Archive
Poor People’s Economic Rights: The Lack of Legal and Historical Precedent in American Law by Lisa Baird – posted 10/19/2013
This piece was written in Spring 1985 by my sister, Lisa Baird. Lisa was in her last year at Rutgers (Camden) Law School and she wrote the paper for her American Legal History class. I have carried the essay around with me for years and I have long thought it deserved to see the light of day. October 21 is the 4th anniversary of Lisa’s death. I thought a nice way to remember and honor Lisa would be to share this essay. The points she made 28 years ago still resonate and seem as valid now as they did then, maybe more so. Jon
We are living in a time when the federal government is dramatically decreasing its allocation of funds to social welfare programs which serve poor, as well as in some cases, middle-income Americans. Food Stamps, General Assistance, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Legal Aid and higher education-low interest loans and grants are all examples of government subsidies which have already been cut back or have been targeted for significant reduction in the name of budget balancing.
Public benefit programs such as the ones mentioned above constitute the income – and livelihood – of millions of Americans. Still, the right of citizens to receive these benefits uninterrupted, and to rely on them as a sure means of subsistence is tenuous and constitutionally vulnerable. While public benefit recipients are assured the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to their termination from a benefits program, they are not assured the right to continue receiving benefits despite the fact that those benefits may be the only income available to them at that time. Economic assistance from the government is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution nor do poor people constitute a suspect class. Thus, the legal protection provided to welfare recipients is minimal : the legislature needs simply to show a rational reason for amending or even dissolving a program and the courts will approve the state’s action.
Price v Cohen 715 F. 2d 87 (3rd Cir 1983), a recent Federal case, demonstrates the legal insecurity of social welfare programs. The Pennsylvania legislature amended the state welfare code to exclude as recipients all persons between the ages of eighteen and forty-five except for three months of each year when they were deemed “transitionally needy”. Thus, these people theoretically able to work regardless of the availability of jobs or job training could no longer collect general assistance as a source of income. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s finding and determined that 1) the class of people (between 18 and 45) affected was not a “suspect class” protected by a “strict scrutiny” analysis under the Equal Protection Clause and 2) that the “right to subsistence” (which in this case the court equated withthe right to receive welfare benefits) has neither an explicit or implicit source in the Constitution.
The State’s burden was indeed light in this case. It had only to show a rational basis for its distinction between transitionally needy and chronically needy (those entitled to year round benefits). Rationality is the easiest test to meet in determining constitutionality and simply by invoking the problems of “scarce resources”, the need to create incentives to promote employment and discouraging welfare fraud, the state won its case. Obviously, the fact that the rationality test requires nothing more than stating theoretical justifications for an action without an examination of the factual basis for these justifications made the state’s argument an easy one. The court did not question scarcity of resources, pauperization as employment incentive or the statement in dicta that welfare fraud was most prevalent among the age group affected. Rather, it accepted the reasons and the premises upon which they were made.
The plaintiffs’ burden was conversely very difficult to meet. They could win only by rebutting the rationality of the reasons presented by the state. Rationality is and was shown to be in this case difficult to disprove since it needn’t have any relationship to the truth of the matter asserted. Remarkably enough, thousands of people lost the only money they had to live on because the state was able to assert a plausible rationale for its action which made logical sense, actual sense aside.
This essay is an effort to identify and discuss some of the reasons why economic rights for people with limited or no resources are not guaranteed or secure under the American system of justice. While it is clear that most if not all areas of civil law and criminal law as well serve to protect the wealth of well endowed people, this is not true for people without means. Practiced prudently, contract law, tort law, tax law, corporate law can preserve funds, recover funds or expand funds when resources exist to finance adequate legal representation. Criminal liability attaches when for example embezzlement occurs within a corporation, thus under legally sufficient circumstances, it provides further protection and remedy for those whose wealth is endangered. However, public entitlements have not been deemed personal property nor as mentioned above have poor people been identified as a suspect class. So, the rights which do exist in relation to poor people and benefits (and sometimes services) are procedural and not substantive. That is, the benefits themselves are not guaranteed but a hearing must be granted if the state intends to take them away.
Why are the economic rights of poor people procedural and not substantive? Substantive economic due process is a constitutional doctrine dating back to the era of Reconstruction. In the years following the Civil War, federal judges were faced withe the decision whether to broadly interpret the due process clause to include the right of merchants as in the Slaughterhouse Cases to challenge state-created economic monopolies. Justice Samuel Miller reasoned that neither the 14th Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause, equal protection clause or any due process clause was intended to supply citizens with a constitutional basis to secure economic rights. Miller’s opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases cited the purpose of the privileges and immunities clause as protecting citizens of the United States in their exercise of fundamental rights as opposed to dictating to the various States what the rights of its own citizens should be. Further, he interpreted the equal protection clause as solely aimed at equalizing the status of Blacks to that of other Americans. Finally, he attached only procedural meaning to the due process clause, following the lead of Judge Taney in Dred Scott v Sanford. Louisiana was therefore able to impose monopolies and limit competition accordingly.
Twenty-seven years later the Supreme Court took a broader look at the 14th Amendment in Lochner v New York when the issue in question was the constitutionality of a New York statute limiting the right of a private employer to contract with a laborer for an excess of sixty hours work in one week. Despite dissents from a number of justices, including Holmes, the Court ruled that the New York statute did impinge upon the constitutional rights of the employer and employee to freely enter into a contractual relationship with one another.
Justice Holmes argued that a state’s infringement on a constitutional liberty must be judged on an ad hoc basis and weighed against the seriousness and validity of the legislature’s purpose in passing the statute in question. He cautioned against an approach which would blanketly pave the way for federal interference with state sovereignty or, conversely, elevate the power of a state legislature beyond the reach of rational, well-founded objection.
The doctrine of substantive economic due process conferred rather broad rights of economic freedom and autonomy on individual citizens. It should be noted however, that as it was articulated in (although not recognized) in the Slaughterhouse Cases and later recognized in the Lochner case, it was a doctrine which supported the laissez-faire ethic of non-regulation aimed at profit maximization. Like its cousin, procedural due process, substantive due process did not become a legal weapon of the poor and property-less, although there is no indication in any of the key substantive due process cases that it could not have doctrinally supported poor people’s entitlements.
In the modern legal era, the doctrine of substantive due process has been largely eroded and the United States Supreme Court has specifically contradicted the notion “that the due process clause authorizes courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted unwisely”. See Ferguson v Skrupa 372 U.S. 726 (1963) Presently citizens who wish to contest the unconstitutional effect of a state law rely on other doctrines to do so. If the challenge is procedural in nature, the objection can be framed under the due process clause.
