3 August 2019

YES, THE PROBLEM IS STILL THE ECONOMY, STUPID…

0900 by Jeff Hess

Free Markets: that fantasy that allows people with shit buckets full of cash to not only hold onto their shit buckets full of cash, but to use their shit buckets full of cash to accumulate even more shit buckets full of cash with out interference from people who don’t have shit buckets full of cash. Yeah, that definition isn’t from my Econ 101 class, but I’m good with that.

Of late I’ve been seeing more stories on rethinking, or outright trashing, our current economic models because they’re not working for anyone who doesn’t have a shit bucket full of cash. See, for instance, The new left economics: how a network of thinkers is transforming capitalism by Andy Beckett or Robert Reich’s 2008 book: Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life.

Andrew Simms, co-author with David Boyle of Economics: A Crash Course writes in Economics is a failing discipline doing great harm–so let’s rethink it. for The Guardian:

Something is killing conventional economics and it’s probably an inside job. Reliance on abstract mathematics and absurd assumptions has brought the discipline into disrepute, even if politics and policy are guided by the ghosts of its teaching.

When economic theory favors people with SBFOC, Simms continues, we get abominations like:

…the epic, conceptual departures from the real world made by the economics mainstream in recent years. Risk models used by the investment bank Goldman Sachs suggested that the financial crisis of 2007 should have been in effect impossible. And have you ever wondered why privatisation continues in the face of repeated failures from care services to railways, and in spite of pledges to rein them in?

It’s because neoclassical economics has so deeply entrenched the notion that markets are better than all other ways of organising life, that decisions escape rational scrutiny.

Neoclassical thinking in economics has created a monster that students—like Katie Kedward—are walking away and looking for models that make real-world sense. Simms, continues:

Kedward left a banking job in the City for ethical reasons and sought a degree that would make sense of economics. Despairing at the unreality of mainstream courses, she found a rare exception: a master’s in ecological economics at the University of Leeds. The course, though, isn’t even taught in the economics department but the School of Earth and Environment. That’s why new groups are emerging to promote heterodox economics, which draws on the insights of the study of complexity, neuro and behavioural science, ecology, feminism and the core economy of family, mutualism and community.

Young women and men like Kedward are promising, but the old hands are still clacking away.

Late last year, on the day that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its starkest warning yet on the importance of holding global heating below 1.5° C, William Nordhaus was awarded economics equivalent of the Nobel prize. Nordhaus is famous for applying conventional economic models to environmental issues. Using his toolkit on climate breakdown, infamously he came to the conclusion that an optimal economic approach would allow warming of at least 3° C–the level that climate science shows would cause catastrophic, irreversible change.

For anyone outside economics that might seem bewildering, but the blase disregard of the economy being a wholly owned, and utterly dependent, subsidiary of the biosphere is perfectly symbolic.

(For those still stuck with Fahrenheit, 3° C equals 5.3° F.)

The 2009 book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everythingby Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner turned the musty, inscrutable world of economics beyond Econ 101 and 102 into a fascinating way of seeing the world and that was a dangerous event. The more people who grasp how economics work in the real world, the more critics are able to call bullshit! and that is a good thing.

Economics: A Crash Course, published Tuesday in England, is not yet available on our side of the pond. I have put the book on my watch list, however.

Bonus No. 1: WHO WILL SPEAK WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU…?

Bonus No. 2: Ryan on Ravi Batra.

Bonus No. 3: So, 20,000 illegals sneak into a bar…

3 August 2019

WHAT I’M READING THIS MORNING…

0530 by Jeff Hess

Are Robots Competing for Your Job?
150 years later, slavery reparations are on the agenda again…
White man as Black man exposes Southern racism, embarrasses racists…
Economics is a failing discipline doing great harm–so let’s rethink it…
Cat Person author Kristen Roupenian on the trouble with writing about sex…
This US heartland has been flooded for five months. Does anyone care…?
The Radioactive Boy Scout…

2 August 2019

THE RICH MAN’S WORLD, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY…

1700 by Jeff Hess

President Donald John Trump is so used to being able to demand the loyalty and obedience of his underlings in the Trump organization that he never learned the art of nuance and persuasion. This particular ignorance has cost him in the White House. The most recent example has been President Trump’s belief that he can direct the Federal Reserve.

Being able to borrow money with no interest, to have access to free money, is a universal fantasy that has real-world consequences for personal savings and the safety of monthly Social Security checks to seniors. Regardless, to business, particularly corporate business, free, or nearly free, money is the holy grail and Ralph Nader understands President Trump’s aspirations when it comes to the Fed.

Nader, in Trump’s Effective Intimidation of the Powerful Federal Reserve, writes:

The Federal Reserve–the United States’ version of a Central Bank–is a strange duck. It is the U.S. government’s most powerful regulatory agency. It, after all, regulates money and interest rates. Yet, its budget comes entirely from the banking industry and relationships with the financial industry. So Congress, which appropriates money for all other federal agencies, has little leverage over the Fed’s operations.

This independence–except from the big banks–is by design, when the Fed was devised by President Woodrow Wilson over one hundred years ago. The Fed, a secretive, private government inside a public government presents problems for a democratic society. The alternative was deemed worse by its boosters, allowing “politics” to determine the Fed’s Board of Governors decisions.

It is as if the Federal Reserve/banking complex does not deal with political power by its own definition. The Fed entrenches the power of the banks without accountability inside Washington. Ask Republicans in Congress whether they generally oppose government regulation of a business and most will say “yes.” Ask whether they want to deregulate the Federal Reserve and they will say “Of course not.” Somebody has to Continue Reading »

2 August 2019

MIGRANTS AND OUR PHONY CRISIS ON THE BORDER…

0900 by Jeff Hess

At some point in his life I have no doubt that President Donald John Trump grabbed the pussy of a black or brown employee and got slapped for his effrontery and, because the toad can’t handle rejection and really knows how to hold a grudge, he has diverted our attention, and now billions of military dollars, to his phony border crisis.

Leaving us, the people paying for his revenge, to fix the bullshit. Daniel Trilling thinks that journalists aren’t helping us much. Trilling, reporting in How the media contributed to the migrant crisis for The Guardian, ledes:

When did you notice the word “migrant” start to take precedence over the many other terms applied to people on the move? For me it was in 2015, as the refugee crisis in Europe reached its peak. While debate raged over whether people crossing the Mediterranean via unofficial routes should be regarded as deserving candidates for European sympathy and protection, it seemed as if that word came to crowd out all others. Unlike the other terms, well-meaning or malicious, that might be applied to people in similar situations, this one word appears shorn of context; without even an im- or an em- attached to it to indicate that the people it describes have histories or futures. Instead, it implies an endless present: they are migrants, they move, it’s what they do. It’s a form of description that, until 2015, I might have expected to see more often in nature documentaries, applied to animals rather than human beings.

Here in the former colonies, we’re comfortable with the word as in migrant farm workers, you know, the people enable us to buy produce so cheaply? But I take Trilling’s point. We make much in our media of why people of Central America and Northern Africa/The Middle East are moving north—gangs, wars, gang wars—but we chose to ignore the big reason: climate change. People are moving north because their homes are getting to fecking hot to live in. (Yet another reason to move to Canada. Have you bought waterfront property on Hudson Bay yet?)

Trilling, however, is focused on a more nuanced, wonky bit: how and why media are responding to the crisis. (He’s writing about the Eastern Hemisphere, but we’re not so different here in the other half. Trilling continues:

Throughout 2015, the crisis narrative was developed via a series of flashpoints at different locations within and around the European Union. In April, for example, attention focused on the smuggler boat route from Libya, after the deadliest shipwreck ever recorded in the Mediterranean. A month or so later focus shifted to Calais, where French and British policies of discouraging irregular migrants from attempting to cross the Channel had led to a growing spectacle of mass destitution. By the summer, the number of boat crossings from Turkey to Greece had dramatically increased, and images and stories of people stepping on to Aegean shores, or of piles of orange lifejackets, came to dominate. Then came the scenes of people moving through the Balkans, and so on, and so on.

In all of these situations the news media were able to do their basic job in emergency situations, which is to communicate what’s happening, who’s affected, what’s needed the most. But this is usually more than a matter of relaying dry facts and figures. “Human stories” have the greatest currency among journalists, although it’s an odd term if you think about it.

What stories aren’t human? In fact, it’s most commonly used to denote a particular kind of human story; one that gives individual experience the greatest prominence, that tells you what an event felt like, both physically and emotionally. It rests on the assumption that this is what connects most strongly with audiences: either because it hooks them in and keeps them watching or reading, or because it helps them identify with the protagonist, perhaps in a way that encourages empathy, or a particular course of action in response. As a result, the public was able to easily and quickly access vivid accounts and images of people’s experiences as they attempted to cross the EU’s external borders, or to find shelter and welcome within Europe.

The trade-off was that this often fit into predetermined ideas about what disasters look like, who needs protection, who is innocent and who is deserving of blame. Think, for example, about the most recognisable image of the refugee crisis in 2015: the picture of a Turkish police officer carrying the lifeless body of three-year-old Alan Kurdi away from the water’s edge on a beach near Bodrum.

