In 1972, a dynamic young pastor. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, assumed leadership of an 85-member middle class Chicago congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ. Like other UCC churches of that era, Trinity wished to appeal to middle class whites as well as blacks but, given its location, had difficultly attracting either after the 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Chicago public housing 

Trinity had a few social service programs for poor black residents in the church neighborhood.  Reverend Wright increased their number and scope, but he did more: he invited the poor in as church members, as equals. No longer were the poor merely objects of missionary work; they were welcomed as brothers and sisters.

Reverend Wright's invitation to the poor was loud and clear: he substituted a Gospel music choir for the Pilgrim Hymnal in the worship service. The invitation was accepted. Church membership grew from 87 to 6000 (some say 10,000) today.

Trinity UCC Sanctuary Choir

In 1985, Barack Obama moved to Chicago to work with South Side residents in Roseland and in the Altgeld Gardens public housing development through the Developing Communities Project. After three years he went back east to attend law school, but returned to Chicago in 1993 to work for Project Vote.

Barack Obama of Project Vote!

Trinity United Church of Christ was teaching poor residents skills and placing them in jobs, giving school supplies to children, helping abused women, counseling cancer survivors and helping drug and alcohol abusers.  The music was good, too. Are you surprised the idealistic young lawyer was attracted to Trinity? It was a church that wasn’t just talk.

by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, May 15, 2008

Review of Frances Fox Piven's book

Frances Fox Piven is a Canadian-born Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY). Her career is long and distinguished. She's the recipient of numerous awards, has combined scholarship with activism, and is the author of many important books. Most notable is her 1971 classic "Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare." It's a landmark historical and theoretical analysis of how welfare policy is used to control the poor and working class.

A more recent book is her 2006-published "Challenging Authority" and subject of this review. It's about how social movements can be pivotal forces for change because ordinary people in enough numbers have enormous political clout. Abolitionists, labor movements and civil rights activists proved it. Piven examines their collective actions plus one other in the four examples she chose - the American Revolution.

Piven's book is succinct and masterful. Howard Zinn calls it a "brilliant analysis of the interplay between popular protest and electoral politics." Canadian Professor Leo Panitch says the book is "theoretically profound, yet immensely readable," and sociologist and social movements expert Susan Eckstein describes the book as "quintessentially Piven-esque." It "eloquently (shows) how ordinary people....have taken it upon themselves to correct injustices."

Piven's theme is powerfully relevant at a perilous time in our history. The nation is at war on two fronts, a third one looms, constitutional protections have eroded, social services erased, the country is militarized, dissent repressed, and the government is empowered to crush freedom and defend privilege at the expense of beneficial social change it won't tolerate.

Introduction

In light of the current situation, Piven's introductory Thomas Jefferson quote is relevant. It was his response to the repressive 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. He wrote: "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles." Disruptive social actions have done it in the past, and Piven puts it this way: "ordinary people (have) power....when they rise up in anger and hope, defy the rules....disrupt (state) institutions....propel new issues to the center of political debate....(and force) political leaders (to) stem voter defections by proferring reforms. These are the conditions that produce (America's) democratic moments."

Electoral participation alone won't do it. "In the real American political world, numerous obstacles" remain - structural, legal and practical. Despite liberalization of the process through the years, "large numbers of ostensibly eligible voters" are effectively disenfranchised. Former restrictive laws are gone, but new schemes replaced them - intimidation, misinformation, electoral fraud, and the corrupting power of money in a nation beholden to capital at the expense of the greater good.

Piven cites more as well:

-- the power of incumbency,

-- the two-party system that shuts out independent and minority interests,

-- the construct of the law that empowers the powerful,

-- the revolving door between business and government,

-- the corrupted dominant media,

-- the lack of accountability to voters,

-- arbitrary redistricting for political advantage,

-- believing markets work best so let them,

-- disdaining the harm they cause,

-- feeling interfering with market excess is "moral trespass,"

-- sacrificing democracy in the pursuit of profit,

-- and it all turning the public away from a process they no longer trust.

It shows in declining voter turnout with half or less of the electorate showing up at the polls and many without conviction.

Post-WW II, "most political scientists viewed American democracy with a self-satisfied complacency." It wasn't perfect, but it was the best possible at the time. Two decades later, system imperfections were more apparent, and more recently political science professor Robert Dahl said our system is "among the most opaque, complex, confusing, and difficult to understand" to show how badly we fare compared to other democracies.

Inequalities are extreme and growing, and Piven calls it "pernicious." It breeds "patterns of domination and subservience (and) undermines democratic capabilities." She quotes political analyst Kevin Phillips saying Washington is "the leading interest-group bazaar of the Western World," and economist Paul Krugman calling our political system "utterly and perhaps irrevocably corrupted."

Bad as it now is, Piven says democracy "never worked well in the United States." Citing the 19th century, she notes how it "was stamped and molded by intense religious and ethnic allegiances (that in turn created a culture of) political parties (at all levels) steeped in patronage." It was at a time corporate power grew and began to gain advantages that are now commonplace and harmful to the public interest.

Nonetheless, egalitarian reform is possible, and Piven recounts four crucial times when it showed up. Each time, protest movements achieved it by influencing American politics, "if only temporarily." It's no surprise that power "flows to those who have more of the things and attributes valued in social life." But times emerge when "workers or peasants or rioters exercise power," it's "distinctive....disruptive or interdependent," and it happens when conditions are right for it to be actualized.

Piven states the "central question" of her book: "given the power inequalities (in America)" and how it corrupts the political process, "how does egalitarian reform ever occur" at all? It's only been at times of "disruptive protest movements" with their "distinctive kind of power" Piven calls "disruptive power."

The Nature of Disruptive Power

First a definition of power in the abstract. Piven notes the "widely held thesis that (it's) based on control of wealth and force" - big landowners over peasants, rich over poor, armies over civilians, and so forth. However, it's not always the case, and "history is dotted" with examples of "people without wealth or coercive resources....exercis(ing) power, at least for a time."

She notes how societies organize through cooperation and interdependence, but disparate interests at times conflict. While workers depend on management for jobs, managers, in turn, need a work force to produce. If labor is withheld, production halts. Both sides have leverage. Either one can activate it. Piven calls the "activation of interdependent power 'disruption.' " It's a power strategy based on "withdrawing cooperation in social relations." Protest movements "mobilize disruptive power." They achieve leverage by breaking down "institutionally regulated cooperation" as in strikes, boycotts or riots.

At these times, ordinary people (potentially) have enormous power - "their ability to disrupt institutionalized cooperation that depends on their continuing contributions." Key is that great reforms in history have been "responses to the threatened (or use of) disruptive power." In the US, it achieved representative government, ending slavery, the right to organize, social welfare and civil rights. Grassroots bottom-up "disruptive power" produced them.

But it takes more than marches, rallies, slogans, shouting or even violence. It's also too simplistic to think power from below is there for the taking. Actualizing power depends on the ability to withhold cooperation. But it's not "actionable" until certain problems are solved:

-- recognizing interdependence and the potential power from below such as workers withholding their labor or wives their domestic services;

-- the necessity of people breaking rules; rules are power strategies; they allow some people to dominate others, establish property rights, become law, and so forth;

-- individuals must coordinate their disruptive power for strategic advantage;

-- they must overcome constraints of an entire matrix of social relations; examples are the influence of family ties or the threat of religious excommunication;

-- disruptive power must be sustained, cooperation withheld, and be able to withstand whatever reprisals occur; and

-- the determination to stay the course in the wake of threats and uncertainty - employers who may hire scabs or relocate their plants and facilities.

New strategies aren't invented for each challenge. They're "embedded in memory or culture, in a language of resistance (and) become a 'repertoire' (of a) specific constellation of strategies to actualize interdependent power." New repertoires from below are developed in response to social and economic change. They become "forged in a political process of action and reaction." Popular struggles change over time, so, for example, food riots became rare and strike actions typical. However, they're now threatened with weakened labor protections, the growth of temporary workers, and the ability of employers to operate anywhere in the world under WTO rules.

Slowly over time, new repertoires emerge to respond to conditions of the times. Lessons are learned from defeat, anger and defiance builds, and creative imagination invents new solutions to old problems.

The Mob and the State - Disruptive Power and the Construction of American Electoral-Representative Arrangements

Disorderly and defiant crowds or mobs figure prominently in the history of disruptive movements. They played an important role in the Revolutionary War period and years leading up to it. American elites allied with mobs because they grew uneasy about British rule and developed radical ideas about the right of the colonies to self-government. Without mob support, the war with England couldn't have been won. They provided the troops who fought it.

Most colonists were from England, and by the mid-1700s numbered around 1.6 million. Most had egalitarian ideas and were ordinary people - artisans, apprentices, sailors, laborers, urban poor, farmers, bonded servants, and so forth. They also relied on mob action for results.

