The Digital Dispatch

From NOEBIE.net

Commentary

CDC COVID-19 Community Levels

· ·

My child and I just had an interesting chat about the easing of mask mandates. Her main concern is that it will create an environment of division at her school, where kids are ridiculed if they choose to mask.

I tried my best to reassure her. I hope that staff and admin will do their best to encourage an environment of empathy and mutual understanding.

We all need to do the same.

For me, this starts with giving up my own reflexive attitudes about unmasked people, associating them with right-wing ignorance and such.

The CDC has designated the county where I live as having a “low community level” for COVID. Their guidance for our county is “Wear a mask based on your personal preference, informed by your personal level of risk.”

It seems to me that those of us who have been saying we “believe in science” and “the CDC is the authority” when it came to immunizations and shots throughout the pandemic, have an obligation to refrain from criticism of folks who follow CDC guidance now by not wearing a mask.

Our household will likely still mask in public for the most part, at least for awhile, as we have a lot of close contact with family members who have compromised immunity. I will refuse to accept anyone giving us grief about that, and you should pray that God will protect you if you are hostile toward my child about it.

But those of us who have been cautious throughout the pandemic, and who framed things largely as a struggle against the ignorance of others, might do well to ease up on judging our neighbors in the coming weeks.

If you’d like to check the community level for your own locale, here’s the tool from the CDC website.

Unfaithful to the Gospel

· ·

Each time I think that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have gotten to the point where there isn’t much they can do that would surprise me or disappoint me, they find a way to do it.

When obsessions with language and semantics around gender and sexuality causes a group to oppose funding for suicide prevention, prevention of violence against women, and protection for all against discrimination, they have departed from any semblance of being “True to the Gospel” or “pro-life.”

I have to remind myself that the Bishops, although meant to be shepherds of the Church, are not the Church itself. So, it is not accurate to say that “the Catholic Church opposes” equality. Nevertheless, it is troubling to remain in communion with a body which seems to be led by bigots.

Some Thoughts on Bernie 2020

· ·

Fist Pumping Bernie

I was not one of those who were anxiously hoping for another Sanders campaign. The Democratic Party has been rightly called a “corporate-funded dumpster fire,” and by choosing to run for its Presidential nomination, Bernie will conceivably bring hundreds of thousands of folks into the Democrat fold. These hundreds of thousands ought to instead be working to create the independent socialist workers party that we so desperately need. There are numerous other legitimate criticisms to be made of Sanders’ politics. His lack of anything approaching a coherent anti-imperialist foreign policy, his focus on economic oppressions almost to the exclusion of all else, his vague definition of what socialism even means, his lack of affiliation with (let alone commitment to) an actual socialist organization beyond his own campaign – all of this and more are reasons for concern. The prospects for what might happen if he were to actually win the nomination and the Presidency might also give one pause. We will still have a Congress that is owned by Corporate America. There are any number of scenarios one can imagine where Sanders’ success would actually be detrimental to the socialist cause.

Despite all of these misgivings, I believe that socialists ought to support Bernie for 2020. Here’s why.

Sanders is the face of socialism in America. Bernie is not only the most prominent figure on the American left of our time, he is the most visible (at least nominally) socialist leader in two or three generations. You’d have to go back to Eugene Debs to find another American socialist who could draw millions to the ballot box. There’s certainly a contrast to be drawn between Debs (whose efforts were rooted in the labor movement, and who kept a commitment to independent socialist organizing through his life) and Sanders (not so on either count). But the cold fact of the matter is that we do not have a Eugene Debs at the moment. I hope for the day that we do. At the moment, Bernie is the leader we have. His influence is huge, and the potential for his 2020 campaign to win millions to our side is heartening. The downside of missed opportunities is too steep to pursue.

What’s the alternative? Is there another way to engage with the Presidential Election of 2020 that will better help to advance the cause of socialism? If there is, I don’t see it. In 2016, many of us saw the Green Party’s campaign as our best opportunity for organizing and holding up an alternative vision during the elections. It would also certainly be nice if an explicitly socialist party such as SPUSA were poised to command people’s attention. But with Sanders already positioned as frontrunner for the Democratic nomination this cycle, it’s hard to argue that the third party campaigns will add anything to the debate, or will offer much in the way of opportunities for organizing or building the strength, confidence and consciousness of the working class. I would genuinely love to hear other perspectives on this, though.