As the Dutch documentary Een zee van beelden – A Sea of Images – (Medialogica, 2016) asked: why did this image in particular strike such a chord? After all, many news editors see images of death on a daily basis, yet for the most part decide to exclude them. The documentary showed how the apparently viral spread of the Alan Kurdi photograph on social media [Emphasis mine, JH] was in large part the result of a series of decisions taken by senior journalists and NGO workers.

First, a local photo agency in Turkey decided to release the image to the wires because they were so fed up with the lack of political response to the crisis on their shores. The image was shared by an official at a global human rights NGO with a large Twitter following, and retweeted by several prominent correspondents for large news organisations. Picture editors at several newspapers then decided, independently of one another, to place the photo on the front pages of their next editions; only after that point did it reach its widest circulation online. The image gained the status it did for a mix of reasons – political, commercial, but also aesthetic. One of the picture editors interviewed in the documentary commented on how the position of the figures in the photo resembled that of Michelangelo’s Pietà, an iconography of suffering and sacrifice that runs deep in European culture.
But if this way of working has its advantages, it also has its dark side. News media that rush from one crisis point to another are not so good at filling in the gaps, at explaining the obscured systems and long-term failures that might be behind a series of seemingly unconnected events. To return to the idea of a “refugee crisis”, for example, this is an accurate description in one sense, as it involved a sharp increase in the number of people claiming asylum in the European Union; from around 430,000 in 2013, according to the EU statistics agency Eurostat, to well over a million in 2015 and 2016 each. In global terms this was a relatively small number of refugees: the EU has a population of over 500 million, while most of the world’s 68.5 million forcibly displaced people are hosted in poorer parts of the world. But the manner of people’s arrival was chaotic and often deadly, while there was a widespread institutional failure to ensure that their needs – for basic necessities, for legal and political rights – were met. To stop there, however, risks giving the false impression that the crisis was a problem from elsewhere that landed unexpectedly on European shores.

One of the points that was constantly on my mind as I read Trilling’s piece was: to what degree did those advising then candidate Trump—Steve Bannon, et. al.—see events in Europe and the resurgence of fascist elements there, look to our border with Mexico (were immigration had been less than emigration for years) as a model for how they could push their own fascist agenda? How could they gin up a phony crisis to distract people from their real purpose?

Hmm?

Bonus No. 1: GAWD WILLING AN’ THE CREEK DON’T RISE: PART II…

Bonus No. 2: Will Trump Stop His MAGA Rally Crowd From Chanting Racist Slogans?

Bonus No. 3: Just One Question: Democratic Candidates Edition.

Bonus No. 4: If you act now you can maybe avoid the worst of climate change. But you know you’re not going to.

1 August 2019

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEBATES: ROUND TWO…

0900 by Jeff Hess

Full disclosure, I haven’t watched any of the Democratic Party debates—although I have listened to a fair amount of the soundbites—because doing so would mean a loss of time I can never get back and the Iowa Caucuses are 186 feckin’ days away. I am reading some of the reports, but really, the only thing that matters to me is that Joe Bidden drops out. Soon.

So, first up is William Gritten, writing for The Week with The issues that will decide the Democratic primaries. Gritten lists: healthcare, immigration, race and who can beat Trump. While I agree on his list of four, he ignores—as do too many candidates because Americans (unless you live in Louisiana) can’t see that far down the road—the Climate Crisis. (Yeah, Andrew Yang, blah, blah, blah…)

If I had been invited to watch the debates—are you reading Tim?—I definitely would have done so with a copy of Matt Taibbi’s Official Democratic Party Debate Drinking Rules. The rules for Round One included:

1. DRINK a thimble of liquor each time Maddow, Todd, or Swalwell mentions Russia or Putin.

2. DRINK a full shot every time a candidate mentions: (a) I AM THE CHILD OF IMMIGRANTS; (b) WHOSE HUMBLE BEGINNINGS; (c) WORKING WITH MY SLEEVES ROLLED UP AS AN [INSERT REAL JOB HERE]; (d) WITH THE SUPPORT OF MY BELOVED FAMILY MEMBERS [INSERT NAMES]; (e) TO REALIZE THE AMERICAN DREAM; (f) WHICH IS UNDER ATTACK; (g) BY A MAN WHO PUTS CHILDREN IN CAGES; (h) AND HAS FOSTERED A CULTURE OF DIVISION; (i) BECAUSE HE’S A [INSERT TRUMP JOKE]; and (j) AND IN CLOSING, I SAY [SOMETHING IN SPANISH].

Taibbi also offered a number of side rules, my favorite of which was: [Tim] Ryan tells the audience, I love you or goes out of his way to remind you he played quarterback in high school.

For the second debate, Taibbi came up with: drink EVERY TIME you hear:

 1. Cages
  2. Existential threat
  3. Mitch McConnell (double for “Moscow Mitch”)
  4. Unity
  5.Trump is (rehearsed witticism)
  6. (Something something) is a human right
  7. Fundamentally
  8. (Speaks Spanish)
  9. “This is not who we are.” and
10.“Not above the law.”

Since I didn’t watch any of the debates I can’t really judge, but based on my understanding of Taibbi’s ability to detect banal bullshit, I’d say I would have spent the night on someone’s couch.

From my paper-of-record, here are this morning’s heads decks and ledes. First, above the fold, from Sabrina Siddiqui—

Joe Biden stands his ground and resists rivals’ attacks in testy second debate

Former vice-president targeted in second Democratic debate
Biden rejects criticism of healthcare and immigration plans

Joe Biden was the central target as 10 Democratic presidential candidates took the stage for the second debate in Detroit on Wednesday, with rivals attempting to knock the former vice-president from his frontrunner status.

Below the fold we got:

From Moira Donegan—

Joe Biden was appallingly mediocre. Sadly his opponents were, too.

Biden repeatedly fumbled in response to basic challenges about his own positions, displaying more arrogance and bluster than competence or vision.

Following a memorable first clash between Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, anticipations ran high that the California senator would again attack the former vice-president on his race record. Biden suffered in the polls after their first clash, but he quickly recovered, re-establishing himself as the frontrunner and leading many to think that Biden’s presidential campaign would follow his career-long pattern of failing upward. When they walked on stage and shook hands, he could be heard on a hot mic saying to her: “Go easy on me, kid.” (Harris is 54.) She did not go easy on him, and neither did anyone else.

And, finally from Jessa Crispin, Art Cullen, Lloyd Green, Kate Aronoff and Theodore R. Johnson—

Who won the Democrats’ debate? Our panelists’ verdict.

Another combative Democratic debate saw clashes between Joe Biden and his opponents.

Jessa Crispin: ‘Lackluster candidates all around’
Art Cullen: ‘The winner was universal healthcare’
Lloyd Green: ‘Joe Biden won. Now he must face Elizabeth Warren’
Kate Aronoff: ‘Climate disaster Joe Biden failed to impress’ and
Theodore R Johnson: ‘Biden hasn’t lost his supporters’

Seth Myers had a few words to say on the subject as well…

Clearly, I need a drink.

Bonus No. 1: NELSON ALGREN—NEVER A LOVELY SO REAL III…

Bonus No. 2: Kentucky’s Wants to Break Up with Mitch McConnell.

Bonus No. 3: The rise and fall of superhero Robert Mueller.

Bonus No. 4: Make no mistake it is tough being pro-coal, just ask Ian the Climate Denialist Potato.

31 July 2019

SLEEP SUCKS; NO SLEEP SUCKS A LOT HARDER…

0900 by Jeff Hess

[Update on 2 August @ 1047: Found in this morning’s email from This Week At VA…: Treating the cause of Insomnia: Behavioral Treatment works best.]

I started writing this post at 2:11 a.m. after going to bed at 9 p.m., failing to fall asleep—which extremely rare for me—getting back up at 9:40 p.m. to read for awhile, getting back into bed at 10:50 p.m. to finally fall asleep only to wake back up at around 1:30 a.m. and finally get out of bed at fecking 2 a.m.. I have been struggling with this for more than a decade.

While I wish I didn’t have to spend so much time sleeping, insomnia really, really sucks. My insomnia is what first drew me to Oliver Burkeman’s essays in The Guardian in 2010 when I read This column will change your life: Can’t sleep, don’t sleep. By my count, Burkeman has devoted nearly one essay a year to some aspect of insomnia.

I’ve taken all the sleep hygiene steps and I’ve consulted with the sleep doctors at the Veterans Administration hospital here in Cleveland who recommend taking Melatonin: I take a 5 mg tab before I crawl into bed because my insomnia involves waking up in the middle of the night, not trouble falling asleep. I’ve tried a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure machine and since 29 November of last year, I’ve been taking part in a long term Cognitive Behavioral Therapy study through SHUTi. (The acronym stands for Sleep Healthy Using The internet.) The program works, except when it doesn’t. Like this morning.

Coincidentally, Mary Jo emailed me Nicola Davis’ article, Insomnia sufferers can benefit from therapy, new study shows from The Guardian, this morning. Davis ledes:

Forget counting sheep and drinking warm milk, an effective way to tackle chronic insomnia is cognitive behavioural therapy, researchers have confirmed.

Yay! Sort of. The key word there is effective. The words is so important that it appears no less than five times in Davis’ piece, how effective is effective? Davis summarizes:

Looking at results from four randomised control trials, with between 66 and 201 participants of mixed ages, the team found that participants fell asleep on average nine to 30 minutes sooner after completing a course of CBT for insomnia and experienced a reduction of between 22 and 36 minutes in the amount of time spent awake after going to sleep. By contrast, those who were just on a waiting list, or given treatment as usual, only experienced up to four minutes’ improvement in the time it took to drop off and a maximum of eight minutes’ improvement in time spent awake after going to sleep.

