Features

 

Go ahead, make my next four years

What’s really behind the sound and the fury of Clint Eastwood criticism?

Sunday night’s Academy Awards proved that we’ve come a long way in the so-called culture wars. There was a time when Clint Eastwood cut the cloth of the perfect liberal boogeyman. In 1971, The New York Times film critic Pauline Kael famously called Dirty Harry a “medieval fascist” for his unrepentant pursuit of vigilante justice. Eastwood’s characters saw the world in Manichean terms, and his movies’ plots were simple-minded conflicts of Good vs. Evil — a storyline the Bush Administration is fond of imposing on real world conflicts.

Fast-forward to 2005, and Eastwood — a lifelong Republican — has become the bête noir of conservative pundits like Michael Medved and Rush Limbaugh, as well as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has called Eastwood’s Oscar-winning Million Dollar Baby “morally offensive.” The film’s “permissive depiction of euthanasia,” the USCCB claims, “will leave Catholic viewers emotionally against the ropes.”

Now, I don’t claim to know why Catholic bishops watch movies, but I do know that great art does occasionally challenge our ethical and moral sensibilities. Oedipus Rex, for instance, involves the prickly issues of patricide and incest. Same goes for a lot of Shakespeare’s work, which could be skewered by twenty-first century Republicans for portraying for all kinds of acquaintance-assisted suicide.

None of this matters, of course, if you are the moral arbiter of all that is good and just in America like Wall Street Journal columnist Michael Medved, who spoiled the plot of the movie because, as he claims, “There are competing moral demands that come into the job of a movie critic. We have a moral and fairness obligation to not spoil movies. On the other hand, our primary moral obligation is to tell the truth.”

The truth being, evidently, that Dirty Harry has become a puppet of liberal Hollywood.

Still, this self-righteousness is nothing compared to News Max columnist Ted Baehr, who called Million Dollar Baby a “neo-Nazi movie.”

Take that, Pauline Kael!

What the controversy over Million Dollar Baby really underscores, though, is a paradox in the ascendancy of the Religious Right since the last election. While religious conservatives from James Dobson to Jerry Falwell have amped up their cultural critique of everything from the Super Bowl to SpongeBob, they have yet to accomplish one single victory in culture wars. The sound and fury of the Religious Right may get rural voters in Alabama to the polls in November, but let’s face the facts: Religious conservatives are never going to change popular culture.

That’s because, as Thomas Frank demonstrates in What’s the Matter with Kansas , they’ve built an entire political strategy based on false martyrdom. As Frank writes:

[The Religious Right’s] voters toss a few liberals out of office and Hollywood doesn’t change …They return an entire phalanx of pro-business blowhards to Washington and still the culture industry goes on its merry way. But at least those backlash politicians that they elect are willing to do one thing differently: They stand there are on the floor of the U.S. Senate and shout no to it all.

Still, as the 2005 Academy Awards proved, Americans — even those who consider themselves apolitical — love to watch transgression. The transgression may be sexual (e.g. ABC’s Desperate Housewives or HBO’s Sex and the City) or moral (e.g. Million Dollar Baby) — sometimes it may even be a conflation of the two — but it always appeals to viewers across the aisle. In fact, it’s only when the transgression is overtly political, as in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, that the culture industry gets cold feet.

Right-wing politicians and pundits who think a Republican-dominated Congress and second Bush Administration will change the tenor of Hollywood or prime time TV are either self-deluded or using rhetoric to manipulate their religious base. The latter is more likely since Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have been chirping on about “moral values,” only to spend all of their political capital on economic policies like tax cuts and Social Security privatization.

Next time a conservative Republican politician pledges to clean up the crassness of American culture or some such nonsense, someone in the media — just for once — should stand up and say: “Go ahead, make my day!”

STORY INDEX

The writer
Russell Cobb, InTheFray Assistant Managing Editor

 

The joy of six milligrams

With my psychopharmacologist’s help, I spent six months in Xanax limbo.

“I don’t feel like the Xanax is working anymore,” I lied.

“You’re on an extremely high dose, but if you need more, I’ll up the dosage,” my shrink replied in disbelief, shaking his head.

A smile began at the corners of my mouth but I held it in; he couldn’t know the Xanax was my only source of joy, of pleasure. I was now on six milligrams of Xanax a day, twice the recommended maximum. I had long since moved up from the blue, football-shaped tablets to the slender white pills known as bars. Also a psychopharmacologist, my psychiatrist prided himself in his knowledge of drugs and dosages, yet I was playing him for a fool. I left his office clutching the prescription in my hand, hesitant to put it in my pocket, hesitant to let it out of my sight whatsoever.

It was a beautiful day. Staring across Fifth Avenue into the park, I was jealous of all the people seemingly having fun: Women pushing baby strollers and carrying their Louie bags, and men strutting around in suits. I wished I could be like them. I wished I could be “normal.” Instead, I was wearing dirty blue sweatpants, a long-sleeved shirt, and sneakers. My hair was greasy as all hell since I hadn’t showered in who knows how long. I usually didn’t go outside. I usually didn’t get out of bed. But for my monthly prescription of Xanax, there wasn’t much I wouldn’t do.

The subway home seemed to take forever; it always does when you’re waiting for something extra special at the end of the tunnel. I couldn’t go to the pharmacy on my block because I once broke into a psychotic rage, accusing the pharmacist of insinuating that I was a crackhead after I’d finagled another prescription just days after filling the original. After popping the entire bottle in only a few days, I told my doctor the Xanax fell down the drain after I sat it on the sink. It was a sorry excuse.

I’d simply have to go to a pharmacy down Queens Boulevard, also known as the Boulevard of Death. I used to be an uppers girl, but that grew tiring after a while. Because of my bipolar disorder, I could get pretty high on my own brain chemistry. I preferred to take my daily maximum dosage of Xanax around 5 p.m., a few hours after I woke up. My depression killed me; I could not stand being aware. After taking the Xanax, I would return to my dream world for the remainder of the day. That was definitely better than being awake. Lying there, in that bed, in that dark room, in my dirty apartment. I stopped telling others how I felt. No one understood anyway, and I doubt anyone really cared. “Get a job,” “Go back to school,” and “Clean the apartment” were phrases I couldn’t bear to listen to any longer. What “they” failed to understand was that I couldn’t do anything. I was surprised every time I arose to take a shit, rather than simply doing it in bed. It was more than depression.

I threw up when I was forced to listen to my mother talk about how well her Prozac was working for her and how I just needed to find what drug would work for me. I wish I had her “depression.” Well, Mommy, I’ve been on every medication there is and none of them work for me. I vomited when I saw the Zoloft egg jumping around the television screen, talking about not feeling like “your old self.” I say “Fuck off” to my mother and the egg, and to my boyfriend, who is an uncaring bastard, to other family members, and even friends. Once they’ve been bedridden for five months, showering every other week and eating nothing, then I might take their well-meaning advice. I waited the obligatory half-hour to get my prescription filled, took 10 milligrams, and proceeded to slip into unconsciousness.

July

“Baby, please get up. It’s Fourth of July — let’s go to the beach,” my boyfriend urged. I remained motionless under the blankets with my eyes closed and thought about how much I hated him.

“You love the beach.” Reid was always pleading with me to do something, while reminding me of my interests. Rarely did I care to appease him. But that day, I tried. “We’ll smoke at the beach. Don’t get all ‘Xanied-out.”

“Your weed sucks,” I replied, which to him was the ultimate insult. I decided it was useless to shower since I was going to the beach. I really could care less that my legs were hairy, but drew the line at leaving the house looking like a French woman. When I looked in the mirror I saw my eyebrows were crying out to be waxed.

“Reid, I can’t go, I look like shit.” Whining had become the permanent tone of my voice.

“You look beautiful,” he yelled from the other room. Shut up, dickhead, I thought. I was infuriated since he hadn’t even looked at me.

I yelled, “Don’t say that to me. I look like shit!”

“You’re always beautiful. Hurry up!” I got incensed at him, yelling at me to hurry up, and since I hated him, I spat in his face when he entered the bathroom.

“Alexis! You have to control yourself!”

The notion that I could control myself was humorous and a foreign concept. Self-control was impossible even with the aid of numerous mood stabilizers, anti-depressants, anti- psychotics, and anti-anxieties. I felt nothing but intense anger. What caused this, I didn’t know, but I kept it at bay with Xanax.

Reid took me by the hands to comfort me, but I took everything out of context and felt, irrationally, that he was going to hurt me. We often took our constant fighting up a notch to physical confrontations. I began to scream for him to get off me, mixing in profanities at every available opportunity. I reminded myself of The Exorcist, and although I knew I was acting crazy, I didn’t know how to stop. My emotions, my mind, and the physiological aspect of my brain were all working on different pages. If I had been living with anyone else, I would have probably been committed to an institution. But Reid knew how much I despised mental hospitals, and he didn’t have the heart to admit me. Not yet at least.

After I had plucked my eyebrows to death for nearly an hour, I was ready to go. As soon as we arrived at Long Beach, I wanted to return to the apartment. The sun, the people, everything was too much for my tired brain to comprehend. I dragged myself out of the Honda Civic and languidly pulled myself to the beach. As Reid was setting up various blankets and towels, I retrieved a water bottle from my beach bag and shoved 8 milligrams of Xanax down my throat, relieved that in about 20 minutes I wouldn’t know what the hell was going on.

I opened my eyes to Reid, and was surprised to see he had a terrified look on his face. He was yelling at me, but I was foggy from the Xanax and everything took a few moments to register. Where was I? Unlike the bedroom, it was sunny and people were staring at me. Shit, I was at the beach.

Finally, I could distinguish Reid’s voice from all the ones chattering in my head. He was asking me what I took, but I was too exhausted to answer. “You have sauerkraut stuck all over you.” I slowly sat up and looked down. The sauerkraut had dried to crust in the sun and was stuck to the corners of my mouth, my chin, my chest and my hands. How did I do this? “You were eating a hot dog, I fell asleep, woke up, looked next to me, and there you were, looking like you were dead. I couldn’t wake you up.” Reid led me to the ocean, and we cleaned the crusty sauerkraut off my body together.

September

I had various corners pressuring me to attend school. I knew I was in no state to return, but I obliged. By now I had coerced my doctor into upping my Xanax to 8 milligrams a day. To the average person, 3 milligrams is the maximum, but I kept asking for more and the prescriptions kept coming. He was a very giving person, as he was seeing me for free. Usually the doctor charges $500 for 45 minutes. I couldn’t attend the full first week of classes. I scheduled an emergency appointment with my doctor. “I’m having trouble, a lot of trouble — it’s practically impossible. I can’t get out of bed for anything,” I explained. “It’s the depression part of the bipolar. You have a severe mental illness. Perhaps you shouldn’t have gone back to school. You really should consider returning to an institution. If you came to my hospital, I could keep a closer eye on you. I also think it’s time for you to consider electroconvulsive therapy for your condition.”

“Maybe at the end of the semester, but I need something now. I’m failing out of school. It’s my senior year.”

“Alright, I’ll give you a prescription for Adderall,” he said, with slight hesitation. “But once the semester’s over, you have to do something about yourself.” I left his office that day, and now I wonder why neither of us made the connection that I couldn’t get out of bed because I was on such a massive amount of Xanax.

I didn’t want to discontinue using it, but I secretly wished he would have forced me to stop. I thought I couldn’t get worse, but my descent into prescription drug addiction had only just begun. I didn’t know what I wanted. I was going on my ninth month in bed. I didn’t necessarily have the desire to get out yet, but I definitely didn’t like being confined there.

I didn’t know what I wanted; all I knew was that we had tried every single one of the “new generation of medications designed for mood disorders,” and none of them worked. He talked electroconvulsive therapy up like it was a miracle, and a miracle is what I needed. Too bad I didn’t believe in them. No one knew how deep and scary my depression had grown; even more frightening was the thought of the mania destined to come after.

By keeping myself drugged up, I could stave the mania off — the voices, the visions, and everything else that accompanied it. Suicide was a constant thought in my mind, but I didn’t want to hurt those around me, so I continued lying in bed and taking a shitload of Xanax.

It was only slightly after 2 p.m. when I got home from the city. I had a few hours until Reid was off work and about 20 minutes until my prescription was ready. I won’t lie and say I had the best intentions concerning the Adderall, but I didn’t let myself admit what I was about to do, until after I picked the drugs up from the pharmacy and was standing in front of the kitchen counter with a spoon in my right hand and the bottle of Adderall in my left.

The idea occurred to me as soon as my shrink mentioned the stimulant. I flirted with Ritalin my freshman year of college. My suitemate supposedly had Attention Deficit Disorder but didn’t want to take her medication. After a few months of living there, a friend and I discovered a stockpile of the uppers in her nightstand drawer. These came in handy on the eves of paper due dates and after long nights of partying. But the first time I tried coke — with coworkers in the now-deserted Pacific Sunwear on Sixth Avenue — well, that high turned the Ritalin into a long-forgotten fifth grade playmate.

I had heard Adderall was like cocaine without the bloody nose and headache. I poured all 30 of the 15-milligram pills onto the countertop. I placed one blue tablet away from the others, covered it with a spoon, covered the spoon with my hand, and pushed down. Immediately the pill morphed into light blue powder. Using a maxed-out Visa and a rolled-up dollar bill, I proceeded to push the blue powder into a fat, straight line, and then sniffed it up my nose.

There was no burning sensation, no chemical smell. I was in love. I walked through the dining room to the living room futon, and waited to feel something. I’ll give it 10 minutes, and then I’m sniffing more, I thought to myself. The first change I noticed was the total absence of sound in my apartment, except for a barely audible thudding. Relaxed on the futon, I spread out and no sooner than I had lain down, I was back at the kitchen counter.

This time, I’ll do three at once, I thought. After three, I waited about five minutes, then snorted two at a time until they were gone. I didn’t set out to do them all, and I couldn’t believe I had just sniffed 30 pills in a matter of minutes. But I hadn’t felt this awake and energized in months and found myself laughing out loud. I ran to the bathroom, looked at my reflection, and laughed some more, not knowing what was funny but loving the sound of my laughter. I was giddy feeling these emotions, like seeing a lover after months apart.

I knew this joy was fake, simply a byproduct of the pills labeled Amphetamine Salts, but I embraced the joy, happy to experience the forgotten emotion regardless of where it came from. I had no conscience to listen to, and instead concentrated on the thudding sound which filled my ears. As I curled up on the couch, I realized the sound was my own quickly beating heart.

Two weeks later, I had my next appointment with my shrink. In the waiting room I was calm and collected, but I was on a mission. The mission was to get a higher dosage of the Adderall. Like all addicts, I was a good liar. “I only took the Adderall for a week because it didn’t do anything helpful. I still couldn’t get out of bed. You have to do something, I’m failing out of school.”

The desperation in my voice was not a lie; I needed more Adderall, and there was a chance, however slim, that he would not provide it. As though he were a well-trained dog, my doctor replied, “You must not be on a high enough dose. I’ll double it to 30 milligrams a day. You start with that, but I’ll write the prescription for 60 milligrams a day — that way if 30 doesn’t work, you can try 45, then 60.”

I was shocked, I was moving up from 15 milligrams a day to 60? This was too easy; my doctor was either an idiot or a drug dealer. Both possibilities worked to my advantage.

