div>respective parties are beholden to corporate money and lack > the</div> > <div>political autonomy to challenge corporate priorities. </div> > <br> > <div> That's where campaign finance reform comes > in, full public</div> > <div>funding. There's no hope for reform in a Bush > administration.</div> > <div>John McCain aside, the Republican idea of campaign reform is > to</div> > <div>prohibit labor unions from making contributions. Gore has</div> > <div>promised reform, and even endorsed full public financing; > but</div> > <div>Clinton made similar noises and then did nothing. Full > public</div> > <div>financing (the Clean Money Reform) won't happen until > Congress</div> > <div>feels the heat of public pressure. As a consumer advocate, > Nader</div> > <div>did not lead on this issue. I hope he will after the election. > </div> > <br> > <div> A vote for Nader is a direct > challenge to corporate</div> > <div>dominance. But it's also a symbolic one. Nader has no > political</div> > <div>leverage as a political candidate. He will have leverage > after</div> > <div>the election leading an anti-corporate movement. It would be</div> > <div>great if Nader got 5% of the vote and enabled the Greens to</div> > <div>become eligible for some public money in the next election. > But</div> > <div>the money is paltry; the goal not essential. More important > than</div> > <div>Tuesday is the leadership Nader provides when the election > is</div> > <div>over. </div> > <br> > <div> A leader of a new movement must be willing > to talk straight</div> > <div>to the public, even if he has to tell his most enthusiastic</div> > <div>supporters truths they don't want to hear. Nader has been a</div> > <div>disappointment in this regard. His argument that there are > few</div> > <div>differences between Bush and Gore holds water only if one is</div> > <div>looking at the election from a revolutionary perspective. > And</div> > <div>Nader's no revolutionary; he's more a progressive Democrat > whose</div> > <div>issues have been abandoned by his party. </div> > <br> > <div> On specific issues like taxation, social > security,</div> > <div>environmental protection, health care, human rights, and</div> > <div>education, there are important differences between Bush and > Gore.</div> > <div>Even on issues of corporate dominance, Gore's support > (however</div> > <div>compromised) for the public sector creates possibilities > (from</div> > <div>regulations to tax credits) to pressure and encourage</div> > <div>corporations to adopt clean technologies. Under Bush's plan > for</div> > <div>free market regulation, corporations have no incentive to > risk</div> > <div>investments in green technology. The crisis of global > warning</div> > <div>cannot wait for ideal solutions. Gore understands this; Bush</div> > <div>doesn't. </div> > <br> > <div> The Supreme Court is another issue where > Nader has been</div> > <div>disingenuous. Citing Warren and Brennan as great Republican</div> > <div>Justices is sophistry. They lived in a different era, when</div> > <div>racists and reactionaries were Democrats. Abortion is not > the</div> > <div>only issue where the Supreme Court is a factor. Challenges to > </div> > <div>Buckley v. Valeo, the horrible court decision which equates > free</div> > <div>speech and money, are making their way to the Supreme Court.</div> > <div>Overturning Buckley would make it easier to get special > interest</div> > <div>money out of politics. Bush is in debt to the right-wing and > one</div> > <div>likely pay-off is his Supreme Court nominations. </div> > <br> > <div> But, if you're like me, you've heard these > arguments -- and</div> > <div>are still agonizing. Come Tuesday, in the privacy of the > voting</div> > <div>booth, we'll all vote our consciences. Some of us will vote</div> > <div>strategically. If our state is safe for -- or lost to -- > Gore,</div> > <div>we'll vote for Nader. Others of us will vote for Gore to > stop</div> > <div>Bush and assure a better future. </div> > <br> > <div>Either way, what counts is what happens after the election is over. > We can't give up on issues of importance. Whether it's President Gore or > Bush or the Congress</div> > <div>is Republican or Democrat, there will be work to be done. > Once</div> > <div>the passions and arguments of this election are exhausted, > those</div> > <div>of us who want peace, fairness, equality, and economic > justice</div> > <div>will have to get over this election and start working together. > </div> > <br> > <div>-30-</div> > <br> > <br> > <div>Copyright (c) 2000 by Marty Jezer </div> > <br> > <br> > > <div align="center"> > Marty Jezer * 22 Prospect Street * Brattleboro, Vermont 05301 * > website: > <<a href="http://www.sover.net/~mjez" eudora="autourl">http://www.sover.net/~mjez><br> > Subscribe to my Friday commentary (it's free), just send me your e-mail > address by reply</html> > > - --=====================_35411666==_.ALT-- > > ------------------------------ > > End of sixties-l-digest V1 #385 > *******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/08/00 EST