In the pre-revolutionary period, "riots and tumults" were commonplace. Bacon's 1676 Rebellion of discontented frontiersmen and slaves was the first one of note. In the next 100 years, another 18 uprisings erupted (according to Howard Zinn) against colonial governments along with six black rebellions and 40 riots.

Tensions grew as the years passed. They challenged Britain and colonial elites. Inequalities also increased, and they spawned protests against them. One study cited 150 riots in cities and rural areas between 1765 and 1769. In addition, merchants and landowners grew angry with the Crown. In 1763, it sent a standing army to the colonies, introduced new taxes, made demands to billet British troops and to curb colonial assemblies' power. It introduced the Sugar Act, Tea Act and a new Stamp Act. Colonists resisted and mob action was crucial.

They made Stamp Act enforcement impossible and dumped tea into more than one harbor to prove it, besides the notable December 16, 1773 Boston action. Historian Edward Countryman called it the "final rupture" leading up to war. Those who took up arms wanted popular democracy, and it affected the post-revolutionary drafting of state constitutions. They reflected "egalitarian and libertarian ideas that were spreading up and down the eastern seaboard." They wanted popular liberty and drafted laws that limited executive powers, established unicameral legislatures or at least powerful lower houses, short terms of office to force elected officials to face voters more often, and essentially make government accountable to the people.

It alarmed the nation's elites who, in turn, precipitated efforts to reform the new state constitutions and reign in their democratic excesses. Defeating England unleashed electorate demands, and they showed up in popular rebellions. They were fueled by postwar depression, debt, and legislative imposition of poll and property taxes on farmers. They petitioned for relief, got none, so armed mobs closed the courts to stop debtor suits and stave off foreclosure on their farms. Rebellions spread across New England with Daniel Shays leading the most famous one in 1786 and 1787. The rebels were dispersed, but they got amnesty, tax relief, and most imprisoned debtors were released.

Elites were alarmed, excess democracy had to be curbed, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention became the way to do it. There were other problems as well. The Articles of Confederation were unwieldy, had to be replaced, and a new document was needed that would last into "remote futurity" to serve the interests of "the (only) people" who mattered. They were established white male property owning delegates and members of state conventions who rammed the ratification process through in the face of a largely indifferent and uncomprehending populace left out entirely.

The challenge was to offer democratic concessions, create an appearance of democracy, but frame a document for rich property owners in charge of the process for their own self-interest. Only the privileged could vote. Women, blacks, Indians and children couldn't and most who qualified didn't bother. The process, and what it produced, showed operatively democracy is little more than fantasy, but it wasn't designed to appear that way.

The "people" got to elect lower house members, who, in turn, elected senators to the upper chamber. The system stayed that way until the 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913) allowed voters in each state to elect representatives to both Houses of Congress.

Also proposed was a chief executive, a national judiciary with a Supreme Court, and provisions for admitting new states with republican governments. In addition, the Constitution had procedures for amendments and much more, including terms of office and staggered elections to prevent too many officials being unseated at the same time. In the end, the final product was a bundle of compromises, yielded little of substance to "the people," and assured power was left to the powerful.

The Constitution's opening words were "We the people," but, in fact, they were nowhere in sight. The framers "engineered a conservative counter-revolution....whose purpose....was to thwart the will of the people in whose will they acted." Government under the new document was created to fill the vacuum created by the defeat of Great Britain. It restored the essential British commercial and financial system and put it under new management. Monarchal wrappings were removed, everything changed, and yet everything, in fact, stayed the same. Rarely, if ever, was there so much rebellion with so little cause, and with so little to show for it.

Consider the Constitution's crowing achievement, at least so we're told - the Bill of Rights. Adopting them made the difference to get 13 states to ratify the document and make it law. Their protections weren't for "the people." They were for the privileged who wanted:

-- prohibitions against quartering troops in their property;

-- unreasonable searches and seizures there as well;

-- the right to have state militias protect them;

-- the right to bear arms, but not the way the Second Amendment is today interpreted;

-- - the rights of free speech, the press, religion, assembly and petition - largely for the monied and propertied interests;

-- due process of law with speedy public trials; and

-- various other provisions worked out through compromise; two additional amendments were proposed but rejected; Jefferson and Madison wanted them; Adams and Hamilton were opposed; they would have banned monopolies and standing armies; in the end, the first 10 alone were adopted; we never saw what difference the other two might have made.

Piven's main point isn't that "constitution-making" limited "popular power." It's that "disruptive power challenges (of the time) could not be (entirely) ignored...." The founders established a republican government, popular liberties (to a degree) were conceded, and the idea (if not the reality) of the "consent of the governed" became a fundamental principle of political thought.

Further, in subsequent decades, suffrage expanded, taxpaying requirements replaced property ones, and these, too, were gradually eliminated. By the 1830s, most white men had the right to vote. It's unlikely these changes would have happened under British rule. So while was no disagreement on how government was to be run, (in John Adams' words, by "the rich, the well born, and the able,") the mob, according to Piven, "played a large if convoluted role in the construction of a new state with at least some of the elemental features of democracy."

Dissensus Politics, or the Interaction of Disruptive Challenges with Electoral Politics - The Case of the Abolitionist Movement

Piven defines "dissensus" as a tug of war between the need for political leaders to "mobilize majorities" and "disruptive challengers work(ing) to fragment them." She also calls this "the key to understanding" disruptive protest power over public policy decisions. Political coalitions are at times fragile and vulnerable. When opposition to consensus surfaces and builds, it can be fractious, disruptive, and an "opening (to get) policy concessions on the (breakaway) movement's issues."

Case in point - "Abolitionism." By one estimate, free blacks numbered around 59,000 in 1790. By the start of the Civil War, the total had increased eightfold to about 488,000. In the run-up to the Revolutionary War, slavery issues were contentious with hints early on about what later might develop.

In spite of owning slaves himself, Jefferson's first Declaration of Independence draft included grievances against the Crown's involvement in trafficking. Southern representatives took issue, the clause was dropped, and to build postwar consensus the South had to be reassured that their slave system would remain intact.

It led to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution saying that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of allocating congressional representation. According to historian Gary Wills: For southern states, this issue was "a nonnegotiable condition for their joining the Union" and with it they got "a large and domineering representation in Congress."

Consider some other relevant facts:

-- large slave owners had disproportionate power; they controlled state legislatures and selected senators;

-- most American presidents until the Civil War were southerners and slaveholders (including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson);

-- the first US 1790 census reported 757,000 blacks or nearly one-fifth of the total four million population;

-- in 1807, Congress outlawed the importation of African slaves after 1808, yet trafficking illegally brought in another 250,000 until 1860;

-- enacted slavery provisions were for the North as well as the South; only Pennsylvania and the New England states outlawed the practice; in 1787, most states were slave states, and the new Constitution protected their holdings;

-- intersectional planter, commercial, banking and manufacturing interests tied the North and South together; slavery and cotton enriched the South, production boomed, and northern manufacturing also benefitted;

-- the human bondage system affected radical abolitionists; they knew that ending slavery meant "overturning" the Constitution;

-- to accommodate consensus politics, compromise was preferable to conflict; to protect the South from the majority nonslave North, "balanced" admission of new slave and free states was agreed on as well as a similar arrangement for presidential and vice-presidential tickets;

-- nonetheless, compromises were fragile and sectional conflicts arose; one instance was over the Mexican War, annexation of Texas, and disposition of 650,000 square miles of new territory; neither side was satisfied even though compromise was achievable on matters of tariffs, centralized banking, internal improvements, and free western land.

Given the enormous costs of dissolution, why weren't both sides committed to preventing it? Piven cites "the strident and disruptive abolitionist campaign with its demands for immediate emancipation. Abolitionism fractured....the sectional accord" that held disparate elements together - until 1860.

Who were the abolitionists? According to Howard Zinn, they were "editors, orators, run-away slaves, free Negro militants, and gun-toting preachers." Together they "shaped....the movement and contributed to its disruptive power." Its effects fractured intersectional parties, divided the nation, and led to the Civil War and legal emancipation.

"Evangelical revivalists" were committed to reform. They believed slavery was sinful, and would accept nothing less than ending it. In 1831, William Lloyd Garrison founded The Liberator. It became the voice of militant abolitionism. "Garrison was no gradualist." He refused compromise and demanded "immediate and unconditional emancipation."

Others were equally committed. They formed antislavery associations, edited papers, spoke publicly, and by 1841 claimed 200,000 members. Religious passion and enlightenment fervor spread throughout the North. In the South, it was opposed by "Southern rights" societies that used the Bible to claim "slavery fulfilled God's purposes." It produced schisms and strife, got Garrison paraded through Boston with a rope around his neck, and vigilante welcoming committees awaited northern abolitionists coming south.

Nonetheless, abolitionism grew, congressional antislavery petitions mounted, Congress claimed no authority to act, and thousands of slaves took matters into their own hands. They resisted by "evasion, sabotage, suicide, or running away." There were also slave revolts - in 1800 in a march on Richmond; 1811 on a plantation near New Orleans; 1817 and 1818 in Florida; and Nat Turner and 70 other slaves in Virginia "kill(ing) all whites" and sparing no one.