If the situation involves discrimination against a class of people, the outcome most surely depends on the nature of the discrimination alleged and what level of scrutiny the court attaches to an injury to the class in question. As we saw in Price v Cohen , a category of persons who shared in common both a designated range of age and an impoverished economic status triggered a minimal level of constitutional scrutiny, not enough to strike down the law.
Poor people and their advocates are thus left with huge gaps in constitutional doctrine that can be used to safeguard and extend their economic rights.
This essay began by identifying the problem of the lack of economic rights for poor people as well as the lack of legal doctrine in American law to support these rights. There are a number of ways to consider this problem in an effort to begin to unravel its origin and meaning. In the following section of this paper, I will propose various tensions present in American legal history which may help to shed light on the issue of poor people’s economic rights.
Natural Rights vs Positive Rights
Do poor people have a “natural right” to subsistence income? Has such a natural right been recognized in American jurisprudence? The United States Constitution codified natural rights and protected those rights, particularly after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Positive rights embodied in statutes passed by legislatures at times conflict with natural rights when positive law is seen as infringing upon natural law. Seen from the perspective of John Marshall concerned as he was with the tension between the two sources of law, the existence of natural rights provided a context in which government sometimes had to limit and regulate in order for other rights to be protected. The social contract whereby citizens consented to be governed enabled government when necessary to limit individual liberty.
The right to economic well-being was not however deemed a natural right. While “vested property rights” and the right to contract were identified by Marshall as falling within the realm of natural rights, the right to some semblance of a secure income did not. The welfare system finds its source in positive law created by legislatures and because this is the state, legislatures are likewise empowered to amend or rescind the system. This was evidenced by the Pennsylvania legislature’s amendment of the welfare law which gave rise to Price v Cohen .
Judicial Action vs Legislative Action
Judicial review of state legislative actions is an idea which was further articulated and clarified when John Marshall decided McCulloch v Maryland . In the case of Price v Cohen however, the judiciary found no constitutional defect in the statute. Here, the legislature took rights away from the poor and the court determined after review that it had been within its rights to do so. It is interesting to note that the District Court which decided the case favorably for the plaintiffs did so in part on the basis of evidence presented in the trial alleging that age had no relation to employability. The Third Circuit ruled that although the District Court was the fact finder in this case, it was not “authorized” to “resolve conflicts in the evidence against the legislature’s conclusions”.
This approach seems to give the upper hand to legislatures where a court is reviewing controversial legislative determinations about which there’s been some dispute. It suggests that the only facts which the court may find are those which have not been part of the rationale for the legislation in the first place. It is “speculation”, says the Third Circuit to disagree with a legislative conclusion. Thus, the Circuit Court gave complete deference to the legislative process, disregarding the possibility that perhaps factual errors were made and relied upon during the debate and enactment of the statute in the legislature. The power and sovereignty of the legislature in Price was indeed a stumbling block to the plaintiffs’ recovering their benefits.
Federalism
Another way of looking at the problem of the lack of economic rights is the conflict between state sovereignty and federal power i.e. federalism. This approach isn’t entirely satisfying in that we lack a nice, neat polarized situation where state power comes down on the side of limiting or abolishing welfare programs and the federal courts rise to those program’s defense. As stated earlier, much in the way of welfare monies is the result of state legislative action but the power of the federal courts lies in their ability to police the constitutionality of legislative action.
As we have seen in Price , the court found that depriving persons between 18 and 45 of welfare benefits was constitutional. The check of the judicial branch of government over the legislative branch amounted to review and consent by the court. Hypothesizing a scenario where the legislature rescinds a welfare statute entirely so that no one is entitled to benefits any longer, one questions what then would be the action of the court. Would there be a successful, constitutional challenge? It is clear that the federalist system allows the state to act relatively freely in accord with its own stated aims and resources. The check of constitutional scrutiny is we have learned not necessarily a safeguard against sweeping legislative action which brings grave results to the health and well-being of many citizens. Since constitutional doctrine will not support poor people’s economic rights, poor people have a tremendous stake in the quality and political and social outlook of their state legislatures. Herein, the system of federalism could theoretically be of service.
Law vs Politics
Legislatures are composed of elected representatives who achieve their status through some combination of money, contacts, ability and fate. Party politics and the interest of self preservation play big roles in how legislators vote on bills presented to them. Since we have noted that constitutional law does not guarantee economic rights for the poor, the politics and priorities of legislatures holds special importance. Legislatures can and have passed laws which have been profoundly beneficial to the health and well being of indigent people just as they have done the opposite. But they function in the political realm. They are flighty, swayed by monetary interests, seeking re-election and often unreliable. Can state legislatures be a reliable ally of the poor? Here the key word is reliable and because of their transient and political nature, the answer is doubtful.
Individualism vs Collectivism
We are left with the perplexing question of why the value of collective well being is not fundamentally a part of our system of justice. We have seen that legislatures cannot be either the guardian or defender of the poor. And we have likewise seen that there is no constitutional mandate to provide for those in need. The conflicts mentioned on previous pages play themselves out with no affirmative duty on the part of any branch of government to provide for those in need. In fact, the basest interpretation of welfare laws is that they are a gratuitous gesture which can be done away with when other fiscal demands arise.
Why doesn’t our system of justice value the collective good? The Preamble of the Constitution does state that the People, among other things “…in order to form a more perfect Union, …promote the general welfare”. But “general welfare” has not come to mean guarding against hunger or starvation. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law but we have seen that due process has not thus far evolved into a doctrine that guarantees more than procedural fairness. Here, the interest of collectivism, embodied by the state law limiting work hours per week, gave way to the interest of individualism and the unfettered right to contract.
Perhaps now the deprivation of life without due process is becoming more substantive-oriented as courts more frequently intervene to order medical treatment and prevent death of severely and hopelessly retarded infants. Still, the value of life for groups of people as measured by the value attached to the right to subsistence for poor people has not been given protection by the courts under the due process clause. To the extent that the law addresses the collective good, it does so in the context of enhancing the environment, making the system run smoothly and promoting pluralism in the interest of harmony and production.
The American preference for and preoccupation with the individual, his/her opportunities, mobility, liberty over an interest in social welfare is an historical and legal reality. In a world where individual liberty is the highest ideal and the test of good government has often been its ability to maximize individual freedom, it is not surprising that collective freedom has come to imply only the freedom of a collection of individuals. The answer is in part rooted in capitalist ideology, in part in the pragmatism implicit in that ideology, in part in the way the law has evolved to reflect the values of the system it represents and supports.
Perhaps the closest we have come to the promotion of economic rights for poor people was during the era of the National Welfare Rights movement. The movement took hold in the mid 1960’s becoming institutionalized and in decline by 1980. It explicitly attacked the ideology which equated welfare with individual failings and lack of initiative. Rather, the welfare rights movement and organizations sought to popularize why poor people had a right to welfare: lack of jobs, lack of job training, barriers of racial and sexual discrimination. The movement demanded adequate welfare subsidies at the same time it demanded jobs. It was the cry for social reform from those who needed it to survive. Welfare activists demanded income as a right to which they were entitled. Contrast this point of view with that of political leaders in history who advocated welfare benefits as a means of social control or with courts who have recognized no constitutional right to receive benefits for the purpose of relieving poverty.
