Author: Kahli

We all know what happened five years ago.  The events are seared in our minds. The horror.  The violence. The rage. The pain.

Ironically, far fewer of us know what happened 100 years ago on September 11.  On that day, Mahatma Gandhi began his first campaign of non-violent resistance.
Born in India, Gandhi moved to South Africa after studying law in Britain. He and other Indians living there were subject to demeaning and discriminatory laws. In a Rosa Parks like moment, Gandhi was removed from the first class compartment of a train because he was a person of color.  His reaction, rather than agression or retreat, was non-violent resistance to South Africa’s discriminatory laws.

Though it took years, Gandhi’s leadership contributed to the repeal of some of the most egregious of these laws, and, of course, after his return to India, to the independence of India from Britain.

Gandhi’s movement was known as Satyagraha, roughly translated as “truth force” or “soul force.”

The principles of Stayagraha can be distilled into the following principles:

Means determine ends: we can never use destructive means like violence to bring about constructive ends like democracy and peace.

Evil is the enemy, not the person committing it.  In Christian terms, ‘hate the sin, but not the sinner.’  The clearest sign that ‘truth power’ is at work is when your opponent ends up becoming your ally, even your friend.  Indeed, activists often discover that the more they can bring themselves to accept the person opposing them, the more effectively they can reach common ground.

Our actions have far more consequence than the immediate, visible results.  In fact, it is perfectly possible that our efforts may ‘fail’ to deliver the immediate result we want but succeed in doing more than we may have dreamed of.

Gandhi considered violent resistance against a well-armed opponent to be futile.  Moreover, he realized that the hatred and enmity such actions would elicit would make ultimate reconciliation virtually impossible.

Needless to say, Gandhi’s philosophy and actions caused a great deal of consternation.

This emphasis on nonviolence jarred alike on Gandhi’s British and Indian critics, though for different reasons. To the former, nonviolence was a camouflage; to the latter, it was sheer sentimentalism. To the British who tended to see the Indian struggle through the prism of European history, the professions of nonviolence rather than on the remarkably peaceful nature of Gandhi’s campaigns. To the radical Indian politicians, who had browsed on the history of the French and Russian revolutions or the Italian and Irish nationalist struggles, it was patent that force would only yield to force, and that it was foolish to miss opportunities and sacrifice tactical gains for reasons more relevant to ethics than to politics.
 

Yet we know what Gandhi was able to accomplish despite the naysayers.  We know what such great leaders as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were able to accomplish by adhering to Gandhi’s basic principles.

So as we remember the horror of one anniversary, let us be inspired by the other.

I leave you with some words of wisdom from this great man.

I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

It is unwise to be too sure of one’s own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.

Namaste.

Happy Labor day to all you working slobs and slobesses!

Today marks the kick off of the BT community tribute to labor.  Inspired by Man Eegee’s leadership on the exploration of U.N. underreported stories, several Bootribbers have committed to writing a series of diaries about labor history.  Over the next several days, you’ll read stories about heroes and heroines, about bravery and derring-do, about inspiration and empowerment, and about tenacity and solidarity. Sadly, you’ll also read about corruption and violence.   Today will be a bit more prosaic – a brief look at the most significant laws governing labor in the United States.
First off, let me say that I am not a lawyer – nor have I played on TV, but I will attempt to lay out the basics as best I can.

Hold on to your hats – here we go.

The abuse of workers started early on in this country with slavery and indentured servitude.  It took a civil war to end slavery and the legal basis for indentured servitude was not repealed until 1910!  An antipathy for labor collectivism, grounded in British common law, held that unions represented a conspiracy that was a threat to the public good.

Some progress for workers occurred in the 19th century: Federal workers were granted a 10 hour day and the Department of Labor was formed – although it did not gain cabinet level status until 1913. Well into the early part of the twentieth century, strikes were illegal and labor leaders could be indicted for any damage or violence committed by any individual during an organized action.

The relationship between management and workers is governed by a web of federal and state laws, regulations and decisions by administrative agencies. Nonetheless, it is helpful to understand the most significant federal statutes of the last century as they often serve as basis from which the rest spring.