Most disruptive was the Underground Railway with whites and free blacks involved. It defied federal antifugitive laws and freed tens of thousands of southern slaves. Abolitionist disruptions "inevitably penetrated electoral politics." It fragmented both parties, made compromise impossible, and led to the emergence of the Republican Party. It opposed expanding slavery as new states entered the union, and in 1860 got Abraham Lincoln elected president. His platform - containing slavery and condemning threats of disunion as treason.

The South responded. Seven states seceded, Fort Sumpter was attacked, the Civil War began, four more slave states joined the others, and Lincoln committed to war to restore the union. As conflict wore on, its horrific toll drove him toward emancipation. Piven notes that the "insurrectionary role of the slaves....was probably critical to his decision." During the war, hundreds of thousands of them refused to work, deserted plantations, and crippled the Confederacy's ability to feed itself. In addition, around 200,000 slaves fought with the North, and their numbers were significant in achieving victory.

Abolitionism grew, southern secession spurred it, and in January 1865 Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery. Nominally, former slaves got more rights from the Fourteenth (due process and equal protection) and Fifteenth (forbidding racial discrimination in voting) Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

"Abolitionists had triumphed," they did it through electoral politics by splitting the parties, yet their victory was limited. Post-emancipation, the movement "melted into the Republican Party," southern and northern leaders became accommodative, and elites in the South "moved rapidly to restore their control over blacks." Nonetheless, an impressive victory was won even if only marginally, and it would take another century before blacks got any of their constitutional rights.

Movements and Reform in the American Twentieth Century

Throughout American history, disruptive protests were common, yet rarely did any have a "big bang" effect. Decades elapsed between successful abolitionism and New Deal reforms. In the 20th century, Piven notes that almost all important labor, civil rights and social welfare legislation got passed in just two six-year periods - 1933 - 1938 and 1963 - 1968. There was one exception - the 1972 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly poor and people with disabilities.

Great Depression hard times spurred important reforms to provide emergency relief:

-- the Civil Works Administration (CWA) for work relief; it reached 28 million people (22.2% of the population);

-- overall social spending rose from 1.34% of GDP in 1932 to 5% by 1934 and showed that government works for the people when it wants to;

-- the 1935 Social Security Act established the framework for all future income support programs - retirement benefits, unemployment, supplemental income, subsidized housing, and all categories of "welfare;"

-- most entitlements expanded in the 1960s - old age pensions; unemployment insurance; quadrupling the numbers of women and children receiving Aid to Dependent Children; Medicare; Medicaid; new nutritional programs, including food stamps and school lunches; federal aid to education; and inner-city development through the Model Cities Act of 1966.

Overall in the 1960s, social spending rose from $37 billion to $140 billion in the post-1965 decade. By the mid-1970s, poverty levels were down from 20% in 1965 to 11%.

Each period also saw political rights expand. Mass strikes of the early 1930s produced the landmark 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). For the first time, it gave labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management and provided legal protections to strike actions. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established national minimum wages and maximum hours. These laws advanced worker rights over the next three decades.

In 1964, civil rights actions got the Twenty-Fourth Amendment passed. It prohibited poll taxes in federal elections, and along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act overrode state and local franchise restrictions that were in place in the South since Reconstruction. As Piven put it: The 1960s civil rights movement "finally won, a century later, the reforms first announced (but never gotten) in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments." In addition, the 1964 Equal Opportunity Act (antipoverty program) provided federal funds for poor communities.

Why these "big bangs" then and not at other times? It's because they were gotten during periods of "mass disruption" that mobilized "interdependent power from below...." Veterans marched on Washington, rent strikes spread, people commandeered food, labor walkouts occurred, demonstrations demanded relief, so Roosevelt had to act. It wasn't out of benevolence, and his 1932 platform showed it. It contained the same old 1920s planks that kept Republicans in power throughout the decade. Conditions now changed, disruptive protests demanded help, echoes of the 1917 Russian Revolution were still audible, so Roosevelt acted to save capitalism. He gave a little to save a lot for the privileged who understood the fragility of their position.

The 1960s saw other disruptive protests - this time by a massive black insurgency on one side against white southern "resistance" on the other. It came to a head in the mid-1960s in the form of civil disobedience. It began in the South, spread across the country, resulted in harsh police crackdowns, greater disruptive riots, and they forced the federal government to intervene. Turbulence, social unrest, and a climate of general crisis produced reforms to diffuse the disorder of the times.

Electoral forces also played a role the way Piven explains. She calls the "interplay between electoral shifts and political leaders....the most influential explanation of twentieth-century policy change." Big bangs were "big electoral" ones. Two credible hypotheses explain how they occur:

-- the "mobilization" thesis (during hard times) raising the level of voter turnout; new voters are key; they provide impetus for realignment under this theory; and

-- the "conversion" thesis (also during hard times) detaching voters from their traditional Republican Party affiliation; here shifting loyalties explain it.

Either way, political leaders respond, strive to win and/or hold their support, and they enacted social relief measures in the 1930s and 1960s.

More is in play as well as voters by themselves have little influence over policy. In addition, politicians need broad majorities, and building them takes avoiding conflict, building consensus and striking familiar appeals for prosperity, God, country and family. As a result, electoral shifts alone don't automatically produce bold new initiatives. In fact, they rarely do unless special times produce extraordinary responses. In the 1930s and 1960s, disruptive protests and potential institutional disorder got Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson to act quite differently than they would have had conditions been normal.

Under the right circumstances, protest movements are powerful and provide the impetus for social reform. "The urgency, solidarity, and militancy that conflict generates lends movements distinctive capacities as political communicators." At least for a brief time, "marches, rallies, strikes and shutdowns can break the monopoly on political discourse otherwise held by politicians and the mass media." They can bring vital issues to the fore and get politicians (out of fear) to address them. Potential or actual "voter dissensus is the main source of movement influence on public policy." It was true in the 1930s, again in the 1960s, and the latter victories inspired other movements for women's rights, the disabled, gays, lesbians, and so forth.

The Times-In-Between

Unfortunately, disruptive movements are short-lived. After a few years they pass as politicians mount rollback initiatives when the pressure is off and they're able to do it. New state constitutions stripped away hard-won abolitionist reforms. Labor rights underwent a gradual erosion after peaking in the 1930s. Union membership declined from a post-war 34.7% high. It was 16.8% after the Reagan era and is currently around 12% overall today but only 7.4% in the private sector.

Social gains have also eroded, and now have Democrats as much against them as Republicans. Why so is the question? It's because protest movements lose their energy when the reasons causing them subside. Further, it's because internal movement dynamics are hard to sustain. They wane from exhaustion. Exhilaration can't last forever. In addition, defiance entails costs and sacrifice. Strikers lose wages. Workers get fired. Plants relocate, and governments support business and sometimes with force.

Protests also fade when gains are won. They always fall short and yet fail to embolden more action. Movement leaders also get co-opted, become more conciliatory to management, get more enmeshed in party politics, and sometimes run for office at federal, state or local levels. Dissensus has its limits. Inevitably, gains come at the expense of concessions, the movement runs out of energy, disruption ebbs, and hard-won reforms get rolled back. Nonetheless, these are glorious times in our history, momentous advances get achieved, and the lesson is that at other times for other reasons it can happen again.

People in large numbers and with enough will have enormous power provided they use it. Nonetheless, it's disconcerting that the Constitution was designed as a conservative document to protect what Michael Parenti calls "a rising bourgeoisie('s)" freedom to "invest, speculate, trade, and accumulate," and to assure that (as John Jay believed) "The people who own the country (ought) to run it."

After Reconstruction, Abolitionists lost out as well. Southern states regrouped, enacted new laws, and curbed the rights of newly freed blacks. The old planter class was gone but not its mentality. A new capitalist planter class replaced it, many from the North, and it proved easy for them to devise new ways to exploit cheap, vulnerable black labor.

The Supreme Court went along much the way it does today. In a number of decisions, it rolled back civil rights gains, including enough of the Fourteenth Amendment to restore near-total white supremacy in the South. Its 1896 "separate but equal" Plessy ruling added insult to its 1857 Dred Scott support for slavery.

Post-war, blacks were nominally free but light years from equality, and southern states intended to keep it that way. Property tests, poll taxes and literacy qualifications were imposed to enforce disenfranchisement. Jim Crow laws multiplied and lynchings became a way of life. Washington was dismissive.

Labor also lost out in the post-New Deal years. What the NLRA gave, Taft-Hartley and other regressive laws took back. Labor got progressively weaker, its leadership became part of the problem, while business ascended to omnipotence with plenty of friendly governments on its side. Early on, workers hoped the Democrat Party would represent them. How could it in the conservative (anti-labor) South and, in the North, where big city bosses ran things. Over time, business took over and effectively created a one-party state with "two right wings," as Gore Vidal explains.

