I haven't come to expect great things from the media when covering enormous war protests, but the coverage of the local Fox station last Saturday was downright infuriating. I've heard estimates ranging from the "tens of thousands" to around 100,000 of how many antiwar protesters attended the event. During the march, I'd venture that I saw roughly 30 pro-war protesters. I'm sure I didn't see every pro-war person who showed up. I'll be charitable and imagine there were 100. That puts it at about a 1000:1 ratio.
How do you suppose Fox 5 treated the situation? With both sides getting equal coverage on the local news, of course.
Additionally, I am disappointed with the organizers of the march for putting Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and Jane Fonda at the front of the line. These people are not the leaders of the antiwar movement. It's fine if they want to join the protest, but we shouldn't be creating any special places for them. Naturally, Fonda's presence became a major issue in the coverage of the protest as well, taking attention away from where everyone who was actually trying to draw coverage to, you know, the war.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Late Post
For whatever reason, I couldn't post this when I originally wrote it:
As you may know, an antiwar protest is scheduled in Washington, DC for tomorrow [now passed]. Supposedly it will be the largest since the days leading up to the war. Since I happen to live in the city where this protest is being planned, I am conviently able to attend. I haven't been to a protest since 2003, when I attended the antiwar protest in Phoenix, along with about 6,000 other individuals. For Phoenix, not a hotbed of political activism, that is a huge number. Also, on that same day there were over 100,000 protesters in New York and half a million in London, as well as thousands in cities around the nation and the world.
I don't have many illusions concerning how this will suddenly convince our representatives in Congress that the war has been a moral disaster and must be ended ASAP. However, the thing I learned from the previous protest is that the goal is not necessarily only influencing policy. You hope it might do that, and certainly the direct action of the '60s and '70s played some role in ending the war in Vietnam, but even if it has absolutely no effect (like in 2003), it does let the protesters know that they are not alone and isolated. It was easy to feel like you were the only person in the world who thought the United States shouldn't go around invading nations on a whim back in 2003, but after attending the protest, I knew there were thousands of people in my community who thought like I did. They were normal, churchgoing folk, for the most part. Yeah, some college kids (as I was) and some Black Bloc radicals, but mostly just doughy moms and dads and grandparents who thought maybe we shouldn't be dropping bombs on people for no discernable reason, and putting the lives of our own children at risk to do it.
So I'm looking forward to getting out and doing a little chanting, even if it doens't result in immediate policy changes, because the solidarity you feel lets you know there are still a few people who aren't nuts. And who knows, with the war growing increasingly unpopular, perhaps displays like this will matter more. You can always hope. If you're in the area, come out and join us.
As you may know, an antiwar protest is scheduled in Washington, DC for tomorrow [now passed]. Supposedly it will be the largest since the days leading up to the war. Since I happen to live in the city where this protest is being planned, I am conviently able to attend. I haven't been to a protest since 2003, when I attended the antiwar protest in Phoenix, along with about 6,000 other individuals. For Phoenix, not a hotbed of political activism, that is a huge number. Also, on that same day there were over 100,000 protesters in New York and half a million in London, as well as thousands in cities around the nation and the world.
I don't have many illusions concerning how this will suddenly convince our representatives in Congress that the war has been a moral disaster and must be ended ASAP. However, the thing I learned from the previous protest is that the goal is not necessarily only influencing policy. You hope it might do that, and certainly the direct action of the '60s and '70s played some role in ending the war in Vietnam, but even if it has absolutely no effect (like in 2003), it does let the protesters know that they are not alone and isolated. It was easy to feel like you were the only person in the world who thought the United States shouldn't go around invading nations on a whim back in 2003, but after attending the protest, I knew there were thousands of people in my community who thought like I did. They were normal, churchgoing folk, for the most part. Yeah, some college kids (as I was) and some Black Bloc radicals, but mostly just doughy moms and dads and grandparents who thought maybe we shouldn't be dropping bombs on people for no discernable reason, and putting the lives of our own children at risk to do it.
So I'm looking forward to getting out and doing a little chanting, even if it doens't result in immediate policy changes, because the solidarity you feel lets you know there are still a few people who aren't nuts. And who knows, with the war growing increasingly unpopular, perhaps displays like this will matter more. You can always hope. If you're in the area, come out and join us.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
A Path to International Labor Standards?
In Andrew Leonard's "How the World Works" column in Salon.com a few days back there was an excellent little piece describing a paper by Jennifer Gordon called Transnational Labor Citizenship to be published in the Southern California Law Review. From the column:
To imagine that we can roll back the status quo to some yesteryear where the border between the U.S. and Mexico stands firm is, argues Gordon, "pure fantasy." It denies the very nature of an ever more globalized world, in which the movement of capital, information and people only becomes more fluid, not less. So we must go forward, not back. Gordon's proposal, "transnational labor citizenship," would create a new immigration status allowing free movement and freedom to work, as long as one pledged solidarity with a non-governmental, transnational labor organization. Such citizenship would be revoked if workers failed to abide by the rules, which would include a refusal to work for employers who did not maintain basic minimum workplace labor standards.