The current reversals of that era underscore the problem of a lack of American legal doctrine and political ideology to support and safeguard economic well being for all. Until that doctrine is developed and recognized, poor people and their advocates must continue to use the many legal and political tools available to them. As the courts narrow their interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, we move farther away from the hope that the law will develop in the direction of affirming and feeding rather than depriving and casting out.
Medicaid Expansion Has The Power To Change Lives – published in the Concord Monitor 10/13/2013
Soon our New Hampshire Legislature will be voting on the matter of Medicaid expansion. While I know the Legislature agonized over the decision and could not decide it last session, I must say I do not see it as a hard call. The benefits to the state are too great to pass on this deal.
In a state obsessed with saving general fund dollars, this is like the ultimate business deal for New Hampshire. The state can insure a huge group of the uninsured for three years at no cost in state dollars. After three years, the state would never pay less than 10% of the cost. In my opinion, that is great value obtained at a bargain price.
In so much of the media coverage, I do not think there has been adequate appreciation for the value of insuring the uninsured. It is estimated that 50,000 New Hampshire residents will obtain affordable health care through the Medicaid expansion.
Maybe it is obvious to say but having quality health insurance is a big deal and can afford some peace of mind. When you walk through most medical facilities, it is like the cash register starts ringing. All too often, if the patient lacks insurance, there is little or no access to health care. The only options are the emergency room, charity care if any exists in a particular locale, or going without health care.
Millions of people in our country and tens of thousands of people in New Hampshire are simply going without. They are rolling the dice, hoping for the best, and not going to the doctor when they are sick. They do not have the money to pay out of pocket and they do not want to incur the cost.
Medical debt acts as a major disincentive to seeking health care. Unaffordable medical bills and inadequate income are a toxic brew. I would not deny that underinsured people, not just the uninsured, might avoid health care. If you already have significant unpaid medical bills, the idea of going to the doctor and adding to an existing debt is unpalatable.
The choice not to go to the doctor may work out in some situations. If the problem is less serious, the cost might only be the discomfort of enduring pain or some increased anxiety and depression. However, the choice not to go to the doctor can also result in some catastrophic outcomes.
The cancer diagnosed too late, the stomachache mistaken for food poisoning which was a ruptured appendix, the undiagnosed heart disease – these are examples of what can happen when symptoms are ignored because people are so worried about hospital expense they avoid care. Delay in seeking care can also be the difference between a serious problem and a total nightmare.
Families USA has studied the consequences of going without coverage. In a report entitled “Dying for Coverage” released in June 2012, they estimate that between 2005-2010, 134,120 people between the ages of 25 and 64 died prematurely due to a lack of health insurance. They say there were 339 such deaths in New Hampshire during that time period. Families USA based their estimate on a methodology devised by the Institute of Medicine.
Some of the findings Families USA mentions:
— the uninsured are less likely to have a usual source of care outside of the emergency room > — the uninsured often go without screenings and preventive care
— the uninsured often delay or forego needed medical care
— uninsured Americans are sicker and die earlier than those who have insurance
— the uninsured pay more for medical care than the insured
I think it is unconscionable in a country as wealthy as the United States that we allow so many to remain uninsured. I personally think health care should be a right of every American. It is not some kind of privilege. Access to health care should not depend on a person’s income.
Just to be clear, I am not an uncritical supporter of Obamacare. I personally would have preferred a universal single payer, Medicare-for-all type system. That did not happen though. Obamacare with its Medicaid expansion is a positive step forward since so many more will obtain coverage.
One can only marvel at the reactions of the opponents of Medicaid expansion and Obamacare. To say they have been over the top does not do justice. Leading the charge was former New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O’Brien who claimed Obamacare is as bad as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That law let slaveowners get their runaway slaves back!
Then there is Texas Governor Rick Perry who called Obamacare “a criminal act”. And not to be outdone Congresswoman Michele Bachmann who compared Obamacare to crack cocaine and said it will kill people. Bill O”Reilly just said Obamacare is “a vicious motorcycle gang threatening your daughter”. You really cannot make this stuff up and there is plenty more where it came from. Opponents have spent far more time demonizing than offering any credible alternative plan.
Obamacare was extensively debated; it passed Congress, was signed by the President and it was upheld by our very conservative U.S. Supreme Court. The Court gave states an option on Medicaid expansion. I would also note that the President ran, in part, on his health care policies and he was reelected. The hyperbolic overreaction to a law that is barely out of the starting gate is a form of political hysteria. Calling a new law a train wreck before it has gone into effect is both unfair and premature.
Part of the reason for the hysteria may be fear that, once implemented, the program will be successful. As Texas Senator Ted Cruz put it on Fox News, he worries that people will become hooked on Obamacare. I do believe there is a recognition that it would be much harder to repeal the program once many Americans have benefitted from it. There is a similar history with opposition to Social Security and Medicare when those programs were starting up. Once those programs got off the ground, they became extremely popular with the American people. There is a similar fear from opponents that that will happen again with Obamacare.
Our Medicaid expansion commission has initially voted this last week to support the expansion. The Commission is now drafting a final report with recommendations specific to New Hampshire. The Commission will vote on the final report on Tuesday. The Commission worked hard to develop a plan that reflects New Hampshire tradition and values. Once the report is produced it will have to be translated into legislation and then it must go through the legislative process.
Even if legislators were required to reconsider this voluntary program after three years, that could still be reasonable. At least there would be a body of experience to evaluate whether the Medicaid expansion should continue. I think our Medicaid expansion commission deserves credit for its bi-partisanship. At a time when partisan fever is running wild, it is positive that both Democrats and Republicans in our state could work cooperatively to craft a Medicaid expansion that serves our citizens.
The Shutdown Standoff by John Judis – posted 10/5/2013
I am reprinting a fine piece written by John Judis that appeared earlier this week in the New Republic. I thought it offered historical perspective on the current government shutdown. Jon
The current government shutdown threatens to stall the already slow economic recovery from the Great Recession. But more is at stake here. Political philosophers from Aristotle to Locke have defined the nation-state as the highest form of political community. Locke, whose views are embedded in America’s Declaration of Independence, saw government as a result of a communal compact—a social contract—among peoples. What is happening in America is that this social contract is being voided, largely through the initiative of rightwing Republicans from the deep South and rural Midwest. America is not likely to become Afghanistan, but it could easily become Italy or Greece or even Weimar Germany.