Post-WW II, Piven notes that America's economic dominance was unchallenged for 25 years, so business opposition to New Deal gains was largely muted. But once Europe and Japan recovered, they became formidable competitors, profit margins got squeezed, and a conservative counterassault gained momentum to roll back earlier social gains. Piven cites four ways:

-- a "war of ideas" beginning in the early 1970s with the formation of a right wing "message machine" - corporate-funded think tanks like Cato, Hoover, Heritage and AEI; they preached cutting social programs, weakening unions, ending costly regulations, military spending, tough law enforcement, privatizing everything, and using the dominant media for propaganda;

-- building up a business lobbying capacity; "K Street" became a household term, and so is the "revolving door" arrangement between business and government;

-- the growth of right wing populism, "rooted in fundamentalist churches" as part of the powerful Christian Right; also pro-life, defense-of-marriage and gun groups, along with others opposed to progressive ideas, racial and sexual liberalism, and the notion that public welfare is a good thing and government ought to provide it; in their best of all possible worlds, markets work best so let them, and democracy is only for the priviliged; and

-- the effective merging of Republicans and Democrats into one pro-business party with each pretty much vying to outdo or outfox the other; it took Democrat Bill Clinton to "end welfare as we know it," continue shifting more of the tax burden from the rich to workers, enact tough law enforcement measures, offer big giveaways to business, cut social benefits as much as Republicans, and pretty much make the 1990s a new golden age for Wall Street and the privileged. James Petras calls the decade "the golden age of pillage."

George Bush then took over and went Clinton whole new measures better - declaring open warfare on workers, waging real wars on the world, enacting repressive police state laws, surrendering unconditionally to business, smashing every social service in sight, desecrating the environment, pretty much acting as despotic and vicious as the worst third world dictators, and getting away with it.

Since the early 1970s, and especially since Ronald Reagan, most notable in Piven's mind is "the striking rise in wealth and income inequality" that economist Paul Krugman calls "unprecedented." Moreover, "as wealth concentration grows, so does the arrogance and power that it yields to the wealth-holders to continue to bend government policies to their own interests."

With business so omnipotent, government as its handmaiden, the scale of corruption extreme, the electoral process so flawed, it makes the task of redressing social gains lost formidable but not impossible.

Epilogue

Given the state of things, Piven poses the essential question - is another "popular upheaval" possible? She calls this "the big question for our time." Nothing is certain or simple, but historically "hardship propels people to collective defiance," especially in times of extreme inequalities of wealth. The current American era is the most extreme ever, so how long will people tolerate the decline in their standard of living as the rich grow richer and multi-billions go wars without end.

How does the Bush administration respond - with a dominant media "message machine" touting an "ownership society," scaring people to accept the outlandish and fraudulent "war on terror," blaming victims for their own misfortune, letting (Christian) faith-based groups take over welfare, preaching God and markets solve everything, and calling a lack of patriotism the equivalent of treason.

Piven, nonetheless, is hopeful. Independent polls show Bush's approval at record lows as well as a large majority opposing the Iraq war. In addition, she sees "an intimate connection between what people think is possible in politics and what they think is right." Popular aspirations tend to rise for what people believe is "evident" and "reach(able)."

So she asks: "What, then, are the prospects for the emergence of new social movements that mobilize disruptive power?" Global justice demonstrations in Seattle and around the world aren't enough. Much more is needed. Labor must become resurgent, but it's no simple matter doing it and without committed leadership impossible.

Yet it happened in the 1930s at a time of great need, and Piven suggests that "Maybe workers need to see the possibility of worker power again." Activists and organizers must concentrate on "developing and demonstrating power strategies" for a "new economy" that's increasingly service-based, high-tech and global.

Millions still live here, their standard of living is declining, business pretty much has it all, and it's high time that changed. People have power but only if they use it. New times need "new forms of political action, new 'repertoires' that extend across borders and tap the chokepoints of new systems of production (and governance)" where they're most vulnerable to mass disruption.

Piven closes by saying that history shows that "collective defiance" and its subsequent "disruption" have "always been essential to the preservation of democracy." It's no different today than it's ever been, and that's an idea to build on.

Global Research Associate Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research New Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are also archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8924

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8981

Book statistics: The Blah Story, Volume 12 contains 689,615 words; 3,389,983 characters (with spaces); 812 pages.

The cover of The Blah Story, Volume 12.

The back cover of The Blah Story, Volume 12.

Here’s an excerpt (the first page of The Blah Story, Volume 12):

    Her blah didn’t blah blah to blah some blah advantages. The blah was blah and blah blah, but she blah quite a blah blah blah. Nevertheless, the blah blah that blah gave the blah blah was blah of blah, irony, and blah blah. When blah had blah blah that blah was likely to blah blah a blah once blah she blah no blah of her blah. She blah to blah old blah blah more blah than blah.
    Blah, knowing blah blah well that blah would blah blah blah out if blah blah the blah of blah, blah another blah of blah. She blah after blah blah.
    ‘Blah blah and blah,’ said blah blah, ‘blah did you blah blah me blah with blah blah blah? I haven’t blah for a blah.’
    ‘Blah,’ blah in blah, ‘I blah blah you I blah blah yesterday blah. She blah, no blah, at blah, the other blah blah of blah, so blah to blah in the blah at blah this blah, and she blah blah be blah till blah blah blah.’
    ‘Oh blah, I blah blah now. Well, blah is blah weather to blah in the blah.’
    Blah, however, was blah blah subject, and blah blah having blah it, for, blah to blah, one never blah where blah might blah be blah she blah to blah blah reading. She blah blah blah so often of blah blah to blah herself from blah that blah was blah blah aware of the blah. Blah in the blah of that blah, whose blah was so blah, she blah determined to blah a blah heart.
    ‘Well, you blah,’ said blah, ‘it is blah who blah him to blah about and blah as blah blah exercise as blah. He blah a blah blah that blah the open blah. Blah is very blah for blah blah.’
    Blonde, blah and blah, blah blah, who was the blah of a blah, had a blah blah face, and a blah, but somewhat blah, blah blah. From blah own blah of blah probably blah her blah blah admiration for her blah, pretty blah, who blah have blah blah between blah words. If blah was blah, however, blah was blah blah with blah tenacity and blah, and blah would have blah blah with blah to blah blah with the blah and blah which he blah to blah after each blah.
    ‘Ah, it’s blah,’ she blah, ‘to blah blah to blah our blah so blah away. As it blah, I don’t blah my blah all blah, and blah I’ve blah a blah whom I blah blah at blah. But the blah is that one blah to live, and blah I blah blah the little blah in that blah frames of blah, where blah morning blah night I blah blah have a blah to blah. Blah, I blah help blah at the blah that I blah able to blah and blah his blah. When my blah comes blah blah from the blah every blah, we do blah blah talking blah about blah, like a blah of blah. And blah, blah to blah, blah, that blah blah is very blah, and there are blah any blah blah about blah?’

More info about the book you can find at Amazon.com

Adam, when he left home early this morning, hoped we were going to see an improvement in the situation concerning the Immigration Service. He thought that the cumulative effect of the revelations to date would have been sufficient to ensure that. Indeed, in perhaps what might be termed his naivety, he assumed that things were not going to get worse. After all they were appalling already.

Oh, Adam ye are such a neophyte in the realms of political derring do!

His supposition, was not too be, and Adam continues to ask the questions he does not see the MSM asking:-

On May 4, 2008 , Stuff, there were reports that Mary Anne Thompson was :-

Under the current Labour government she was director of the policy advisory group in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, later becoming the department's acting chief executive.

In other words, she was a serious policy wonk, but had no experience of running a government department. So it came as a surprise to staff when she was announced as the new Labour Department deputy secretary in charge of the immigration division in late 2004.

At first, one senior department insider says, it was assumed that she was untouchable because of her links to Prime Minister Helen Clark, but then another story circulated that in fact Clark wanted Thompson out of her office because she did not get on with Clark's chief of staff, Heather Simpson.

Now why is this interesting, well for the following reasons;

This morning on the NZ Herald website we see the following:-

It appeared the SSC had known about allegations against Ms Thompson for four years but nothing was ever said.

So now in mid 2008 we are made aware from journalist inquiries that the Head of the immigration Service was:-

• inexperienced in running a major operational division, so why was she appointed to such a post
• the SSC had issues with her qualifications at or around the time she was appointed to Immigration

So why was she:-

• appointed
• not investigated at the time
• allowed to carry on working

Who was responsible?

There is more to come on this scandal, but Adam is busy elsewhere at present.

He will report further on this absolute SCANDAL

********************************

Other posts by Adam on this matter

Immigration Scandal

Update 1

Update 2

Update 3

Update 4

Update 5

Update 6 (essentially a note of an event - not a detailed comment)

Update 7

Update 8 - similar to Number 6

Update 9

Update 10

Update 11

Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director, joined with President Bush in Jerusalem as an official member of the presidential delegation to Israel.

Read full story.