1932 The Norris-LaGuardia Act

Until the passage of this act, industry was able to procure legal injunctions against strikes, boycotts and picketing on the basis that these actions were criminal conspiracies.  After Norris-LaGuardia, injunctions were permitted only in a few cases, such as in the face of violent action.  The act also prohibited management from requiring new hires to sign pledges that they would not join a union – so-called “yellow dog” contracts.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act essentially concluded that the Federal Government was neutral in the relationship between employer and employee and that market forces would work things out if left to their own devices.

1935 The National Labor Relations Act (The Wagner Act)

Following a period of poverty and turmoil resulting from the Great Depression, labor made great strides with the passage of the Wagner Act.  This act explicitly affirmed the rights of workers to form labor organizations and to engage in collective bargaining.

The Wagner Act also established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) whose members are charged with enforcing the provisions of the act.  These members are appointed by the President with consent of the Senate, and serve for a period of 5 years.  NLRB members can thus be expected to reflect the biases of those who appointed them.   The NLRB has the authority to oversee Union certification votes.  It investigates and rules on complaints of unfair labor practices.  It determines the make-up of individual bargaining units.

The Wagner Act also set the definition of what constitutes an employee, exempting certain workers such as domestic servants, agricultural workers, and individuals employed by a parent or spouse.

1935 SocialSecurity Act

With regard to workers, this act established a federal basis for unemployment insurance.

1938 The Fair Labor Standard Act (The Wages and Hours Act)

The Wages and Hours Act established minimum standards for workers who engage, directly or indirectly, in interstate commerce.  It provided for a minimum wage, regulated overtime compensation and banned the use of child labor.  This act has been amended numerous times, redefining classes of workers, setting new parameters for overtime, and, of course, raising the minimum wage.

1947 The Labor Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley Act)

The 1930s brought a number of protections to workers.  The Taft-Hartley act sought to undo many of them.  This act was vetoed by  President Harry Truman who declared it to be a “slave-labor bill.”

Taft Hartley made closed shops illegal, required formal regulated certification elections, and forbade both jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts. Employers were exempted from the requirement of engaging in collective bargaining. Communists were barred from union leadership.  The bill also forbade unions from contributing to political campaigns (a provision later overturned by federal courts).

I found a particularly succinct and cogent analysis of the devastating effects of Taft-Hartley.  It was, however, written by none other than Ralph Nader – one of BT’s most “beloved” politicians.

The Taft Hartley Act makes it extremely difficult for employees to organize unions and should be repealed. Among the key provisions of Taft-Hartley:

– Authorized states to enact so-called right-to-work laws. These laws undermine the ability to build effective unions by creating a free-rider problem–workers can enjoy the benefits of union membership in a workplace without actually joining the union or paying union dues. Right-to-work laws increase employer leverage to resist unions by enabling them to benefit from free riders. Vastly decreased union membership follows, dramatically diminishing the unions bargaining power.

-Outlaws the closed shop which required that persons join the union before being eligible for employment with the unionized employer. (Still permitted are provisions that require any member of a bargaining unit to pay a portion of dues to that union.)

-Defined “employee” for purposes of the act as excluding supervisors and independent contractors. This diminished the pool of workers eligible to be unionized. The exclusion of supervisors from union organizing activity meant they would be used as management’s “frontline” in anti-organizing efforts.

-Permitted employers to petition for a union certification election, thus undermining the ability of workers and unions to control the timing of an election during the sensitive organizing stage, forcing an election before the union is ready.

-Required that election hearings on matters of dispute be held before a union recognition election, thus delaying the election. Delay generally benefits management, giving the employer time to coerce workers.

-Established the “right” of management to campaign against a union organizing drive, thereby scuttling the principle of employer neutrality.

-Prohibited secondary boycotts–boycotts directed to encourage neutral employers to pressure the employer with which the union has a dispute. Secondary boycotts had been one of organized labor’s most potent tools for organizing, negotiating, and dispute settlement.