There is no simple explanation for why this is happening now, but there are precedents in American history for the kind of assault on government that the Republicans are mounting. First, there is the South of John Calhoun, which Sam Tannenhaus wrote about in The New Republic. Calhoun developed the doctrine of nullification—that states, claiming a higher Constitutional authority, could refuse to obey federal laws—in order to justify South Carolina’s opposition to tariffs adopted in 1828 and 1832. Calhoun’s doctrine became the basis of the state’s rights argument against attempts by the federal government to limit the expansion of slavery and a century later to enforce racial desegregation.
Secondly, there is the rise in 1937 of a conservative coalition of conservative Southern Democrats and rural Midwestern Republicans to block and repeal the New Deal through parliamentary maneuvers and investigations, which I wrote about two years ago. Calhounist nullification anticipates the anti-federal tactics of today’s Republican right. The conservative coalition of the late 1930s anticipates the composition of today’s Republican coalition and its grievance: the expansion of the federal safety net. Both of these older movements cited the United States Constitution as their authority for attempting to defy or dismantle the federal government. Like today’s Republican rightists, both older movements claimed to represent tradition and morality against a decadent modernity. They looked backwards. They were reactionary rather than conservative movements.
What happened to these movements gives some indication of what could happen to today’s Republican intransigents. The Calhounists precipitated a civil war, in which over 600,000 Americans died. The conservative coalition, on the other hand, faded temporarily from view and only reemerged in the last decades. That was because in 1941 Americans went to war against Nazi Germany and Japan. World War II unified Americans. In modern wars, the national government has to call upon all its citizens to do their part and to submerge their differences. Business made peace with labor; blacks served alongside whites. And that spirit of national unification lasted for 15 years after the war. It helped to give rise—although not without conflict—to a social compact between business and labor, an end to racial segregation and the preservation and expansion of New Deal programs like social security. If World War II had not intervened, it’s very likely that the conservative coalition would have grown stronger, and would have been able to stop the expansion of, if not undermine, social security.
The current political crisis—and the challenge presented by right-wing Republicanism—can be traced to the unraveling of this consensus. That began in the Sixties and then accelerated after the end of the Cold War. It took its final political form from the realignment of the parties, which, reaching a climax in 1994, brought conservative Democrats in the South into the Republican party. What had earlier been a coalition between Republicans and their conservative Democratic counterparts became a partisan effort entirely within the Republican party, which surfaced with a vengeance after the Republicans took control of Congress in November 1994. The next year, Republicans shut down the government, and in Bill Clinton’s second term, they tried to impeach the president on spurious grounds of sexual misconduct. (These events should be kept in mind before attributing the current fervor of the radical right entirely to the election of a black man as president.)
I wouldn’t expect the current crisis, which was precipitated by the descendants of Calhoun, to result in a civil war. The civil war, as Marx once wrote, was a revolutionary clash that pitted one mode of production against another. Nothing so momentous is at stake today. It also pitted one region against another, and it was fought with rifles and men on horseback. The largest effect is likely to be continued dysfunction in Washington, which if it continues over a decade or so, will threaten economic growth and America’s standing in the world, undermine social programs like the Affordable Care Act, and probably encourage more radical movements on the right and the left. Think of Italy, Greece, or Weimar Germany. Or think about what the United States would have been like if World War II had not occurred, and if Europe, the United States, and Japan had failed to pull themselves out of the Great Depression.
What is the alternative? How can the United States escape this quagmire? There seem to me be two kinds of things that have to happen—one having to do with political movements and the other with structural changes in American politics. Politically, the Republican far right has to be marginalized. That can happen either through ordinary conservative Republicans like Tennessee Senator Bob Corker or California Congressman Devin Nunes bolting the party or by the conservatives and moderates reclaiming control of the party and forcing the far right to create its own party along the lines of the old Dixiecrats or George Wallace’s American Independent Party. In the former case, you would have the emergence of an FDR-strength Democratic majority; in the latter, an Eisenhower era collaboration between the parties.
These kind of changes would have to be sustained by developments within the electorate. Roosevelt’s majority was sustained by the growth of an industrial labor movement. But today’s labor movement has not been able to adjust to post-industrial capitalism. Peter Beinart has argued for the rise of a “new new left” based in the political generations that have come of age in the Obama years. There is something to this, but I’m more inclined to see these voters as part of a movement that has taken place among college-educated workers since the 1960s; They backed the anti-Vietnam war, feminist, civil rights, and environmental movements; they contributed to the rise of public sector unionism; and they have staffed and funded a myriad of interest groups in Washington. But this complex of people and groups lack the organized clout that the labor movement enjoyed. The question for the future is: Can the older workplace-centered movement be fully replaced by the virtual community of Internet, as groups like Move-on have attempted to do?
Equally, if not more important, is the growth of organized business opposition to the radical right. So far, organized business groups have stayed largely on the sidelines. If anything, they have been more inclined to fund Republicans, and some of the very wealthy, often drawn from older extractive industries or fringe financial operations, have backed reactionary groups like the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity. To withstand the challenge from the radical right, the mainstream business groups would have to target the Republican right with the same fervor and determination that business groups of the early twentieth century targeted the socialist left. Organizations like the Fix the Debt that attempt to blame both sides equally are useless.
Structurally, much of the power of the radical right depends upon two loopholes in American politics that need to be closed. The first are the campaign finance laws, which allow eccentric billionaires like the Koch Brothers or Peter Thiel to exert inordinate influence over American politics. Restoring the McCain-Feingold limits on independent expenditures would help, but what is really needed is a liberal Supreme Court that could overturn Citizens United and the pernicious 1976 ruling Buckley v. Valeo that threw out the 1974 campaign finance law’s effort to limit total spending on individual campaigns. Getting a liberal Supreme Court would require the Democrats’ retention of the White House in 2016 and perhaps even in 2020, and getting it to overturn these laws would mean years of agitation directed at campaign finance reform. It’s no longer simply a good government issue; it’s about the distribution of power in American society.
The second loophole, for which Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame, are the congressional redistricting rules in states that allow whatever party controls the state government at decennial intervals to create maps that inordinately favor their own party. As the example of California shows, Democrats, who won a majority in the overall House vote in 2012, stand to benefit by non-partisan redistricting. Democrats need to make that happen, as well as repeal the new racist restrictions on voting rights cropping up in state politics. Much of the radical right, particularly in states like Texas, owe their seats to gerrymandered districts. This is a good government issue that could attract support from people who are not ready to blame the Republicans for the mess in Washington.
None of these changes will be easy to achieve. But the current shutdown—with a battle over the debt ceiling looming—should serve as an object lesson to many Americans, including the CEOs of the Business Roundtable and the Financial Services Roundtable, of the price that the country will pay for allowing the radical right to run wild in Washington.