Here’s where we should draw the line. Absent a Sanders nomination, socialists should abandon the Democrats’ 2020 Presidential Campaign. Despite the lure of “lesser evilism” we simply ought not support a candidate whose policies and track record are not aligned with our ideals. There is, as yet, no one in the Democratic field other than Bernie who deserves our support.

What else should socialists do? In terms of other work that can be done to move things forward, socialists who don’t choose to support Bernie will still find a lot to do, and bless them. They can continue to organize, to agitate, to educate, to support the struggles of the oppressed. In fact, this is where the bulk of our time ought to be spent even during the campaign cycle. Struggle raises consciousness and confidence in ways that an election campaign cannot.

I just don’t think that sitting on the sidelines of the entire election cycle proclaiming a message of “Bernie’s campaign is problematic” (though this is certainly true) will do a lot toward building the sort of mass movement for socialism that we need. If we don’t find ways to engage positively with Bernie’s campaign, we’ll be looking back with regret in a couple years.

Some Initial Thoughts on Gun Regulation

· ·

I’ve been thinking a lot about the sorts of gun control measures that I could support. I’ll probably be posting about this in more detail at some point, but here is a quick list of ideas that I think might be helpful, and might find wide popular support, even among people who keep guns.

  1. increased liability for gun manufacturers
  2. restrictions (or an outright ban) on certain types of gun advertising
  3. mandatory insurance requirements for gun owners
  4. a national registry
  5. required training and/or proficiency testing
  6. age requirement for gun ownership (21)
  7. waiting period for purchase

Some of these ideas are modeled on how we deal with alcohol, tobacco, etc. Some on how we approach automobile safety. All of them are aimed at being an effective deterrent to the sorts of tragedies that we see so often of late, while avoiding the most odious concerns expressed by those of us (on both the left and right) who care about the rights of oppressed people, self-defense, liberty, tradition, or what have you.

National registration and the age requirement are probably the most controversial of these ideas.

In the area where I grew up, people often start hunting as teenagers. This would still be possible, in that guns for hunting, range shooting, etc., could be allowed to be in the possession of someone under 21, so long as they have had adequate safety training, proficiency testing, and are under the supervision of a qualified adult. Again, this is not much different than what we do with drivers’ permits (although obviously the age I suggest for ownership is more advanced).

As to a national registry, I know that this suggestion sets in motion all sorts of paranoia, and (anti-historical) visions of Hitler confiscating guns so as to reduce people to sheep. I’ll have more to say about this later after more extensive research, but for now, let me just note that my shotgun purchase was registered with the State of Illinois when I bought it decades ago. No one has yet come to my house to take it. Even in Australia, where they have adopted strict licensing requirements, established a national registry, and instituted a 28-day waiting period to buy guns, they didn’t *confiscate* guns. With all of the precedents for gun registration in the world, so far I haven’t been able to find an example of widespread confiscation as a result. And, frankly, if the people with all the tanks and other advanced weaponry decided to turn them on the broader American populace, I doubt that a registry would make much difference. They certainly haven’t needed a gun registry to wreak havoc and death all over the Middle East, or on the streets of our own cities.

I may eventually be persuaded that some of these ideas are flawed for one reason or another, but they are at least a starting point.

Last Thoughts on Election Eve 2016

· ·

new-election-day-2016jpg

Here are my last words ahead of the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election. I cannot, in good conscience, celebrate a Clinton victory tomorrow evening. I will, however, certainly celebrate Trump’s defeat, and will dance on his grave if ever given the chance.

For all of my apparent cynicism to people who don’t know me well, I will also celebrate the election of a woman to the Presidency. I was an early supporter of Patricia Schroeder for the Democratic nomination nearly thirty years ago. It’s about freaking time.