December

I had been speed-balling on prescription pills for over three months, and didn’t know up from down. I somehow received three C’s and one D for the semester, although how I managed that, I was not sure. Two of our friends lost their jobs and apartment and moved in with Reid and me. It was then that I began to care about my “problem.” While alone in the apartment I could act like as a big crackhead because nobody could see me. But with Lynn and Dylan staying home with me every day, I realized I needed a change.

This need crystallized one night when the four of us decided to eat KFC for dinner. Having refrained from taking pills for a couple of days, I wanted to reward my good behavior and snuck off into the bedroom while Lynn and Dylan were gone and Reid wasn’t paying attention. I took my Xanax out from the bureau drawer and dumped the remainder of the bottle’s contents into my hand. Seventeen bars fell out, equaling 340 milligrams. My tolerance was ridiculously high, and I wondered what effect such a high dose would have.

Out of nowhere tears began rolling down my face as I realized what a pathetic life I led. And how pathetic my options were. I could admit myself to a hospital and get treated like shit from all the staff because once you were in there, you were crazy and nothing you said mattered to anyone. Reid would visit me on visiting days, him in regular clothes and me in my thick socks with the rubber gripping on the bottom, a thin cotton hospital gown, and a paper robe; or I could pretend I was Frankenstein’s monster as I received electric shocks to my temples.

I tried not to feel sorry for myself, tried to realize people had it worse, but that was no comfort. I felt all my dreams for a future fading away. I thought I would never get better, get out of bed, or do anything worthwhile. I simply wanted to be left alone.

As I heard the front door open, I poured the Xanax down my throat and got into bed. I heard footsteps thumping on the wooden floor of the hallway and wiped my face on the pillow. Lynn came into the room. “Lex, are you going to eat with us?” She was so sweet and caring. I loved Lynn, so I got up and followed her into the living room, all but forgetting I had just taken a shitload of Xanax.

Following my friend down the hallway was the last thing I remembered. Then I heard laughter, guys laughing and Lynn’s voice urging me to get up. I opened my eyes and lifted my head. Lynn was standing next to me with a wet towel and Reid and Dylan were sitting on the futon, attempting to hold back smiles. I tried to get up and couldn’t work my legs. I felt my head falling; I was passing out.

I woke up in bed, with Reid sitting up next to me. “Do you remember what happened last night?” he asked. I tried unsuccessfully to shake my head. I couldn’t remember anything about anything whatsoever. “You passed out in KFC with your food in your mouth and almost choked. You looked ridiculous — you had mashed potatoes all over your face.” Feeling immense embarrassment I rolled over and passed out again. Within a few days I was out of the fog and out of Xanax and Adderall. I had a friend with serious Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and a Xanax/Oxycotin addiction. She started letting me have some of her pills and my addiction continued.

In early 2004, I traveled home to California to visit my family; my trusty Xanax came along with me. Bored in Galt, with absolutely nothing to do, I took a large dose one night and passed out. In the morning, I discovered my younger sister had tried to wake me during the night and was unable to do so. I had scared her. This instance was the first time I had ever felt remorse at taking the drugs; sorry for myself, yes, but remorseful, never. That was the end of my Xanax addiction.

Once I got off the Xanax a lot of things changed. I was able to remember yesterdays again. I could get out of bed. But when the depression hits, it’s hard and fast. A bullet from a Glock. If I were presented with the same set of morbid circumstances, I am not sure I would do anything differently. This is not a story of recovery; it is simply a retelling of some of the events taken from six months of my life.

STORY INDEX

RESOURCES >

Drug Rehabilitation
URL: http://www.drug-rehabilitation.org/

Drug Rehab Information
URL: http://www.drugrehabinfo.us/

 

Breaking through the Class Ceiling

Working-class academics question the Academy’s diversity.

Working-class academics

Cold, drenched, and hanging from a telephone pole on a rainy March day sixteen years ago, Cathy Mulder decided she’d had enough.

Mulder had been with the telephone company for eleven years and was active in the union.  This was her sixth year as a cable splicer, a dangerous but well-paying position she landed after filing numerous gender discrimination complaints.

“I found myself hanging from a pole and decided I could do more for workers than getting soaked,” says Mulder, a forty-six-year-old labor studies professor with a straight-shooting Jersey accent. A year after the revelation on the pole, the Teaneck, New Jersey, native quit her job and went back to school full-time. Two years later, she graduated summa cum laude from Stockton State College with a bachelor’s degree in economics.

Spurred on by her Stockton State professors, Mulder went on to do something she never thought she would do: she enrolled at Temple University and started pursuing a PhD. After two years at Temple, she took a terminal master’s degree and transferred to the University of Massachusetts to finish her doctorate. She has passed her comprehensive exams and is now completing her dissertation.

While race and gender diversity among university faculty and graduate students has increased substantially in recent decades, class diversity has lagged behind, making stories like Mulder’s less than typical. Many working-class academics say it is still unusual to find a PhD colleague who is not the child of a doctor, lawyer, corporate executive, or other middle-class professional. Working-class PhDs have written papers, dissertations, and even books about feeling out of place and misunderstood in the ivory tower.

Since for most fields, graduate school is the only route to becoming a professor, class bias within doctoral programs must necessarily translate into a bias in faculty hiring. But trying to get a statistical handle on that bias is nearly impossible. None of the organizations contacted for this article — the National Center for Education Statistics, the College Board, and UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute — could provide statistics on the class backgrounds of graduate students. Information on faculty class backgrounds is also tough to find. However, the studies that do exist indicate, as expected, a strong middle-class bias among the nation’s professoriate.

When Seymour Lipset and Everett Ladd analyzed the results of the 1969 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education Faculty Survey in their 1979 paper “The Changing Social Origins of American Academics,” they found that roughly 60 percent of the fathers of the over 60,000 survey respondents came from professional, managerial, and business backgrounds, while only 25 percent were “of working-class origin.”

Looking at faculty makeup in the fifteen years following the Lipset and Ladd study, researchers Joseph Stetar and Martin Finkelstein reported in 1997 that the percentage of faculty from professional and managerial-class families had scarcely changed between 1969 and 1984, although the class demographics of university students changed “significantly” during that time to include more students from low-income families.

In 2001, Kenneth Oldfield and Richard Conant conducted a small-scale survey of the faculty at a Big Ten university. Over half of the 567 professors who responded said they had parents who were doctors, lawyers, or other professionals. Less than 2 percent of the respondents said their parents had jobs in the lowest 20 percent of the socioeconomic scale, in fields like farm work or dry cleaning.

What Education Destroys

Cathy Mulder head shot
Cathy Mulder, a plumber’s daughter from New Jersey, teaches labor studies at Indiana University. Her working-class background has helped her bond with her students, many of whom are middle-aged wage laborers and union members. “There are not too many PhDs that know how to be a worker,” she says.

Many people who identify themselves as working class cite a family history of jobs involving manual labor, service work, and rock-bottom pay. Some, like Mulder, have earned a good living working with their hands. However, the social status of a well-paid manual laborer can be quite different from that of a well-paid white-collar worker.

Growing up, Mulder used to accompany her father, a plumber, to his weekend jobs. She says that although he earned as much or more than many of the people in the suburb where she grew up, she was “treated differently” because she was a plumber’s daughter.

For Mulder, being working class is about more than money. It is about knowing how to “get your hands dirty,” something she thinks many PhDs have little experience doing.

Working-class academics C. L. Barney Dews and Carolyn Law are the editors of This Fine Place So Far from Home: Voices of Academics from the Working Class, a book that features narratives of scholars from working-class and poor backgrounds. “For poor and working-class people, access to higher education is all about class,” Law says.

In This Fine Place, Law and Dews examine the “oxymoron” of the working-class academic label. In theory, earning a PhD should propel a person into the middle class. It is not that simple, however. A college degree does not change a person’s past, and many working-class intellectuals feel deeply connected to their blue-collar roots.

Law still remembers the conversation she had years ago with her mother, a widow who worked a number of low-paying jobs to keep the family going after her husband died. “Education destroys something,” she told her daughter. Law agrees. “It was a break, and it did break something,” she says.

“It comes out in the way I talk. I can hear myself as different from my family now.” To illustrate her point, she contrasts what she calls her “higher education-educated accent” with the Ozark hillbilly twang of her relatives.

Law did graduate work in modern literature at the University of Minnesota, but left the school to pursue a full-time editing career. Her most shocking encounter with class in the classroom occurred while she was an undergraduate in Missouri. The professors in her education courses often talked about “at-risk” children — kids who have no books at home and whose parents do not read to them. Such kids, they warned, would always be a “problem” in the classroom.

“They kept painting this picture of a culturally deprived and deficient home that created this culture of at-risk children,” Law remembers. “And I was one of them.” That was the moment when she concluded that “to be valued in society, I’d have to shift my allegiance. I’d have to buy into the professors’ message, and turn a very critical eye on my home life.”

Law, who was raised in a home with no books, said the professors’ words made her ashamed and ambivalent. “You, on the one hand, hate your past, but want to defend it,” she explains. Her experience might explain why it is so difficult to pin down numbers of working-class PhDs. Scholars who study the class dynamics of academia use the phrase “class closet” to describe the mentality of PhDs from working-class and poor families who refuse to talk about their class origins out of fear that their middle-class colleagues will look down on them.

Hidden Bigotry

Some working-class PhDs, like Marjorie Gurganus, think their professional progress has been hindered by middle-class colleagues who buy into negative class stereotypes. Gurganus is a law student who spends her spare time doing pro bono tax work in low-income communities. Before starting law school, she earned her PhD in genetics at North Carolina State University. Her father made his living as a factory maintenance worker while pursuing his law degree at night. Though he eventually finished law school and set up his own practice, he never made much money as a lawyer, and the family still qualified for food stamps.

Gurganus, who worked at McDonald’s for two years while in high school, recalls one PhD who would make fun of her for having worked at a fast-food job. She says that, instead of being impressed by her hardscrabble skills and work ethic, “He was just horrified” and viewed her as “a contamination” in the lab. She thinks academics from working-class and poor backgrounds take a professional risk when they talk to colleagues about past jobs or problems with money. “Some of them have always worked in a nice, clean place that was always advancing their career,” says the Jacksonville, North Carolina, native, who did her undergraduate work at Cornell University. She thinks some middle-class PhDs have trouble relating to people who have to “deliver pizzas for eight dollars an hour rather than work in a lab for five” just to make enough money to buy groceries. “They start viewing you as someone who has these problems,” she says.

Gurganus left the genetics field in part because she was unsuccessful in landing a position as a professor, a circumstance she feels was partly related to her class background. She describes the PhDs she was competing with as “more established.” She says many of them already had the standard middle-class accoutrements — “a home, a couple of cars, a stable family, hobbies” — in addition to strong scientific backgrounds. Gurganus believes that, when choosing among candidates with near-equal academic credentials, middle-class professors have little incentive to hire someone from the working classes. She sums up the mindset this way: “If there are several of you who are smart, why take the one who doesn’t have the same background as me?”

Blue-Collar Bonding

There is an irony inherent in academic elitism. After all, school is supposed to help level the playing field for people from economically underprivileged backgrounds. Students from working-class and poor families often expect a college education to increase their professional options and provide them with opportunities that their parents did not have. When that optimism butts with class realities, the effects can be painfully disillusioning.

Barbara Peters is a working-class academic from Oshkosh, Wisconsin, who teaches sociology at Long Island University’s Southampton College. “When you’re brought up in working-class and poverty-class situations, you’re taught that education is the ticket out,” she says. “It’s like nirvana: you’re going to go to college, and your life is going to change. So you’re kind of idealistic.”

Acknowledging that a degree doesn’t offer the access it seems to promise, Peters founded an online support group called Working-Class Academics, where professors, PhD students, and independent scholars can discuss what it feels like to be working class in academia. The group, which started with just twenty-five members, now has between 250 and 300.

“It’s probably the thing I’m most proud of in my academic career,” says Peters, whose mother was a school cook.

Not everyone is impressed by her activism, however. Peters’s views were once challenged during an online discussion with fellow intellectuals. One person criticized the concept of class labels, saying that people change classes throughout their lives. The same person said that she herself had chosen to be working class by taking a job as a waitress.

“If you chose to be working class, then you aren’t working class,” Peters replied. That exchange prompted Peters to start the Working-Class Academics list.

Peters, who walks with crutches due to a degenerative arthritis condition, points out that being disabled adds another dimension to her concerns about discrimination. She also notes the challenges faced by women and people of color in the academy. “It’s a matrix of oppression,” she concludes.

Despite the criticism she has faced (some have called her a “reverse classist”), Peters is determined to keep reaching out to working-class intellectuals. “We are here. It would be wonderful if people from the upper classes would listen.” Citing growth in the Working-Class Academics list’s membership, she adds, “I think there are more working-class academics out there than we’d even realized.”

Money Too Tight to Mention

Carol Williams head shot
Working-class academic Carol Williams, an assistant professor of women’s studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, thinks the GRE “favors not only Caucasians but those from wealth.”

While in graduate school, Amy Feistel worked multiple research assistantships to avoid taking out loans she knew she could never repay. She says she was criticized for spending too much time at work and not enough time on her studies. She remembers one scholar telling her that she was “not cut out for academic work” and would “be better as support personnel than as a scholar.”

Such comments did little to bolster Feistel’s image of herself as an academic. “I felt like I was not provided with the appropriate support to build the analytical skills required to be a scholar,” she says.

Feistel, whose parents struggled to support five children on modest missionary salaries, did graduate work in cultural politics at a top-ranked university. Her family history reveals a mix of classes. She describes her father’s relations as upper middle class and college educated, “with well-provided, secure futures.” Relatives on her mother’s side, however, have always had financial problems, often raising large numbers of children on low military salaries.

While Feistel appreciates the support she received from some of her professors, she insists that “one or two people hardly make up for a difficult system.” She adds, “I have always been forthright about my circumstances, but have found the circumstances often make others uncomfortable.”

For working-class academics with few financial resources, the economic obstacles to graduate education begin long before the courses start. “It’s just difficult at every step of the way,” says Paige Adams, who holds a PhD in neuroscience from Baylor University. She had to scrape together nearly $100 just to take the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), a large investment for a woman who waited tables, taught aerobics, and took out $35,000 in loans to finance her undergraduate degree at the University of Houston. She handwrote all of her applications to graduate school because she could not afford a computer. To make matters worse, some of the schools to which she applied did not offer application-fee waivers.

“This whole idea that you have to have all of this money upfront puts aspiring working-class scholars at a disadvantage from the start,” Adams says.

Most PhD students put up with long hours and low pay as teaching and research assistants, but those from working-class and poor families have it especially hard, Adams says. “Most people I knew in graduate school had parents that helped them out. There weren’t a lot of students there from poor families.”

Feistel remarks, “Working-class academics face the usual issues that all academics face, but I believe the issues are exacerbated by the concerns for daily living: income, housing, food, transportation.”

“I find that many people here in graduate school went to private high schools, or at least large schools where they had the opportunity to have honors classes and take Advanced Placement tests,” says Jennifer Gibbons, a pharmacology PhD student at Duke University. Her own high school offered “no real honors classes” and only one AP test: English. The Indiana native continues, “I feel as if I had very many lost opportunities at my school, but had no choice — my parents couldn’t afford to send me anywhere else.”

Carol Williams, an assistant professor of women’s studies at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, felt similarly disadvantaged coming into graduate school. “Poor results on the GRE is perhaps where I felt most disabled coming to graduate school initially,” Williams says. “I felt I came to the exam already lacking basic skills. No account is taken in standard testing for cultural or economic differences, and I feel this favors not only Caucasians, but those from wealth.”