Lament of a Philadelphia Eagles Fan – posted 9/29/2013
It is not easy being a Philadelphia Eagles fan while living in New England. You are definitely part of a minority group: a leper in Patriotland. I know there are some geographical transplants who successfully make the transition to rooting for the Patriots. This is harder when you come from Philadelphia and grew up as an Eagles fan.
Patriot fans are passionate but Eagles fans are rabid. I went to my first Eagles game in 1956 when I was 6 years old. The Eagles played the Detroit Lions at the old Shibe Park also known as Connie Mack Stadium. The Lions were led by legendary quarterback Bobby Layne.
The Eagles lost that day and I remember that I cried. It was the first of many losses to come that I witnessed. The Eagles are one of those NFL teams who have never won a Super Bowl, a fact never far from the minds of Eagles fans. In the Philadelphia mind, whatever our success in the Andy Reid era, we are still in sports hell.
I learned about football from my parents. Both were sports nuts. They were hardcore Philadelphia fans, especially the Eagles and Phillies. My dad got season’s tickets to Eagles’ games starting in the late 50’s. He and I used to park far away and schlep across the often freezing bridge to Franklin Field, the University of Pennsylvania stadium, where the Eagles played before they moved to the Vet.
I do want to mention the year 1960. There are some happy Philadelphia football memories. 1960 was the last time the Eagles won the NFL championship. It was in the era before Super Bowls. I was there with my dad, watching the Eagles beat the Packers 17-13.
Quarterback Norm Van Brocklin, nicknamed the Dutchman, led the Eagles. I went to Friends Central School with Van Brocklin’s daughter, Karen. Norm seemed like a really nice guy. When he came to school in the afternoon to pick up Karen, he went to the school playground and he threw the football around with us kids. How cool was that! He also punted to a small army of students who wanted to receive his kicks. Van Brocklin actually was the Eagles punter, something you would never see today. I do not believe there are any pro quarterbacks who double as punters now.
Van Brocklin was surrounded by some great players. I would mention Chuck Bednarik who played both ways, center and middle linebacker; Tommy McDonald,a small, speedy and gifted wide receiver; and tight end Pete Retzlaff, a 5 time pro bowler. The Packers had Bart Starr, Jim Taylor and Paul Hornung. Ray Nitschke anchored their defense. That was a great win with Buck Shaw besting Vince Lombardi.
However, as I noted, it has not been duplicated. Not that it matters but I do not think Patriot fans can understand the feelings of Eagles fans because of all the Patriots success. Patriot fans are spoiled. It is not just the Patriots. In the last decade, Boston has had the Red Sox, Celtics and Bruins all win as well. Before the Phillies won the World Series in 2008, it had been 25 years since any Philly team won a major sports championship. We are talking the 1983 Sixers with Doctor J and Moses Malone as the last winners. That qualifies as a sports drought.
After the 1960’s, I admit I lost interest in football for a long time. I was not at Franklin Field in 1968 when that famous episode in Eagles history happened: the booing of Santa Claus. It was December 15, 1968. The Eagles were 2-11 at the time. They had started the season 0-11. Still, 54,000 loyal Eagles fans showed up. The weather was miserable that day, snowing and sleeting. It was biting cold with a whipping wind chill. Fans had to clear their seats of three inches of snow and slush.
The half time show was supposed to feature Santa making an entrance on an ornate sleigh dragged by eight life-sized fiberglass reindeer. The sleigh float quickly got stuck in the field which had turned to muck. That necessitated the entrance of Santa by foot. The other problem was that the Santa who had been hired for that day was a no-show. Not clear whether Bad Santa was drunk but he did not appear. As a result, the Eagles entertainment director approached a young fan, Frank Olivo, who, in the holiday spirit, had dressed in a red corduroy Santa outfit. Olivo was recruited on the spot to step in and play Santa.
As the 50 piece brass band played “Here Comes Santa Claus”, Olivo entered the field between two columns of Eaglette cheerleaders who were dressed as elves. Olivo recalled what happened next:
“That’s when the booing started (when the band played “Here Comes Santa Claus”). At first, I was scared because it was so loud. But then I figured, hey, it was just good-natured teasing. I’m a Philadelphia fan, I knew what was what. I thought it was funny…
When I hit the end zone and the snow balls started, I was waving my finger at the crowd, saying, “You’re not getting anything for Christmas.”
Olivo says he was actually hit by several dozen snowballs. Maybe 100 were thrown. People joked that some of the people sitting in the upper deck were more accurate passers than the Eagles quarterback. Olivo commented that he was thankful for the snow. When the Eagles entertainment director asked if he wanted to play Santa the next year, he declined. “I told him, no way. If it doesn’t snow, they’ll probably throw beer bottles”.
I know the Eagles made it to the Super Bowl in 1981 under Dick Vermeil although ultimately they lost to the Raiders. I came back to football in the late 80’s/early 90’s. The names Randall Cunningham, Buddy Ryan and Reggie White come to mind. I remember the Fog Bowl in Chicago but not that much else about the team. I did go to a few games at the Vet. The Vet itself deserves a bit of comment. It was famous for its concrete-like turf and its court in the basement.
I never saw the Eagles Court. They were full service: starting in 1998, the Eagles had a court, a judge, and a jail at the stadium. Apparently, justice was dispensed quickly for drunk or unruly fans. Penalties included forcing offenders to give up season’s tickets, pay a $400 fine and sit in jail for the rest of the game. There is no Eagles Court at the Linc.
Philadelphia had so many lean years. All the losing seasons, bad coaches and bad teams are a blur to me. I do remember the name Joe Kuharich which I associate with multiple 2-12 years. Football got somewhat redefined during those years. A good year was not about making the playoffs. A good year would be defined as a year when the Eagles beat the Cowboys or Giants. To some extent, that is still true.
Then along came the Jeff Lurie/Andy Reid era. That changed the Eagles’ fortunes. From being a team of perennial losers, Reid turned the franchise around. Eagles’ fans became used to winning. For almost a decade, the Eagles were contenders and usually they were the best team in the NFC East.
While Eagles fans are typically critical of Reid and quarterback Donovan McNabb for not winning a Super Bowl, by any rational standard, this was a special time in Eagles history. They never won so consistently for so long. They made it to 5 conference championship games and 1 Super Bowl.
If I have any criticism, it was the failure of Reid to surround Donovan with quality wide receivers. With the exception of 2004 and the acquisition of T.O. (admittedly a mixed blessing) the Eagles almost inexplicably failed to give Donovan receivers who were difference-makers. That might have gotten them over the hump.
In his early years, Donovan was a genuinely exciting player. Besides having a great arm, he was a running threat. Repeated injuries took their toll on him but he was a tough guy. I remember him playing in 2002 against the Cardinals and throwing 4 TDs while playing on a broken ankle. Eagles fans tend to remember all the wormburners and the alleged throwing up in the Super Bowl. That is very uncharitable. It was nice to see Donovan and Reid get honored at the recent game against the Chiefs. They both deserved the honor.