That is effective, I think, but insomnia is serious business. Davis continues:

Chronic insomnia, in which individuals have difficulties dropping off or staying asleep at least three nights a week for three months or more, is thought to affect about 10-15 percent of adults. The condition is linked to health problems including depression, as well as difficulties in functioning and sometimes resulting in accidents.

Burkeman went even further, writing:

The last thing anybody who suffers from insomnia needed to hear was this month’s finding, from sleep scientists at the universities of Warwick and Naples, that consistently getting fewer than six hours’ sleep a night may lead to an early death. Well, thanks a bunch: what news could be more likely to induce sleeplessness?

Before SHUTi I can probably count the number of times I’ve had more than six hours of sleep in the past 15 years or so on my combined digits. SHUTi has improved my sleep and in the July, according to my log sheets I slept more than six hours a total of 12 times. I even managed to get more—at least seven hours of sleep—three times, but these figures include naps on seven occasions. I only managed six hours or more of sleep in any 24-hour period without a nap on five occasions. Naps are not good.

SHUTi recommends no more than one 30 minute nap a day and that before 3 p.m. My log clearly shows I’ve been a bad boy there, napping for more than 30 minutes on eight days in July. I may be paying the piper there. Another issue, I think, is iced tea. In the summer I like to drink cold green tea and though green tea has less caffeine than black tea or coffee, it still contains caffeine. (I drink 1,300 ml of half-caf in the mornings.) Yesterday, I had a glass of ice tea at dinner. That was mistake.

So, short term analysis: first, no naps after 2:30 p.m. and always set an alarm for 30 minutes if I do take a nap; and second, no caffeine after lunch. Here’s hoping that August is better.

Bonus No. 1: BD ponders his lost helmet…

Bonus No. 2: GAWD WILLING AN’ THE CREEK DON’T RISE: PART I…

30 July 2019

MY TEACHERS’ TEACHERS ARE ALSO MY TEACHERS…

0900 by Jeff Hess

For many, many years my prewriting practice has involved reading one of Lawrence Blocks’ essays on writing fiction and I’ve read them all multiple times. I don’t necessarily learn something new each time, but the rereading always make me think about my current novel project in ways that are beneficial to me. Two other teachers, however, changed my perspective.

I only took one fiction writing course in college—Short Stories with Daniel Keyes in the spring of 1981—but I have studied with a number of other professors (including, but not limited to, Luke Whisnant, Lee Zacharias, Ron Rash and John Gregory Brown at the Green River Writers Workshops and Wildacres Writing Workshops.

I also learned much of what I know about poetry from the truly wonderful Kentucky poets Sherry Chandler and Mary “Ernie” O’Dell whom I met at The Green River Writers Novel In Progress workshop in Louisville, Kentucky.

There is a rabbinic tradition that each teacher gives full credit to the line of their teachers—extending back to Moses (yes, they know all the names)—for their own understanding. I don’t yet know who John Gardner’s teachers were, but Charles Johnson gives John Gardner full credit for his writing chops and now, after I’ve read both Johnson and begun to read Garner’s guides, I owe them the same honor. That is not to suggest that I’ve abandoned Block, your first always is, and always will be, special.

Johnson and Gardner each delivered particular smacks to the side of my head and we all, occasionally, need that. I discovered Johnson back in March of 2017 when I read his The Way of the Writer: Reflections on the Art and Craft of Storytelling. Johnson wrote that his teacher, John Gardner, shaped much of what he became and, because I was impressed with Johnson, I ordered two of Gardner’s books: On Becoming A Novelist and The Art of Fiction: Notes on Craft for Young Writers. (I also read his interview in The Paris Review which was equally enlightening.) I finished the first a few months ago and began the second yesterday. I’m only 16 pages in, but I’ve already marked up a number of passages, one group of which focuses on the value of a university education. That is where I’d like to start this morning. Gardner writes:

The university can do more than offer opportunities—opportunities made available nowhere else: a wealth of books, at least a few first-rate courses, professors and fellow students, also lectures, debates, reading and gatherings where anyone at all, if their not too shy, can talk with some of the best novelists, poets, musicians, politicians and scientists of the age. If foolishness abounds in universities, it is only within that same university world that the honest understanding of literature is a conscious discipline. No one can hope to write really well if he has not learned how to analyze fiction—how to recognize a symbol when it jumps at them, how to make out theme in a literary work, how to account for a writer’s selection and organization of fictional details. (p. 12-13)

The line that ought to jump out at any writer is: No one can hope to write really well…. I can’t ask Gardner, of course, but I would take that he is speaking to Theodore Sturgeon’s 10 percent of every category that is not crud. That would apply to all published fiction. Does that mean the 90 percent doesn’t sell? Of course not. Does that mean that the writers of the 90 percent aren’t making money? Again, of course not. But what Gardner is getting at here is that the works that people will remember in 100 years will come from probably the 10 percent of the 10 percent. Can you name a single contemporary of Charles Dickens? Hermann Melville? Victor Hugo?

There are pitfalls to a university education (remember Sturgeon’s Law). Gardner writes:

The English professor’s work is the analysis of what has already been written. It is their business to systematize what they read and to present their discoveries in the way most likely to be beneficial to their students. [The professor’s] purpose is to make structure and meaning crystal clear. This can lead—from the artist’s point of view—to two evils. First, the professor, and indeed his whole profession, may tend to choose not the best works of literature but those about which it is most possible to make subtle observations. …

This perversion of standards leads to the second evil: The literature program wastes the young writer’s time. Instead of allowing them to concentrate on the important books, from Homer’s Iliad to John Fowles’ Daniel Martin, it clutters their reading with trivia, old and new. (p. 13-14)

I have said before that if I were able to make a Faustian bargain it would be to live until I had read all the books I wanted to read. Gardner suggests that while university guidance is important, graduating from from a university is not. He writes:

…No law requires that the student leave college with a degree—discounting practical considerations. All that’s required is that the student get, somehow, the literary background they need. (p. 14)

Gardner finishes off his first chapter: Aesthetic Law and Artistic Mystery, with an examination of Mastery.

The writer’s business is to make up convincing beings and create for them basic situations and actions by means of which they come to know themselves and reveal themselves to the reader. For that one needs no schooling. But it’s by training—by studying great books and by writing—that one learns to present one’s fictions, giving them their due. …

However they may get it, mastery—not a full mental catalog of the rules—must be the writer’s goal….

Mastery is not something that strikes in an instant, like a thunderbolt, but a gathering power that moves steadily through time, like weather. In other words, art has no universal rules because each true artist melts down and reforges all past aesthetic law. (p. 15)

Where most writers fail, I think, is that they jump immediately to the reforging without a clue as to whether their working with gold or dross.

Bonus No. 1: FORGET BEDS, THERE MUST BE SEPARATE HOUSES…

29 July 2019

OHIO LEADS: IN RAISING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES…

0900 by Jeff Hess

Ohio Governor Doofus, aka Richard Michael DeWine, just showed the world how Ohio leads; off the climate cliff by signing into law the disastrous House Bill 6 bearing the Orwellian and equivocal short title of Creates Ohio Clean Air Program. The long title, which Ohio Republicans pray—they do so love to pray—that no one will ever read tells a very different story.

Especially when you cut to the middle and read 12 vital words: facilitate and continue the development, production, and use of electricity from nuclear, coal…

To amend sections 303.213, 519.213, 713.081, 4906.13, 4928.01, 4928.64, 4928.641, 4928.644, 4928.645, 4928.66, 4928.6610, and 5727.75, to enact sections 3706.40, 3706.41, 3706.43, 3706.431, 3706.45, 3706.46, 3706.49, 3706.53, 3706.55, 3706.59, 3706.61, 3706.63, 3706.65, 4928.148, 4928.47, 4928.471, 4928.642, 4928.75, 4928.80, and 5727.231, and to repeal section 4928.6616 of the Revised Code to facilitate and continue the development, production, and use of electricity from nuclear, coal, and renewable energy resources in this state, to modify the existing mandates for renewable energy and energy efficiency savings, and to determine amounts of federal funding received for home weatherization services.

Governor Doofus, err DeWine, with the stroke of his pen has vaulted our Buckeye State into the global consciousness in a manner far worse than the 50 years of attention Cleveland Garnered for a few feet of burning river.

Leah Stokes, writing in While the planet overheats, Ohio’s coal industry gets a bailout for The Guardian, calls Ohio House Bill 6—sponsored by Republican legislators Jamie Callender (Ohio 61) and Shane Wilkin (Ohio 91)—the worst yet.

Coal—where wealth continues to build while jobs continue to disappear—garnered a lot of attention in 2016 and President Donald John Trump is grateful for the industry’s support. Stokes writes:

The legislation reflects an unfortunate national pattern: electric utilities pushing to delay climate action, bolstered by a president similarly interested in dragging our country’s feet. For years, FirstEnergy and AEP have been trying to dismantle Ohio’s clean energy policies and bail out their dirty coal plants. Since President Trump took office, these companies have found a receptive audience.