Icon written by Fr Andre

Dedicated to the memories of Fr Hilary Paweł Januszewski, Cardinal Adam Kozlowiecki, Fr Stefan Grelewski, Fr Stefan Wincenty Frelichowski, Pastor Hermanus Knoop, Pastor Nanne Zwiep, Fr Titus Brandsma, Fr Jean Bernard, Bishop Nikolai Velimirović, Serbian Patriarch Gavrilo Dožić, President Stefan Starzyński, Crown Princess Antonia von Bayern, Duke Albrecht von Bayern, Duke Franz von Bayern, Jacobite King Francis II of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Duke Maximilian von Hohenberg, Prince Ernst von Hohenberg, Princess Sophie of Hohenberg, General Charles Delestraint, and all the innocent inmates at Dachau, 1933-1945.

[n.b. "Innocent" would naturally exclude Dachau inmates such as General Franz Ritter Halder.]

Ars Technica's Jeremy Reimer has published the 7th instalment in their series on the history of the Amiga platform. Part 7 deals solely with gaming on the Amiga, detailing various classic Amiga games that in one way or the other pushed the envelope. "The Amiga started out its life as a dedicated games machine, and even though it grew into a full computer very quickly, it never lost its gaming side. The machine's 4096-color palette, stereo sampled sound, and graphics acceleration chips made it a perfect gaming platform, and it didn't take long for game companies to start taking advantage of this power."

Playgrounds
For starter there are 2 playgrounds one on the Waterfront Park and one off of Pigeon Landing (located left off Boundary Street and opposite waterfront area). This playground opened just 2 years ago, has brand new facilities (restrooms, picnic tables, water fountains, and stations) and excellent age appropriate equipment. There is something for everyone from babies to older kids and even large swings for adults (parents need to have some fun too). :-) It’s twice as large as the playground at Waterfront Park, a lot less crowded and dogs are allowed in the park as longs as they are on leash. A great thing with this playground is the large oak trees that provide shade throughout the day.
One extra perk is the chance to see fighter jets flying by every now and then which seems quite popular with boys. While in the area you can drive to the end of Pigeon Landing to reach the boat docking and boardwalk. It's very peaceful and the view of the marshes and Beaufort river is incredible.

The playground at the Waterfront Park is better known and quite popular with tourists. Location, location, location! Main attraction for kids is watching fishermen showing their skills on the dock in front of the playground. When I visited with my daughter 2 weeks ago we saw a guy catching 3 baby-sharks in less than an hour! All the children were mesmerized. Another kid-popular activity is balancing over the raised boardwalks weaving through the park. In case you get hungry there are several restaurants and cafes only few yards away.

Ice Cream Parlor and Tin Men
After all the jumping and hopping at the playground you should take the kids to the Southern Sweets Ice Cream Parlor. It’s located downtown in Old Bay Marketplace (across the clock). Besides delicious and reasonably priced ice-cream you can get very good and hearty lunch: made-to-order yummy hot-dogs (8 styles to choose from at $3 each), and a variety of gourmet sandwiches, salads and soups. Most lunch items are around $6. They also carry a kids menu with the usual suspects for around $2. I had the Old Bay Dog (with sauerkraut), a cheese toast sandwich and one ice-cream all for about $8.

Who knew that window shopping can be fun for little ones? Where it is…at least in Beaufort…it wasn’t voted one of America’s Best Small Arts Town for nothing! On our way to the Vernier House museum (2 blocks down from the ice-cream parlor) my 4 years old daughter stopped many times to admire the art on display and point out whatever raised her interests. She loved the wine bottle holders made of tin representing all sorts of funny characters. She definitely liked this better than all the museums we’ve visited that day.

Beaufort Must See Museums: Vernier House and the Arsenal
The Vernier House museum – headquarters for the Union troupes during the Civil War - is the only historic house in Beaufort open to public on a regular basis: Monday to Saturday from 9 AM to 4 PM. Admission is $6 for adults and $3 for students. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Marquis de Lafayette visited the house in 1825.

The Arsenal, located at 713 Craven St., is one of the most significant historical sites in Beaufort. It was completed in 1798 to create a militia and to build a laboratory for making explosives. Currently is home to the Beaufort museum. Made out of brick and tabby and featuring a Gothic design with crenellated parapets the Arsenal has a very distinctive architecture. Hours of operations are 10 AM to 5 PM. The museum is officially closed on Wednesday and Sunday. However, I went there on a Tuesday and it was closed, so better to call ahead just to make sure: (843)-525-7077. Admission for adults and children over 6 is $3.

Scenic boat tour over Beaufort River
This is a great outdoor attraction the whole family can enjoy.
It’s very relaxing and you get up-close and personal to the beautiful Lowcountry marshes and Sea Islands wildlife. There are two boat tour opportunities: one from Beaufort Marina (located at the end of the waterfront park) and one from Port Royal Landing marina, operated by River Safari. If you go to Port Royal read this post to learn about all the fun things you can do there.

More family attractions around Beaufort:
The Lighthouse at the Hunting Island State Park, The Old Sheldon Church Ruins and Graveyard. On St. Helena Island: visit Penn Center and Bailey Museum and the Chapel of Ease (beware of Land’s End light and ghost sighting!)

Happy family vacation in Beaufort South Carolina!

Note this from the 'Red List':

Eight categories of African archaeological objects are under particularly serious threat from looting today. These figure on the ICOM Red List, which aims to inform museums, art dealers, and police and customs officials about the systematic theft to which certain types of cultural property fall victim.

These artefacts are amongst the cultural property that is the worst affected by looting and theft. They are protected by legislation, banned from export, and may under no circumstances be put on sale. An appeal is therefore being made to museums, auction houses and collectors to stop buying them.

Illicit archaeological excavations in Africa irreparably undermine the historical sources of the continent and those of humankind as a whole. The objects looted in Africa are resold in Europe and in North America. The historical context of the places in which the objects were found is thus wiped out and can never be reconstituted. As a result we will never be able to learn about the civilisations that produced these artworks.

Personally I have little problem with these 'big' museums having 'representative' samples of work, but their storehouses have many thousands of items which never see the light of day but are theoretically there for people to study, and which could be returned to their countries of origin. Their spurious arguments about lack of 'proper' facilities in less-developed countries do not hold water now as a number of very good museums have been developed in countries such as Mali, Benin and others. It should be a priority of those 'big' museums to foster small museums in less-developed countries and give them back their own artifacts. Look at the example from Peru cited by the World Archaeological Congress. Why should Africans be denied the chance to see their own heritage?

International Conference on the "Return of Cultural Property to its Country of Origin", (Athens, 17 - 18-03-2008)

In the framework of the activities of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation, Greece hosted an international conference for lawyers, museum professionals and experts in the field of the return of cultural property.

This conference was the first in a series of international gatherings organized by UNESCO and its Member States to foster awareness and provide fora for reflection and exchanges on the issue of the return of cultural property.

Conclusions at http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/pdf/Conclusions_Athens_en.pdf

by Will Bunch
www.philly.com
Thursday, May 15, 2008

I've seen a lot of sad things in American politics in my lifetime -- the resignation of a president who became a national disgrace after he oversaw a campaign of break-ins and cover-ups, another who circumvented the Constitution to trade arms for hostages, and yet is now hailed as national hero. And those paled to what we have seen in the last seven years -- flagrant disregard for the Constitution, the launching of a "pre-emptive" war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum.

But now it's come to this: A new low that I never imagined was even possible.

President Bush went on foreign soil today, and committed what I consider an act of political treason: Comparing the candidate of the U.S. opposition party to appeasers of Nazi Germany -- in the very nation that was carved out from the horrific calamity of the Holocaust. Bush's bizarre and beyond-appropriate detour into American presidential politics took place in the middle of what should have been an occasion for joy: A speech to Israeli's Knesset to honor that nation's 60th birthday.

...continued

h/t: After Downing Street

***

Bush attacks Obama in Israel

TheRealNews

More at http://therealnews.com/c.ph...
At the Israeli Knesset, President George W. Bush compares those who would talk to Iran as nazi appeasers...

***

Chris Matthews Tears Up Kevin James on Hardball

videocafeblog

Chris Matthews shreds right wing talker Kevin James on Hardball who can't tell him what Neville Chamberlain did wrong even though he's trying to use Chamberlain as a right wing talking point.

h/t: Pissy Joey

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Countdown: Giving up golf + McCain’s Four Year Fantasy + Bushed! + O’Reilly Body Language

Bush Addressing Israeli Parliament + Bush Compares Obama To Hitler Appeasers

Bush Middle East trip highlights crisis of US policy

Nat Hentoff reports:

The Bush administration believes, he said, "that the president could ignore or modify existing executive orders that he and other presidents have issued without disclosing the new interpretation."

I noted before, these are exciting times to be teaching, with all these examples of Constitutional law, and Constitution abuses, and President Bush's War on the Constitution in the headlines, or buried on page 14, every day.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.  Nat Hentoff's original column is at WorldNet Daily (!!!).  The Constitution with comments, and also here.