My dad used to call me on the phone multiple times during Eagles games to report on developments. That went on through almost the whole Andy Reid time in Philly until my dad died. It was a little before the NFL package came into existence so my dad kept me informed. My dad was a big Donovan fan. We had some wonderful times following those games and the team. I knew a lot without watching myself because of my dad’s reports.
I am not going to say much about the Super Bowl loss to the Patriots. It could have gone the other way. It was a close game and the Eagles lost 24-21. That game was not Andy Reid’s finest hour. That was a tough loss.
One player I do want to mention – Brian Dawkins. For heart, grit, and for giving his all on the field, I would rate Dawk as possibly my favorite Eagle player of all time. I would imagine that opinion is widely shared in Philadelphia.
We now enter a new period. Many question marks. I remain optimistic about Coach Chip Kelly and the future of the team. Kelly appears to be very creative and original. There is nothing boring about his team. Maybe he will turn out to be some kind of football genius and maybe he won’t. I think it takes a couple years to turn a football franchise around. The Eagles had reached a deadened place at the end of Andy Reid’s tenure as coach.
I probably share the doubts of many fans about Mike Vick. It seems unlikely Vick can change his style of play in a way that will lessen his chance of injury. He always tries to stretch plays but he takes so many hits. The idea that he could make it through any season seems like wishful thinking. I hope I am wrong. Vick does have a great arm and he can still move. Turnovers remain his achilles heel.
If Vick is not the quarterback, then who? That is a big question. Nick Foles and Matt Barkley both seem talented to me. The Eagles do have some great offensive players. Desean Jackson and Lesean McCoy are both great. The Jeremy Maclin injury was a killer though. The defense is certainly suspect. Generously put, it is a work in progress. That unit seems a couple years away from being good. Scary to think what Peyton Manning might do to them later today. Again, I hope I am wrong.
Before my dad died, he said, “Jonny, maybe you will get to see the Eagles win a Super Bowl.” I honestly cannot remember if I hid my skepticism. Eagles fans generally expect the worst. I suppose there is the law of averages. Eventually, the Eagles are destined to win a Super Bowl as long as football continues. It is hard to know whether that will be in my lifetime or the lifetime of my children, who, I confess, are not Eagles fans.
Book Review: “The Shadow of the Panther” by Hugh Pearson – posted 9/21/2013
I suppose it is a bit odd to be reviewing a little noticed book that came out about 20 years ago. Sometimes very good books get ignored. Such is the case with Hugh Pearson’s book about the Black Panther Party, “The Shadow of the Panther”.
I was prompted to take a look at the book after reading Steve Wasserman’s excellent review of a new book on the Panthers, “Black Against Empire”. Wasserman’s provocative piece appeared in the June 24th issue of The Nation. He mentioned the Pearson book in the review.
Wasserman’s review was really interesting because most writing about the Panthers is either in the love or hate category. There are not many books or articles about the Panthers in the balanced, shades of gray category.
Hugh Pearson’s obscure book was something of a revelation to me. When I picked it up, I was struck by Ishmael Reed’s blurb inside the cover: “The best book on the Panthers yet published. Explosive is too mild a word with which to describe this book.” Reed was not kidding.
I think the book was brave. It is certainly an illusion smasher. The detail and specificity of many of the allegations in the book make it more difficult to argue with. For folks like myself, more inclined to the heroic narrative about the Panthers, the book was difficult to read.
Pearson delves heavily into the dark side. There are two narratives going on simultaneously. You have the bold Panthers who stand up to police brutality in the Black community. These Panthers ran the breakfast for children program, ran a free medical clinic for the underserved, set up schools, and registered voters. They were a source of pride in the Black community. Then there were the criminal Panthers. Murder, extortion, rape, drug offenses – and that barely begins to touch all the crimes Pearson reported.
Particularly in the Bay Area, the Panthers were portrayed as the equivalent of a gang of thugs. There were a litany of despicable acts Pearson reported. The extent of the thuggery is shocking. It is hard not to think that the public image of the Panthers was at quite a distance from the reality. The Panthers looked better from far off. The problem was that the closer you got, the more seamy underside became visible.
Central to the story is the saga of Huey P. Newton. I think it is fair to say that Huey was the central personality in the party during its heyday. Huey embodied a bundle of contradictions. He learned to fight early in his life. Pearson wrote that he acquired a reputation for being so bad, so quick to the draw, that others on the rough streets of Oakland respected him. He could hang on the street with the brothers but he was also quite intellectual. Pearson showed how Huey valued education and how he ended up getting both a B.A. degree and a Ph. D. later in his life.
Huey led the Panthers to have a class-based politics. He was not anti-white or any kind of cultural nationalist. He was also an internationalist and the Panthers supported many Third World liberation movements.
However, from the perspective of 2013, it is hard to ignore some of the crazy stuff that used to appear in the Black Panther, the party’s paper. I would note the offensive dehumanized pig language which was a regular feature that ran deeply in its pages. I also remember the occasional anti-semitism that would creep in, usually in relation to Israel and the Palestinians. Wasserman mentioned the adulation of totalitarian North Korea and now deceased dictator, Kim Il-Sung. The Panthers somehow thought the North Korean concept of juche could fit here in America. Really that is bizarro world.
There was an element of megalomania with Huey. The titles he endorsed for himself included “Supreme Commander”, “Servant of the People”, “Supreme Servant of the People” and “Servant”. “Minister of Defense” was not enough. Talk about grandiose. After reading the book, the title “Servant” seems like unintended irony. While Huey had guts big time, considering all aspects, a more accurate title might have been “Self-Servant”.
In his personal life, Huey had a huge problem with substance abuse. Really that was what did him in. He had long-term issues with alcohol and cocaine and he siphoned off money collected by the Party to feed his addictions. At the end of his life in 1989, there were contracts out on him and not because of his politics. He had crossed other drug dealers, had tried to muscle them, and they wanted him dead.
Huey and much of the Panther leadership had a ridiculously sexist and abusive treatment of women. Pearson tells many stories. Eldridge Cleaver may have been the worst but Huey’s behavior was out of control. I would note that the picture Pearson presented of Elaine Brown, one of the most prominent female Panther leaders, was not flattering either.
There were any number of stories that freaked me out. The Party’s roles in the execution of their former bookkeeper, Betty Van Patter, is a horrible story. As is the story of Huey’s role in the shooting death of a very young prostitute, Kathleen Smith. The murders aside, the story I found unbelievable was Huey’s bullwhipping of Bobby Seale. Next to Huey, Bobby was the second most famous Panther leader. It is shocking that Huey could have treated his own close comrade so brutally but Huey was frequently erratic. I am hoping someday Bobby writes a memoir that pulls no punches. In Wasserman’s article, it sounded like he was considering that.