1959 The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (Landrum-Griffin Act)

This Act was passed in reaction to collusion between certain unethical employers and labor leaders, violence among certain segments of unions and the misuse and diversion of union funds.  It imposes regulations on the internal workings of unions and requires the filing of regular financial reports.  Felons and communists are prohibited from becoming union officers for 5 years following their release or renunciation of party membership.  Unfortunately, unscrupulous behavior on the part of some labor leaders, led the government to create a bill that protected workers from such behavior, but also strengthened many of the anti-labor provisions of the Taft Hartley Act.

The Late Twentieth Century

The 1960s saw the pendulum swing back in favor of workers with the passage of a number of significant pieces of legislation.  The 1962 Work Hours Act legislated time-and-a-half pay for over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination based on race, sex or religion.  1967 saw the passage of the the Age Discrimination Act.

The trend continued into the 1970s. OSHA was created by statute in 1970 and in 1974 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act became law, “ensuring” that workers pensions were protected.

In the 1980s there was again some blowback from the management side.  A number of laws and legal decisions curtailed the power of labor and its unions.  Cutbacks in federal agencies limited the enforcement of existing labor law.  A bit of relief came in the 1990s when the Supreme Court halted two common practices of the previous decade: management replacement of union workers with non-union ones and the use of bankruptcy laws to avoid paying pensions.  (Egregious corporate abuse of pensions continues to this day and is worthy of another whole series of diaries.)

The 21st Century

Some of the most draconian laws to effect labor in the last hundred years have come under the guise of the “war on terror.” Both of  The Patriot Acts are a serious threat to labor organizing.  Unduly vague definitions of “domestic terrorism” put any person participating in any sort of labor action in serious legal jeopardy and labor leaders are placed in an even more severe predicament – they can be held liable for any violence or damage that occurs.  If a police officer were to kill someone in the course of a labor action, the union officers could be arrested for the death since they organized the activity. Needless to say, immigrant labor leaders are the most at risk of all.

We seem to have come full circle.  The gains of the last hundred years have not been entirely abolished, but this current administration’s intention to quell all dissent has potentially catastrophic implications for the labor movement.  

There has been serious opposition to Labor in the past, and, as the coming diaries will show, courageous men and women made great sacrifices to keep the rights of workers from being totally obliterated.

Enjoy your barbeques and your softball. I’m off to work shortly, but I’ll check back later in the day to see what you all think.

In solidarity.

Inspired by the words of these titans of the labor movement in America and inspired by the success of Man Eegee’s United Nations project, I proposed a few weeks ago that we, as a community, delve in to the rich, but unheralded history of the labor movement and its leaders. I further proposed that we use this series of diaries to look at the current plight of workers in America.

Promoted by Steven D. I’m looking forward to this series of diaries.
Fortunately, several stalwart BTers accepted the proposal.  Be sure to look for these diaries over the coming days.

9/4 Taft Hartley, Wagner Act, etc. – Kahli
9/5 Labor Arts – Man Eegee
9/6 Joe Hill, IWW,personal union experience –     Shirlstars
9/7 Al Shankar and Teachers – Teacher Toni
9/8 The Haymarket Tragedy -Supersoling
9/9 Triangle Fire and Sweatshops – Libary Lil
9/10 Mother Jones – Omir the Storyteller
9/11 Cesar Chavez – Alice

Thanks to all who agreed to participate.

And now, I’m off to work.

Thanks to all who have expressed interest in exploring labor history as part of a BT Tribute to Labor Day: Working:Together

I’ve set up a tentative schedule based on your comments.  There are some “unclaimed” stories left which I encourage someone to take on.  Also, if there is another, unlisted, person or aspect of labor history you would like to write about, sign up below!

To those of you who have volunteered, let me know if this schedule works for you — we can always adjust things.