A Different World

Michael Schwalbe head shot
On his way to becoming an academic, sociology professor Michael Schwalbe worked as a mechanic, bartender, music promoter, and nature writer.

Sociology professor Michael Schwalbe relaxes in his paper-packed office where a poster for his book, Remembering Reet and Shine, a biography of two working-class African American men living in the South, hangs near the door. Sporting shorts and sneakers, he talks about his journey from Boys Technical School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “I haven’t pursued my career in a conventional way,” says Schwalbe. On his way to becoming an academic, Schwalbe worked as a mechanic, a bartender, a music promoter, and a nature writer.

He calls his decision to buck family tradition and pursue a non-vocational path “risky but freeing,” though he admits he was a little lost at first. “I didn’t know what you do to become a professor.” When he decided to pursue his PhD, he considered only two schools: Washington State University, for its natural surroundings, and the University of Texas at Austin, for its folk-rock music scene. That way, he figured, if the sociology path did not work out, he could easily pursue one of his other passions. He did not even consider applying to the prestigious University of California, Berkeley, though one of his professors urged him to do so. At that time, Schwalbe had no concept of what he calls “the prestige factor,” and how going to a school like Berkeley might influence his professional future.

Most of the working-class PhDs interviewed for this article say they grew up knowing much less about the academic world in general than their middle-class peers. “You mean there’s school after this school?” was working-class academic Beverly Rockhill’s reaction when her undergraduate cohorts at Princeton started talking about doing a PhD.

The language of academia shocked Jodie Lawston more than anything. “They were talking very theoretically and using language I had never even dreamed of,” recalls the sunny-voiced Long Island native. She describes the students in her graduate program as being from wealthy families and “worlds ahead” in terms of vocabulary. Lawston found their theoretical lingo intimidating at first, but now pokes fun at the bulky phrases. Her answering-machine greeting instructs unsuspecting callers to leave their name, phone number, and “a brief ontological explanation of women’s existential dilemmas.”

“The Academy Is a Place for Ideas and Not for Activists.”

Jason Allen head shot
Jason Allen, an assistant research professor at Duke University, is the son of a miner and bakery factory worker. He believes his Yorkshire accent, which could have hindered his professional advancement in his native England, has helped him gain the respect of his American colleagues.

During one of her graduate seminars, Lawston suggested that scholars put social theory into practice. According to her, a classmate erupted, “The academy is a place for ideas and not for activists.” Lawston was stunned. She later heard a similar comment from another colleague.

Lawston, whose father is a construction worker, grew up having to deal with things like the phone being disconnected and the heat being cut off in the middle of the winter. “We were not philosophizing at the dinner table,” she laughs. She thinks some of her middle-class counterparts take a hands-off attitude toward social activism because they have not had to do without basic necessities. “Even though they study classism, that’s all they do — study it.” she says. “They don’t really struggle with it.”

Working-class academics themselves struggle with it in different ways. Monique Lyle, a PhD student in Duke University’s political science department, remembers being “really class-conscious” when she began her studies at the elite school. But for Lyle, class has always been a question of both money and race. “In a lot of ways, class distinctions are along racial lines,” notes Lyle, who is black.

Jason Allen, an assistant research professor at Duke, came to the United States from Barnsley, England, and earned his doctorate in exercise physiology from Louisiana State University. He lives with his pal, Gordon, a tomcat who paws for attention during our phone interview. Allen sums up the difference between American and English ideas about class this way: “In England, they care where you came from. In America, they care where you’re going.” Allen thinks American class distinctions are based more on money than birth, but, like Lyle, he also believes those distinctions are impacted heavily by race.

Allen, whose mother works in a bakery factory, has found that many American academics hold British people in high regard. He believes the Yorkshire accent that might have hindered his professional advancement in his native land actually worked to his advantage here in the States. “I moved from working class to upper-middle class in the blink of an eye,” he says.

The Discomfort of Straddling

Several working-class academics speak of feeling torn between the world of their families and that of their peers. Carol Williams had a tough time explaining her academic ambitions to her mother. “When I was raising money to attend my program in a master’s degree in England, she stated, ‘Why all this trouble and pain to get a few letters after your name?’” Williams recalls. “She didn’t comprehend the motives for advanced education, nor did she understand what exactly we did there.”

Lyle has had similar troubles. “[My mom] thinks I talk like a white girl,” she laughs. Though she has a strong relationship with her family and loves going home, she does not think they have a real sense of what she does. She feels removed from her extended family and worries that she does not fit in with the black working-class community where she grew up.

Despite the challenges they faced, most of the working-class PhDs interviewed say they benefited from going to graduate school. “I just had a great graduate-school experience,” says Adams. “I had a great job, a great boss  …  It just felt like a family. I made a lot of good friends.”

Most of Mulder’s experiences in academia have also been positive. Still, she admits, “I don’t know anybody else like me.” Mulder now teaches labor studies to workers and union members at a satellite campus of Indiana University, a job she got in part because of her unusual life path. “That’s precisely why they hired me,” she notes. “There are not too many PhDs that know how to be a worker.”

The Hybrid Advantage

The same family relationships that can complicate a working-class PhDs relationship to academia can also be a vital source of support. In working-class families where no one has attended college, there is often a sense of vicarious accomplishment in watching one of their own go all the way.

Paige Adams’s mother has been her biggest cheerleader, urging her to pursue the college education she herself always wanted. “She always felt that she missed out by not going to college,” says Adams.

Jodie Lawston thought of dropping out many times during those first few years of graduate school, but her mother’s words helped her stay the course: “You gotta do it ’cause we never did.”

In the end, having a foot in both worlds might be one of the working-class academic’s greatest assets. “I’m resigned to a sort of hybrid status, which, as I grow older, I recognize gives me a unique and underrepresented intellectual perspective on many issues,” Rockhill says.

Feistel, who now works in educational administration, says her experiences have made her more understanding of the challenges facing working-class students. “I’m in a better position to understand a working-class student,” she remarks. “I’ve been on both sides of the system, and I know how the system works.”

“Mostly what makes me different is a consciousness of what work really means,” says Law, whose father made his living digging basements with a bulldozer. “To hear some tenured professor talk about their work environment like they’re some kind of miner … it really hurts me.”

Other working-class academics, like Schwalbe and Allen, say their life experiences have made them extremely adaptable. “You can move in almost any environment and function with almost any group of people,” says Allen.

Jodie Lawston, who felt “so inferior” to her middle-class colleagues when she started graduate school, now views her working-class background as an advantage. “I think it gives you a stronger perspective on everything. I think you’re able to relate to people better.”

STORY INDEX

ORGANIZATIONS >

Working Class Academics List

MARKETPLACE >

This Fine Place So Far from Home: Voices of Academics from the Working Class by C.L. Barney Dews (editor) and Carolyn L. Law (editor)

Strangers in Paradise: Academics from the Working Class by Jake Ryan and Charles Sackrey

Update, February 12, 2013: Edited and moved story from our old site to the current one.

 

Shooting with Osama

Post-9/11 Yemen has a complex political landscape which easily confounds outsiders.

Downtown Sana. This picture captures the traditional Yemeni architecture – tall, brown buildings frosted with white trim – that dominates the cityscape.

My ears rang with an intensity that I had only experienced when walking out of a rock concert. I kept my finger on the trigger anyway. Aiming for a boulder that rested on the rock-strewn mountainside about 100 yards away, I missed wildly, sending clouds of dirt and debris into the sky. I wondered whether my hearing would ever recover. As I was learning, an AK-47 is painfully loud.

My adventure had begun earlier that afternoon when a friend, Osama, who also happens to be an officer in the Yemeni Special Forces, invited me to go out shooting guns with him in the countryside. I had been living in Sana, Yemen’s capital, for about two months on a summer fellowship to study Arabic. His offer was a kind gesture, and I needed a study break, so I figured why not.

Before I left, friends offered words of caution; others flat out told me not to go. I wasn’t so worried. The target practice itself was smooth-sailing, no problems. It was after we started packing up the guns, that things became dicey.

Why worry?

As an American in Yemen, the potential exists to be the object of an attack, but I never personally sensed any danger. I was told on several occasions, “No one would ever hurt you here. If they did, the government would capture and kill them.”
  
Quite the opposite, I found people to be very friendly. While disdainful of American politics, most Yemenis that I spoke to still tended to hold favorable views of America, in terms of its people and culture.

In contrast, to most Americans Yemen conjures a kaleidoscope of scary images, likely fueled by such movies as Rules of Engagement (2000), which shows the United States embassy in Sana being overrun by civilians, including women and children, brandishing semi-automatic weapons.

To be fair, Yemen has witnessed attacks targeted at Westerners over the years. In 2000, Al Qaeda militants rammed an explosives-laden dinghy into the USS Cole in Aden, killing 17 American sailors. In the 1990s, kidnappings were common. About 150 foreigners were abducted from 1996 to 2000, though only a few were harmed. The rest were treated well and returned safely. The intent was to pressure the government into meeting the kidnappers’ political demands.

Stepped terraces on the road to the Red Sea from the capital receive substantial rainfall. The cool temperatures high in the mountains give way to stifling heat as you move closer to the coastal plain.

Divided loyalties

Outside of Sana, the government’s control has historically been tenuous. Even those born and raised in the capital still profess loyalty to a large extended family that has roots in a particular village. In the countryside, most people still look askance at the military and police, preferring to resolve things on their own. The government recognizes this dynamic, and consequently, grants localities a wide degree of autonomy, in return for the communities recognizing the state’s authority.

Guns are simply part of the equation. There are an estimated 60 million small arms in the country, whose population is only 20 million. While weapons are typically confiscated at checkpoints leading into the capital, in villages and towns, it is a common sight to see men, old and young, walking around with an AK-47 slung over their shoulder. I had never seen anyone come close to firing these weapons. I began to think of them as an accoutrement, no different than a cell phone.

That afternoon, Osama picked me up in his Toyota Land Cruiser along with three of my friends. After passing a military checkpoint on the outskirts of Sana, we traversed a mountain pass. We drove for about half an hour along a nicely paved road through a valley as villages whizzed by. Rock walls neatly divvied up small farms. The lush greenness contrasted sharply with the barren, russet mountains that sloped upwards on either side. The diesel fumes, blaring horns, and hollering storekeepers of Sana felt far away. I sighed, content to get away from it all.

In one village, which consisted of about a dozen small homes and a corner store selling cigarettes and soda, we turned onto a dirt road. After rounding a bend, we came upon an outcropping atop a ridge. Getting out of the car, we took a look at the shallow ravine before us and the gently sloping mountainside a few hundred meters away.

“How do we know that we won’t by shoot someone by accident,” I asked.

Osama paused and then replied, “I’ll shoot a few rounds into the air. If someone’s out there, he’ll fire back.”

It seemed like a reasonable plan. Besides, the area was practically bare, except for some low-lying shrubs. If there were someone out there, we would know.

Five minutes lapsed, no response. So Osama, I, and my 20-something friends who were also studying Arabic for the summer in Sana, started taking turns shooting, one at a time using one of the two guns that Osama brought. Ian, a college student from Austin, Texas, endeared himself to Osama immediately since he also owned an AK-47 back home and collected other guns as well.

Fernando, a Muslim convert from California, became practically deaf right away. Words of encouragement, like “Nice shot, Fernando,” were met with puzzled looks, hand motions, and “What!?”

The last foreigner was Vincent, who was from France and had lived elsewhere in the Middle East, most recently Kuwait. He may have been the most enthusiastic among us, taking shots from about every conceivable position — down on one knee, standing up, from the hip, walking side-to-side.

I had met Osama the first week that I was in Yemen when a friend, a fellow student at the language institute, invited me to tag along to chew khat  — a mildly stimulating leaf that is a staple of any social gathering — at Osama’s house. Educated at the Royal Sandhurst military academy in England, Osama speaks fluent English and owns an extensive hip-hop collection. Only in his late 20s, he has risen quickly through the officer ranks.  

In some ways, he embodies the schizophrenia that many Yemeni elite display. When talking politics, he speaks with a moderate voice, impugning extremists, recognizing the common beliefs that bind Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and expressing empathy for democracy. For a second, that vernacular is so recognizable, it sounds straight out of a graduate school seminar, and the possibility to form a deep, intellectual bond feels so close. Just as quickly, without a hint of sarcasm, Osama casually remarks, “September 11 was probably a plot by the CIA and Mossad.” The disappointment is crushing.

What is unique about Osama is that, as a Special Forces officer, he has had direct involvement with the American military, with whom he now trains regularly. These close military relations are a new, post-9/11 reality. During the Cold War, without oil, Yemen was of marginal significance on an international and regional scale. Divided into North and South Yemen, the socialist south relied on the Soviet Union for military assistance. However, with the fall of communism, South Yemen was without a patron state, and the two countries unified.

Yemen’s profile rose following September 11. An acknowledged Al Qaeda presence, along with its proximity to the Horn of Africa, which was increasingly seen as a safe haven for terrorists, culminated in President Bush issuing a “with us, or against us” ultimatum, to which Yemen’s President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, agreed to ally with the United States.

Surrounded

After half an hour, we were out of bullets and it was getting dark. I had taken several pictures, and was thinking about what a great email this story would make to friends back home. I was also a bit relieved that we were packing things up, counting my blessings that no one got hurt. I have shot guns since I was a kid, but always with my father, who preached safety like it was the Gospel. I knew we were being too lax.

In about 40 minutes, I told myself, we would be back in Sana. Then we came upon a white pickup truck parked sideways, blocking us from passing. Two older men got out and approached our car dressed in typical fashion: a skirt, a button-down shirt, and a kefiyyeh draped over their shoulders. Osama met them halfway where they spoke.

Getting back into the car, Osama said, “We’ve gotta follow them.”

Assuming these men were from the local village, I could understand that they wanted to know who we were and what we were doing there. But we had a straight-forward story — just a few guys out shooting guns in the countryside — and we were leaving anyway. Besides, Osama was a military officer dressed in uniform. Couldn’t he just flash his ID? Traveling around Yemen, checkpoints are commonplace. But it was always the military stopping you. Now, the reverse was true.

We followed them for a few minutes. When we stopped, Osama got back out to talk. They were too far away for us to hear. But judging from their body language and raised voices, it was clear that the situation was not resolving itself.

Osama came back to the car with a worried look on his face. “Give me the guns,” he said. “These guys want to hold onto them. This might take awhile.”

Convinced that we hadn’t done anything wrong, the four of us sat in the back of Osama’s sport utility vehicle. None of us saw any reason to be alarmed. But watching Osama argue with the two villagers, doubt crept in. Had we done something wrong?

By now, the sun had ducked behind the mountains. Darkness was broken only by the glare of headlights, which were suddenly growing in number. I don’t remember seeing the first group arrive, but now there was a sizeable crowd, a few dozen villagers milling around. Each one carried a gun. In equal numbers, armed soldiers also began to pull up. It’s not surprising that word spread quickly. Cell phones are ubiquitous.

Osama was embroiled in a fierce argument. A few of his fellow soldiers joined, the rest walked around, talking among themselves. We couldn’t make out what anyone was saying. That didn’t stop us from tossing out a few ideas. Maybe they thought we were CIA agents, or maybe foreign jihadists — two very different possibilities, both equally unappealing.

Villagers kept poking their heads inside the front passenger’s side window, where Fernando was sitting.

“Who are you?” they asked in Arabic.