I am proud of my vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party again this year. She has held up the vision of a more just, peaceful and sustainable society. This is an alternative that went without mention from either of the major party candidates.

I do not hope for a continuation of the sort of petty partisan conflict that has so characterized this election cycle. But I do hope (and pray) that in the coming months we shall see a heightened state of unrest. I intend to continue to do my best to foment it. It is in struggle that we become conscious. And it is way past time for all of us to wake up.

Left Electoral Strategy 2016 and Beyond

· ·

power-to-the-people

I’m thankful to Chris Maisano for crafting together this statement on electoral strategy for the American Left, and I’m proud to have added my signature to the statement, along with 74 other DSA comrades.

But if we want to move beyond the cycle of mobilization and retreat that dominates left electoral activity in the US, we have no choice but to build our own political formations, as difficult as that will be. They will have to do what all parties do – run candidates for office, particularly in states and localities where competition between Democrats and Republicans is low. Considering the many institutional barriers to effective independent politics, they will also have to launch fights to change ballot access  laws and other measures aimed at maintaining the two-party duopoly.

Read the full statement here: Give The People What They Want: DSA Members on 2016 and Beyond – Democratic Socialists of America

Response to DSA’s 2016 Electoral Strategy

· ·

never-clinton

The National Political Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America released bullet points of the organization’s 2016 electoral strategy a few weeks ago. They ask that DSA members who don’t agree “articulate these points as the organization’s perspective and then indicate where the individual member disagrees.”

You can read all of their points for yourself at the link included below. I have to say that I am deeply disturbed by what I interpret to be their (at least tacit) encouragement of strategic voting and organizing for the Democratic Party ticket.

…DSA will work with the emerging labor, immigrant, and anti-racist-led “Dump Trump” movement. For this reason, we do not endorse the #BernieOrBust tactic, though we understand the sentiment behind it. Our perspective can best be summarized as: “Dump the Racist Trump: Build the Left from the Grassroots Up.”

Although I certainly agree that a Trump Presidency would be a disaster, I also believe that a Clinton Presidency would be a disaster. The NPC’s strategy does call for turning a critical eye toward Clinton should she win, but placing emphasis on opposition to Trump alone during the campaign is a mistake, in my opinion. Socialists ought to take a principled stand to oppose both Trump and Clinton between now and November.

My own efforts will be in support of the Green Party candidacy of Dr. Jill Stein. It’s way past time to break with the Democratic Party and build a true party of the people.

I hold no illusions that someone other than Trump or Clinton shall prevail in 2016, but I cannot in good conscience lend my support nor my vote to someone I consider to be an enemy of working people. In the words of the great Eugene V. Debs,  “I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want, and get it.”

I am thankful that the NPC anticipated and explicitly allowed for dissent within our ranks, and am certainly thankful that they didn’t endorse Clinton. This is one of those times, though, when I wonder whether I’m a member of the right organization.

Read the DSA Strategy Points Here: Talking Points for DSA’s Electoral Work between May and November 2016 – Democratic Socialists of America

★ ★ ★

Here are a few more relevant links.

This is why a Clinton Presidency cannot defeat Trump.

This is why I broke with the Democrats, and quit voting for the “lesser evil.”

This is why I voted Green in 2012. I’ve since joined the Green Party and am actively working for Jill Stein’s campaign.

The Endless Spectacle of Militarism

· ·

I love America. Truly, I do. It is the land of great ideals, as well as the land of my birth.

I also respect and applaud self-sacrifice in service to others, and in service to those ideals.

So I was slow to understand the true nature of the constant prompts to “support our troops” and the endless parade of militaristic spectacle over the past couple decades. In the wake of the attacks of September 11th, the knee-jerk jingoism didn’t sit well with me, but I didn’t fully understand why.

Then comes the news this week of a joint oversight report released by Arizona Republican Senators John Flake and John McCain, documenting that over the past few years, the Pentagon spent $6.8 million to pay for patriotic displays during the games of professional sports teams. For me, this calls to mind the 1936 Summer Games.

Here are a couple of articles of interest on the subject.