Promoted by Steven D

9/4 Taft Hartley, Wagner Act, etc. – Kahli
9/5 Labor Arts – Man Eegee
9/6 Joe Hill, IWW,personal union experience –     Shirlstars
9/7 Al Shankar and Teachers – Teacher Toni
9/8 The Haymarket Tragedy -Supersoling
9/9 Triangle Fire and Sweatshops – Libary Lil
9/10 Mother Jones – Omir the Storyteller
9/11 Cesar Chavez – Alice

Still to be claimed: Lucy Parsons, Mother Jones, John L. Lewis, Dolores Heurta.

Solidarity, y’all.

Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living! – Mother Jones

There is no such thing as defeat in non-violence. – Cesar Chavez

I have pleaded your case from the pulpit and from the public platform–not in the quavering tones of a feeble mendicant asking alms, but in the thundering voice of the captain of a mighty host, demanding the rights to which free men are entitled – John L. Lewis

Inspired by the words of these titans of the labor movement in America and inspired by the success of Man Eegee’s United Nations project, I propose that we, as a community, delve in to the rich, but unheralded history of the labor movement and its leaders.
I further propose that we use this series of diaries to look at the current plight of workers in America.
I know that even among progressives, there is often an “ick” factor when it comes to talking about unions. They are big bureaucracies filled with flawed and sometimes corrupt people.  In the media and in most history classes, if labor is mentioned at all, the emphasis is on this corruption, or on the inefficacy of the unions, or of labors’ “pinko” tendencies.  We miss out on the color, the courage and the tenacity of the unionists who risked so much and achieved so much for working men and women.

Unions, organized labor, workers are still under attack – and always will be. We need to learn from labor’s past so we can emulate success and avoid pitfalls.

Starting on September 2, I would like to roll out a series of diaries to celebrate the heritage of workers in this country. If there is sufficient enthusiasm for this project, it can be followed up with a series of diaries on the issues facing workers around the world.

As a starting point, I would encourage anyone interested in participating to visit this site for an overview of labor history and a slew of references.

Here are the specific diaries I propose for this project:

The Haymarket Tragedy and the Eight Hour Day

Lucy Parsons and the Contributions of African Americans to the Labor Movement.

The The Triangle Fire and the Bread and Roses Strike and Sweatshop Workers.

The Pinkerton Agency and Union Busting Tactics

Mary Harris (Mother) Jones and Child Labor.

John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers and CIO

Cesar Chavez and Farm Workers

Taft Hartley, Wagner Act, Right to Work – the evolution of labor law.

Labor Art and Music – Sustaining the Community.

I hope you find a diary topic that interests you and that you will help expand the knowledge base of this community about workers’ issues and workers’ rights.

Sign up for the topic of your choice in the comments section below.

[Note]: This diary is the next installment of 10 Stories the World Should Hear More About as identified by the United Nations for 2006, a Booman Tribune Group Project suggested and coordinated by ManEegee.

They are far from the media spotlight – in Asia, in Europe, in Africa.

They have been there for years – perhaps decades.  

There are millions of them.

“They” are people who have been displaced from their homes due to armed violence, coups, ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, wars.

They suffer as a result of their ethnicity, politics, religion, language or culture.

They are often called refugees, but given the vagaries of national and international laws and political intentions they are sometimes called internally displaced persons (IDPs), asylum seekers, or simply illegal immigrants.  The way they are defined drastically impacts what   protections and services are, at least theoretically, available to them.
The United Nations High Commission on Refugees ( UNHCR) describes 33 so-called protracted refugee situations, which they define as groups of 25,000 people or more who have been in exile longer than five years.  This definition eliminates groups such as the 21,000 Rohingya who fled Myanmar (Burma) to Bangladesh over a decade ago.  It also excludes the oldest and largest refugee situation – the Palestinians -which is handled through a different bureaucratic entity: The United Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. ( UNRWA ). The UN categorizes more than half of the world’s 9.2 million refugees as “protracted” and estimates that the average length of refugee situations is 17 years.

International law pertaining to refugees derives from a number of sources: The 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 , the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and subsequent protocols.  The specific situation of refugees in Africa was also addressed at the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention. These repeated iterations of policy reveal the intractability of the problem and the elusiveness of a solution.