There was much competition and rivalry among Panther leaders. They were frequently expelling members or disciplining them for perceived slights. Macho posturing was common. Pearson says that Huey was enamored of the movie The Godfather. He went to see it repeatedly and required Party members to do the same.
Pearson wrote that Huey began dressing in a fedora, cape and tailored suits after seeing the movie. There is a horrifying story about how Huey pistol-whipped a tailor whom he had invited to his penthouse apartment.
The Party became a monstrosity of self-imposed wounds. At the same time, it was a victim of Cointelpro, a covert government effort to discredit and disrupt political organizations like the Panthers. While the Party often pointed to Cointelpro as the basis for many problems, that is clearly a grossly inadequate explanation.
Cointelpro did place informants and agent provocateurs in the Party. They tried to blackmail Party members and they worked to create a climate of fear about their infiltration. Still, it was the clandestine illegal activities of the Party itself which was its real achilles heel. Pearson believed that Betty Van Patter’s murder at the hands of the Panthers was due to the fact she knew too much about the clandestine activities. There was like a mafia goon squad around the Panther leadership.
That is not to say that the police and the FBI did not target the Panthers. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had called the Panthers the greatest threat to the internal security of the country. Hoover’s assessment was ludicrous but he followed up on it. The wave of attacks on the Panthers from 1967 to 1969 was hardly an accident. The constant raids on Panther offices across the country capped by the police murder of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark was part of a consistent project. We still only have a partial picture. It is wrong that no one was ever charged in relation to the murders of Hampton and Clark.
A deeper problem with the Panthers was their fixation on the gun and violence. That was so the wrong direction for any progressive political movement trying to gain a popular foothold. It scared far more people than it attracted. The gun stuff was a pose and in my opinion, stupid adventurism. The Panthers would have been far more effective if they had focused on constructively addressing the many social and economic problems in their communities. They could have stood up without the gun emphasis that too often defined them.
I always thought it was strange Huey titled his books “Revolutionary Suicide” and “To Die For the People”. Why would a revolutionary be so fixated on death or suicide? What kind of vision is that? The titles reflected a sort of death wish or prophecy. There was a lack of perspective about how far the Party was from reaching most Americans, let alone African Americans.
Pearson quotes Saul Alinsky about the Panthers:
“I like the Panthers, I really do, They’re nuts of course, but they’re really a fantasy of that senile political paranoid in Washington, J. Edgar Hoover. They haven’t got the numbers and they know nothing about revolutionary tactics. What kind of revolutionary is it who shouts that all power comes out of the muzzle of a gun when he knows damn well the other side’s got all the guns.”
The gun focus pointed the Panthers in the wrong direction. It created a justification for the repression that came down later. I certainly do not deny or disregard the idealism that brought so many good people into the Panthers. The problem was that the Panthers were so alienated that they could not figure out how to constructively advance their agenda.
Pearson argued that the Panthers focused on defiant symbolism rather than concrete achievements. He placed the Panthers in the historical continuum of organizations created to promote civil rights bur he placed them on no pedestal and he did not have a favorable opinion of the Panthers compared to SNCC and earlier civil rights advocates. I would credit the book with presenting a more critical and honest perspective than is the usual fare when the Panthers are discussed. People on the left could learn from this book and it deserves a wider readership than it ever obtained. In my opinion, leftists remain cowardly when it comes to honestly assessing both the strengths and weaknesses of the Panthers.
Unfortunately Hugh Pearson died in 2005. He was only 47 when he died. He deserves credit for taking on such a controversial subject and for moving honest discussion forward.
No Time To Butt Heads: Football, Brain Injury and Public Health – published in the Concord Monitor 9/15/2013
When Junior Seau retired from the the New England Patriots in 2010, he appeared to be in an enviable position. Extremely popular in his home community in the San Diego area, with all the fame and adulation that comes from being a long-time star NFL player, he was finally hanging up his cleats to enjoy retirement. He had made over $50 million in the 20 years he played for the Chargers, the Dolphins and the Pats.
Seau was widely considered one of the greatest linebackers to ever play the game. He was a likely shoo-in for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He had no Super Bowl ring but he had been to 12 Pro Bowls.
As we all now know, Seau committed suicide in May 2012. He shot himself in the chest. He was 43 years old.
A recent article in GQ magazine chronicled the very tragic end of his life. Seau had been experiencing mood swings, insomnia, depression and forgetfulness. He had withdrawn from family and friends. He abused pills and alcohol. He made bad business decisions and he gambled away huge sums of money.
There was a weird possible suicide attempt in October 2010 after a very uncharacteristic domestic violence arrest. Seau drove his car off a 30 foot beachside cliff. He survived and claimed he had fallen asleep at the wheel.
His former teammate and friend, Aaron Taylor, described Seau at the end as like a beaten down man who had lost all his confidence. He struggled just to articulate his thoughts. It was like the old Junior had disappeared and been replaced by a shell.
After he died, scientists at the National Institute of Health who studied his brain found evidence of CTE – chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative neurological disease linked to concussions. Interestingly, during his 20 years of pro football, Seau never was diagnosed with a concussion. However, as early as the mid-90’s, he had complained of severe headaches, bouts of dizziness and insomnia.
Seau, through his family, was among the 4500 former NFL players who have tentatively settled a massive federal court lawsuit filed over head injuries sustained while playing football. The players had alleged that the NFL misled them over the long-term dangers of head injuries.
The settlement reached on August 29 provides $675 million to be paid out to former players who have suffered cognitive injuries. Payments to individual players will vary depending on the extent of their injuries. Another $75 million will go toward evaluation, monitoring and treatment of all retired NFL players, not just those in the lawsuit. An additional $10 million goes to unspecified research. Part of the deal is that the NFL makes no admission of fault or liability that plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by football.
The settlement is still pending final court approval. It is possible some former players could object or appeal. The settlement does not apply to college players. There is a separate court case about that.
I would say most commentators think this is a sweet deal for the NFL. For a league that brought in $9.5 billion in revenue last year, $765 million is a relatively low cost to pay considering that quite a few of its former employees are dead, dying, or living horribly damaged lives. Not to mention the harm that went on long before the lawsuit. No one knows how many former players have been adversely affected by brain injuries in the period before the medical world even had the diagnosis of CTE.
It is important to remember that for years the NFL took the public position that there was no substantive link between concussions suffered playing football and long-term brain damage. From 2003-2009, the Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee, a body set up by the NFL, wrote that no NFL player experienced chronic brain damage from concussions!
In the world of denial of responsibility, the NFL can hold its own, more than rivalling the behavior of the tobacco companies with cigarettes. The bottom line comes first and nothing the NFL has done challenges that assertion. The league has acknowledged nothing. However, it is paying out some money.
