The (Mythic) ‘Sister Souljah Moment’

America’s ‘first black president’ confronted America’s ‘black community’ when he took the stage in front of the Rainbow Coalition and denounced the remarks of one of the ostensibly monolithic community’s leaders spokespersons, Ms. Sister Souljah. In so doing, he distanced himself from an ‘extreme element’ of the Democratic Party, offending some of its members but establishing himself as a moderate. Thus, Bill Clinton won the Democratic nomination, and eventually, the general election.

This year, though there has been much ‘Sister Souljah’ calling, there will be no such moments. Why? Because there never was such a moment. To borrow heavily from a generic meta-narrative of the blog community, the media proffered the previously articulated narrative in order to explain why a white candidate would disagree with a rapper who argued for a ‘week to kill white people’ following the 1992 LA riots. Although I wasn’t there and haven’t yet been able to contact an official representative of the ‘black community’, I can imagine that there weren’t too many in the Rainbow Alliance audience who stood up to defend Sister Souljah’s right to kill white people. I think I know why; because while the ‘black community’ is an extremely intellectually and politically (and ethnically/racially) diverse imagined ‘community’, there isn’t much of a movement within the ‘community’ for racially motivated killings. As I said, I wasn’t there, but the primary reason for objecting to Clinton’s statement was probably was more along the lines of questioning why an alleged ally of the community needed to inform a pacific group of advocates for justice that killing people was wrong. So while the media generated a historic precedent, attendees of the rally wondered what Clinton had said that distanced himself from their political beliefs. They hadn’t endorsed Sister Souljah, or even contemplated picking up arms. There was a response against Clinton; not because he denounced killing, but primarily because Clinton did not warn organisers that he would be speaking out against Sister Souljah.

Despite the dubious nature of the moniker, its memory and precedent(ial) quality hovers over the current batch of Democratic presidential candidates. Incredulously, the biggest bout of ‘Sister Souljah!’ calling that I have witnessed has been over remarks by Barack Obama to that same ‘black community’, albeit twelve years later. Apparently, a candidate telling people that parent’s should be more involved in their children’s educations distances the candidate from the listeners. As if black parents are the sole guilty ones of excessively leaning on the TV to parent children. Or that Obama, a father of two daughters, only mentions the importance of parents to people whose skin colour doesn’t look like most of the rich and powerful of the world. Perhaps it was simpler for the media (including, I might add, many left leaning bloggers) to continue the flawed narrative by making the connection over racial lines. Ostensibly, this is because the ‘community’ is monolithically out of sync with mainstream American politics, holds incredible influence, and other voters may not support a candidate too close to such a dangerous monolith. (The second is rather interesting claim against a group that has only been allowed to vote for about 40 years.)

Of course, much of this commentary may stem from caffeine enhanced paranoia about the state of our nation and the media of convenience, but don’t dismiss it. Instead, look for ways that candidates substantively distance themselves from groups (or not), rather than citing actions that seem like distancing according to racially focused narratives. For example, Obama and Edwards distancing themselves from lobbyists, especially in contrast with Clinton not creating the same distance; or Obama’s speech to automakers in Detroit. These are easy examples by a rather uninvolved observer, I’m sure that you can find more.

Just don’t reference Sister Souljah when you do.

Bush Threatens to Derail 9/11 Security Bill over Empowerment of Workers

The bill enacting many of the 9/11 Commission proposed reforms faces a possible veto from the White House because (gasp!) it would allow airport screeners to unionize!

The Senate's leaders moved closer today toward a head-on collision over using the 9/11 bill to give collective bargaining rights to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners, a provision that already has sparked a White House veto threat. The bill is now on the floor.

Senate Republicans have followed the lead of their House counterparts, who are countering a House Democratic plan to call up another pro-union measure later today. Republicans have blasted Democrats, arguing that the bill is a giveaway to the labor interests that have given crucial political support to the new majority. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told his party's faithful at today's Conservative Political Action Conference that Republicans would stay united to sustain any presidential veto of the 9/11 bill.