A refugee is defined as a person who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” Since 1951, this definition has been broadened-in both official and informal ways. Notably, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), extended the definition to include people fleeing in small groups or en masse from a collective danger, such as insecurity or war, rather than treating each individual on a case-by-case basis.

An Internally Displaced Person, a legal and bureaucratically distinct entity, is defined as person who has also fled his or her home because of conflict but has not crossed an international border. He or she remains under the jurisdiction of national authorities and thus is not a refugee. IDPs do not benefit from any specific protection under international law.

People fleeing from armed conflict are provided special protections under other portions of the Geneva Convention if they cross international boundaries. Here, too, people fleeing for their lives too often get caught up in legal and semantic hell.  If for instance, the situation from which people are fleeing is not considered a war, neighboring countries have no obligation to accept the refugees.   So if a conflict is considered, say, an “anti-terrorism” operation, the refugees can be turned back at the border, causing them to be IDPs and forcing them back into the horrific situation from which they were fleeing in the first place.

Humanitarian groups such as Doctors Without Borders are, at times, at loggerheads with UNHCR.  UNHCR’s role is complicated, ironically enough, by considerations the United Nations must make with regard to its peacekeeping activities – which make them less inclined to declare a situation a “war.” Still, UNHCR has over 6,000 staff members working to assist millions of refugees worldwide.

Under international law, refugees have three options available to them: voluntary repatriation, integration into the host country, and resettlement into a third country. In reality, their options are limited.  

Forced repatriation, though illegal, occurs regularly. Third countries are not often enthused about receiving large numbers of immigrants.  Integration in to the host country presents myriad cultural and socio-economic problems.
Refugee camps are often attacked by local armies or militia, causing people to flee from one camp to another.  Large food shipments are at times hijacked.  Malnutrition, illness, and lack of sanitation are common problems. Situations can become so dangerous that humanitarian organizations are forced to abandon the refugees.

The day to day realities for protracted refugees vary from difficult to horrendous depending on where they are.  Russian-speaking ethnic Armenians,who fled Azerbaijan, are generally safe, but face incredible difficulties finding jobs and in integrating socially in Armenia.  Refugees in Bangladesh are confined to camps and fear forced repatriation to Myanmar.  Refugees in parts of Africa are subject to violence and malnutrition, facing a daily choice between staying in the camps and risking attack while waiting for food aid to arrive or traveling on foot through insecure territory.  

The scope and complexity of this problem are more than dozens of diaries can cover. The extent of the human misery is more than the imagination is willing to absorb or than the human heart can bear. Millions upon millions of souls – the young, the frail and the elderly – live lives of fear, of danger, of deprivation. Out of the spotlight — and out of our awareness.

The humanitarian groups and bureaucratic entities that provide assistance cannot begin to ameliorate the situation as long as nations use the refugees as political pawns and as long as the rest of us – through ignorance or apathy – fail to demand better for our fellow man.

The Doctors Without Borders website is a wealth of information about the various refugee calamities our fellow humans are currently enduring, and also provides information on how to donate to relief efforts.

George Lakhoff introduced us to the power of framing. Booman and Scribe and others wrote compellingly about the power of stories.  Framing and stories work in ways and with intensity that most of us never realize — much to our detriment.

On the heels of these discussions, and in one of those rare instances of cosmic synergy, I’ve recently come upon three different and wonderful books about stories of power and the power of stories.
Craig S. Barnes in “In Search of the Lost Feminine” argues that the western stories of patriarchy and war have circumscribed our thinking and action for millennia.  In a book that is part art history and part political science, Barnes looks at the Minoan culture.  The Minoans, despite being Islanders, were not isolated – they traded far and wide across the Mediterranean. Yet, the Minoans seem to have existed for more than a thousand years without war!  Since they had no written language and since much of the physical culture was buried or destroyed in a calamitous earthquake/tidal wave, it is only recently that archeological finds have allowed a significant body of scholarship on Minoans to be developed.

Like a detective sifting through clues, Barnes tries not to project a twenty-first century perspective on the evidence.  Were the Minoans a matriarchy? Did they worship goddesses?  Barnes maintains that it is impossible to know.  What is known is that neither war nor violence against women is portrayed in their art and artifacts.