Still practically deaf, Fernando responded with a confused look, gesturing to his ears, shouting, “What? I can’t hear you!”

So long as the villagers kept a distance and focused on Osama; fear was kept at bay. But when their attention shifted towards us; that fear lurched forward. I felt a little nauseous. And to make matters worse, I really had to go to the bathroom. We decided to close the windows and lock the doors.

Two soldiers stood guard in front of our car, keeping curious villagers at bay. It was both reassuring and unnerving. I was glad they were protecting us, but it was a reminder that violent flare-ups between the military and villagers were fairly routine. The gravity of the situation was increased because everyone there was armed, not to mention the newly arrived Army truck with a 50-caliber machine gun mounted on the back.

As time passed, tension in the car ratcheted. Fernando, motioning to the unguarded side of the car that faced knee-high brush, said, “If I were them, I’d come up from here. You could spray the entire car. We wouldn’t even see them coming.”

“Shut the fuck up, Fernando,” Ian replied.

A pack of Marlboro cigarettes was passed around. I had never smoked before in my life. It felt like a good time to try one. It did nothing to calm my jitters.

Osama came back to the car, where he tried calming us down in a hushed tone, asking repeatedly if we were all right. He got on the phone again to call his commanding officer.

He must have already been on his way, because about five minutes later, a late model four-door sedan pulled up. Osama greeted him, and they went over to speak with the villagers. The situation felt improved. Soon both villagers and soldiers got back into their cars.

Osama arrived back at the car, holding his two guns that had been returned. Military pickup trucks filed in front of and behind us, forming a convoy to leave the area.

We peppered Osama with questions, trying to understand what had just transpired. Were they insulted by our presence on their land? Did they not believe that we were just students out shooting for the afternoon? Had we done something wrong?

Unfortunately, Osama was in no mood to explain what had happened. He just kept saying how much trouble he was in, and how he might have to go before a court martial.
Then Osama said that we had to go the Ministry of Interior, which he likened to the FBI.

“They heard what happened, and are going to have some questions for us,” he told us.

Men often gather in the afternoons to chew khat, a plant grown in Yemen and East Africa. You chew the leaves, shoots, and stems, which releases a mild amphetamine. Here, several prominent journalists gather every Monday afternoon at the home of a former member of Parliament to discuss the news of the day.

Debriefing

The interior ministry is headed by Ahmad Saleh, the eldest son of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. I didn’t know much about him, except that he is widely rumored to be next in line when the president steps aside.

When Osama said that we were going to his office, it was clear that a bizarre situation was about to get even more bizarre. On one hand, the refrain I heard so often echoed through my head. You are an American. Yemen’s government protects Americans. But maybe all that talk about the government protecting Americans was just a bunch of talk, and when it came down to it, if we really were guilty of something, we still might be in trouble. We could plead ignorance, but that defense could fall on deaf ears. Either way, I had no idea what was in store.

After emptying our pockets at the security shack just inside of the gates of the ministry, we proceeded to a second floor outer chamber. After a short wait, the door opened, and we were led inside a sleek, spacious office.

Mandatory handshakes were exchanged, and we took a seat on a couch. Across from us sat three villagers, whom I recognized as having been particularly vocal before. In between us was Ahmad, who sat at his desk, along with two advisors. He wore a white polo shirt, tight dark jeans, and a revolver on his belt. Behind him hung a portrait of his father. Displayed in an otherwise empty bookcase was President Clinton’s autobiography.

Increasingly tired, I couldn’t muster the energy to figure out what everyone was saying. The tone was light-hearted. No one yelled. It felt civilized. Occasionally, one of the advisers, a rotund man wearing Velcro sneakers, looked my direction and gave a smile. My inclination that indeed nothing would happen to us was slowly being confirmed.

The villagers did most of the talking. Ahmad asked them questions, and then turned to Osama and did the same. Though at times Osama looked exasperated, as if his point wasn’t being fully conveyed, the overall mood felt relaxed. I thought everything was going to be fine.

The improbability of the whole situation — to be sitting in the office of the president’s son — dawned on me. Looking at the villagers across from me, I wondered if they thought the same thing. Were they as surprised as I was to be sitting here?

I tried suppressing the anger I felt toward them. Maybe they had reasons for sparking this conflict, but it felt like they had overreacted and didn’t really understand who we were. As long as we got off, then I would be willing to overlook what they had done.

After fifteen minutes, there was a lull in the conversation. Ahmad turned to us, and said in perfect English, “How are you, guys? I’m so sorry for this. You must be tired. If you’d like, you can go home now.”

“Actually, we’d like to stay with Osama,” Vincent replied.

An awkward paused followed. Ahmad glanced to us and smiled. “That won’t be possible. Osama, tell them where you’re going tonight.”

Osama, to our surprise, looked like he was about to lose it. Fighting back tears, he said, “I’m going to jail.” Ahmad interjected in a calm, yet pejorative tone, “Osama needs to learn a thing or two about Yemeni culture.” I had no clue what he meant by that.

The villagers beamed triumphantly from ear to ear. They stood up and shook everyone’s hand before leaving. I did so grudgingly. I wanted to punch them in the face.  

After we sat back down again, Ahmad explained to us the villagers’ side of the story. They had seen us from afar when we were shooting guns and wanted to escort us back to Sana to make sure that we arrived safely. They also asserted that Osama was holding us against our wishes, as if he had abducted us.

It was preposterous. But at least it was becoming clear to me what had really transpired. The villagers insisted on taking us back to Sana, and Osama refused. That was the dispute. The villagers took away our guns and called in as many of their men as they could. Osama did the same. Ironically, the military and villagers were really arguing over who would take us back to the capital. It could have turned violent, but no one intended to harm us.

I doubted that the villagers really believed their own story. More likely, by delivering us from “danger,” they were really looking for a quid pro quo, hoping that the government would reciprocate their good deed with maybe a new school or bridge.

It was time for us to speak up. Vincent went first, setting the record straight, and explaining that Osama was really a dear friend. Each of us followed. It felt good to come to Osama’s defense.

Ahmad listened. At times, he drifted off to look at his computer or the news broadcast on the flat screen television next to us. Judging from his disinterest, it didn’t look like we were telling him anything that he hadn’t already figured out.

When we finished, he apologized again and then wished us a good night. The five of us left, including Osama.

It was after midnight. We decided to go to the Kentucky Fried Chicken to unwind a bit. Sitting outside in the playground next to a rare patch of grass, we talked things over.

“Ahmad had to do that.” Osama explained. “It was all a show for the villagers, to make them think that I was going to jail and that they had done a good thing.”

As Osama recounted, Ahmad did not want to anger the villagers by challenging their side of the story. So he sat and listened. He thanked them for making sure that we were safe while on their land. To make it complete, he had to punish Osama to satisfy them. He really understood what had gone on, but he had to pay lip service to the villagers out of respect.

Looking back, in the heat of the moment when we were stuck in Osama’s car, it was impossible for me to imagine anything except that they were a bunch of angry villagers, upset at Americans for trespassing.

In fact, what I had witnessed had very little to do with me. It was all about Yemeni politics and the delicate balance of power between the capital and countryside that comprises the country. Harming foreigners made little sense, but coming to their rescue could pay off huge. The villagers knew this. I didn’t. A combination of guns, darkness, and a language that I am just beginning to understand, all served to obscure an unfamiliar political landscape.

STORY INDEX

MARKETPLACE>
Purchase this book through Powells.com and a portion of the proceeds benefit InTheFray

Yemen: the Unknown Arabia by Tim Mackintosh-Smith
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=1585671398

ORGANIZATIONS>

American Institute for Yemen Studies
URL: http://www.aiys.org/

TOPICS > YEMEN>

A guide to all things Yemen
URL: http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/

 

Greensboro’s vulgar heart

An artist explores a little-known tragedy through paintings.

Click here to enter the visual essay.

“Come find out about the tragic events of November 3, 1979 — the Greensboro massacre,” said the voicemail. What Greensboro massacre?! I’d been living in Greensboro for two years and had never heard of this “massacre.” And November 3? That’s my birthday!  So, my interest piqued, as a sophomore at Guilford College, I went to the presentation to find out about this massacre.

On November 3, 1979, five people were killed and ten wounded on the streets of Greensboro, North Carolina. The Communist Workers Party had organized a march and an educational conference against the Ku Klux Klan. They had just begun gathering on the corner of Carver and Everitt streets, putting signs together and singing songs with their children, when a caravan of seven cars pulled up and stopped in front of them. Members of the KKK and the Neo-Nazi party calmly stepped out, loaded their guns and shot into the crowd.

There were no police present because the chief had given all the officers assigned to the march an “early lunch,” although the chief was nearby and on dispatch with the grand master of the Klan. A member of the FBI was in the lead truck of the Klan caravan with a copy of the CWP’s parade permit, which he had easily obtained because it had been furnished to him by the chief of police.

After the Klan had killed those whom they were there to kill, they left. Then the cops showed up immediately after the Klan had driven away. During the trials the police claimed they were late because there was confusion about the starting point of the march, but everyone else seemed to find the location without any problems.

It was all on caught on tape because of the newscasters who were present, but not a single member of the Klan spent a day in jail. One of the demonstrators however, did do jail time, for allegedly using “foul language” after his friends had been shot to death.

The more I found out about the Greensboro Massacre, the more I just sat, stunned, in disbelief. I needed to be involved with this, to do something towards change. I began volunteering at the Truth and Reconciliation Project, which was really inspiring because I was working around the survivors. When I became a senior and it was time for me to decide on a thesis topic to complete my bachelor of fine arts degree in painting, I chose the Greensboro Massacre. I wanted to educate other people about it and to share my outrage, so I did it the best way I knew how: through my paintings.

I did more research and the more I found out, the more I wanted to know. I read books written by survivors, poured over the articles on microfiche from the local paper, watched the documentaries, and contacted survivors. It was as if layers of corruption and cover-up were being slowly pulled back until this vulgar heart had been exposed.

I began painting like I had never painted before. I felt connected to the survivors when I worked on paintings of them. I felt like a part of the story. I stayed up through the nights working, pots of coffee making their way through my bloodstream. And when I did sleep I had nightmares about the Klan coming to get me, about being in jail, about friends being killed. I worked through the nightmares and through everything. I just painted and painted and painted. While working on my thesis I met many of the survivors, one of them being Marty Nathan, who had started the Greensboro Justice Fund (GJF) out of the ashes of the Greensboro Massacre.  

Because of Marty and my attachment to justice seen over the tragic events of November 3, I moved to Northampton, Massachusetts, where Marty runs the GJF out of her house. November 3, 2004, was my 23rd birthday and the 25th anniversary of the Massacre. The march, which had been so crudely halted, was completed. In Greensboro, roughly 1,200 people assembled to “transform tragedy into triumph.”  We marched for racial and economic justice, for the right to dissent, and for those who lost their lives defending justice 25 years ago.

Working on it was an incredible experience. I focused on the college mobilization —writing public service announcements for radio stations, organizing a benefit show, putting up signs, talking to students, emailing, and stuffing envelopes.

As I stood near the front of the march, looking back over the endless torrent of people, I was proud, because I had been a part of it.

STORY INDEX

CONTRIBUTOR >

The writer and artist
Aliene de Souza Howell, InTheFray.com Contributor

 

The politics of pastels

During a recent trip I rediscovered color across the pond.

When I went to Dakar, Senegal, I didn’t expect to merge into the culture. I knew something would remind me that I am an African American, not an African.

I didn’t expect that something would be eye shadow.

It happened on the first weekend. I stood in the door of my guest house, watching people headed to a wedding reception on the roof. It was easy to tell who had organized the affair. A group of women wore identical hot pink cotton blouses and skirts sewn in the traditional Senegalese style. They had coordinated their makeup, too. Their eye shadow and even their lipstick were as pink as their clothes.

I was stunned. In America, black women don’t wear colors like that.

We wear earth tones, deep golds and coppers, maybe a silver occasionally as a highlight. We outline our eyes with a black or brown pencil, or perhaps navy-blue if we’re adventurous. But bright pastels aren’t our colors. They belong to the white women whose skin supposedly provides a better palette for such tints.

So there I stood, an ocean away from home, in a place I hoped would provide a refuge from the burden of race. Instead, I was once again confronting the fact that race colored my most mundane decisions: the makeup I bought, the colors I chose for my clothes.

African Americans have always had an ambivalent relationship with color. We love so-called high-effect hues like red, orange and purple. But Eurocentric society used our affection as proof of our inherent inferiority. They claimed the colors we loved were “loud” and jarring. In a bid for acceptance, many blacks abandoned bright colors for a paler, more acceptable palette.

Both men and women got the message. I’m old enough to remember when my father wouldn’t wear anything red because he was convinced that he was way too dark for such a bright color.

And that is one reason why my own closet is a paint box. I wear warm colors like oranges and peaches, accented with an occasional beige or cream. My blouses and dresses do more than compliment my complexion. They symbolize my insistence that I will not compromise my identity in order to fit into a society that, quite frankly, views people like me with disdain.

The Senegalese women, however, were much less self-conscious than I. No one had told them that certain shades of eye shadow and make-up should be reserved for whites, or that wearing certain colors confirms and reinforces white society’s stereotypes about blacks.

Why would those issues even come up? White folks are barely a presence in Senegal. During the two weeks I stayed in the Dakar, I could count the whites I saw on one hand. Even the generic images I saw on billboards and in advertisements were of black people.

No, the women I was watching didn’t need the us-them division that had ordered my life. They don’t have to wonder whether the brightness of their clothes or the style of their hair would be used to bar their economic and social progress.

So they wore eye shadow in eye-popping colors: a blue so bright and pure, it seemed to be pulled from the cloudless sky that greeted me each morning; a green that reminded me of the Granny Smith apples I’d bought before I left the United States.

I smiled as I watched these beautiful women running up and down the stairs. Theirs wasn’t a style I would imitate, but it was a point of view I could appreciate.

In that moment, I began to get what I wanted most from my visit to Africa: the freedom of being in a place where nothing seemed to refer to race — not even the make-up.

 

The panhandler lottery

Walking through Nairobi with a gift to share can change your life even more than the child begging for money.

Chris Verrill is the author of the international travel biography Is For Good Men To Do Nothing. This is an excerpt from the book where he leaps into the fray to see the world post-September 11.

Chris Verrill and friend in Khurasan refugee camp Pakistan.

Upon my leaving home in the United States, bound for my volunteer mission in the Afghan refugee camps in the frontier province of Pakistan, my high school friend Linda snuck me a bon voyage card. I’d say she gave it to me, but in truth she sort of squirreled it into my possession as I was saying goodbye. Like many people in my life, in the card she wished me well in my travels. Here’s the kicker, which others didn’t do: She enclosed $58. A $50  bill and eight singles. What was I supposed to do with $58?

Linda wrote that I should use the cash for two purposes. One, I should order a really good meal and think of her when I did. Thanks. I appreciate that.

Two, and more importantly, I should “ease someone’s suffering.”

Linda, aware of the immense poverty in the developing countries I’d be traveling in wanted to do something, anything, to help. By proxy through me, she strove to do her part to make the world a better place. I tell you, here’s someone do-gooder humanitarians can be proud of.

In addition to the $50 bill, Linda said, “I am also enclosing all of the ones I have for you to give to any woman or child you find having to beg for survival.” This is anathema to my way of thinking. Anathema to my modus operandi for supporting those in need.