FirstEnergy’s CEO has met with Trump personally. Last year, the company asked his administration to invoke emergency powers to save its struggling coal and nuclear plants. Just a few months ago, an Ohio Republican operative who has a major role in Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign called several House Republicans who were on the fence to persuade them to vote for HB 6.

These companies have spent several million dollars on deceptive advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions to help elect politicians sympathetic to their cause.

In return, these politicians have proven dutiful beneficiaries, working diligently to secure almost a billion dollars of ratepayer subsidies for FirstEnergy and AEP.

As lobbying goes, not a bad return on investment.

To be fairish, FirstEnergy and AEP were bad actors years before President Trump began to campaign so that he eviscerate all the accomplishments of his nemesis. Stokes continues:

[First Energy and AEP] started their attacks on renewables in 2011. By 2014, the state had frozen its clean energy targets and made it nearly impossible to build wind energy. This latest change will erode what little policy is left. The law will eliminate clean energy targets and gut an energy efficiency program that has saved the state $5bn – instead cementing Ohio’s position at the bottom of national clean energy rankings. With only 2.5 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources last year, the state is in 49th place.

Ohio’s republican Governor and Republican Legislators and Republican (plus one Democratic) senators—HB 6 was co-sponsored by: representatives Jon Cross (83rd), Anthony DeVitis (36th), Haraz Ghanbari (3rd), Brett Hillyer (98th), Don Jones (95th), Bill Reineke (88th), William Seitz (30th), Dick Stein (57th), Nino Vitale (85TH) and senators John Eklund (18th), Theresa Gavarone (2nd), Lou Terhar (8th), Sandra R. Williams (21st), the sole Democratic Party co-sponsor,—are all for sale to the highest billionaire bidders.

I suppose Williams’ vote makes the bill bi-partisan. Stokes concludes:

Some advocates have focused on the parts of the bill that would subsidize nuclear, and the legislation’s small offerings for solar – both carbon-free sources of power. Yet the bill provides almost twice as much funding for coal as clean energy.

This is all occurring as Ohio bakes in another heatwave. As farmers throughout the state struggle to plant crops under record rainfall and flooding. As poor communities surrounding these coal plants continue to breathe toxic air.

The climate crisis is on Ohio’s doorstep. Yet the corporations running these ancient coal plants want to keep them operating until 2040, when they will be 85 years old. These plants are long past retirement age.

The next time you feel that you are to blame for climate change–because you forgot to hit the light switch, or you took that flight to see your ailing mother–remember the Ohio electric utilities and their coal subsidies. Remember the politicians who gave them this billion-dollar bailout after receiving personal favors, like a flight to Trump’s inauguration on a corporate jet. And know that one day after signing this bill, Ohio Governor DeWine attended a Trump fundraiser hosted by coal baron Bob Murray.

OH-HI-OH…! OH-HI-OH…! OH-HI-OH…!

Bonus No. 1: THE BARTENDER WALKS OUT OF HIS BAR AND…

Bonus No. 2: Greta Thunberg to sail across Atlantic for UN climate summits.

Bonus No. 3: Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle Over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States.

Bonus No. 4: Pushing through overgrowth on the Coventry canal up to Fradley Junction.

Bonus No. 5: Boris Johnson: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.

26 July 2019

VOTE HIM OUT…! VOTE HIM OUT…! VOTE HIM OUT…!

1700 by Jeff Hess

The House of Representatives is unlikely to impeach President Donald John Trump and that if unlikelyhood should come to pass, there is simply no way in hell that the Senate—given President Trump’s claim that: I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters—would ever convict him. No, he’s here until until 20 January 2021.

So, we have a little more than 500 days before we can usher Trump out of our White House and the only way that I can see that happening is if we vote his lardness out. Ralph Nader agrees.

Nader, in Only Civic Driven Voter Turnout can Defeat Tweeter Trump, writes:

Does the Democratic Party know how to defeat the foul-mouthed, bigoted, self-enriching crony capitalist Donald Trump? Trump pretends to be a populist. In reality he does the bidding of Wall Street instead of Main Street and weakens or repeals governmental health and safety programs.

Defeating corrupt, disgraceful, disastrous Donald should be easy. He is, on many documented fronts, the worst and most indictable president in U.S. history. Moreover, Trump is personally obscene and is a walking tortfeasor against women. He is a politician who doesn’t read and doesn’t think. He doesn’t know anything about government and doesn’t care about the rule of law. All he seems to know how to do is stoke the war machine with taxpayer dollars and shut down law enforcement agencies designed to protect the health, safety, and economic well-being of citizens from today’s Big Business robber barons.

Dumb as he is on the matters of public policies, Trump is a cunning schemer and a master of deflection. For Trump, every day is a reality show, in which he must dominate the news cycle with his destructive, personal politics of distraction. The mass Continue Reading »

23 July 2019

ONE, TWO, THREE, IT WAS 45 YEARS AGO TODAY…

0900 by Jeff Hess

Ah, the summer of ’74, I remember it well…

18 July 2019

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: PROFILES IN COWARDICE…

1700 by Jeff Hess

Since August of 2015 when I predicted that Donald John Trump would not only win the Republican nomination to run for president in 2016, but that he would crush Hilary Rodham Clinton in the general election, I have wondered just what are Republican politicians afraid of? My conclusion? They fear being unmasked as the idea-less political lightweights that they are.

That could only happen if they lost the cover provided by gerrymandered districts, suppressed voters and rivers of cash generated by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I don’t think there is a Republican on the national stage today with the stature of Ronald Wilson Reagan, let alone Barry Morris Goldwater or Howard Henry Baker. Ralph Nader, however, thinks differently.

Nader, in Will Any Disgusted Republicans Challenge Trump in the Primaries?, writes:

In 1956, then Senator John F. Kennedy authored a best-selling book titled Profiles in Courage, in which he told the stories of Senators in American history who, on principle, bucked the tides of power. Today, some Republican writer or conservative syndicated columnist–George Will or Max Boot–should write a book called Profiles in Cowardliness. It should cover Republican leadership’s near total cowardliness in the face of Donald Trump, whom they despise on many fronts. Many in Republican leadership believe he has hijacked their Grand Old Party.

Clearly the Republicans–except for Rep. Justin Amash, who recently quit the Party after accusing Trump of impeachable crimes–are intimidated by this foul-mouthed president. Republican politicians are cowed by Trump’s bellicose personal rhetoric. We have seen this cycle repeat itself countless times, with the media boosting their ratings by recklessly repeating Trump’s insults.

Republicans remember what Trump did to Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio during the 2016 Republican primary. They observe how loud-mouthed Donald spews toxic falsehoods at Democrats and gets away with it. Why, Republicans ask themselves, should they take any chances provoking this unstable Twitter Emperor and his ditto-heads on social media whom he deliberately incites? The answer: because patriotism Continue Reading »

17 July 2019

THE BARTENDER WALKS OUT OF HIS BAR AND…*

0900 by Jeff Hess

I’ve been trying to find where I first read about Lawrence Block’s Random Walk, but the source is lost in time. I’ve been reading Block since before he wrote the book, but I was so focused on Bernie Rhodenbarr, Matthew Scudder, Keller and the rest that I must have been changing stations when I passed Guthrie Wagner on the road and he was gone before I looked up.

This month I pulled a u turn and corrected my mistake. In announcing the 2018 reprinting of the 1988 book—I actually found a much yellowed first edition—Block wrote:

Sometimes at a book signing or other public appearance, someone’ll come up to me and say, ‘You know, I’ve enjoyed everything you’ve written, except there was one book that just didn’t work for me at all, and I couldn’t figure out what you had in mind when you wrote it.’ And someone else will say, “I’ve read and enjoyed your books for years, but there’s one book that hit me like a ton of stone tablets, and I’ve read it seventeen times and I get something new from it each time and I have to say it changed my life.’ And I’ll know right away that they’re both talking about Random Walk. I suppose for some people it’s just another book, but for a sizable proportion of readers it’s a definite outlier—they either love it like crazy or they don’t get it at all.

In the cover blurb for the new edition, Harlan Ellison wrote: Larry Block has always been at least three steps ahead of most writers in originality and readability. With this book he goes over the horizon and readers are urged to follow him. I agree and I did.

While I found the whole book fascinating on several levels, I paused and reread Chapter 16 a couple of times because—in my mind—that was where Block goes over the horizon. (Click on the image below to see a larger version.)

Pages 248-249; 250-251, 252-253, 254-255 and 256. The final paragraph of the chapter is pure Block gold.

Much of what I’ve previously written about Block has had to do with his nonfiction arising from his monthly column—1976-1990—for Writer’s Digest. While I own all of the collections of his columns and have read, and reread each multiple times, I’ve also kept my copies of the magazines where they first appeared. I’ve never found a better Master Class on writing fiction than those columns.

Because Random Walk is, and is not (you’ll have to read the book to see why) a major divergence from all of his other works, this is a must read.

*Having read so much of Block, I feel fairly certain that he had this twist on the classic a minister, a priest and a rabbi walked into a bar lede in mind when he created the Guthrie.