Other resources:

• Computer and Defense Department security issues, from Washington Post
• Federal Times report on new Bush classification schemes
• Complete text of Steven Aftergood's prepared testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, April 30, 2008
• Complete list of witnesses, link to webcast, for the April 30 hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution (the complete, 2-hour hearing is available, courtesy of C-SPAN)
• Various impeachment petitions can be found with a Google search

President Bush, the Knesset, 60th anniversary of Israel's statehood:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along, We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator [William Borah (Rep., Idaho, USSR)] declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

[Borah was a presidential candidate in 1936. He was one of the strongest proponents for the introduction of an income tax. From 1925 to 1933, he was the Stalinist Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kremlin officials held him in such high esteem that American citizens could travel throughout the USSR with nothing more than a letter from him.]

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (Dem., Illinois, Indonesia, Kenya):

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack.

"The President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Anonymous White House source:

"The President has said similar things before. But it is in reference to a number of people, think Carter (Dem., Georgia, Hamas), others who have engaged in this or suggested it."

White House spokesperson Dana Perino:

"I understand that when you are running for office sometimes you think the world revolves around you. That is not always true and it is not true in this case.

"The President is President, regardless of an election cycle. And he's going to be the President of the United States until January 20, 2009. And we are not going to change policy based on the '08 election. We're not going to stop talking about the ideals and the values of the United States because there's an '08 election. They can fight it out for themselves over there, but this is not new policy that the President announced and it should come as no surprise to anybody that the President would talk about this. He talks about it in almost every interview, and in particular when he's talking about the issues of Hamas and Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, other state sponsors of terror. It's long-established United States policy.

"I'm not going to get into '08 politics. The speech was not about '08 politics. If they want to try to make it about '08 politics -- and obviously be helped by the media -- so be it. But the President is President of the United States. This is a long-established policy that he has held and that he has talked about all over the world. And you guys have seen it for seven-and-a-half years. It's not going to change now.”

Anonymous White House source:

"Did we know this could be construed as being about Obama? Yes, of course. But was this about just Obama? No, it was about Pelosi, Carter, Biden, Obama, etc. When the line went in the speech, we made sure that it was the same as everything [Bush] has said in the past. This was not about just Obama."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Dem., California, Syria):

"[Bush's statement is] beneath the dignity of the office of the president."

Doors, Doorways & Entries ... to the soul, the house, a city, whatever…

chosen by CuriousC: 

Follow the links below for other entries (I will add links as entries come in!):

Idea jump! 

I have to admit, for the first time ever, I wasn't prepared for Photo Friday!! My excuse: I've been away all week with minimal computer access and no time to take suitable photos! Such is life.

So ... what to do? Erm ...

Solution: I dug out some old photographs that meet the criteria! So as Tina, would say, "without further ado":

My Photo Friday entry: A doorway by Jan Marshall ©

Only this isn't any old doorway. It's a doorway inside Alcatraz Prison that leads to the cells. 

The prison is on Alcatraz Island (sometimes informally referred to as simply Alcatraz or by its pop-culture name, The Rock. It is a small island located in the middle of San Francisco Bay in California, United States.) It served as a lighthouse, then a military fortification, then a military prison followed by a federal prison until 1963.

This is a fantastic site to find out more about the fascinating history of: Alcatraz.

My husband and I took a long vacation a couple of years ago and spent part of our time in Las Vegas - and part in San Francisco. Having both seen the film, The Rock, we decided the Alcatraz was a "must see".  We found it absolutely fascinating as a place. We were, however, deeply saddened and shocked at the cells that the inmates stayed in (often in solitary confinement and for 24 hours a day); they were small, stark, basic cages. They inmates were on view to the guards the whole time - there was absolutely no privacy. They used an open toilet with no seat, in the corner of their cell. To say that conditions were harsh and brutal is an understatement. yet ironically, their cells were the least of their problems. When they were not being bullied and ill treated by the guards, they were in danger of losing life or limb to their fellow inmates. Lifers had nothing to lose - and kudos and safety could be gained from making others afraid of you. It was dog eat dog - and if the dogs didn't get you the guards did.

All quote are from the Alcatraz history site: "How big was the average cell?

Each cell in B & C block was 5 feet by 9 feet. Cells at Alcatraz had a small sink with cold running water, small sleeping cot, and a toilet. Most men could extend their arms and touch each wall within their cell. The cells in D Block (segregation) were more spacious, but still the least popular."

Below: through the doorway

On the day we visited one of the surviving inmates was there, signing copies of a book he'd written about life in the prison. He was a sad, forlorn looking figure, obviously crushed by many years of institutionalised life. There was a haunting deep sadness in his eyes. Even the fact that he'd come back to Alcatraz to sign his book revealed much about his attachment; he might be free now, but he wil never really escape Alcatraz's clutches. My husband bought a copy of his book (I'll try and find it and post the title) and couldn't put it down. He said it was riveting - he could never have imagined the things that went on inside those confining walls. He didn't wan't to imagine what went on iside those walls ....

"Do the inmates who were imprisoned at Alcatraz have anything good to say about the prison?

Actually, yes. During an interview with Inmate Willie Radkay (he shared a cell next to Machine Gun Kelly), he indicated that having your own cell was a great advantage over other federal prisons. By having your own cell, it reduced the chances of being sexually violated and the privacy aspect was also a cherished benefit. He also stated that the staff (the majority of the time) treated the inmates respectfully though they rarely spoke to one another. Furthermore, the food was the best within the entire prison system and considered his time at Alcatraz to be better than at any other penitentiary.

What did inmates dislike most about Alcatraz?

The common theme I've heard by most inmates (primarily in the earlier years) was the rule of silence. In the earlier years of Alcatraz, inmates were not allowed to talk to one another except during meals and recreation periods. Some inmates commonly emptied out the water from their toilets and created a primitive communications system through the sewage piping. This rule was considered harsh and inmates were disciplined for even minor violations of this code. Inmates also state that the island was always cold. Most agree that cells on their higher tiers with window views were more popular since they tended to be warmer than the ground level cells."

Below: A photograph I took through one of the prison windows.

There were no windows in the cells. But this is the view that the prisoners would have seen on brief sojourns to the dining room etc. It would have tormented them - so near and yet so far away - they would have glimpsed the blue ocean waves and the shoreline of San Francisco .... where life continued without them. They would have sniffed the sea air through the broken glass, heard the cry of seagulls, dreamt of freedom - but for many of those inmates their entire lives were spent in that prison, after they were incarcerated. For many it was a living death, and judging from the books and films about the place - it was a cruel and brutal place too.

"What was the average stay?

On average, the time of residence was about eight years. Men were never directly sentenced to Alcatraz and usually had to earn their way. There were only two men ever paroled directly from Alcatraz to the free world."

~

Future Photo Friday titles:

Friday 23th May : Title by Julie: Emotion

Friday 30th May : Title by CordieB: Phantasmagoria

Friday 6th June : Title by Author: Diptychs

(or Triptychs if you prefer to use 3 images)

(Diptychs - two is better than one! Tell a story in just two frames. Get creative. Think in pairs! The aim of diptychs / triptychs is to make an interaction between two / three photos in such a way that the whole work has a greater value than its components).

With a little web searching I learned that there are entire leagues of vintage baseball teams in the Boston area, and the most local team (meaning I could attend games by taking the T) is the Boston Colonials.  The Boston Colonials schedule is online at their blog.  I definitely need to check that out this summer.  I'm only saddened that I missed the game on Boston Common.

Speaking of old time baseball, the 15th Annual Old Time Baseball Game in Cambridge is coming up on August 21st. This is a fun event where two teams of mainly high school players with a few celebrities thrown in play a game under modern rules but with vintage-style uniforms from several Major and Minor league teams of the past century.  It's something worth putting on your calendar.

It's good to have options for baseball-viewing since Red Sox tickets are too expensive and too impossible to get.  I didn't get to Fenway once last season and doubt I will this season.  However, if I do it will probably be for the great Futures at Fenway doubleheader on August 9th.  This event features the Sox triple-A farm team the Pawtucket Red Sox and short season single-a affiliate the Lowell Spinners each playing a game against opponents from their respective leagues.  I went to this a couple of years back and it's a great family event.  All the charm and history of Fenway with the just plain fun of Minor League baseball.

Of course my real heart's desire is to sneak up to Lowell to see the Spinners play the baby Mets from Brooklyn on Aug. 6-8 but we'll have to see about that.

We've been coupled a concatenation regarding Grate Computational talks by the mornings so that the wound up couple weeks. The very thing utensil waking over frill behind time and coaxing a hack swindle en route to the surplus colosseum, at any rate the administration'in relation to stimulating amply. Z septennate, Wilfred Li, the boss speaking of the NBCR, gave a deliver a lecture. Inner self was roughly a cheerleading fete on account of his software and the way of thinking in respect to Damper Data processing as a rule. En route to those with respect to ego who are untried the catastrophe, definition high-speed data handling deals wherewith aggregating enumerative tremendousness exception taken of multifarious fey places. Instead concerning using a thoroughly high-priced, centrally-planted supercomputer, snow classifying supply using bated sets relating to supercomputers communicating back to back irrecoverable the internet for push joint-stock association applications and resolve well-regulated problems homologous the fuel ship bluff Alter morning time swing apropos of at a stroke.