Although many people give street beggars their spare change, a nickel or a dime or so, I long ago resolved to support non-profit organizations generously, but not to encourage or be subjected to panhandling. There are more intelligent means of supporting those in need than handing out a few cents or a few schillings to someone who holds out a quivering hand. If everyone in the world supported non-profits and followed my lead, no one would need to beg on the streets. But that’s my soapbox.

In deference to Linda’s request, however, I made a decision. I would make an exception to my rule and honor my friend’s intentions. What was I getting myself into?

Just like every other day

I start leisurely walking down the main drag in downtown Nairobi, Kenya, one of my stopovers on my way to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This late afternoon, like many afternoons before it, I stroll along the streets of Nairobi. Today specifically, I walk four crowded blocks from my hotel to another hotel with an ex-pat bar and a band playing “The Tennessee Waltz.” I know what’s coming. I just know it. I prepare for it in a way that would surely surprise someone.

I continue to stroll.

Linda’s bon voyage card tucked into my book du jour, I head out. Knowing full well, as a Caucasian with a presumably affluent face, what this meant for Kenya’s poverty-stricken. Safe and probably not too secure in my book, the card sticks out an inch or two or three beyond the pages. I’m not paying attention to the card, let alone the cash it encloses.

Stroll, saunter. The sidewalk is crowded. People bustling about. Buildings rising six or seven stories above the thronging masses.

The average Kenyan earns $200 per year. As per my lifelong friend’s instructions, I clutch three months’ wages in my hand. I say “lifelong friend” for, while I know others better, Linda and her brother and I go all the way back to high school. Maui High School, which Linda and I graduated from in 1982, has a, shall we say, less than stellar academic record.

I weave in and out of the other pedestrians.

My stepfather graduated from Maui High School, too. Surprisingly, given the time lapse, we had the same biology teacher. That biology teacher was quite surprised — no, shocked would be a better word — that my stepfather, who was a delinquent in high school, could have a geeky, intellectual stepson like me. Mr. Biology Teacher referred to all his students as Mr. Insert-First-Name-Here.

Saunter.

He must have rubbed off on me. I don’t know how much biology I learned, but to this day I have an affectation of referring to people as Mr. Bob or Ms. Jane. But back then, I was Mr. Chris, and I am confident Linda was Ms. Linda.

Maui High School, with a college attendance rate lower than a blade of grass, must have produced a few good nuts. I mean Linda, not me. My sister is now the intelligent one in my family. Let me establish that. OK? Got it?

Walk and weave some more. Scan the oncoming crowd.

But the academic rigor (a word which many Maui High students would have to look up) leaves a lot to be desired. I say this knowing that my baby sister transferred out of Maui High. Oh yes, some of it was her own doing, that rotten bugger, but some of it is attributed to the environment of the school. I say this knowing that a friend of mine, who I spent lots of time with in high school but have barely spoken to since, is now, bless him, a teacher at Maui High School. Knowing him, I bet he’s a very popular and respected teacher.

But as I’m sure he and other educators would argue, high school is what the student makes of it. Fair enough. But there are many kids on the margin. Those kids get left behind in a program that doesn’t have the resources to help them. I won’t jump on the education soapbox now, but suffice it to say, I think a quarter of the kids will flourish even in a bad environment. Another quarter of the kids will fail even in a good environment. The remaining half, people like my baby sister, are up for grabs. That’s where a solid education system makes a difference. My statistics — quarter/quarter/half — may or may not be accurate, but the principle is very accurate.

And for all you legislators out there, remember it. Investing in education, as Thomas Jefferson would say, is the best investment any community can ever make.

You know it. I know it.

Glance at the faces of children living on the street.

All right, I said I wouldn’t get on my soapbox and I did. But I minimized it. Believe me, I could have gone on and on about the importance of education in a free and democratic society.

So, where was I? Ah yes, sauntering down the main drag of Nairobi, Kenya, Africa. Clasped in my grubby paws, a well-intentioned greeting card. Enclosed in the card is $58 in U.S. greenbacks — three months’ wages for the average Kenyan. Perhaps more than the average beggar on the street collects in an entire year.

Saunter.

Stroll.

Saunter some more. That rip in my jeans has gotten bigger.

It’s bound to happen.

It happens all time. Today won’t be any exception.

Stroll along, with purpose, card-carrying book swaying in my hand.

Sure enough, the inevitable happens. A little girl, perhaps about six years old — big pleading eyes, scraggly hair, dirty, torn clothes, and desperate demeanor — clutches my hand. Not letting go of my hand, seizing it like a line to a better life, she follows me. Like either a con artist who has mastered her craft or child in genuine need, she clasps my hand, weaving with me in and out of hundreds of other pedestrians, yet not releasing her grip on me, unrelenting with her pleading. In Swahili, I presume; I don’t know. I don’t understand her spoken language. Her physical language, however, was universal.

Walk, walk.

Pleading for about 20 paces. Thirty paces. I don’t really know. Forty.

“Please, mister,” she pleads in English. She wants a schilling. Half a schilling. Anything. More hand-to-mouth motions as if to say, “Is food such a bad thing to ask for?”

I don’t want to break my own no-panhandling code. I don’t want to teach this child that panhandling is a worthwhile option.

Keep walking. Eyes straight ahead as usual. Almost.

Except this time, instead of eyes straight ahead, I look. At her. At her pleading face. More importantly, I look around.

Ah, that’s what I’m looking for.

My stomach knots to see it. But as I suspected, there it is. A little boy. Clearly her younger brother. A not-so-old woman. Clearly her mother. The mother staring at me. Watching her child. Successful con artist or someone genuinely in need? The boy hurries to catch up. I’ve established Linda’s required parameters.

“Ease someone’s suffering,” she instructed. “Any woman or child you find having to beg for survival.”

If this doesn’t fit, my heart doesn’t know what does. I figures she satisfies Linda’s requirement for whom she wanted her donation to go to.

I stop.

Walking no more. Nairobi’s thronging masses maneuvering around me and a homeless girl in tattered clothes — a little girl who still has not released her grip on my hand.

Holding my breath, I open my book. Removing Linda’s card — everything: the envelope, Linda’s personal note to me, and the $58 — I hand it to her. At this point I speak the only words I ever spoke to her.

“This is from my friend,” I say.

I quickly, hastily, maybe perhaps guiltily, resume my focused walk down the crowded sidewalk toward the expat hotel. “The Tennessee Waltz” would sound good, grounding, comforting right about now.

I mean, who am I to think this pretentious act was even at all significant? Pious? I don’t know. Pompous? I don’t know. Perhaps there’s a fine line between the two. This gift, this — I don’t know what to call it, but gift is not at all right — violated my no-panhandling credo. It was a good deed yet a bad deed.

Or, more accurately, perhaps it just wasn’t as good a deed as I hoped it should be.

The six-year-old in the tattered clothes looks confused. When I hand her the envelope, for the first time she releases her death grip on my hand. But you could see the confusion in her. A schilling she would have recognized as success. I’ll wager my lunch she would have recognized a dollar or even a euro as success.

But there she stands, befuddled, her prey for the afternoon walking away purposefully, with an envelope in her hand. An envelope?

I just walk on. “The Tennessee Waltz” is calling my name. Anything to get me away from this child I had – I want to say “helped,” but that really sounds too arrogant. Away from this child whose panhandling habit I had in a lottery-like fashion significantly encouraged.

Besides, I have to keep walking. She presumably digs into the envelope. I don’t know. I don’t look back.

I firmly believe that true kindness is anonymous and doesn’t require acknowledgement.

It certainly doesn’t require gratitude.

When she gets the card open she’ll recognize the George Washingtons, I’m sure. But Ulysses S. Grant? Who’s that?

The personal note on the personal card to me from my old high school friend will probably be lost on her. That’s okay. That wasn’t Linda’s objective. But I hope, as I’m sure Linda does, that this unfortunate girl’s life for the next little while will be a tad better. Even if she can’t read the card or understand Linda’s motive in having me do what I did, I hope she benefits from my old friend’s generosity.

Ten seconds later, the little boy, her brother, chases me down and unsuccessfully attempts to grab my hand.

“Can I be your friend?” he boldly asks.  

STORY INDEX

ORGANIZATIONS >
            

Rotary International
URL: http://rotary.org/

Rotary Club of Pacifica URL: http://pacificarotary.org/

RESOURCES >

Pacifica Rotary
URL: http://www.pacificarotary.org/ProfileVerrill.asp

Shakesplace
URL: http://shakesplace.com/Pages/ChrisCorner1.html#Top

Terrorism and Energy: Bush’s 2020 Vision
URL: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2002/2002_01_02.guest02verl2.html

American Reporter article: A Walk Down Chicken Street
URL: http://www.american-reporter.com/2,544/6.html

KDVS Radio Interview
URL: http://www.kdvs.org/high-bit/TUE_05.00PM.mp3

 

Taking sides on prostitution

A Berkeley initiative fails at the polls, but succeeds in drawing attention to the sex work debate.

Berkeley residents defeated Measure Q, in part, because of fears that an increase in prostitution would result, adding to unsavory detritus in the neighborhood.

Scarlot Harlot, a self-proclaimed “unrepentant whore, activist and artist,” sauntered into the Missouri Lounge on November 2 looking more like a patriotic Scarlet O’Hara on a tempestuous Saturday night. Joining sex workers and friends to await election returns inside the saloon-esqe Berkeley venue, Harlot sported an American-flag-turned-18th-century-period gown that swayed playfully over white knee-high boots.

Otherwise known as Carol Leigh, Harlot was energized by the buzz of election night, occasionally turning her attention from the blare of Led Zeppelin’s “Houses of the Holy” to watch a televised U.S. map gradually cloak itself in Republican red. Yet, while voters in the historically left-leaning city of Berkeley slumped their heads as swing states bent toward re-election, Leigh had reasons to celebrate: Measure Q, a local initiative that would have made prostitution the lowest police priority, managed to re-ignite a highly publicized debate surrounding the world’s oldest profession — a dialogue that continued despite the initiative’s defeat.    

“I am so miserable about the state of this nation,” said Leigh, her glittery magenta-coated lips smirking in disapproval. “But tonight I could not be happier. This is a huge milestone in the history of prostitution in America. People have begun to accept us as sex workers.”

Leigh is a member of the Berkeley-based Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP), the outspoken prostitutes’ rights group that served as the political mouthpiece for the Measure Q crusade. Arguably one of the more provocative issues on the Berkeley ballot, Measure Q was rejected on election day by a nearly two-to-one margin. But for Leigh and SWOP members, there was a larger victory in growing awareness of sex work.

“In this day and age, I believe the most important thing to end the stigma and oppression of women in the sex industry is to decriminalize prostitution,” said Robyn Few, a 46 year-old former prostitute and executive director of SWOP. “Measure Q was never a failure because it put the word out there, had it circulating in the media and thriving in the form of national dialogue.”

Residents on both sides

In June 2004, Few, a charming, energetic Kentucky native, helped put Measure Q on the November ballot after collecting 3,200 signatures, well more than the required 2,100 to qualify as a city initiative. The symbolic measure was known as the Angel Initiative, named for Angel Lopez, a San Francisco transgendered prostitute murdered in 1993. Measure Q could not repeal laws against prostitution at a citywide level, but would have instructed city officials to lobby the state legislature for the decriminalization of prostitution and to require from local police a semi-annual report of prostitution-related law enforcement activity.

A teenage runaway, Few was standing up for herself long before launching the decriminalization campaign in October 2003. She turned to exotic dance and prostitution to pay the bills before getting convicted in June 2002 on one federal count of conspiracy to promote prostitution. Few received six months house arrest with electronic monitoring and three years probation. Outraged by what she saw as a total lack of protection and rights for prostitutes, she began pushing Measure Q while under confinement.  

“Without being arrested, I would’ve hidden behind closed doors, but I chose to speak out and fight back,” said Few, who on election night had donned a black suit with a “Smoke Bush in 2004” bumper sticker stuck to her bum. “We’ve rekindled a fire smoldering, re-sparked a flame and provoked a very important issue in the Bay Area. The world is watching; this is not just about Berkeley.”

But on November 2, Measure Q was about Berkeley — particularly among voters in District 2, where most of the city’s prostitution takes place on San Pablo Avenue. A heavily trafficked north-south corridor that cuts through the city’s sprawling residential and commercial districts, San Pablo Avenue is also the city’s red-light district. When night falls, this concrete pocket is often littered with hypodermic needles, used condoms and abandoned liquor bottles — unsightly byproducts that, according to many South Berkeley and bordering West Oakland residents, would have become more common had Measure Q passed.  

Laura Menard, who moved to South Berkeley 23 years ago, said Measure Q’s laissez faire policy would have aggravated already-existing social ills. She had heard that prostitution and heroin use were “rampant” near her house from 1973 into the 80s, and described the nearby park as littered with needles and unsafe for her two kids when they were growing up.

Yet District 2 resident Rachon Harris, who says there are so many prostitutes in his neighborhood that they’re “like streetlights,” supported Measure Q because he believed prostitution deserved a low priority with police. Leaning against the Rosa Parks Environmental Science Magnet School building, his black baseball cap hung low, Harris said prostitution is a choice. Getting pulled over because of the color of his skin, however, is not.

“We have more important issues here like guns on the streets, the crooked police, racial profiling, domestic violence, and homelessness,” said Harris, each sentence punctuated with a fist against his palm. “The police shouldn’t have to worry about johns and sex.”

Though his support was not mirrored by the city at large, backers of Measure Q said they are not discouraged. Carol Stuart, co-author of San Francisco’s “Equal Benefits Ordinance,” said although those who voted against Measure Q feared losing their neighborhoods to hookers and johns, Measure Q forced the city council to address the needs of sex workers for the first time.

“Prostitution is an issue that divides households,” Stuart said. “But we want an end to prohibition; we’re bringing sex work out of the darkness and into the light of day. The threat of arrest and criminal status of their work is hindering women from access to basic human rights.”  

For Berkeley voter Dafney Blanca Dabach, the criminal status of prostitutes is what swayed her vote for Measure Q. Although she thought the initiative sounded more like a college paper — poorly written and ideological — she ultimately supported the measure after she heard about a woman who could not find a job because of her prostitution-related criminal record.

“The weight of a criminal record makes it harder for women who are poor and vulnerable to transition out of prostitution; it hinders them from finding other forms of legitimate work,” Dabach said. “Instead of worrying whether Berkeley will become a haven for prostitutes, we should ask why prostitutes are considered criminals.”

Dabach’s friend disagreed. Adrian Bankhdad argued that prostitutes in Berkeley are “women who are often addicted to crack, not in control of themselves and degrade themselves for a fix.” What they need, he said, “is not a measure that will reduce the stigma of prostitution; they need positive intervention from the legal system.” Bankhdad, who voted against the measure, was among the 64.2 percent of voters who opposed decriminalization.  

“Berkeley made the right decision to vote for what is best for their city and for our most fragile citizens,” said Nara Dahlbacka, the campaign coordinator for the Committee Against Measure Q. “People in Berkeley want to be groundbreaking and progressive, but are not going to go for a knee-jerk reaction, which is what Measure Q was.”

Members of SWOP gather at a local tavern after putting up door hangers in Berkeley.

Feminists for and against

But for Ron Weitzer, a George Washington University sociology professor, Measure Q’s defeat does not indicate failure for the legalization campaign. At the minimum, he said, the initiative triggered thoughtful dialogue around prostitution and law enforcement practices — a rare occurrence in the United States.