While it would be a shame to see a good bill get derailed over the right's perverse fear of all things union, I kind of hope they do back Bush if he vetos this, beause I dont see any way Smith or Collins, or Coleman will be able to explain their way out of this one. What are they going to say? "Preventing workers from forming unions is more important than the Nation's security"? Let Bush veto this, and let him veto the Employee Free Choice Act, which passed the House today. 20% of the American public would join a union if they were given the opportunity, yet union membership is at an all time low 12% today and the Bush Administration and Republican Congress want to limit the right to unionize as much as possible.

Why EFCA is Necessary

There's been much talk about the Employee Free Choice Act which was recently reported out of Committee in the House. Among other things the bill would allow the formation of a union if a majority of workers sign union cards rather than requiring a secret vote after workers sign union cards. I find the arguments that opponents are using very amusing.

"What you are seeing is an unprecedented effort by organized labor to overturn years of labor law," said Ringwood, a lobbyist for Associated Builders and Contractors. Like most business officials, she argued that removing the secret ballot would diminish workers' rights.

"This is moving very quickly and people are concerned that the rights of employees would be taken away."

By signing a union card workers are already expressing their support for a union, one must wonder at this point why a secret ballot election should be required after a majority of employees have already shown their support for a union. The answer of course is that oftentimes unions fail upon a secret ballot election. But this isnt because desire for a union is any less strong, but rather because employers threaten workers and run dishonest campaigns against the union. Further, as I pointed out a year ago, NLRB regulations against campaigns that intimidate workers are inneffective.

In 1997, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union lost a unionization election at the sprawling plant, built in this rural town 75 miles south of Raleigh. But it was not until 2004 that the National Labor Relations Board upheld an administrative law judge's decision that threw out the election results.

Seven years that workers in the North Carolina Factory I referred to in that post were without a union while waiting for the NLRB to rule on what was obvious. In that case workers were getting paid a full $3 an hour less than their unionized counterparts, the company may well be saving more than enough in reduced labor costs without a union to afford NLRB punishments after a 7 year wait. As I said at the time:

Seven years to finaly rule that the company violated the workers rights to a fair vote for a union. Seven years that the company was allowed to continue abusing its workers and for which the workers had no recourse of a union. Even after the ruling, organizers fear that the company would continue to act in the same way, intimidating workers so that they still would be unable to get a fair vote. If a new vote were held today and the company engaged in the same tactics and the vote had the same result, it would take another seven years to get the same ruling from the NLRB. Another 7 years for which employees would have no way to defend themselves against company abuses.

Go back and read that original post in which I quoted a fair share of a New York Times article on the subject, it was very disturbing. Its cases like these that show why we absolutely need EFCA, because these "confidential votes" are oftentimes anything but fair and are merely a means for employers who want to prevent a union to intimidate their employees to prevent them from voting for one. As to questions of whether its going to pass, I think it will, the bill is almost certainly going to pass the House as it has 230 cosponsors, both Democrats and Republicans. It has such broad support in the Democratic caucus, and has support of some of the most conservative Democrats out there that I see no possible way that it doesnt have the votes to pass the Senate, I would expect Collins, Snowe, and Specter to support it as well. Given the fact that it seems to have some reasonable Republican support and even has several Republican cosponsors, there might be enough votes there for an override if Bush vetos this. In short, I'm very optimistic about this bill. I guess the question on a veto override is whether there is any support from faux moderates like Gordo for the bill, if there is then any Bush veto will be overridden.

Uninspired Blogging

Since the start of the new year I've felt very uninspired as I write this blog. My posts have recently been written most often because I feel like I should post something rather than any sense that I want to talk about a given issue. That all culminated almost two weeks (12 days to be exact) ago when following a post on Lt Watada I proceeded to go on a long hiatus without a single post. What all this tells me is that it is clear that this blog must change its course (much like the US in Iraq only without the bloodshed). It has been my observation that far too little attention is payed by the mainstream press and by major blogs to labor/union issues. I now hope to stake myself out against that trend dedicating the bulk of this blog to precisely those issues. I have set up google and yahoo news alerts for labor and union relevent articles and will try to extensively cover everything union to the best of my ability. If I feel compelled to write about another issue I will, but the bulk of this blog will henceforth be dedicated to labor and unions. Expect this to start sometime today.