15 July 2019

FORGET BEDS, THERE MUST BE SEPARATE HOUSES…

0900 by Jeff Hess

Back in the ’90s, during the Clinton years, I often wondered that Clinton advisor James Carville could marry Reagan and Bush advisor Mary Joe Matalin could date while working on opposite sides during the 1992 presidential campaigns then marry only a few year latter. There are a number of possibilities, none of them particularly attractive. Perhaps:

1. The sex was really, really good and nothing else mattered;
2. Blackmail was somehow involved;
3. Neither of them gave a fuck about politics, only the game mattered;
4. They’re in on the illusion that Democrats are different from Republicans;
5. Both are just whores working for the highest bidders; or…

Well, you get the idea. That question leads me to the present and the bizarre marriage that is George Thomas Conway III and Kellyanne Conway. The Conways were not always at such odds over President Donald John Trump. While Ms. Conway is a staunch supporter of President Trump, Mr. Conway was, at least in early days, enough of a supporter to be considered for the post of Solicitor General.

Since taking office, Trump seems to have increasingly irritated, and then enraged, Mr. Conway. And then the whole go back to where you came from episode erupted and the generic became personal.

George Conway, in Trump is a racist president for The Washington Post, writes:

To this day, I can remember almost the precise spot where it happened: a supermarket parking lot in eastern Massachusetts. It was the mid-1970s; I was not yet a teenager, or barely one. I don’t remember exactly what precipitated the woman’s ire. But I will never forget what she said to my mother, who had come to this country from the Philippines decades before. In these words or something close, the woman said, “Go back to your country.”

How the fuck do you swallow that when you get home to dinner? Do you ask your wife to resign? Do you question what you married when you realize that she didn’t resign on the spot? Do you ask for an Oval Office sit down to reason with the President?

Hell, George, what did you do?

Bonus No. 1: The government is like a horse – it could kill you without any trouble.

11 July 2019

I BELIEVE IN: GENIUS IS DOING THE WORK… NOW…!

1700 by Jeff Hess

When my family moved out of Marietta, Ohio, in 1964, I transferred from the urban Phillips Elementary School—built in 1953 (two years before I was born) and still in use 66 years later—to rural Warren Elementary school. I became friends with Bill Rogers Besides stellar academics, the Rogers children were known for their perfect attendance.

I think that each of them graduated from Warren High School without ever having missed a single day in 13 years, and that, I also believe, is an accomplishment that Ralph Nader would admire as well.

Nader, in An Unsurpassable Sterling Record of Stamina!, writes:

I’ve always been fascinated by stamina. Lou Gehrig was my boyhood hero, and not just because of his batting average, clutch hitting, and dignified comportment. From 1925 to 1939 he played 2,130 ballgames in a row, not missing one, despite injuries and illnesses. (It was the record until eclipsed by the Baltimore Oriole’s formidable Cal Ripken in 1987).

Stamina by underdogs over great odds in various areas of lawful human endeavor is engrossing because of all the elements in its making. Focus, determination, resilience, skill, self-renewal, strategy and, at its best, reflective idealism.

Who isn’t fascinated by bee hives, ant colonies, birds and squirrels dutifully building nests, and the sheer alert stamina required of mammals raising their young during constant peril?

This background provides context for contemplating the end of radio’s John Sterling’s record announcing 5,060 straight New York Yankees baseball games without missing one. Since 1989, whether ill or injured, Sterling showed up every day in city after city to command the airwaves and perform his duties. He was undaunted by fatigue or Continue Reading »

10 July 2019

CLEVELAND’S BIG DAY, BUT ‘OTHER’ CITY INTRUDES

1700 by Roldo Bartimole

Did you enjoy the All-Star game this week? The Home Run contest? I hope so.

Because you paid for it.

Of course, we’re all told good news: how much money flowed into Cleveland. Someone on WKYC-TV said that billionaire Cavs owner Dan Gilbert claimed that sports had brought some $500 million into the city. Didn’t he say where it went. Other than his pocket?

Well, I wonder then, why can’t he and the Dolans and Haslams pay their bills? It’s not that they’re too cheap. It’s that they easily shift the burden to the citizens of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County with the help of local politicians. Have you noticed that there isn’t a politician—city or county—that speaks loudly for citizens? This is the most docile bunch I’ve ever seen.

The river of money has been flowing OUT and continues to on your dime. Hard details are revealed in a piece I wrote in 2015 when the team owners put a $65 million bond debt on the tab in your name. It is detailed and saveable.

They did similarly recently with a $70-million bond issue (all in addition to the millions still collected for the sin tax and other dribs and drabs I won’t go into now).

No one has taken the time—and I’m not in that business anymore—of asking what that dough buys and what is the cost.

But if the past is any indication, we are buying team owners whatever can enhance their earnings. And they’re not sharing.

In this LOOK BACK to Vol. 26, No.20 and Vol. 30, No.6 there’s a clear indication of how the public gives the teams what they want.

Why aren’t reporters now asking for the documents that reveal the new purchase via the latest County bond money? It is public information.

You will have to do some work yourself but the point of view issue headline “Gateway dines on taxpayers” tells how the Terrace Club in the stadium became the largest downtown restaurant with everything—even the forks and spoons—paid for by you. Sammy’s at the arena was similarly adorned—and for a former Gateway board member.

The second issue, “Gateway keeps costing” reveals how costs that likely should be borne by the tenant are shifted to us. For example, new carpeting some $75,000 worth three years after the place opened; $55.000 for new lighting supposedly to meet NBA standards.

You’ll see that the Cavs owners enjoyed deducting such charges and reducing rent, or being owed rent from the facility owners—us. A rare tenant benefit.

I’m not going to talk about the Italian imported marble for loge coffee tables or the boat sized, Wahoo-embedded, board-room table for the Indians. All on your dime.

The Plain Dealer headlined with a three-column, two-inch high, day-after salute to the city: “Great night in an All-Star City.”

But reality didn’t quite cooperate. The next column headline: ”Two children among four killed.” Sadly, the real city.

[NOTE: When you bring up the issue it will be smaller than it should be. Above at right is a sign “Download,” if you click that a sign will appear in the lower left side and if you click it the issue will appear with a symbol (+) that will allow you to enlarge the issue to make it more readable. —Roldo]

Click on the image below to download the entire issue of Point Of Viəw.
Click on the image above to download the entire issue of Point Of Viəw.

Click on the image below to download the entire issue of Point Of Viəw.
Click on the image above to download the entire issue of Point Of Viəw.

9 July 2019

NADER HAS SOME LIGHT HEAVY SUMMER READING…

1700 by Jeff Hess

While our third president—and man to President George Washington’s immediate left on Mount Rushmore—Thomas Jefferson did not write: An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people. The words are an accurate paraphrase of Jefferson’s views on education according to the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia.

Sadly, our citizenry is not much better educated than it’s militia is well regulated. On the plus side ignorance is eminently correctable and Ralph Nader has a 10 excellent suggestions to remedy that deficit. Nader, in Highly Recommended Books for 2019 Summer Reading, writes:

1. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power by Shoshana Zuboff. You’re already experiencing the early stages of Big Corporations becoming Big Brother while Big Government becomes the Big Pussycat. Unfortunately, indentured Members of Congress drink the milk of campaign contributions and dream of industry job offers. This constructive book is chilling and will curb your digital enthusiasm.

2. Bottle of Lies: The Inside Story of the Generic Drug Boom by Katherine Eban. This book exposes the price gouging U.S. Drug Companies that are outsourcing production of medicines (and their active ingredients) to China and India with disastrous results. We are at the mercy of these largely uninspected, often contaminated, foreign labs and are not given labeling information regarding the country of origin of vital medicines. Did you know that the U.S. no longer produces antibiotics? Once you read Eban’s work, you won’t look at prescription medications the same way.

3. Strength Through Peace: How Demilitarization Led to Peace and Happiness in Costa Rica, and What the Rest of the World can Learn From a Tiny, Tropical Nation by Judith Lipton and David Barash. Lipton and Barash expertly tell the story of how Costa Rica outperforms the U.S. in meeting basic human needs. The book Continue Reading »

7 July 2019

I’M TURNING JAPANESE FOR MORE TIME POWER…

0900 by Jeff Hess

So, for nearly half a century my unsuccessful, but also unrelenting, efforts to get a grip on my life have orbited about the Hobbs-centered—no, not that Hobbes or even this Hobbs, this Hobbs (his family dropped the “e” for the sake of efficiency, I’m sure)—system. Having said that, I’m always looking for tweaks, and Oliver Burkeman this week has a good one: Kanban.

Because I’m also a life-long Japophile, the system is doubly intriguing. Kanban—signboard or billboard in Japanese—was developed by Taiichi Ohno, an industrial engineer at Toyota. Central to the concept is the use of a dedicated board and sticky notes to track what is important. What is more important, and the object of Burkeman’s essay, is the realization that we can only do a very small number of tasks in any day.

[I must note, however, that hyper-organized and driven Japanese—particularly students and sarar?man have insanely high suicide rates.]

Burkeman, writing in Overwhelmed by your to-do lists? Try this simple solution for The Guardian, begins with burnout.

The term “burnout” dates to 1974 , but judging from the media, and many people I know, it’s the official diagnosis of 2019. Well, semi-official: last month, in Geneva, the World Health Organisation announced it was recognising burnout for the first time–yet the next day, it emerged this wasn’t the case. (Let’s be fair to the WHO staff, though; they’re probably just very tired.)