Measure Q’s largest accomplishment was perhaps achieved by merely getting on the ballot. Weitzer estimates the initiative is the first in over two decades to call for reduced enforcement of prostitution laws. Occasionally, a state legislator or city council member will propose such a change, but it has not occurred in the United States since 1971 when Nevada successfully legalized brothel prostitution in rural counties.

“The very act of getting the measure on the ballot, holding public discussions and debates about it, and raising the issue of prostitution policy in the public’s mind — all may be considered victories of a sort,” he said.

Prostitution as a back-door reality for residents of South Berkeley also gained the attention of many scholars around the nation, who believed Measure Q held significant bearing on the legalization movement in the United States. Laurie Shrage, a philosophy professor at Pomona’s California State Polytechnic University, believes the major challenge to decriminalizing prostitution is resuscitating the long dormant and marginalized dialogue over sex for sale. Similar to same-sex marriage — which took more than a decade to make headline progress — prostitution is an issue that despite increasing public support faced major setbacks in recent polls.

“It takes a long time to build electoral majorities that can change the way our society operates,” said Shrage, a pro-decriminalization feminist scholar. “Making progress will require keeping the issue in the public spotlight so that voters’ fears and concerns can be discussed and addressed.”

Similar to abortion, the issue of legalizing sex work has long been contentious for feminists around the nation. Does prostitution represent a form of oppression or is it instead a hallmark of female empowerment and independence? Measure Q, despite its rejection and localized domain, sharply divided leading feminist scholars and raised the question of how to define feminism itself.

“There is no one form of feminism, although the overarching campaign is to promote the safety and status of women in our society,” said Wendy Chapkis, a University of Southern Maine women’s studies and sociology professor. “It’s the strategies to securing those goals that are the source of great debate.”

Chapkis, author of Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor, supported Measure Q because she said decriminalization improves the safety and wellbeing of women by providing legal safeguards and social acceptance for prostitutes. Prostitution, according to the pro-decriminalization feminist camp, is a legitimate occupation beleaguered by stigma and exploitation that arise from sexual double standards. Women in prostitution are vilified for being promiscuous or victimized via a socially paternalistic desire to “protect” women from sex. According to one scholar, punitive laws against prostitution symbolize double standards of sexual morality that result in stigmatizing not just prostitutes, but many unconventional women, as “sluts or whores.”

Class clash

Other feminists who oppose decriminalization maintain that those who defend prostitution — generally white middle-class intellectuals — know little about the practical realities of the daily lives of sex workers.  In Berkeley and elsewhere, most sex workers are poor, uneducated, immigrants; women of color; or have substance abuse problems and few other life options. Celeste Robinson-Hardy, an Oakland-based former prostitute and heroin addict, opposed Measure Q for that reason. Now 43 years old, Robinson-Hardy spent over three decades prostituting in the Bay Area to support her drug habit. Although prostitution also economically supported her four children, it was an occupation that put her life in danger each time she entered a john’s car. When she was a teenager, a male customer drove her to a remote hill, put a gun to her head, raped and robbed her.

“He left me up there butt naked, and my hard head went back to work the very next day,” she said. Now a peer counselor in Berkeley, Robinson-Hardy devotes her life to helping women transition out of prostitution. “What are these girls doing with their bodies? That’s God’s temple and they’re just tearing it up. There are no high-class hookers here.”

Janice G. Raymond, a women’s studies professor at the University of Massachusetts- Amherst, believes the prostitution debate is problematic when groups that claim to represent sex workers are led by women who are not in systems of prostitution —meaning, they have done it casually, or do it as an ideological form of women’s resistance.

“There are two groups of women in the prostitution debate,” said Raymond, also author of Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States: International and Domestic Trends. “The first group is characterized as being articulate, and engaging in outlaw sexuality or sexuality as a form or resistance. The second group is out on the streets, in brothels, trafficked, poor, and of mainly African, Latin or Asian descent.”

The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, an international human rights organization that combats prostitution and sexual trafficking, defines prostitution as a function of female oppression. Experts in modern feminism echo this sentiment. Andrea Dworkin, the iconic feminist critic wrote in a speech entitled, “Prostitution and Male Supremacy,” “When men use women in prostitution, they are expressing a pure hatred for the female body.”

Raymond opposed Measure Q because she insisted it would grant men legal and moral permission to engage in more sexual exploitation of women. A common argument for anti-prostitution scholars is that although women should not be arrested in countries such as the United States, where prostitution is illegal, decriminalization of the total practice will merely turn pimps into third party businessmen, and brothels into supposed “houses of protection.”

“Most women would not be prostitutes if they had another option or choice,” Raymond said. “Women in prostitution want one thing: they want to get out.”

Another argument against decriminalization is that it would condone the influx of pimps recruiting girls as young as 12 into street prostitution. Debbie Hoffman of the Oakland Police Department, said pimps — called “boyfriends” by the prostitutes who work for them — often lure girls into sex work with the false illusion of love. Yet Measure Q supporters maintained that arresting prostitutes does little to restrain the sexual or economic exploitation of women and children.    

Shrage, who supported Measure Q, notes that decriminalizing adult sex work would result in sharper political focus on far more serious and harsher practices, including minors in prostitution, forced and child labor, slavery and indenture, and violence. Rather than prohibiting prostitution, she said, sex work must co-exist with an environment of tolerance. Shrage also noted how the production of cheap consumer goods is linked with appalling labor and living conditions in many third-world countries. “I wish that those appalled at feminists for their support of voluntary, adult sex work were at least equally appalled by the practices that make cheap consumer goods available to them.”

Shrage observed that contemporary “third-wave” feminists, especially those who emerge from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered movements, tend to defend prostitution as an occupation because sex workers are similarly stigmatized by mainstream society for their sexual practices. By contrast, many “second-wave” feminists of 30 years ago linked female prostitution with slavery, dismissing the entire sex work industry as immoral or demeaning.

Despite this historical feminist divide, the current prostitution debate marks another evolutionary step in the often discord-ridden tableau of American feminism. Anti-prostitution views, according to Raymond, are now progressive and feminist whereas before, they were tainted by the moral indignation of neo-Victorian thought.

“We’re not right-wingers and we’re not conservatives — we’re feminists,” Raymond said. “Prostitution is certainly an issue that divides some elements of the feminist community but issues divide a lot of groups. To present it as a catfight among feminists is feeding into the stereotype that we women just can’t get it together.”

For Robyn Few — a woman who got it together enough to put a hotly-contested measure on the map — the discourse and discussion it triggered made at least a dent in the national vista of American politics. “Measure Q allowed us to speak out as political actors and demand better working conditions. We, as sex workers, are part of the political landscape.”

STORY INDEX

ORGANIZATIONS >

Sex Workers Outreach Project
URL: http://www.swop-usa.org/

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women
URL: http://www.catwinternational.org/

MARKETPLACE>

Purchase these books through Powells.com and a portion of the proceeds benefit InTheFray.

Brothel: Mustang Ranch and Its Women by Alexa Albert
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0449006581

Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry by Ronald Weitzer
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=041592295x

 

What liberal academia?

Conservatives claim that the ivory tower is the last refuge of liberal clout. But a view from the inside suggests this assertion doesn’t live up to its hype.

It was a familiar complaint from an unusual source. A colleague of mine at the University of Texas at Austin, where I teach a rhetoric course, was moaning about the overwhelming support for Democrats in the liberal arts.

“It just irritates me that people assume that everyone in the liberal arts is a Democrat,” the American Studies graduate student told me. “The chair of my department sends mass emails of George Bush jokes. I think it’s totally inappropriate that a university forum be used for partisan politics.”

I was shocked to hear this grumbling from an avowed leftist and member of the Green Party.

This is also the cause du jour of conservative pundits like George Will and David Brooks, who have written of the liberal hegemon that is higher education. Brooks and Will both seem to believe that the liberal arts are dominated by radical leftists calling for the overthrow of capitalism.

A quick glance around my campus here in Austin reveals a Taco Bell in the student union, Coke machines in every building, a business school endowed by a mega-rich car salesman, Dell computers in almost every classroom, and an athletics department endorsed by Nike. Hardly evidence of a socialist cabal.

Still, just when it seemed the conservative attack machine had run out of straw men, it has unearthed a new menace: leftist profs in the ivory tower. Arch-conservative activist and faux scholar David Horowitz is the ringleader of the campus jihad. For years, he has been calling attention to the “modern plague” of “radical leftism in the universities,” but now, with the decline of leftist boogeymen in the halls of power, Republicans are starting to listen.

Horowitz has written an “Academic Bill of Rights” that would protect against the “unwarranted intrusion of faculty members’ political views into the classroom.” He claims that at least 20 states will enact legislation this year in support of his manifesto.  

Horowitz has also found some obedient foot soldiers here in Austin — another supposed liberal bastion in a sea of red. The Young Conservatives of Texas made headlines last year with a  “watch list,” designed to “monitor” professors pushing an ideological agenda.

The fact is, when push comes to shove, colleges and universities are only as liberal as the people who fund and manage them; i.e. rich alumni, Boards of Regents, and endowment managers.

Universities, like it or not, are pseudo-corporations that pay more attention to their self-image than true intellectual freedom. When Michael Moore scheduled a stop at Utah Valley State on his “Slacker Tour” last year, prominent alumni threatened to withdraw all donations to the school unless Moore’s gig was cancelled. The school, not surprisingly, complied.

If you want to see how political power on campus really works, don’t read an MLA article about race, class, and gender in the works of Jane Austen. Instead, consider UT’s Board of Regents, which actively solicited funds for Republican candidates on university letterhead during the last election as a quid pro quo for tuition deregulation.

While registered Democrats probably do outnumber Republicans in humanities and social science departments, statistics on professors’ ideologies have been notoriously difficult to pin down. The most reliable survey, conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute and published in the Chronicle of Higher Education , found that 48 percent of 50,000 faculty interviewed classified themselves as “liberal” to “far left.” The rest classified themselves as either “conservative” or “moderate.” Hardly a mandate for the radical leftism that Horowitz complains about.

Even if Democrats do outnumber Republicans in the liberal arts, conservative “scholars” seem to have no problem finding public outlets for their views — even when their opinions fly in the face of accepted scholarship. There was no shortage of publicity last month, for instance, when Harvard president Larry Summers made the absurd claim that woman lack a biological predisposition for science and engineering. And Condi Rice, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, all big-time players in the Bush Administration, previously held cozy academic positions at elite universities.

If conservative academics find themselves on the outs with their moderate to liberal colleagues, they probably have their own shrillness to blame. That’s because many of them, like Stephen Balch, president of the conservative National Association of Scholars, have an annoying tendency to openly boast of their revolutionary zeal. Balch recently told the Chronicle of Higher Education that his conservative colleagues share the belief that “America is a society in drastic need of an overhaul.”

Academia, contrary to popular belief, is a community that thrives on consensus and non-confrontation. If out-of-the-closet conservative professors intimidate hiring committees, it is not because of a specific ideology, but because anyone openly calling for a revolution — from the left or the right — will raise a few eyebrows among tenured faculty.

 

Greasing the wheels of progress

Challenging current attempts at obfuscation and oversimplification, Sonia Shah’s Crude: The Story of Oil tackles an issue that has fueled society, politics, and environmental destruction for over 100 years.

Along with many leftists who believed that public protest could actually influence policy decisions, in February 2003 I attended a rally against the War in Iraq.

“No Blood for Oil” was emblazoned on signs as a simplistic cry of indignation against the suffering Bush wished to visit upon the Iraqi people, challenging the just-as-simplistic reasons for going to war, weapons of mass destruction, and Iraqi liberation. Of course, I had driven my car to get to the rally, had eaten pesticide treated food produced thousands of miles away for breakfast, and bought a CD later that afternoon. I also attend the University of Texas at Austin, which, with Texas A&M, keeps education affordable due to joint ownership of oil prospects in Texas. I had raised my voice in protest, but had lived my day in complacency.

Sonia Shah’s book Crude: The Story of Oil brings this point home. As consumers, we have learned how to deploy an exquisite form of doublethink — we have embraced the softer side of BP, Exxon, and Shell, easily forgetting the death squads that marched through Nigeria, the Exxon-Valdez oil spill that constituted one of the worst human-made disasters in history, and the mounds of evidence supporting theories of global warming.

Shah is a freelance writer who has contributed to magazines such as Zmag, In These Times, The Progressive, and The Nation, and is the former editor of Nuclear Times. The overlap of science and progressive politics make Shah quite adept at creating a multi-faceted study of how science, politics, and economics merge in forming the hegemony oil has over everyday life and worldwide geopolitics.

Shah spent over a year interviewing oil executives, experts, workers, and anti-oil activists, studying all publications concerning oil and energy, and basically became the central interlocutor of all things oil. What she discovers is that though we may want a world free from the ravages of CO2 emissions and repressive regimes the U.S. supports for access to oil, oil companies in collusion with the United States government have made the costs seem too great. Perhaps the price we pay is already too great, but oil companies in league with the media and the government work tirelessly to keep us from realizing it. This is the story of oil, the story of misdirection, promises, and misinformation. This is also the story of our society.

Sacred oil

Fascination with the properties of hydrocarbons predates even the most zealous Standard Oil executive’s starry-eyed visions. More than 2,000 years ago, a prophet named Zoroaster founded a religion, in part upon the worship of fire. The fire that inspired this worship was the result of natural gas flares that accompanied the seeping oil in what is now Iran. People would put the black liquid in water and see signs of the future, carefully coded in the shifting shapes. Oil was mystical, plentiful, and indeed, useful. It could be used to seal roofs and boats and as a base for “Greek Fire,” a weapon of war that spread fear amongst enemies of Persia. This is the framework Shah sets up for an understanding of oil’s first entrance into human lives. From mysticism to war, it seems that oil’s role has changed very little in the ensuing millennia.

The Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution were supposed to strip away the mystical aspects of natural resources, leaving only rational empirics of efficiency and energy production. The new appeal to reason made the rise of the nation state, the steam engine, and capitalism seem natural, or even inevitable. These institutions are imbibed with just as much mysticism as the Koran, the Bible, and the Torah. Their existence rests on a mythology of constructed truths: capitalism expands wealth to provide for all, the nation-state was the natural outgrowth of the inevitable desire for a balance of power, progress is our destiny. In pursuing destiny, trampling other, less civilized cultures was a small price to pay.

At first, coal fueled this revolution. As coal began to dwindle, oil, called the “excrement of the devil” by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ (OPEC) co-founder, Juan Perez Alfonso, became the heir apparent to the throne of energy. It’s easy to fall into the trap of seeing oil’s rise as natural, just as it is easy to believe there are no alternatives to the nation-state or to capitalism.

But as with all historical phenomena, the rise of oil was more a matter of luck than a natural progress. We have built a cult of what Sonia Shah calls petrolife. For Americans and oil companies, oil is more life-giving than a mother’s milk. Each American consumes about three gallons of oil per day, requiring it for food, transportation, heating, entertainment, medicine, housing, and perhaps much more. It seems we have no choice but to worship oil, and to do anything to secure that the free-flow of oil continues unabated, for our very lives rely on it. Every aspect of American life is infected by oil — but was this necessary or even likely 100 years ago?