Greek culture with its hero/war worship evolved just as the Minoan culture waned.  Also at the same time, the books of the Old Testament were being written.  The Greek and Judeo cultures eclipsed those of the peaceful Minoans and left us with an unexamined legacy of patriarchy and veneration of war and its heroes.  These stories are seldom questioned – they have become the essence of western culture and have defined western behavior.

Although scholarly, this book is a fascinating, accessible read.

The next book I encountered was Margaret Atwood’s retelling of parts of the Odyssey, “The Penelopiad.” This book questions the heroic nature of Odeseus and skewers many of the misogynistic underpinnings of his story in relationship to his wife Penelope.

The story is lightly, yet subversively, told. Penelope’s raped/hanged maids serve as a humorous, horrifying chorus.

The final book exploring the stories which have become the bedrock of our culture is “Proverbs of Ashes” by Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker.

These two feminist ministers challenged the core beliefs I had unquestioningly assimilated during my strict Catholic upbringing. Through their own life stories and their own intellectual studies, these women bravely take on the issue of what substitutionary redemption really means to our western societies.  They argue that Christ’s life is far more important than his death.  They ask what sort of loving God would want people to inflict violence in his name.  Moreover, they challenge the idea that same loving God is pleased when we accept violence against us as a cross we must bear.  Their moving, compelling stories and their courageous confrontation of their most cherished beliefs make this a powerful, touching book.

Completely unplanned, I came across the three examinations of the most unquestioned, universally assimilated tenets of Western society: Greek rationalism, the Old Testament, and the passion of Christ.

Together they delve into why our responses to violence are so conditioned that most of us never question them.

If we are to create a more progressive and peaceful world, we must start challenging our blind acceptance of the stories we have been told and we must create compelling stories of the world we envision. We must embrace the power of stories and challenge the stories of power.

These thoughts and these books have been on my mind lately and I wanted to share them with you.  This seems like a perfect time, since Booman has pointed out that we need to help support this sight financially.  All three of these books are available through Powell’s.  Click on the site from the BT front page.  Challenge your preconceptions. Support the wonderful authors, but most importantly help subsidize Booman Tribune.   You’ll be glad you did.

Here we go again.  I received the following call to action from AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) and I would urge you to participate and encourage others to do so.

As we have all seen, the corporate influence on the media has contributed in a major way to the downward slide of our democracy on many levels. Most mainstream media outlets are owned by a handful of corporations who control content and, increasingly, limit workers ability to organize or negotiate reasonable contracts.

So what the heck am I talking about?  The AFTRA message states it more concisely than I can.

In 2003, the Federal Communications Commission attempted a sweeping re-write of regulations governing media ownership, which, had it prevailed, would have resulted in alarming consolidation of media ownership. The 2003 review of media ownership rules occurred with no advance notice of what the Commission’s intention was, and little opportunity for public comment.

In spite of the FCC’s attempt to push through an agenda of “increased media consolidation”, the public outcry was overwhelming. Americans sent millions of messages to the FCC, demanding sensible media ownership guidelines.

But the FCC didn’t listen.

When the FCC tried to issue rules that would effectively eliminate any meaningful media ownership rules, Congress and the courts intervened. The 2003 consolidation juggernaut was stopped briefly, but now, the FCC is once again preparing to gut its ownership regulations.

On June 21, the FCC commissioners will vote to establish a procedure for a review of media ownership regulations. Contact the FCC and let them know that the public needs to be heard before any new ownership rules are enacted.

Don’t let the FCC push through a re-write of regulations governing media ownership without ample opportunity for public scrutiny and comment.
You can contact the FCC commissioners here. It only takes a minute.

Bless me, Goddess, for I have sinned.

I must confess that when the Armando outing happened, my dark side took a brief, self-righteous moment to revel in the delicious irony of it all.