The Watada Trial and Personal Responsibility

I was struck by this collumn in the Seattle Post Intelligencer today regarding the actions of Lt. Ehren Watada. The author Robert Jamieson explores the difference between Lt. Watada and Sgt. Mickel David Garrigus who recently died in Iraq, asking which one should be treated as a hero. Before I get deeper into this I believe that Mr. Jamieson forces a false choice upon his readers, playing on every emotional connection that one can to portray Sgt. Garrigus well and Lt. Watada poorly. Undoubtedly we should mourn for Sgt. Garrigus just as we should morn for every one of the more than 3,000 American soldiers and countless Iraqis who have died in this terrible war. Jamieson acts as though one cant think highly of both at the same time, as though respecting the fight that Mr. Watada is putting up somehow diminishes the life of Sgt. Garrigus, it doesnt. The crux of Jamieson's argument however lies below.

They've talked about values they hold dear: patriotism and honor and duty.

Both have anguished over the implosion of Iraq.

But as soldiers they've long known -- or damn well should have known -- that an imperfect military machine works because men and women sign up to follow orders. They are contracted to abide by the rules. You break these rules -- even if you question, as I do, those at the top who are now enforcing them -- and you face the consequences. Period.

This is a deeply flawed moral philosophy that Jamieson presents his readers with, and one that needs to be examined. Jamieson even quotes the right source but fails to engage with the weight of its words, I refer to Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham City Jail."

"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

This is not about whether Lt. Watada will face consequences (though I was sure he would until today) this is about the responsibility that an individual holds to others. Watata feels that the war is unjust and has made the determination that if one feels the war is unjust one should not participate in it. Jamieson's argument is precisely the one that was rightly rejected at Nuremburg, that individual's following orders bears no responsibility for what he has done. The Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann merely decided to do his job rather than to stop and question the fact that he was playing an active part in the slaughter of millions of innocent people. Watada has broken the law and should be confined to prison, but that misses the point, the point is that Watada has acted in good faith with his conscious, he has made the determination that he cannot bear to live knowing that he played a part in this war. Those who say that soldiers should not question the conflicts for which they fight merely return to the nuremburg defense. Watada is as King put it "showing the highest respect for law" but refusing to participate in this war and willingly accepting the penalty for it. But recent events undermine this.

The Army court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, which ended in a mistrial Wednesday, may have stranger turns ahead: Prohibitions against double jeopardy may keep prosecutors from having a second trial, his lawyer and another legal expert say.

The opposition of Watada and his defense team to the mistrial, declared by the military judge and eventually endorsed by prosecutors after their case fell apart, opens the door for a double-jeopardy defense, said John Junker, a University of Washington law professor.
...
The dramatic turn of events hinged on a stipulation of fact that Watada signed in a plea agreement more than a week ago. Under the plea deal, prosecutors dropped two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer against Watada. He was being tried this week on two other charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and one count of missing movement when his Stryker Brigade deployed to Iraq in June.

Head questioned Watada while the jury was out of the courtroom, which Seitz objected to but allowed, and legal experts such as Junker said they would consider that questioning "very unusual" in a civilian trial.

Head concluded that he could not accept Watada's statement. Although Watada had admitted to failing to deploy with his unit, it was not the same as admitting guilt, which prosecutors considered it to be, Head said.

Watada should in fact have admitted guilt, he should have said "yes! I refused to get on that plane, if that is a crime than I guess I'm guilty!" But he didnt, If Watada truly wants to take the moral high ground he should not be pleading his innocence but rather admitting his guilt. I have a deep respect for Watada's refusal to participate in more killing, he can not participate in this war if he truly believes that it is wrong. However, he should plead guilty and accept the consequences of doing so. The moral high ground rarely comes without consequences, and it seems as though Lt. Watada is trying to have it both ways, which is a shame.

Coolest Picture Ever

Literally.

That looks like it should be painful but he doesnt look like he's in pain. Thank you CNN.com

Diplomatic Operations

Josh Marshall asks:

Can we assume the number of billions of dollars for "diplomatic operations" is a pretty small part of the pie? And what "diplomatic operations" are they talking about exactly?

My guess is aggressive negotiations.

Anakin: When I got to them we got into aggressive negotiations.
Padme: Aggressive negotiations? What's that?
Anakin: Ah, well, it's negotiations with a lightsaber.

I've got to work Star Wars into this blog every once in a while.