No, thanks: Stop saying “support the troops” – A nation that continuously publicizes appeals to “support our troops” is explicitly asking its citizens not to think. It is the ideal slogan for suppressing the practice of democracy, presented to us in the guise of democratic preservation.

Military spectacle and American sport – Fifteen years after the beginning of the so-called “War on Terror,” no facet of life in the United States—political, legal or cultural—has escaped the dark shadow of the American military-intelligence apparatus. Everything is subordinated to the needs of the state. Personal communications are intercepted and stored, protests are monitored and school curricula are manipulated. Hollywood works with the CIA to produce films like “Zero Dark Thirty” to justify the government’s illegal torture program, and a worker can hardly take his or her family to the ballgame without being inundated with pro-war lies and propaganda.

On Human Nature

· ·

The other evening, some friends and I had a discussion about our societal woes and how to solve them. As I described the sort of world I would like to see, one of my friends called me idealistic. She related that there were people at her place of work who did the bare minimum they could possibly do and still keep their jobs. She also spoke about ambitious, hard-working millionaires. Her point, I believe, was that a system that neither rewards people with vastly more than they can ever use, nor deprives others of their basic needs, cannot work – because of human nature. The sort of society of which I dream would leave everything undone, since people would have no motivation to do anything.

My knee-jerk response was to say that ideas and habits are a result of the economic system, not vice versa. If we really want to change the undesirable ways people behave, we should change the system. This more or less ended that part of our discussion, and not because anyone was convinced of the wisdom of the statement.

The next day, I wanted to find a specific reference on this concept, and was pleased that an online search for “material conditions determine consciousness” quickly turned up this quote, from the preface to Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.

So our legal institutions, our politics, even our notions about ourselves and accepted concepts of justice – all derive from our economic relations. These relations determine our consciousness and norms of behavior.

The task is not to address faults in “human nature.” The task is to focus attention on material conditions, the inherent antagonisms that must exist in a society based on class, and conflicts that currently exist between productive forces and property relations. This offers an opportunity to raise consciousness of the essential nature of life under capitalism. Such is the basis for revolution.

Solidarity with our ILWU Brothers and Sisters

· ·

A dispute between the International Longshore & Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association has drawn the attention of President Obama, who has now sent Labor Secretary Thomas Perez to meet with the sides. It is not yet known what specific message was conveyed to the negotiators. Some have speculated that the Obama Administration is threatening to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to reopen the ports in the event of either a strike or a lockout.

A Department of Labor press release on the matter stated the following. “On behalf of President Obama, Secretary Perez made clear that the dispute has led to a very negative impact on the U.S. economy, and further delay risks tens of thousands of jobs and will cost American businesses hundreds of millions of dollars.” It also said that the two sides must come to “immediate agreement to prevent further damage to our economy and further pain for American workers and their employers.”

This sort of talk seems a far cry from Obama’s campaign rhetoric, where he pledged to “put on a comfortable pair of shoes” himself and “walk on that picket line with you, as President of the United States of America.”

The PMA, an association of the owners of the 29 ports on the West Coast, has stepped up a media campaign to draw attention to the harm that the dispute may be doing to the larger U.S. economy. The President of the ILWU, Robert McEllrath, fired back two weeks ago, accusing the PMA of distorting the facts, threatening to close the ports and bargaining in the media instead of at the table.

“What the ILWU heard yesterday is a man who makes about one million dollars a year telling the working class that we have more than our share,” said McEllrath. “Intensifying the rhetoric at this stage of bargaining, when we are just a few issues from reaching an agreement, is totally unnecessary and counterproductive.”

The PMA on Wednesday distributed letters directly to workers at major ports from Los Angeles to Washington state that detailed what they called their last, best and final contract offer, apparently in hopes that the rank-and-file will pressure union negotiators to make concessions.

As the situation unfolds, we may get an opportunity to see whether or not the Obama Administration truly stands with the workers.

For nearly a century, the West Coast longshore and warehouse workers have stood, time and again, on the front lines of the struggle for freedom and justice. They deserve our attention, our respect and our support.