I can relate. One of the reasons I decided to take retirement was that I was feeling burned out after working with at-risk students for more than 15 years. Burkeman’s piece piqued my attention. He continues:

[W]we still have to tackle our to-do lists, and there’s one technique I’ve recently found more useful than any other, as well as better suited to this era of exhaustion and overwhelm: limiting work-in-progress, or WIP. It’s a simple notion, originating in the Japanese system of industrial scheduling known as “kanban”, adapted by Jim Benson and Tonianne DeMaria Barry in their book Personal Kanban. You fix a small upper limit to the number of tasks you’ll be working on at any one time – say, three. Then, you add no further tasks to your plate until you’ve finished at least one. When there are only two tasks remaining in your WIP, you can bring in one more. And so on. The kanban system visualises this using Post-its on a whiteboard, arranged in columns: each task moves from the “to do” column to “doing” to “done”. If your WIP limit is three, there should never be more than three notes in “doing”. (You can add a “waiting” column, where you shunt tasks that are waiting on other people.)

The effects are extraordinary. By limiting WIP, you feel your finite capacity, so the counterproductive urge to start 15 tasks naturally subsides. Without trying, you find yourself breaking projects down into doable chunks (because if “write book” or “get new job” is one of your tasks, it’ll jam things up for months). Above all, this way of working brings a deeply satisfying sense of having a foothold on things. Benson and Barry write: “Linearly finishing one task before embarking on the next commitment becomes addictive, a pattern, and eventually a habit.”

I’ve been working with the system for a few days now and, while this is early-days yet, I find that I like the way this works. I’ve made a minor stylistic change by using 2 x 1.5-inch sticky notes instead of the 3 x 3-inch, full size, versions and I’m using a template to run them through my laser printer, but I’m staying true to the spirit of Benson’s idea.

I have my board—I’ll take and upload a picture later today—to the left of the door in my writing room and while the options section is already nearly full, the doing section contains only three items. In addition, I’ve incorporated the method into my journal and replaced my traditional Time Power list of six action items.

I feel calmer already.

Bonus No. 1: NELSON ALGREN—NEVER A LOVELY SO REAL II…\

Bonus No. 2: Look life is really tough, even when it isn’t. You’re allowed to feel shit.

6 July 2019

THE PAST? IT IS HERE—UNFORTUNATELY—TODAY

1700 by Roldo Bartimole

The past is never far away. Indeed, it is pretty much always with us. We should not forget that.

Former VP Joe Biden was taught that lesson by Sen. Kamala Harris in the recent Democratic Presidential debate.

The issue she used to club Biden was his opposition to busing back in the 1970s.

It happened in our city, too, with drastic results.

The protesting of segregated schools in Cleveland in the 1960s led to the death of Rev. Bruce Klunder. He was a leader in protesting of the construction of a new school, which would open segregated. Protesters tried to stop a bulldozer at the school site. Klunder lay behind the bulldozer. The driver moved his bulldozer back to avoid protester who lay in front and ran over Klunder, killing the Presbyterian minister. That was in April 1964.

The desegregation decision by Judge Frank Battisti didn’t come until 1976. It was devastatingly clear in its conclusion. The Cleveland school system was purposely segregating the races by its decision.

In a follow-up to my LOOK BACK issue of Point Of Viəw, Vol. 9, No. 4 of 18 September 1976.

Cleveland schools were kept segregated despite black school board leadership. The White Power structure had placed Paul Briggs as school superintendent and backed him 100 percent. Briggs served them very well. Each year he would present figures that showed a significant number of Cleveland school kids had graduated and gone on to college. Lies! That were excepted by the business leaders and, of course, by the newspapers.

Aren’t we still paying for this fantasy? By the way, how many Cleveland residents can today name two of the school board members serving?

A quick read of these two 1970s issues should tell a lot about today’s Cleveland.

[NOTE: When you bring up the issue it will be smaller than it should be. Above at right is a sign “Download,” if you click that a sign will appear in the lower left side and if you click it the issue will appear with a symbol (+) that will allow you to enlarge the issue to make it more readable. —Roldo]

Click on the image below to download the entire issue of Point Of Viəw.
Click on the image above to download the entire issue of Point Of Viəw.

Part 2—Community sits idly as Briggs-Pinkney hit Judge Battisti with propaganda barrages.

4 July 2019

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT…

0000 by Jeff Hess

In the past I have taken the occasion of the anniversary of the 1776 publishing of our declaration of independence from England and the rule of King George III to re-publish that document. In 2006, I took a slightly different path and republished the remarks of Frederick Douglass on 5 July 1852. In 2019, I repeat that action.

Douglass asked a question—What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?—that directly addressed the one line that every school child knows from our founding document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Even if we allow our founders the conceit that by all men they meant all of humanity—a allowance I would not gladly grant—the reality in 1776 directly contradicted that statement. Seventy-six years after that first reading, Douglass, who had lived that lie, called bullshit.

Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens: He who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me, quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning. I trust, however, that mine will not be so considered. Should I seem at ease, my appearance would much misrepresent me. The little experience I have had in addressing public meetings, in country schoolhouses, avails me nothing on the present occasion.

The papers and placards say, that I am to deliver a 4th [of] July oration. This certainly sounds large, and out of the common way, for it is true that I have often had the privilege to speak in this beautiful Hall, and to address many who now honor me with their presence. But neither their familiar faces, nor the perfect gage I think I have of Corinthian Hall, seems to free me from embarrassment.

The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable—and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say. I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will proceed to lay them before you.

This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. Three score years and ten is the allotted time for individual men; but nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. May he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot’s heart might be sadder, and the reformer’s brow heavier. Its future might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. There is consolation in the thought that America is young. Great streams are not easily turned from channels, worn deep in the course of ages. They may sometimes rise in quiet and stately majesty, and inundate the land, refreshing and fertilizing the earth with their mysterious properties. They may also rise in wrath and fury, and bear away, on their angry waves, the accumulated wealth of years of toil and hardship. They, however, gradually flow back to the same old channel, and flow on as serenely as ever. But, while the river may not be turned aside, it may dry up, and leave nothing behind but the withered branch, and the unsightly rock, to howl in the abyss-sweeping wind, the sad tale of departed glory. As with rivers so with nations.

Fellow-citizens, I shall not presume to dwell at length on the associations that cluster about this day. The simple story of it is that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects. The style and title of your “sovereign people” (in which you now glory) was not then born. You were under the British Crown. Your fathers esteemed the English Government as the home government; and England as the fatherland. This home government, you know, although a considerable distance from your home, did, in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgment, it deemed wise, right and proper.

But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men’s souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers. But, to proceed.

Feeling themselves harshly and unjustly treated by the home government, your fathers, like men of honesty, and men of spirit, earnestly sought redress. They petitioned and remonstrated; they did so in a decorous, respectful, and loyal manner. Their conduct was wholly unexceptionable. This, however, did not answer the purpose. They saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn. Yet they persevered. They were not the men to look back.

As the sheet anchor takes a firmer hold, when the ship is tossed by the storm, so did the cause of your fathers grow stronger, as it breasted the chilling blasts of kingly displeasure. The greatest and best of British statesmen admitted its justice, and the loftiest eloquence of the British Senate came to its support. But, with that blindness which seems to be the unvarying characteristic of tyrants, since Pharaoh and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of.

The madness of this course, we believe, is admitted now, even by England; but we fear the lesson is wholly lost on our present ruler.

Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it.

Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it), may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars. They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor.

These people were called Tories in the days of your fathers; and the appellation, probably, conveyed the same idea that is meant by a more modern, though a somewhat less euphonious term, which we often find in our papers, applied to some of our old politicians.

Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful; but, amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on, and the country with it.

On the 2d of July, 1776, the old Continental Congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease, and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea with all the authority of national sanction. They did so in the form of a resolution; and as we seldom hit upon resolutions, drawn up in our day whose transparency is at all equal to this, it may refresh your minds and help my story if I read it. “Resolved, That these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, dissolved.”

Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and to-day you reap the fruits of their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history—the very ring-bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny.

Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day—cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight.

The coming into being of a nation, in any circumstances, is an interesting event. But, besides general considerations, there were peculiar circumstances which make the advent of this republic an event of special attractiveness.

The whole scene, as I look back to it, was simple, dignified and sublime.

The population of the country, at the time, stood at the insignificant number of three millions. The country was poor in the munitions of war. The population was weak and scattered, and the country a wilderness unsubdued. There were then no means of concert and combination, such as exist now. Neither steam nor lightning had then been reduced to order and discipline. From the Potomac to the Delaware was a journey of many days. Under these, and innumerable other disadvantages, your fathers declared for liberty and independence and triumphed.

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too—great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.

They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final”; not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times.

How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them!

Fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on-looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you.

Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary. Our eyes are met with demonstrations of joyous enthusiasm. Banners and pennants wave exultingly on the breeze. The din of business, too, is hushed. Even Mammon seems to have quitted his grasp on this day. The ear-piercing fife and the stirring drum unite their accents with the ascending peal of a thousand church bells. Prayers are made, hymns are sung, and sermons are preached in honor of this day; while the quick martial tramp of a great and multitudinous nation, echoed back by all the hills, valleys and mountains of a vast continent, bespeak the occasion one of thrilling and universal interests nation’s jubilee.

Friends and citizens, I need not enter further into the causes which led to this anniversary. Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them. That is a branch of knowledge in which you feel, perhaps, a much deeper interest than your speaker. The causes which led to the separation of the colonies from the British crown have never lacked for a tongue. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits, and thundered from your legislative halls, and are as familiar to you as household words. They form the staple of your national poetry and eloquence.