Many commentators on our culture of oil consumption see this reliance as a natural and even inevitable part of life. The transition from coal to oil seems just as naturally progressive as the switch from train to car culture. But such equations are based on a fundamental flaw in logic. While the current configuration of American society can effectively be traced back to the emergence of oil-based capitalism, this was not the only option prior to the development of industrial society. Shah’s most striking revelation is in showing how absolutely contingent the original growth and continued expansion of petrolife has been. What if, after oil began to peak in Pennsylvania and Texas, President
Franklin Roosevelt did not decide to court Saudi princes for more secure oil? What if the Arab oil embargo had lasted months instead of days? Though these counterfactuals may not provide us with insight into our current dependence on gluttonous consumption, they do point us to consider how indeed we may transition away from unsustainable growth to sustainable consumption.

Banality of production

Shah takes great pains to illustrate how oil is literally raised from the dead to bring new life. Beginning with the natural history of the formation of oil deposits from the corpses of hundreds of millions of prehistoric creatures, the mixture of oil and death does not end there. The oil industry has the highest level of industrial accidents and deaths. Since maintenance and safety precautions cut into ever-dwindling profits, workers toil on oil rigs that are literally floating death traps. Shah tells the stories of frozen hydraulic systems that are meant to raise and lower lifeboats on rigs in the North Sea, and of wind gusts that have collapsed entire rigs. Have these incidents resulted in greater regulations or more safety requirements? Oil executives have made sure these stories do not reach the media, and without any public outcry, government officials are wont to avoid action.

The oil industry spills 1,000 barrels of oil for every billion it transports. Beyond the infamous Exxon-Valdez oil spill that permanently debilitated the Alaskan coastline, oil tankers routinely expunge oily ballast water, and are so tipsy when unloaded that their cargo leaks. Even the spectacular oil spills, such as that of the Prestige in 2002, fade from our view much more quickly than environmental groups would like , as Greenpeace accounts in ”Year One of the Prestige Oil Spill”. Even as the damage remains obscured or forgotten, thousands of animals and people who live in these areas cannot afford such ignorance and avoidance. But, as Shah rightly points out, since oil is the greatest shipped commodity, it remains largely unregulated, save for symbolic gestures when the disasters are too large to ignore.

The most egregious crime occurs on land, not at sea. After oil production peaked in the United States in the 1970s, U.S.-based oil companies began to search the world over for more abundant oil supplies. The Middle East, South America, and Africa proved to be the most reliable prospects. Oil companies, corrupt regimes, and even legitimate governments pumped oil out of the ground and repaid the pillage with murder, destruction, and mass suffering. The most in-depth account Shah provides concerns the activities of Shell in Nigeria. Shell entered Nigeria under the auspices of bringing wealth, prosperity, and stability. But when their goodwill was met with protest, they helped to organize and deploy death squads, razing entire villages and publicly executing leaders of the resistance, as evidenced in the Human Rights Watch Report, “The Price of Oil.”

Shah carefully details murder in the pursuit of oil in areas as diverse as Nigeria, Columbia, and Chechnya, but the striking inhumanity is also evident in understated observations, such as Chevron’s choice to turn an old slave port into an oil terminal.

This is what distinguishes Shah’s account from any other. This story of oil refuses to disconnect the current status of oil as a bringer of industrial grandeur from the oil spills from the death squads from the science and economics that drive an industry. The story is infinitely more complex than anyone can reasonably comprehend. What made Shell executives believe that mass slaughter was an appropriate response to popular dissent? And why do we as consumers still not boycott Shell or turn away in horror, even after we have heard the story? To invoke Hannah Arendt’s perceptive observation, the totalitarian horrors of Nazi Germany were less driven by blind hatred than it was by the “banality of evil.” During the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt recounted how Eichmann was a very effective bureaucrat who merely went with the flow of the times. The banality of oil consumption may not take the form of organized mass slaughter, but genocide, environmental destruction, and even global warming which threatens much of the life of the planet are the results of our mindless consumption.

Shockingly, oil company executives often believe that they are truly bringing good to the world. They are the saviors, able to overcome difficulties in extraction, easily crushing rival energy producers. With such a messianic belief that oil will truly solve the problems of poverty (through establishing oil markets), famine (through oil-based pesticides), and indeed, social antagonism (through petro-dollars, everyone wins), it is not hard to imagine how a little genocide now and then may not seem so bad. This is why Shah’s project is so critical today — only in demystifying the belief that economic progress is the panacea to the world’s ills can we begin to think of solutions to the daily suffering that occurs on a global scale.

Refining oil, refining knowledge

Some of the most troubling information in this book concerns how oil companies have a virtual monopoly on understanding all aspects of their resource. Faulty statistical models create over-inflated estimates of oil reserves in order to keep investment in oil companies high; according to one estimate, unexplored Greenland has more oil than the entire Middle East. Why would oil companies continue to risk their prospects in a region where insurgents routinely attack pipelines when land abandoned by even the Vikings holds enough oil to keep America in the black for decades?

Entire university departments are subsidized not by the government, but by oil companies. Whole technologies have been developed to make exploratory drilling less costly and less financially risky. Oil companies actively seek scientists, economists, and geologists who will tell them what they want to hear. Once they hear it, the oil companies make sure that their experts are heard over any dissenting clamor by those who have yet been bought off.

If anyone doubts this production of knowledge, Shah provides us with two words that should silence any naysayers: global warming. After scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirmed that CO2 emissions were responsible for the slow warming of the planet, oil companies scrambled for scientists who would be willing to counter these claims.

Some rogue scientists joined with Big Oil to begin a campaign of misinformation, undermining the credibility of the models, data, and conclusions of the consortium. Global warming does not exist, and if it does, it’s necessary to stop the oncoming ice age. I’m reminded of the doctors hired by tobacco companies who reported that cigarettes decrease the incidence of certain cancers. Oil companies have been more successful than King Tobacco in their propaganda campaign, fabricating debate and successfully assuaging consumers’ fears that they were poisoning the planet. Perhaps some healthy debate is necessary, but when that debate is funded by the deep pockets of parties with vested interests in the findings, it is easy to see that the public sphere has been sold to the highest bidder.

The crunch

Fortunately, we may not have hundreds of years of oil to fuel our wager with global warming. Shah’s expose joins no less than five other major books published in the last few years, such as The End of Oil by Paul Roberts, Out of Gas by David Goodstein, The Party’s Over by Richard Heinberg, Blood and Oil by Michael Klare, and The Coming Oil Crisis by C. J. Campbell,  warning of the inevitable peak in oil production. The oil peak, as Shah explains, is the point at which we have consumed more oil than is left in the ground. Even with better technologies for extracting the remaining oil, the law of diminishing returns will rule the days until we truly run out of oil. Estimates for the world oil peak range from 2005 to 2050 for the more concerned experts, and as consumption continues to grow worldwide, the crash is not something we can ignore for much longer. Regardless of when the crunch comes, the years leading up to the end of oil will be characterized by violent geopolitical struggles for the remaining resources, so long as we remain tied to petroculture. Michael T. Klare gives a thorough account of the reality of these coming resource wars in ”Crude Awakenings” from the November 11, 2004 issue of The Nation.

Shah joins these authors in approaching the coming oil crash with cautious optimism. At some level, it does seem that the only thing that will stop our gluttonous oil consumption in the United States is to be cut off. Tales of oil spills, global warming, and genocide have proven ill-equipped to guilt us into giving up our current habits. Oil will first become cost-prohibitive to the majority of America, and will then disappear altogether. This will inevitably bring crisis, and given our current level of preparation for a transition to another energy source or another way of life, it may be worse than any of us can imagine.

Indeed, in the face of mounting evidence of the peak, the Bush administration has decided to invest in methane, ethanol, and coal development, both of which require oil in production. Producing ethanol gas from corn requires almost the same amount of oil as producing petroleum gas. Yet, this is what President Bush funds instead of supporting renewable energies such as solar and wind power. The politics of energy consumption have put us on a collision course with the oil peak, and things will only become more violent. The violence we have exported to oil-rich regions around the globe will return to us with a vengeance. The price we pay for oil may be measured in our blood as well.

What separates Shah from authors who bemoan the coming end to the age of oil is the investigative journalism at the heart of her accounts. Mixed in with the fact sheets are very in-depth narratives of the individuals who are central to the functioning of the oil machines. From the oil rig workers who luckily escaped catastrophic accidents, to professors who churn out the new batch of engineers to be consumed by the industry of consumption, one begins to see much more clearly how no one remains innocent in oil production. Through her investigation of the science, history, politics, and economics of oil, Shah provides a plethora of information in a very straightforward and digestible form. Readers must think twice about their consumptive habits. At its core, Crude reminds us that everything has its price, and the costs are more hidden than we think.

STORY INDEX

ARTICLES >

“No Escape From Dependency” by Michael Clare
URL: http://alternet.org/envirohealth/20701/

“Scholars to Working America: Sacrifice Your Children for Oil and Empire” by Paul Street
URL: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5319

“China Invest Heavily In Sudan’s Oil Industry” by Peter Goodman
URL: http://www.genocidewatch.org/SudanChinaInvestsHeavily23December2004.htm

MARKETPLACE>

Purchase these books through Powells.com and a portion of the proceeds benefit InTheFray

Crude: The Story of Oil by Sonia Shah
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=1583226257

Blood and Oil by Michael Klare
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0805073132

The End of Oil by Paul Roberts
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0618239774

Out of Gas by David Goodstein
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0393058573

The Coming Oil Crisis by C. J. Campbell
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0906522110

 

Occupation’s death grip

The war in Chechnya has drained the lifeblood from a once powerful Russian army, and it doesn’t look like it will end anytime soon.

A squat military van parked in the middle of Pushkinskya Street last summer.  Surrounded by military schools and bases, soldiers crossed this pedestrian mall every day. In Rostov-on-Don, the military enjoyed particular freedoms with parking and traffic laws.  

Last summer, hundreds of soldiers strolled down the leafy sidewalk on Pushkinskaya Street daily, enjoying the pedestrian mall that crisscrosses the heart of Rostov-on-Don in southern Russia. In July, they wandered past neat-trimmed grass, flower gardens, outdoor cafes with plastic patio furniture, and past the concrete dividers that border them.

This street was named after a poet, but warriors dominate the city founded along the Don River, a century-old shipping route and crucial frontier, less than 500 miles away from Chechen border. Two military bases, two military academies, a regional recruiting station, and the headquarters for the Great Don Cossack Army all lay within walking distance. The city’s 1.2 million inhabitants have spent their entire lives surrounded by military outposts that are a microcosm of the troubled Russian army. Civilians mingle with a sea of uniforms: boy-soldiers in camouflage, officers in crisp dress, and off-duty recruits in khaki civilian clothes and sunglasses to hide their eyes.

At the end of last summer, wreckage from an exploded airplane fell just outside this city, changing everything for these soldiers. The guerilla war in Chechnya had jumped the border to Russia with renewed intensity. In just a few weeks, Chechen suicide bombers had destroyed two airplanes, bombed a Moscow subway stop, and murdered hundreds of children in a Beslan schoolhouse. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin summoned military forces to tighten borders, pacify Chechnya, and protect Russia.

The increased attacks, however, only highlighted problems with Russia’s military that have been brewing for years. Russia’s terrorism policy rests in the hands of thousands of young men from the Rostov region, pulled into the army every year under a confusing set of draft laws that many find ways to evade. According to many active soldiers and their advocates, the army is a poorly financed and demoralized force. Although the government responded last January with initiatives to build a contracted army, it is unclear how effective the reforms will be or how they will help extricate Russia from a war that it cannot win.

As troubled Iraqi elections loom — and the logistics of a deadly American commitment to Iraq become more problematic under a protracted occupation — the state of Russia’s military after a decade-long conflict offers a troubled example for Americans.

Pushkinskya Street is the community center in Rostov-on-Don, Russia. During the day, cars parked haphazardly outside the shops and offices lining the long stretch of flowery sidewalks. In the evening, residents strolled past countless outdoor cafes and chatted with their neighbors.

Filling the ranks through “coffin money”

A few blocks away from Pushkinskaya, kitty-corner to a grade school, lies a sprawling red brick building guarded by recently graduated teenagers with machine guns. The Southern Region Recruiting Station was the first station to institute a new set of military reforms earlier last year, trying to fill the army ranks with a better kind of soldier.

This station began accepting applications last January, part of the military’s plans to convert half the army into contractors by 2007. For years, the army found soldiers under a mandatory conscription law, drafting soldiers for two years from a nationwide pool of 1.2 million young men between 18 and 27 years old — drawing boys into complicated conflicts for which they were ill prepared. While small numbers of contractors have also served in the Russian army and navy for many years, the army now plans to dramatically increase this pool of voluntary fighters.

As Vice-Military Commissar of the Rostov Region, Colonel Valery Tolmachev supervised the contractor recruiting drive last year. He explained that the current, drafted army suffers from an “intellectual poverty.” While the Russian draft calls hundreds of thousands of young men, wealth and education often determine the final cut. Recruits can avoid the draft through special work and university deferments, and many wealthier draftees pay to keep their names off the register. The army is struggling, even in this military-saturated region.

Too many of the best and brightest have managed to escape service, leaving the poor and undereducated to lead the ranks. Accusations of hazing and power abuse sometimes filter down through the ranks, reflecting the difficulties of an army staffed with unwilling or unhappy troops.

With a cautious smile Tolmachev expressed hope in these new contracted soldiers, expecting that this additional force of willing and experienced fighters will replace the weaker, drafted soldiers. “People were eager to serve under contract; even women came to sign up.”

In contrast to draftees, contract soldiers are paid at higher rates with additional pay for wartime experience or special skills. For instance, contract soldiers in the 42nd Motor Rifle Division earn 15,000 ($510) rubles a month for service in a Chechnya hotspot — almost 10,000 ($340) rubles more than the average, drafted recruit.

Colonel Tolmachev estimated that contractors now compose 25 to 30 percent of the whole army, only a small rise from last year. However, increased contractors have also lowered the mandatory service requirement to one year, loosening the two-year draft policy that forced thousands of young men into the army. So far, the change has mostly affected “commandants,” placing contractors at military outposts in highly dangerous conflict areas.

While American contractors perform similar services in Iraq, repairing the battered infrastructure, leading supply convoys through the desert, and running dangerous military missions, the U.S. government has not yet raised the pay-stakes as dramatically as the Russian army. However, as that conflict’s resemblance to the guerilla nightmare of Chechnya increases, the pressure for improved compensation to avoid a draft builds.

Tolmachev called the high-risk incentives paid to contractors in dangerous Chechen outposts “coffin money.”

A tug floats along the Don River last summer. For centuries, this long river watered agriculture and guided freight ships through the vast southern interior of Russia.

Curator of misery

Tolmachev’s term appropriately gestures towards the military quagmire that the Chechnya conflict has become. In the mid-1990’s, the Russian military crashed into this unconventional war. It sent thousands of drafted soldiers into the fiercely independent Chechen region — without preparing them for the duration or tactics of the conflict.

The latest insurgency is an outgrowth of longstanding tensions between the Russian government and Chechnya. Though an autonomous Chechen-Ingush republic was established under Soviet rule, World War II brought a vicious crackdown under Stalin when thousands of Chechens were deported for allegedly collaborating with German forces. The Chechen republic was reestablished in 1958, but the earlier exile of its citizens scarred its relationship with Russia.

Post-Soviet chaos bred violent separatist movements in Chechnya, and these rebels mounted waves of terrorist attacks on Russian soil — demanding an autonomous state. The Russian government resisted, and sent troops to break up terror cells in Grozny in 1995. Soon the insurgency situation degenerated into crisis.