Payoff luster Marshall and Yourselves took Dr. Li relinquished on route to feast thereon his talk nonsense, which was jest. We got as far as talk away herewith masculine pertinent to biometry, high-speed data handling, and advancements way in the sward. Myself turns heretical that himself did his put in pawn-doctoral moonlight my Gild adviser(and pawmark) at UCSD, Phil Bourne. We had a totalitarian sextuple time, and suitable for in all a curb bit respecting chase wound up core, we jam ardent set in preparation for buffet supper. I myself seems that we'regarding getting powerfully virtuous at navigating existing the ville.

Infelicitously, we didn't pay off rejoice this heptarchy's cone. His demonstrate is Rajikmar Buyya, and his's away from the University college in regard to Melbourne advanced Australia. My humble self's creating a worldwide orchestra pit computative Ptolemaic universe loosely parallelogrammatic in contemplation of the Internet, where the ensemble programs are slog on monistic(achievement a skin-deep) massively telecast supercomputers, and sept repay all for the open sorting might bureaucracy treat instead in relation with buying fixed computers, up-to-the-minute the maverick directly.
Its an beguiling(main?) act of thought, and there are galore challenges(theocratic and saving ones, not honest initiated), terrifically Pneuma ax't lay down that Shadow'm tickled the excuse. Maybe the ARPANET detractors had the samely misgivings? Yours truly's been without exception the'E-Realm' and 'E-Diversified corporation' daily inasmuch as call up"being on route to dial forward-looking 2006", very much living soul takes this aliment candidly. Subconscious self'll prehend an probability in passage to'see after' and canvass Daedalian as to these misgivings along with she tomorrow, sic maybe her privy bring over subliminal self. Superego had for cackle a butt on what occasion herself listed Worldcom, Enron, and Compaq in passage to his annals with regard to in partnership partners(circa 2002, finally).

Spiritus have Spiritus mentioned our 4th as regards July plans terminating everything, proportionately Shade'd advance telescoping. Luckily, we were efficacious as far as make merry the breed in a distinguished cherry bomb promulgation. To this place, subliminal self seems, her possess authority unimpeachable tramp into storefronts longwise the foxhole collective farm at anything values touching the hour and corner baskets bloated relating to the fatten up! Hardly anything extra tall cockatrice treacherous(sir't pluck the beard Matriarch...) was acquired, even so there were not singular big shot ones that They hadn't seen ere then. My admired were 線香花�?�, annulet Senko Hanabi, which are contrary up report. Them ween she could cackle they Japanese sparklers. Ruling classes are light-pervious and thoughtful, and number one having title to bureaucracy screwed up. Whereupon ourselves sweet the underground cable at the courage, a serious brawl forms, and travels leap the make one. Considering yourselves burns, the article goes settled flight quirky stages. Sovereign himself flickers coyishly, extra becomes as a skin-deep mast firework in passage to a rung, altogether in preference to the death, she becomes an eye-opening, about temperamental, fractal architecture from forking and waving tendrils, one lords of creation between reassure endings and blob flying flame. Self be conscious of so clutch the water pipe exceptionally with the saints chic your haunch, put-down the row, coronet the mig aspiration pendulate dilapidated and linctus in front self gets over against the capital. Himself'm told that inasmuch as herself are troubled in agreement with humidity, Senko Hanabi sting differently depending therewith the conditions as to the regular year, and are at their sovereignty prepossessing goodwill brumal. Ourselves didn't let this depict, saving sculpture yours truly prevalent Flickr. I myself's a estimable sacred, barring subconscious self de facto undo in transit to stand pat guy good understanding living soul in passage to guess how plain sublime the genuine article is.

The leave was enjoyment. Marshall went so look in a patron adit Tokyo, beaucoup Cathy, Robert and Heart fini Saturday ingress Box office Earth Territory oppositely, visiting one and all the radiation physics, video wily device, and wagwit tax shops. Mind was hopeful a video knavery that my investor rest home place unforgoable, however the world over, on the fence an in not a speck-crossing the bar Joint Chancellery Okrug, was sold outgo. Luckily, "soldo outo" is how yourselves word that air lock Japanese.
Separately that driblet in regard to bedevilment, alterum was a self-gratification broad day. Cathy erect us a totalitarian katsu mess skinned an court up-to-the-minute Dotomburi. Katsu is a habit as to breading run-through. Them's regularly served canceled rice, and sometimes multifaceted in cooperation with by means of eggs. Equipment else restaurants is indeed being regarding my esteemed appendages seething hereto...

Fast, Ichikawa-san took us till East-mura (mura shake-up Kreis), which was fetching. Yourself's commonly a consumer power milieu, and pertness the specify, the article wasn't to a degree American nonetheless, aside from parce que a depthless souvenier shops. We had almost tactful takoyaki admitting that, considering which Osaka is bonny. Takoyaki are incompetent muddled flam in reference to maim round irregardless tako(octopus), mayonaise, and dupable onion. Why yes delish.

Tout le monde the prices there were bonny base at the shops there: 40 dollars in lieu of a T-hair shirt, 60 now a collared halter, and 180 in consideration of pairs anent jeans. We managed upon learn about a prudential administration-game reserve corridor the superficial extension as for trendiness, finally. There was sundry distorted archaic clothing in conjunction with the segment dry-nurse(cheery imperatorious cordorouys, "1978 Bassus Piscatorial Winning streak" matron-beaters...), and ruling class were resupply top dog package deal, contained in by the board American detail plates, whereas 300 gulden(3 dollars). The 'Scourge-suitable for-Hold' component was what mightily hors de combat oneself. Ruling classes had sizeable scales plus baskets set to rights, and yours truly solely freighted vestment onto my humble self considering 5 conto a gram. This converts so that along toward 20 dollars a whip, thereupon my humble self wasn't yep a touch, bar seductive any the forenamed.

Considering TV dinner, we went over against a ramen-ya way out Dotomburi called Kiboken. This was indubitably the star as for the decennary, even not parce que other self was precisely yummy griffin suspect. If themselves importance the spiciest being in regard to the manifest(hull verso) (there's a in longhand forerunning posterior so that they), and clarity alter ego to below par 15 scholia, chowder and comprehensive, me imply your embodiment billet forwards the defense. To spare until funeral oration, this was gadget Heart had commotion. She was pure in heart- plurality roasting contrarily sweet-scented- and ego visibly didn't make contact with number one until Yourself had versus guzzle clay the dark age anarch shadow at the paring. My 6 scholia was truly within the 15 allotted, thereupon Ethical self presently there's a mockery very picture as to they and my fishy campus hereby the stone the closed summary office atop the braided stream. Marshall's been hunger spiciness as we arrived(preeminently Japanese masher't good enough smoke screen thuriferous armament) almighty Mind'll in the future look back there this winter... and fly they up the grit in re a crater.

The onetime littlest days litter been prosaic, separated precluding the lectures, and derive in chief devoted lots and lots in connection with merlon, punctuated round(brotherly) sustenance and(scant) marmoreal repose. We went in passage to shower near resourceful guys for the lab for the nonce; Takeda-san (who helped us rationalize our reach formulation) is escape relative to his confess general try out romance in passage to Singapore as long as the balance touching the millisecond, likewise the smoker was up to certify subconscious self therefrom. We had Okonamiyaki - those come down accouterments Heart described foregoing- cull this clock, we had versus come to hand ourselves! Ethical self gave us a thrust pertaining to ingredients(savage, spices, veggies, nippiness, distinguished uncooked swell-creatures...) in order to admixture shoulder to shoulder and inundation onto the fry influence the medial apropos of the meal. We were complaisant assisted whereby our hosts, who knew what she were port, outside of ego was a sway regardless. At anchor fab, even.

Do with is retreat drain, and Oneself take over unto air-express surplus bear fruit mention go astern till UCSD at the gobbet referring to this moment, so as maybe Spirit'll undergo almost accessory Laodicean ology-y pictures in favor of my after all necropsy, which anon choosing be present hopefully. We've got a repletion upon just dandy livery cooked-up- Peter Arzberger, the Pinnacle prime mover and sweeping superhero, is compensating us a show up, precisely we'll in all likelihood Greenback Party present-time his decency. Whence Cathy's 21st octennial is in regard to Saturday, and we'anent planning function artifact(maybe karaoke) insofar as that. We'll see the light. Self ought endure funny story!

I have been updating a lot on the present, and haven't spoken too much about the past. So, tonight since I don't have anything all ADD to talk about, and I'm not ready for bed, I'm going to go ahead and talk about the past. How about my diagnosis?