I remember, also, that, as a people, Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make in their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait—perhaps a national weakness. It is a fact, that whatever makes for the wealth or for the reputation of Americans, and can be had cheap! will be found by Americans. I shall not be charged with slandering Americans, if I say I think the American side of any question may be safely left in American hands.

I leave, therefore, the great deeds of your fathers to other gentlemen whose claim to have been regularly descended will be less likely to be disputed than mine!

THE PRESENT.

My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever-living now.

“Trust no future, however pleasant,
Let the dead past bury its dead;
Act, act in the living present,
Heart within, and God overhead.”

We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to enjoy a child’s share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blest by your labors. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have “Abraham to our father,” when they had long lost Abraham’s faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham’s great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous? Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men, shout—“We have Washington to our father.” Alas! that it should be so; yet so it is.

“The evil that men do, lives after them,
The good is oft-interred with their bones.”

“What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence?”

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation’s sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the “lame man leap as an hart.”

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.”

Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, “may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!” To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then fellow-citizens, is AMERICAN SLAVERY. I shall see, this day, and its popular characteristics, from the slave’s point of view. Standing, there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America! “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse”; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man, (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, there will I argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively, and positively, negatively, and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is past.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

INTERNAL SLAVE TRADE.

Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) “the internal slave trade.” It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable.

Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow the drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States.

I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming “hand-bills,” headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness.

The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed.

In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathized with me in my horror.

Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight.

“Is this the land your Fathers loved,
The freedom which they toiled to win?
Is this the earth whereon they moved?
Are these the graves they slumber in?”

But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented.

By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason & Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the Star-Spangled Banner and American Christianity. Where these go, may also go the merciless slave-hunter. Where these are, man is not sacred. He is a bird for the sportsman’s gun. By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man are put in peril. Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men. Not for thieves and robbers, enemies of society, merely, but for men guilty of no crime. Your lawmakers have commanded all good citizens to engage in this hellish sport. Your President, your Secretary of State, your lords, nobles, and ecclesiastics, enforce, as a duty you owe to your free and glorious country, and to your God, that you do this accursed thing. Not fewer than forty Americans have, within the past two years, been hunted down and, without a moment’s warning, hurried away in chains, and consigned to slavery and excruciating torture. Some of these have had wives and children, dependent on them for bread; but of this, no account was made. The right of the hunter to his prey stands superior to the right of marriage, and to all rights in this republic, the rights of God included! For black men there are neither law, justice, humanity, nor religion. The Fugitive Slave Law makes MERCY TO THEM, A CRIME; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American JUDGE GETS TEN DOLLARS FOR EVERY VICTIM HE CONSIGNS to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so. The oath of any two villains is sufficient, under this hell-black enactment, to send the most pious and exemplary black man into the remorseless jaws of slavery! His own testimony is nothing. He can bring no witnesses for himself. The minister of American justice is bound by the law to hear but one side; and that side, is the side of the oppressor. Let this damning fact be perpetually told. Let it be thundered around the world, that, in tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America, the seats of justice are filled with judges, who hold their offices under an open and palpable bribe, and are bound, in deciding in the case of a man’s liberty, hear only his accusers!

In glaring violation of justice, in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law, in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenseless, and in diabolical intent, this Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation. I doubt if there be another nation on the globe, having the brass and the baseness to put such a law on the statute-book. If any man in this assembly thinks differently from me in this matter, and feels able to disprove my statements, I will gladly confront him at any suitable time and place he may select.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

I take this law to be one of the grossest infringements of Christian Liberty, and, if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it.

At the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they are utterly silent in respect to a law which robs religion of its chief significance, and makes it utterly worthless to a world lying in wickedness. Did this law concern the “mint, anise and cummin”—abridge the right to sing psalms, to partake of the sacrament, or to engage in any of the ceremonies of religion, it would be smitten by the thunder of a thousand pulpits. A general shout would go up from the church, demanding repeal, repeal, instant repeal! And it would go hard with that politician who presumed to solicit the votes of the people without inscribing this motto on his banner. Further, if this demand were not complied with, another Scotland would be added to the history of religious liberty, and the stern old Covenanters would be thrown into the shade. A John Knox would be seen at every church door, and heard from every pulpit, and Fillmore would have no more quarter than was shown by Knox, to the beautiful, but treacherous queen Mary of Scotland. The fact that the church of our country, (with fractional exceptions), does not esteem “the Fugitive Slave Law” as a declaration of war against religious liberty, implies that that church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and not a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, love and good will towards man. It esteems sacrifice above mercy; psalm-singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness. A worship that can be conducted by persons who refuse to give shelter to the houseless, to give bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy, is a curse, not a blessing to mankind. The Bible addresses all such persons as “scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites, who pay tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith.”

THE CHURCH RESPONSIBLE.

But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines. who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.

For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throng of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs. It is not that “pure and undefiled religion” which is from above, and which is “first pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves; which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on; it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man. All this we affirm to be true of the popular church, and the popular worship of our land and nation—a religion, a church, and a worship which, on the authority of inspired wisdom, we pronounce to be an abomination in the sight of God. In the language of Isaiah, the American church might be well addressed, “Bring no more vain ablations; incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble to me; I am weary to bear them; and when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea! when ye make many prayers, I will not hear. YOUR HANDS ARE FULL OF BLOOD; cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed; judge for the fatherless; plead for the widow.”

The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery; but it is superlatively guilty when viewed in connection with its ability to abolish slavery. The sin of which it is guilty is one of omission as well as of commission. Albert Barnes but uttered what the common sense of every man at all observant of the actual state of the case will receive as truth, when he declared that “There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.”

Let the religious press, the pulpit, the Sunday school, the conference meeting, the great ecclesiastical, missionary, Bible and tract associations of the land array their immense powers against slavery and slave-holding; and the whole system of crime and blood would be scattered to the winds; and that they do not do this involves them in the most awful responsibility of which the mind can conceive.

In prosecuting the anti-slavery enterprise, we have been asked to spare the church, to spare the ministry; but how, we ask, could such a thing be done? We are met on the threshold of our efforts for the redemption of the slave, by the church and ministry of the country, in battle arrayed against us; and we are compelled to fight or flee. From what quarter, I beg to know, has proceeded a fire so deadly upon our ranks, during the last two years, as from the Northern pulpit? As the champions of oppressors, the chosen men of American theology have appeared-men, honored for their so-called piety, and their real learning. The LORDS of Buffalo, the SPRINGS of New York, the LATHROPS of Auburn, the COXES and SPENCERS of Brooklyn, the GANNETS and SHARPS of Boston, the DEWEYS of Washington, and other great religious lights of the land, have, in utter denial of the authority of Him, by whom the professed to he called to the ministry, deliberately taught us, against the example or the Hebrews and against the remonstrance of the Apostles, they teach “that we ought to obey man’s law before the law of God.”

My spirit wearies of such blasphemy; and how such men can be supported, as the “standing types and representatives of Jesus Christ,” is a mystery which I leave others to penetrate. In speaking of the American church, however, let it be distinctly understood that I mean the great mass of the religious organizations of our land. There are exceptions, and I thank God that there are. Noble men may be found, scattered all over these Northern States, of whom Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, Samuel J. May of Syracuse, and my esteemed friend on the platform, are shining examples; and let me say further, that upon these men lies the duty to inspire our ranks with high religious faith and zeal, and to cheer us on in the great mission of the slave’s redemption from his chains.

RELIGION IN ENGLAND AND RELIGION IN AMERICA.

One is struck with the difference between the attitude of the American church towards the anti-slavery movement, and that occupied by the churches in England towards a similar movement in that country. There, the church, true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty. There, the question of emancipation was a high[ly] religious question. It was demanded, in the name of humanity, and according to the law of the living God. The Sharps, the Clarksons, the Wilberforces, the Buxtons, and Burchells and the Knibbs, were alike famous for their piety, and for their philanthropy. The anti-slavery movement there was not an anti-church movement, for the reason that the church took its full share in prosecuting that movement: and the anti-slavery movement in this country will cease to be an anti-church movement, when the church of this country shall assume a favorable, instead or a hostile position towards that movement. Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen. You hurl your anathemas at the crowned headed tyrants of Russia and Austria, and pride yourselves on your Democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and bodyguards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina. You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad, honor them with banquets, greet them with ovations, cheer them, toast them, salute them, protect them, and pour out your money to them like water; but the fugitives from your own land you advertise, hunt, arrest, shoot and kill. You glory in your refinement and your universal education yet you maintain a system as barbarous and dreadful as ever stained the character of a nation—a system begun in avarice, supported in pride, and perpetuated in cruelty. You shed tears over fallen Hungary, and make the sad story of her wrongs the theme of your poets, statesmen and orators, till your gallant sons are ready to fly to arms to vindicate her cause against her oppressors; but, in regard to the ten thousand wrongs of the American slave, you would enforce the strictest silence, and would hail him as an enemy of the nation who dares to make those wrongs the subject of public discourse! You are all on fire at the mention of liberty for France or for Ireland; but are as cold as an iceberg at the thought of liberty for the enslaved of America. You discourse eloquently on the dignity of labor; yet, you sustain a system which, in its very essence, casts a stigma upon labor. You can bare your bosom to the storm of British artillery to throw off a threepenny tax on tea; and yet wring the last hard-earned farthing from the grasp of the black laborers of your country. You profess to believe “that, of one blood, God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth,” and hath commanded all men, everywhere to love one another; yet you notoriously hate, (and glory in your hatred), all men whose skins are not colored like your own. You declare, before the world, and are understood by the world to declare, that you “hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; and yet, you hold securely, in a bondage which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson, “is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose,” a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country.

Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a by word to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes. Oh! be warned! be warned! a horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!

THE CONSTITUTION.

But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.

Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped “To palter with us in a double sense: And keep the word of promise to the ear, But break it to the heart.”

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practiced on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length—nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour.

Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a track of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tell us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument.

Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.

I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion.

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work The downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, “Let there be Light,” has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. “Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God.” In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o’er
When from their galling chains set free,
Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom’s reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore.

God speed the day when human blood
Shall cease to flow!
In every clime be understood,
The claims of human brotherhood,
And each return for evil, good,
Not blow for blow;
That day will come all feuds to end.
And change into a faithful friend
Each foe.

God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant’s presence cower;
But all to manhood’s stature tower,
By equal birth!
THAT HOUR WILL, COME, to each, to all,
And from his prison-house, the thrall
Go forth.

Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
With head, and heart, and hand I’ll strive,
To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
The spoiler of his prey deprive-
So witness Heaven!
And never from my chosen post,
Whate’er the peril or the cost,
Be driven.

30 June 2019

WE WILL NOT RECYCLE OUR WAY OUT OF CHAOS…

0900 by Jeff Hess

When I became the editor of the Municipal Edition of Recycling Today back in 1990, I earned the job, in part, because I had served on a local recycling advisory council in Cleveland Height, Ohio, established to study how best to roll out a full-scale recycling program. (The city had been collecting and recycling newspaper for more than a decade, but not other materials.)

We had just celebrated the 20th anniversary of Earth Day and curbside recycling was all the rage and while the first two arrows in the famous chasing-arrows symbol were still given a nod, they were pretty much ignored by all but a few environmental evangelists. The reason was simple: if people reduced and reused/repurpose items first, that meant that they were buying less stuff and buying less stuff would collapse our consumerist economy.

So, we could all collect our bottles, cans and cardboard and feel good about all the stuff we were buying because, well, we were recycling! That worked for a couple of decades, but no one in 2019 who is not in denial, delusional or with half a brain can honestly believe that we’ll fix our current state crisis of climate chaos by just magically recycling all our stuff to make room for the new stuff we want to buy.

Change is hard, however, and majority, if not universal, change is really, really hard.
No one understood this better than Mahatma Gandhi who said: Be the change that you wish to see in the world. If we want save the planet, first, we must be the change.

Daniel Masoliver, in No flights, a four-day week and living off-grid: what climate scientists do at home to save the planet gathered self-reports for The Guardian from five climate scientists—Tom Bailey, Prof. Dave Reay, Dr. Alison Green, Siobhán Pereira and Dr Kimberly Nicholas—about how they were being the change they wanted to see.

Bailey, head of sustainable consumption at C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, told Masoliver:

I’ve been vegetarian since I was about 15, and pretty much vegan for a year. It’s important that everybody goes close to vegetarian, and ideally vegan. Not just that: it’s also important that we stop eating so much. The average European eats 3,500 calories a day, which is too much. The planet has had to provide all those unnecessary calories. It’s not just about climate change: if you look at land use change, biodiversity loss, fertilisers in the ocean creating dead zones, the massive extinction and loss of insects due to pesticides – these problems are all driven by food.

I’ve also reduced the volume of new clothing that I buy. The average European buys 24 new items every year. That needs to come down – based on my team’s research, I’m aiming for three. I can still keep my wardrobe alive through secondhand, recycled, upgraded, swapped or rented clothes.

I’m nearly vegetarian—I eat meat maybe one a week, mostly when we eat out—but going vegan will be much tougher. Eliminating eggs and cheese (I can drop milk itself) will be difficult. I do my best to keep my daily consumption below 2,000 calories. On clothing, I’ve never been a clothes horse and have been ahead of Bailey on this point for most of my life.

Bailey also touts the value of cutting back to a four-day work week. I did so in 2017, mostly to reduce my daily, 80-minute round trip to work by 20 percent and cut back a further 25 percent in 2018 when I went to a three-day week. (Note: I was still working at home on my writing, journalism and blogging, but not driving anywhere other than to the library a couple of time a week.) Now, retired, I’m back to working seven days a week, but all from my home office and my gas consumption has gone from a tank a week to a tank a month.

Reay, chair in carbon management and education at the University of Edinburgh, and I also have something in common. In his response he focused on flying:

I gave up flying in 2004. I’d just published a paper looking at the carbon emissions that come from climate scientists like me attending conferences, which academics do a lot. It would have been hypocritical for me to flag up flying as the major part of my carbon footprint, and then carry on doing it.

In the ’80s and ’90s, when I was a magazine editor, I consistently racked up more than 10,000 flight miles a year. The last time I boarded a plane—a school trip to New York City—was also in 2004. I have a hard time imagining an event or reason that could get me back on a plane in the future.

Green, national director (UK) at awareness charity Scientists Warning and former pro-vice chancellor, Arden University. Of the five, she is perhaps the most radical, most Ghandiesque. She wrote:

In July 2018, I came across Prof Jem Bendell’s Deep Adaptation paper, which was going viral online. Here was someone with credibility and a good track record who, having studied the science, was saying that we’re no longer looking at mitigation, we’re looking at adaptation; that societal collapse is inevitable.

People are starting to talk about the kind of spiritual awakening you get in these situations: an “ecophany”. I concluded that banging on about climate change on social media was not enough, and became involved with grassroots activism. Being a vice-chancellor no longer meant anything to me. I gave up my career, and I’m so much happier as a result. Now I talk at conferences and events about the need for urgent action and I have taken part in direct actions with Extinction Rebellion, including the closing of five London bridges last November and speaking in Parliament Square during the April rebellion.

Green is trying to prevent and prep for the failure of that prevention. She continues:

I am putting my house on the market. My aim is to move to north Wales or Scotland and get a smallholding. I’ve had to think differently when house-hunting: is it energy-efficient? Does it have access to water? Is it above sea level by a certain amount? Where’s the slope facing, so I can grow food. I need to get solar panels up, and a friend has offered some help with a wind turbine. It’s a way of life that’s always appealed to me; now it seems really urgent.

I’m very aware that I’m privileged in being able to do this. It’s frightening to think about homeless people, people who are in rented accommodation. Who will look out for them?

You know, I always thought if Russia or China or whomever, was going to start dropping the big ones, I didn’t want to be in a shelter, I didn’t want to live in a post-apocalyptic world. I think I’m too old to try and live like Max Rockatansky.

Pereira, carbon specialist at construction and engineering firm Costain Group has seen waste and the futility of recycling first hand. He told Masoliver:

I’d studied sustainability and carbon management, but it was only when we were setting up a second factory, looking into the waste output that would come from the manufacturing process, that it hit home: all those shampoo bottles can’t actually be recycled. And then you think about how long you’ve been on this planet, how many bottles you’ve used–it makes you step back and reflect.

Your average soap bottle has about five different types of plastic, and unless each bit is dismantled, it’s not completely recyclable. The little pump is made from one type of plastic, the pipe is made from another, and then you’ve got the spring. We’ve got so used to going into the supermarket, putting something into our baskets and coming home, but we haven’t considered what happens at the end of its life.

Pereira wrestles with the damage done by flying, but, she writes:

I do still fly. It weighs on my conscience; can you imagine studying carbon management and flying home to Dubai for Christmas? I can remember coming back in January and feeling 30 pairs of eyes turn on me when they found out. But I was like, “I miss my mum!”. I’ve been recording all of my flights, and am saving up to offset the carbon footprint, through organisations like My Climate or WWF. Again, it just goes back to the financial cost of trying to do the right thing by the environment.

What would Gandhi do? I have no idea.

Finally, Masoliver talked to Nicholas, associate professor of sustainability science at Lund University, Sweden. Masoliver summed Nicholas’ views in one sentence: It’s all about the big three: flying, driving and eating meat.

I grew up in the countryside and loved spending time outside, first in California and later Alaska. I now study ways to keep carbon out of the atmosphere; how to reduce our climate pollution quickly and fairly.

Individual choices matter: 72 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from household decisions, including mobility (especially using cars and planes), diet (especially meat and dairy consumption), and housing (heating and cooling, and electricity consumption).

The largest share of climate pollution comes from the 10 percent of the global population lucky enough to live on $23 per day or more, a group that includes most people in rich countries like the UK. (The poor cause very little climate pollution, so there’s not a lot of room for them to reduce their emissions.)

To limit warming to 1.5C, our generation must stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The next decade is critical; emissions need to start plummeting towards zero today. We can get started by very quickly cutting today’s emissions in half.

Cutting them in half? I really have to think about that one. Masoliver offers two links to tools to help us measure what our emissions: the CoolClimate Network calculator and the World Wildlife Foundation’s How big is your environmental footprint? calculator.

I’ll post my personal footprint later.

Bonus No. 1: DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM V. CORPORATE SOCIALISM…

« Previous - Next »