“Hah!” the evil one thought. “Take that patriarchal Kossian power structure!” It was indeed ironic to watch the passion the outing inspired. Those who were willing to toss other people’s rights on the ash heap of political expediency were OUTRAGED when their rights were abrogated. It was ironic. (Never mind that forced birth and voluntary blogging are not exactly equivalent.) But it was not cause for celebration.
Then, of course, there was the blatant elitism that raised its ugly head and fed the evil genie inside me.  Armando is an ATTORNEY! He had important work to do. He’s been professionally castrated – or words to that effect.  Of course, any poor slob who has tried, under the radar, to organize a Wal-Mart, or even a Whole Foods, knows about professional castration and outing. Then, of course, there are those lowly entertainers, like the Dixie Chicks, who suffered abuse and professional loss due to their speaking their minds in public.

Actually, I kind of hope Armando becomes the Natalie Maynes of attorneys and that after whatever set backs he suffers, he comes roaring back to some great success. But I’m not ready to give him some special place in the pantheon of social activism because he is an attorney.

So there it is; the dark side of Kahli revealed.

Fortunately, another voice started making itself heard in my thoughts.  This voice asked how I could take any pleasure in deliberately-inflicted suffering.

What, I thought, if this could become a moment when we “progressives” could actually develop empathy for one another? What if this incident made us really feel, not just “know” that an injury to one is an injury to all? What if we could agree that, despite our differing priorities, no one’s rights are negotiable?  What power we would have if feminists stood up for immigrants, and immigrants struggled side-by-side with gays. What power we would have if gays fought tooth and nail for laborers, and laborers protected internet activists. And if they in turn fought for people of color, and so on and so on. Is it even within the realm of possibility that this ugly incident could bind us together and help us grow in strength?

What if we ALL resist when ANYONE’S rights are threatened?

Which brings me to the second question in the title of this diary, “What cost?”

If we are serious about social change we must acknowledge that there will be a cost.  To deny this is magical thinking.

Each of us must take serious stock of what we are willing to sacrifice.

Activists throughout history have been injured, fired, slandered, jailed, or killed. There have been people of undaunted courage who have sacrificed much to the benefit of the rest of us.

Most of us have no desire to become martyrs.  I know that I don’t. But we have to realize that those with entrenched power and privilege are unlikely to give any of it away without a struggle.

What is each of us willing to do? Are willing to risk embarrassment or ridicule? Are we willing to go to jail? Are we willing to leave our comfort zone? Donate time? Money? Are we willing to lose our jobs or professional standing? These are questions that we must each ask, and the answers will be different for each of us depending on our responsibilities and our resources – emotional and financial.

Whose rights?  All of ours.

What cost? At great cost – and we must all contribute.

Kahli = Fran Martone

It’s come to this.

You’d think that when a major corporation is exposed as using suppliers who engage in human trafficking, they might be prepared for a major outcry. You’d think that they’d hear from an outraged public.  You’d think that their PR apparatus would be in full swing.  Guess not.
The NYT published an article today entitled An Ugly Side of Free Trade: Sweatshops in Jordan  by STEVEN GREENHOUSE and MICHAEL BARBARO. The described treatment of workers was beyond outrageous.

The article listed several companies that do business with these suppliers.  Wal-Mart – no surprise there.  I don’t ever shop at smiley-face place.  Target. Ooops. Well I couldn’t let that pass.  So I went to their website and searched around until I found the Contact Us form and asked them to use their purchasing power to force their suppliers to stop the abuse.

Also listed was Jones Apparel.  When I’m feeling flush I have been known to buy their products as well.  I went their website.  No apparent way to contact them by email.  I called their corporate headquarters. (215 785 4000). I got transferred seven times and then got to leave a voice mail with for someone who was allegedly the CFO.

It is bad enough that workers are having their passports stolen, are being cheated out of the pittance they’ve been promised for working 16 hours a day and are being denied medical care. What seems even more appalling to me is that the report of such practices doesn’t seem to create the tiniest ripple with the American public or with our corporate citizens.

I know we are all bombarded with issues and actions, but please a minute to contact Target, Jones or the other corporations mentioned in the article. Please don’t let this be business as usual.