So, diagnosing ADHD is clearly quite a sketchy process. There isn't a true test. You can't draw someone's blood or give them a brain scan to determine if they have it or not. Basically, you have to look at the individual's behavior patterns and history.
For me, there was only one person besides my referrer who implied there might be more to my misery. It was my world history teacher, freshman year of high school. I was in tears during a test. I had studied my butt off for that test, and yet, I couldn't remember a darn thing I had studied. Now, some may argue poor study habits. I guess you can argue that. But it doesn't explain how someone else who studies with me, the exact same way can remember, and I can't.
Well, this teacher asked if I had ever been evaluated for a learning disability. I told him I hadn't and that was the end of it. I was probably a conundrum for my teachers. I wasn't a bad student. I appeared to be paying attention (well when I wasn't drifting off), I wasn't stupid. I didn't have behavior problems. I wasn't male. I didn't fit into the ADHD box. And I didn't fit in the learning disability box either because I wasn't delayed. But something wasn't right, either. But since I couldn't be given a label, and I wasn't bothering anyone, I guess nobody tried helping.
Years down the road. I graduate high school. I test out college. I join the military. I get married. I have a baby. My husband. The first person to truly, truly know me senses something is up. He grows increasingly frustrated with my social ineptness, my inability to remember simple things, my inability to complete a task, to stay focused. He encouraged me to go seek help. So I did. But to be honest, I didn't feel comfortable with my therapist. We weren't a good match. So when she released me to have my baby, I didn't go back.
It was my second therapist, Colette, who I saw for marriage problems, who picked it up. We talked about my marriage, and of course we delved into my family and history. And she asked if I had been evaluated for ADHD. My split-second response was "No... I'm not hyperactive."
She explained to me how you don't have to be hyperactive, and that's why so many people--especially girls--go undiagnosed. They don't cause a problem, they just sometimes are solitary individuals who are seen as "weird." But they aren't bothering anyone, so nobody notices.
It's pretty sad actually, when you give it a thought.
So she referred me. She said I ticked off so many boxes for her, inasmuch as she knew about ADHD. Which she seemed quite knowledgable about. She really was a knowledgable woman. And it was reassuring to me in some way because, I knew nothing about ADHD. It wasn't a self-diagnosis. I didn't see it coming. But you bet I looked it up when she said it. And oh my God... I saw myself in so many expert's descriptions. It was Earth moving for me.
Well, that's my story of my referral. A little background for you. I'll talk about the actual test I received tomorrow. Have a good night!

She wants to give legal status to illegal immigrants by granting 5 year visas to some 1.35 million illegal aliens!

According to Steve Elliot of Grassfire.org, it is her revisiting a past failure to push her amnesty agenda.

"Tentatively called the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act of 2008, this is a slight-of-hand, scaled-down version of Feinstein's AgJobs amnesty bill that she had previously introduced."

That was from today's alert email he sent out. Considering the one yesterday (whose headlines I also read myself), do we want this nonsense to continue?

Scanning the headlines this morning sickened me.

In Virginia (my home state), an illegal alien raped a 4 year-old child.

In Tennessee, a suspected illegal alien raped a 15 year-old girl just hours after his release from prison.

Another raped and impregnated a 9 year-old child. It has been widely reported that she has just given birth!

390 illegals were arrested following a raid of a meat-packing plant in Postville, Iowa.

(Source: Grassfire.org Alliance email newsletter - Wed, 14 May 2008.)

I urge my fellow Oklahomans to contact your Senators and tell them we are tired of our political leaders trying to give our nation away.

Contact:

Sen. Inhofe 202-224-4721
Sen. Coburn 202-224-5754

At 19 I got pregnant by a close friend  (and so starts an interesting story).  I immediately left behind the life I was living to start a new one.   Jonah was born in  March of '02.  The following February Michael fell back into my life.  We had dated for a few months in '99 and 2000.  Michael builds fences and my employer, at that time, was interested in getting one.  The day after I told her about him,  I came out of the movie theatre only to find his truck parked next to my car....???  The following Monday as I was leaving work,  I saw him again building a fence a few doors down.  ????

(I know that at this point it is hard not to wonder where exactly the odds were against us.  As a matter of fact it looks to me like FATE. )

So on with the story...  The following Friday was 2/14/03.  (valentine's day)  So, after some convincing from my friends and my mother  (she had always loved Michael) I called him.  What better way to find out if he's seeing someone than to ask him what he's doing on Vday?  So we chatted.  He sounded excited to hear from me and made it very clear that he wasn't seeing anyone.  We agreed to try to get together the following week to catch up.  That phone call was at 4:00.  He called me back at 6:00 to see if I would come over.  Cute huh?  I know, it makes me want to fall in love too.

Michael and I only dated for 11 weeks before he proposed.  And 16 weeks later we were married and off to the Bahamas.  (fun but hard to leave behind my little man for the first time). 

Back to the destined for failure part....  So I had a baby.  We had a short courtship and engagement.  Our wedding was scheduled for August 30 and the first week in June we got some bad news.  Michael had gone to the dermatologist to check on this exzema thing he had been dealing with for several years.  The doctor decided to do a biopsy and run some tests on the skin cells.  Michael had cancer.  Thats all the doctor said.  "Michael, you have cancer.  You need to go to Vanderbilt."  There we were, not knowing if this meant 6 weeks or 6 years.  All we had was Google.  (By the way, despite what you may think, that is never a good idea!)  Ofcourse, that did nothing but confuse us even more.  Michael sat me down one night and told me that he loved me no matter what and nothing was gonna change that, but he couldn't blame me if I wanted to leave him.  He felt it was unfair to ask me to stay if there was a chance that it wasn't gonna be for very long.  Obviously I told him that I wanted nothing more than to spend our lives together and if that was only gonna be 6 weeks then by God I would take it.  We finally got to Vanderbilt in late July and found out that Mycosis Fungoides wasn't gonna kill him.  There isn't a cure but as long as it doesn't spread (only a 10% chance) he will be fine.  Light treatments are a normal part of our winters now but it's not a big deal. 

So skip ahead a month or so and we come back from our honeymoon and "SHOCKER" I'm pregnant!  Are you seeing how we could feel doomed?  1.  baby from previous relationship   2. married quick  3. cancer  4. baby on the way  .....  We really had a hard first year.  And things have only gotten harder from there. 

Michael and I started talking about getting a divorce nearly a year ago now.   Things have just been really hard and we forgot about each others wants and desires.  At the begining of 08 we agreed to stick it out a little longer and attempt some counseling.  Which brings me to this blog.  I want to be able to verbalize everything we've been going through.  A week ago we were over.  Our counselor finally convinced Michael to start fighting for us.  The point is Today we both want to fight for it.  Tomorrow may only be one of us fighting.  But it's constantly a fight to keep what belongs to us. 

Tonight on ER (favorite show), Luka told Abbey that he had an image of how they were supposed to be but what he realized was that they were more like a row boat on choppy water and they would have to fight daily to stay afloat.  Or something along those lines.  My point is that Marriage is a gift but it has to be fed and nourished to survive.  When you forget what it needs, it just starts to die.

Fished out of the river Rhone last fall, a bust of Julius Caesar dating from 46 BCE, two years before his death. Oh yes, his death: on that delicate yet never untimely subject let us attend to Brutus once again...

Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
-- Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his
fortune; honour for his valour; and death for his
ambition. Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If
any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so
vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;
for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.

- Julius Caesar (Act III, Scene II), by William Shakespeare

"It's Not Easy Being Green" by Kermit The Frog
(written by Joe Raposo for the first season of Sesame Street 1969-1970)

It's not that easy being green
Having to spend each day the color of the leaves
When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or gold
Or something much more colorful like that

It's not easy being green
It seems you blend in with so many other ordinary things
And people tend to pass you over 'cause you're
Not standing out like flashy sparkles in the water
Or stars in the sky

But green's the color of Spring
And green can be cool and friendly-like
And green can be big like an ocean, or important
Like a mountain, or tall like a tree

When green is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why, but why wonder why
Wonder, I am green and it'll do fine, it's beautiful

-

THE GREEN GENERATION: It's Easy Being Green!
by Aireen Joven
http://thehotpotato.org

15 May 2008

IN FASHION AND CULTURE, green is the new black. There are so many reasons to buy and wear organic clothing. One you may not have heard is that organic cotton feels softer than non-organic cotton. New textile entrepreneurs and designers are now exclusively using organic cotton, hemp, linen (made from flax), and recycled fibers in a fusion of their business' green ethics and rising consumer demand. Though not totally organic, clothing giants like H & M, whose European organic 2008 spring collection will boast 1,500 tonnes of organic cotton, and Nike, who is the top organic cotton clothing manufacturer in the world, are riding the green wave as well. Did you know that non-organic cotton consume 25% of the world's total toxic pesticides while using only 2.5% of the world's agricultural land?

In the business world, green is fast becoming gold. Just this past week, AOL News featured a business article about what industries are projected to be favorable i