Just like the U.S. military in Iraq last year, Russian forces discovered that full-scale occupation could not stop suicide bombers and urban guerillas. The military was not able to pacify the besieged country, and the insurgents evaded military control. These tactics led to a protracted conflict, and a second war commenced in 1999. Since then, thousands of troops have died, and a string of terrorist attacks have squandered hopes for a clean exit strategy.  

Svetlana Arsenyevna Lozhkina, chair of the Rostov Region Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers, has seen the consequences of this bloodshed firsthand, and she has a large supply of stories about the soldiers who have suffered or died in this conflict.

Nestled on the bottom floor of the colonel’s recruiting station, her office is a cozy space plastered with newspaper clippings about boys hurt, lost, or killed over the last 10 years of military action in Chechnya. Her committee formed in 1989, created by mothers who had lost children in war. Lozhkina joined the group after her son returned safely from his mandatory service, turning her motherly concern into a public service project. Over the past 15 years, Lozhkina has filled dozens of ledger-books with complaints from drafted soldiers, documenting the struggles of young men trapped in dangerous posts.

Despite the tired wrinkles around her eyes, Lozhkina speaks intensely. “I don’t keep track of numbers, but at least seven people come in here each week during the summer. Many more people come during the Army’s fall recruitment drive to complain about their service.”

Lozhkina reads a letter from a soldier stationed in North Ossetia — the site of the then-unexpected Beslan massacre. Private Vilady alleges that two soldiers were infected by hepatitis during routine flu shots and that officers beat soldiers hard enough to rupture organs. The soldier concludes, “We don’t care what we have to do. We’ll do anything to get out of this hell.”

Every day, she carefully prints the name, address and complaints of new soldiers in a five-inch thick notebook. She’s a curator of misery, and 2004’s ledger was already half full in July.
Every day, the American military records similarly grim statistics. There’s no draft randomly pulling out college-aged soldiers, but already American soldiers have been forced to extend their tours while more reservists have been pulled into the conflict. The streets of Grozny are as untamed as the shadowy walls of Falluja in Iraq. If the insurgency and American occupation should drag on for another five or 10 years, some mother will have to fill ledger books with the names of American soldiers.

A view of Rostov, taken from a ship floating along the Don River last summer. The Don Cossack ethnic group settled along these green banks, raising horses and training generations of proud warriors.

A special breed of soldier

Lozhkina’s ledger captures the fear and inexperience of young draftees, the kind of problems the army hopes to avoid with professional soldiers. Studying the contract soldier program, it is apparent that many Rostov region contractors are Cossacks — a brash group that eagerly signed up out of ethnic pride. These soldiers are reputed to enter war zones fearlessly, but they’ve also faced a new set of problems within the contract soldier system.

Inside the Rostov-on-Don headquarters of the Great Don Cossack Army, rows of training photographs decorate the skinny, dim hallways. The army is named after the Don River that flows past Rostov, the fertile water that lured this proud ethnic group to settle here in the 17th century, and defend the southern frontier. The pictures show children training in Cossack military schools: little boys in greasepaint and camouflage, teenagers scrambling up walls; recruits riding horses, kissing flags, or practicing karate moves.

While the death toll in Chechnya sends many rich Russian teenagers running from the draft, this is still a city of warriors. Out of all the military-men debating the future of the Russian army, these fighters tell the most optimistic stories.

The Cossack tradition of raising soldiers from childhood is long standing. In the 17th century, the group pledged allegiance to the Czar, but maintained sovereignty and traditional values within their communities. In the 19th century, they became an independent arm of the Russian military, establishing these Cossack outposts and schools in the region.

A giant blue, yellow, and red Don Cossack flag dangles in Vladimir Voronin’s office, decorated with the Cossack army’s seal — a white stag leaping with an arrow buried in its belly. “Cossacks are more eager to serve than other people,” said Voronin, the Commander of the Directorate of Ideology and Propaganda of the Great Don Cossack Army.

His plastic glasses perched on the end of his nose, and his unruly, moussed buzz cut sprouted in all directions.  Presented with the lack of a draft in America and ideas of alternative service such as the Peace Corps, Voronin dismissed any kind of civic service options to the Russian draft. “For me, alternative types of service are almost like an alternative sexuality,” he said. “Normal men serve.”

Last year, Voronin’s office recruited 608 Cossack men from the Rostov region to serve in the Russian army. Of those recruits, about 100 soldiers signed three-year minimum commitments to serve as contract soldiers in the 42nd Motor Division in Chechnya — one of the bloodiest corners of the war.
“Cossacks respect the traditions of people in the Caucuses region. The military is uncomfortable that we have success there and their official troops don’t,” Voronin said of these new contract soldiers.

“We were raised up by history,” said Major Boris Azarkhin, a Cossack military leader. “For modern Cossacks, our main purpose was to protect our country.” He wore a dress shirt with the Cossack crest stitched on the breast: St. George sticking his spear through a dragon’s neck.

Cossack history contrasts neatly with the centuries-old conflict between Russia and Chechnya republics. While Chechens have bucked Russian control since the 19th century, constantly struggling for an independent republic, the Cossacks have maintained a good relationship with Russia since World War II when they fought German tanks with horses, rifles and sabers. The Cossacks lived here as proud Russian citizens for centuries, still maintaining cultural traditions like colorfully embroidered shirts and community holidays. While a tight-knit Cossack leadership council presides over Cossack schools and churches, the ethnic group has always deferred to the Russian government since World War II.

The major proudly insists that his soldiers in the 42nd Division in Chechnya represent “the best soldiers the Cossacks can offer.”  He hoped the outpost would grow into a full-fledged, self-contained military community, with schools, parks, and housing projects for soldiers’ families.

“Then the soldiers won’t have any headaches like caring for their families,” he said, “They will only care about serving better.”

These brave sentiments raise some hard questions about occupation. Generations of American soldiers will someday staff precarious bases in places like Falluja or Baghdad, keeping an uncomfortable peace. Iraqi or Chechen insurgents aren’t bound by such defensive positions, and they can hide anywhere in their country.

Occupational outposts are fixed barbwire fortresses, perpetually exposed to mobile attackers. The idea that soldiers’ wives and children could grow up inside these war zones is absurd, even for a culture seeped in militarism as the Cossacks. Nevertheless, insurgencies in Chechnya and Iraq virtually require this sort of decades-long commitment.

Mercenary back-wages

While the Cossack major dreams of a professional occupation force with palatial barracks, in reality, the army has lost too many troops and resources during the Chechen occupation to start afresh. As Colonel Tolmachev explains, education loopholes and bribery have crippled the drafted forces, sending ill-equipped soldiers into a complex battlefield. Professional soldiers seem like an elegant solution, a way to eventually end the draft and fill the ranks with eager soldiers like the Cossack contractors.  

However, a few retired contractors painted a grim picture of hired guns in the Russian army. While they wouldn’t speak at length about their service, their assessment was simple:  “All army financers are traitors,” said Oleg Gubenko, a former Cossack contract soldier. “They should be shot.”

Gubenko joined the army full of ethnic pride in the late 1990s, but after serving as a contractor in Chechnya for three years, he returned home bitterly without his full pay. Last August, Gubenko organized a strike with other unpaid contract soldiers. Some members of his group alleged that the army owes them upwards of 1 million rubles for their contract service. The matter has not been resolved. As hundreds of new contracts are signed this year, these contractors wonder if it will ever be resolved.

Stanislav Velikoredchanin, a civil rights lawyer whose shaggy beard, tattered shorts and sandals clash with the brazen toughness of the soldiers that he defends in court, reflected on the fundamental issues facing the Russian military in his living-room office. “The main problem in the military is financing” he said. “Anybody would be happy with 15,000 rubles, but they actually get a lot less. The army promised them big money, but many were not paid.”

Velikoredchanin has experience defending soldiers in civil cases concerning owed wages and the intricacies of draft policies.  In 1999, he published the book ABC’s for Recruits — a 400-page manual on the loopholes and inaccuracies within Russian draft-law that could be exploited by draft-dodgers. His work helped many young men avoid mandatory service during the troubled years since the war in Chechnya began.

The civil rights lawyer said that the financial problems, troop shortages, and the conflict in Chechnya have changed the army for the worse. He served in the Soviet army in the 1960s, and shares fond stories about his time there. He muses, “Officers used to be noble people. But in times of military action, generals don’t think about quality, they just want more recruits. This fills the army with some bad parts of humanity.”

Despite such criticisms of the draft regime, conservative military analysts do not question the importance of maintaining a standing military force at all costs. Dimitry Tziganok, director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis in Moscow, placed complete faith in Putin’s military policies — treating the Chechen conflict like a patriotic exercise. While he admitted that current draft laws let too many rich or educated young men escape service, he believed in the idea of an all-inclusive draft.  

“The son of a street cleaner and the son of a general should both serve,” he argued. “That’s their duty to their country.”

Leaders like Tziganok see the professional soldier program as a return to the glory days Soviet-era army. However, in the alternative view, Russian soldiers have not changed; their duties have. The drawn-out conflict in Chechnya that has sent many young Russians running from the draft has also sapped the military’s strength.

Contractors may ease some of the problems, replacing scared boys with expensive hired guns, but the policy change avoids a much larger question. In Iraq and Chechnya, new guerillas spring out of the wreckage left behind by occupational forces in these contested nations. This anger perpetually renews insurgency forces, creating an endless demand for more soldiers on the other side, saddling traditional armies with dwindling public support and funding. The question remains for both Russian and United States military leaders: Is it possible to fix an army entangled in a long occupation?  

Night falls on Pushkinskaya Street

One lazy night last July, a couple of soldiers mingled with their civilian friends on the sidewalk of Pushkinskaya Street. Street cleaners in orange plastic vests smoked cigarettes in the night breeze. Rich kids parked their squat, black sedans on the sidewalk, blaring American hip-hop out open windows.

A pop ditty played on a transistor radio in a café, a military song that had become curiously popular over the summer. Pop star Leonid Agutin, backed by a rock and roll orchestra, sang:

I must serve like everybody
The train will take us to the border
Cheer up boys, we’re all soldiers now.

The simple song is belied by a complex reality. Every year hundreds of teenagers sneak out of service, Svetlana Arsenyevna Lozhkina collects letters from scared soldier-boys, contract soldiers beg for money, and Cossack soldiers lose the nationalistic fever burning in that song. Still, officials like Tziganok hold on to the stubborn patriotism of that anthem, dreaming of a streamlined occupational force.

As the visible strain on America’s overstretched military stokes rumors of an impending draft reinstatement, the grim reality of Russia’s war on terror might foreshadow the future of America. The Russian military has floundered in Chechnya for five years — and they won’t be leaving anytime soon. This doomed struggle burned out a once-powerful army.

In August, terrorists smashed all illusions of safety and control with a couple pounds of explosives. Insurgent fighters don’t need to build elaborate bases, stage complicated army drafts, or worry about missing wages. They are desperate, and can cripple rebuilding efforts for years. As that plane wreckage tumbled to earth outside of Rostov-on-Don, it reminded the whole world that these are new kinds of wars — wars that no traditional soldier can win.

The song never defined the “border” its boys are rushing to defend. This border might be the frontier between boys and men, street cleaners and generals, recruits in Rostov and politicians in Moscow; perhaps it’s also about that invisible, broken line that once kept war far away from this peaceful street.  

As the cheery tune ended, the soldiers wandered down Pushkinskaya Street.

STORY INDEX

This story was written with the support of Elena Gracheva and NYU’s Russian American Journalism Institute.

BOOKS >
Purchase these books through Powells.com and a portion of the proceeds benefit InTheFray

Lenin’s Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire by David Remnick
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0679751254

Resurrection: The Struggle for a New Russia by David Remnick
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0375750231

The Haunted Land: Facing Europe’s Ghosts After Communism by Tina Rosenberg
URL: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/partner?partner_id=28164&cgi=product&isbn=0679744991

ORGANIZATIONS >

NYU’s Russian American Journalism Institute
URL: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/rostov/

Russia’s Military Analysis
URL: http://warfare.ru/

Pravda’s English-Language Edition
URL: http://english.pravda.ru/

The Moscow Times
URL: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/indexes/01.html

 

‘Tis the season to be angry

Christmas under attack: Bill O’Reilly’s search for the left-wing Scrooge.

With George Bush in the White House for the next four years, a Republican-led Congress, and a Supreme Court that is likely to be stocked with conservatives for decades, life is pretty tough for Bill O’Reilly. Gloating is fun for a while, but it doesn’t sell. If you want to keep the ratings up, you need a boogeyman.

So let me introduce you to O’Reilly’s straw man of the season: the anti-Christmas Left.

“Once again, Christmas is under siege by the growing forces of secularism in America,” O’Reilly argues in a recent column. And while 90 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, still, O’Reilly contends, “The tradition of Christmas in America continues to get hammered.” And you thought getting hammered was a Christmas tradition.

You may not have noticed this disturbing “national trend,” what with all the flashing red and green lights, pine trees, and white-bearded fat men roaming around. But O’Reilly’s eyes are wide open.

One of the three examples of anti-Christmas bias O’Reilly exposes in his column, on his syndicated radio show, and on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s insistence that the big, brightly lit tree in Rockefeller Center is not a Christmas tree, but a holiday tree.

Some might call that excessive political correctness. O’Reilly calls it part of a “well-organized movement” cooked up by “secular –progressives” as a subterfuge to turn the United States into Canada, where the lack of public religiosity has spawned evils from gay marriage to decreased military budgets. Awful, isn’t it?

O’Reilly says Bloomberg is “one of the many scrooges in public life” who hides his lefty politics behind multicultural euphemisms. Bloomberg is, of course, a billionaire Republican, which sort of disqualifies him from being part of the Left.

Next on the list of Christ-haters is the entire city of Denver. For 30 years, the Downtown Denver Partnership, a non-profit organization that promotes Denver as “the unique, diverse, vibrant and economically healthy urban core of the Rocky Mountain region,” has been putting on a parade to celebrate the holiday season. For the past 10 years, the “Festival of Lights” parade has declined to include religious displays, opting instead to focus on the more secular Christmas icons: Santa, stockings, and gift-giving.

Bill O’Reilly would have his audience believe that the Denver has succumbed to a vast secular conspiracy to destroy Christmas. But the city itself has nothing to do with the parade, which is being put on by a private organization comprised of hundreds of local businesses. The fact is, any organization can have a parade through the streets of Denver, and invite any group they want to participate.

So here’s a suggestion for you, Bill:  Take some of the money you make from shilling coffee mugs and doormats, and put on your own damn parade.

The most preposterous of all of O’Reilly’s conspiratorial accusations is leveled at Macy’s Department Stores. That ungodly bastion of secular lefty-ness has opted to greet patrons with the pagan rallying cry, “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” O’Reilly has apparently forgotten, so here’s a reminder: Corporations exist for one reason — to make money. If Macy’s executives thought that giving every customer the stigmata would help sell clothing and housewares, they’d find a way to make it happen.

So it appears as though O’Reilly’s conspiracy theory doesn’t hold water. But just to be sure, I spoke with Alexandra Walker, Executive Editor of TomPaine.com, a progressive website that O’Reilly cites as a player in the secular movement. Walker assures me that no anti-Christmas movement exists, and that Michael Bloomberg, the Downtown Denver Partnership, and Macy’s executives did not have any immediate plans to start a vast left-wing conspiracy against Jesus’ birthday.

If progressives were so inclined, she said, “You’d think that we could execute an anti-religion strategy with a bit more organization and some higher-profile victories.” Indeed.