"Transnational labor citizenship is based on the theory that the only way to create a genuine floor on working conditions in a context of heavy competition is to link worker self-organization with the enforcement power of the state in a way that crosses borders just as workers do," writes Gordon. It's a bold assertion, and a blog post does little justice to the subtlety, complexity and sheer thoroughgoing detail that Gordon marshals in support of her ideas. But it is, above all, a progressive approach, one that sees greater inclusiveness and openness as the path to improved working conditions for everyone, instead of a "fortress mentality" of exclusion that tries, vainly, to privilege one group at the expense of another.
This is the kind of thinking that we are going to need to engage in if we are going to find a sensible solution to problems concerning international labor standards and on the influx of illegal aliens who are simultanously the subject of pity (because of the conditions they have and do endure) and demonized (because they drive down wages for other workers). The nation-state based economy is long gone and will not be making a comeback, which has hampered domestic unions to a great extent. I have not read the entire paper, but I would like to register one disagreement with the paragraph quoted above--Gordon argues that worker self-organization must be linked to the enforcement power of the state, but many (and probably, most) states do not have the will to enforce labor standards that are uniform with the standards seen across Europe or in the United States. Self-organized labor will have to impose those standards on states by vigorous organization and international solidarity. This argument isn't exactly new--Industrial Workers of the World, anyone?--but in a globalized society, it is, as far as I can see, the only plausible tactic to counter the race to the bottom that has been triggered by the advent of capital that can freely move anywhere in the world.
Maybe this paper can be the beginning of that conversation for the left.
To imagine that we can roll back the status quo to some yesteryear where the border between the U.S. and Mexico stands firm is, argues Gordon, "pure fantasy." It denies the very nature of an ever more globalized world, in which the movement of capital, information and people only becomes more fluid, not less. So we must go forward, not back. Gordon's proposal, "transnational labor citizenship," would create a new immigration status allowing free movement and freedom to work, as long as one pledged solidarity with a non-governmental, transnational labor organization. Such citizenship would be revoked if workers failed to abide by the rules, which would include a refusal to work for employers who did not maintain basic minimum workplace labor standards.
"Transnational labor citizenship is based on the theory that the only way to create a genuine floor on working conditions in a context of heavy competition is to link worker self-organization with the enforcement power of the state in a way that crosses borders just as workers do," writes Gordon. It's a bold assertion, and a blog post does little justice to the subtlety, complexity and sheer thoroughgoing detail that Gordon marshals in support of her ideas. But it is, above all, a progressive approach, one that sees greater inclusiveness and openness as the path to improved working conditions for everyone, instead of a "fortress mentality" of exclusion that tries, vainly, to privilege one group at the expense of another.
This is the kind of thinking that we are going to need to engage in if we are going to find a sensible solution to problems concerning international labor standards and on the influx of illegal aliens who are simultanously the subject of pity (because of the conditions they have and do endure) and demonized (because they drive down wages for other workers). The nation-state based economy is long gone and will not be making a comeback, which has hampered domestic unions to a great extent. I have not read the entire paper, but I would like to register one disagreement with the paragraph quoted above--Gordon argues that worker self-organization must be linked to the enforcement power of the state, but many (and probably, most) states do not have the will to enforce labor standards that are uniform with the standards seen across Europe or in the United States. Self-organized labor will have to impose those standards on states by vigorous organization and international solidarity. This argument isn't exactly new--Industrial Workers of the World, anyone?--but in a globalized society, it is, as far as I can see, the only plausible tactic to counter the race to the bottom that has been triggered by the advent of capital that can freely move anywhere in the world.
Maybe this paper can be the beginning of that conversation for the left.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
To my legions of fans:
And thus begins my newest effort yet to sustain a blog for more than a few posts. Will this be the first and last, the alpha and omega? Only time will tell!
Item! I wanted to let my readers know that I am unset to the maxx that WETA radio in the Washington, DC area has become an all-classical station. After living here for nearly a year, I have become accustomed to this NPR station. The This American Life on Saturday mornings, the Newshour at 7 on weeknights and Tavis Smiley at very odd hours. I happened to be listening last night, when post-Newshour it was announced that the station was switching to the classical format, starting immediately. What!?!? Well, true to their word, mere minutes later they started playing classical and haven't stopped since. As far as I know, this was completely out of the blue.
I now feel justified for never giving money to public radio, despite the fact that I love it and listen all the time. I know there is another NPR news station, but it's a lot harder for me to pick up and now I've got to learn their schedule. Pah!
Item! I wanted to let my readers know that I am unset to the maxx that WETA radio in the Washington, DC area has become an all-classical station. After living here for nearly a year, I have become accustomed to this NPR station. The This American Life on Saturday mornings, the Newshour at 7 on weeknights and Tavis Smiley at very odd hours. I happened to be listening last night, when post-Newshour it was announced that the station was switching to the classical format, starting immediately. What!?!? Well, true to their word, mere minutes later they started playing classical and haven't stopped since. As far as I know, this was completely out of the blue.
I now feel justified for never giving money to public radio, despite the fact that I love it and listen all the time. I know there is another NPR news station, but it's a lot harder for me to pick up and now I've got to learn their schedule. Pah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)