As we head into a new football season, many questions come to mind. What are the effects of multiple hits, even little hits, on the brain? How can CTE be minimized? How can practices be made safer? Can technology design a helmut that can reduce if not eliminate concussions?
One has to wonder what the NFL knows that it is not disclosing. Part of the settlement is that the NFL can maintain a veil of silence and non-disclosure about what its research has shown. I wonder if like the tobacco companies approach to public health, the NFL has a research treasure trove it is holding in abeyance.
There is a growing body of evidence which shows that repetitive trauma, football-related concussions, can cause permanent brain damage. Memory impairment, emotional instability, erratic behavior, depression, and problems with impulse control are all common symptoms. CTE appears to progress to full scale dementia.
As an almost lifelong fan, I take no pleasure in writing this. Still, I think the NFL should reverse course and err on the side of disclosure. Football-related brain trauma is a matter of public health.
Complicating the picture is the reluctance of players to disclose their concussions while they are playing. In a 2012 Sporting News poll, 56% of the NFL players who responded said they would hide symptoms of concussion to stay on the field. In a game defined by toughness, many players apparently feel that disclosure equals weakness. If they can play through, they will.
While it is a different context, it is a bit reminiscent of military veterans and PTSD. Future promotions and hope of advancement mitigate against disclosure of a PTSD problem. NFL players worry that disclosing concussions will put them out of the game and will shorten their football careers. Junior Seau is a perfect example. Given the punishing hits he gave and took, is it possible he had no concussions playing? And why was nothing ever diagnosed?
If you are the parent of a child playing football, I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask if the risks are worth it. Whether it is pee-wee football, Pop Warner, high school, college or the pros, we all, players and family and friends, should at least have full disclosure of the science in order to make informed decisions.
Restaurant Review: Maine Diner, Route One, Wells, Maine – posted 9/1/2013
I have no business writing about food. I certainly have no special knowledge. My wife, Debra, is the real food person. I am usually the person changing the channel away from the Food Network to sports or MSNBC. Still, I like good food as much as the next guy so…
I did want to say the Maine Diner, I like a lot. Located on Route 1 in Wells, Maine, the Maine Diner is a place my wife and I have gone to for years. The sign outside says “Breakfast Anytime”. It is open long hours – 7am-9pm.
The food is consistently great. I think it is a couple notches above usual diner fare. For the volume they do, I find it amazing that it does not falter. They have a big menu, not surprisingly leaning toward seafood but they have many of the dishes you would expect in a diner.
In the truly outstanding department is their seafood chowder. The chowder has lobster, local Maine shrimp, scallops and clams in a delicious clammy broth. It is very rich. The seafood chowder has been voted the best chowder in the Ogunquit Chowderfest for seven years.
Also up there in the food pantheon is their lobster pie. It has been celebrated on the Food Network’s “Diners, Drive-ins and Dives”. The lobster pie includes big and small pieces of lobster meat in a casserole topped in a delicious and buttery crumb mixture. It is kind of like baked stuffed lobster without the shell. They had a Dickie’s Diner Special this last Friday that featured a cup of seafood chowder, lobster pie with choice of vegetable and potato, a non-alcoholic drink, and choice of dessert for $30.95. Considering what it usually costs to get lobster in a restaurant (I never get it), I think that is a pretty good bargain if you are up for a splurge.
All the desserts are homemade. I rarely get dessert when I go out but I did get the blueberry pie. It was difficult to decide between the homemade Indian pudding, the apple crisp and the pies. The blueberry pie was chock full of wild Maine blueberries with a thin flaky crust. It was absolutely delicious.
There are a host of seafood items that are done right. You cannot go wrong with the fried clams, the lobster roll or the crab cake sandwich. Debra also mentions the she-crab soup, a creamy soup with Atlantic rock crabmeat and a bit of sherry. They do lobster in about ten different ways including lobster quiche, lobster club, lobster melt, lobster macaroni and cheese, and lobster benedict. I have never been to a place that served lobster in so many ways.
Being a Jewish guy from Philadelphia, I must acknowledge that Debra, a hardcore New Englander, has greatly furthered my lobster education. I was a lobster illiterate. When I was younger I had heard of Bookbinder’s Restaurant in Philadelphia and I had heard they served lobster but that was about the closest to lobster I got. My idea of seafood was flounder, blue fish, or maybe crab. There was a place near where I grew up close to 54th and City Line in Philly that was run by an an older man named Sam Fishman. (Place is long gone) He had great crab imperial at his restaurant but lobster was way pricey and we never had it. I only mention this because it does reflect my youthful distance from lobster.
I did want to mention the breakfast food too which is also yummy. Debra had the eggs florentine and the poached eggs were perfectly done. I liked the eggs benedict. The hollandaise sauce was rich and the eggs were accompanied by properly done hash brown potatoes.
They do have vegetarian options if you do not do seafood. The salad had fresh baby salad greens and flavorful cherry tomatoes. The cole slaw and baked beans are homemade.
It is a very busy place and you will probably have to wait in the summertime. There is not a huge amount of seating inside. The line goes pretty fast though and it is worth the wait if there is one. The place has a very hospitable, positive vibe. The waitstaff are friendly and chatty. The waiters were hustling but there was no bad attitude I saw. I think it is very customer-friendly and my guess is they are careful about hiring people who are personable. Also, there is none of the pretension that you can find at some fancy, overpriced restaurants. The atmosphere is comfortable and I think their prices are fair.
We sat at the counter and the guy who sat next to us was a talker. He raved about the lobster, mac and cheese. I guess he was a regular. The waitresses all seemed to know him and joked with him. It was the second time he had been there that day!
If you are in southern Maine, it is well worth a trip. I never thought I would write a restaurant review but I guess there is a first time for everything.
Book Review: “Pilgrims’s Wilderness: A True Story of Faith and Madness on the Alaska Frontier” by Tom Kizzia – posted 8/27/2013
I suppose I have a fascination with crazy people who do things that are very out of the ordinary. This book, “Pilgrims’ Wilderness”, by Tom Kizzia has that but it veers in a very dark direction.
The book tells the story of Robert Hale, later known as Papa Pilgrim, and his wife and 15 children who move from New Mexico to Alaska in 2002. We are not talking a move to downtown Anchorage. They moved to McCarthy which is a boondocks town north and east of Anchorage. It is more than 300 miles from Anchorage to McCarthy.
When I lived in Alaska in 2010-11, I drove around some on the weekends. I bought a Honda Fit while I was up there. On one trip, I headed up to Matanuska Glacier to hike around on the glacier. You have to drive through Palmer and head east into some really spectacular country with 13,000 foot mountains in the background and fast running rivers along the road. McCarthy was quite a bit farther east than I ever went. The roads are remote and they get pretty bad from what I have heard. McCarthy is located in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. Moving out there was not for the faint of heart.
I am a northeasterner, not a real Alaskan, so I would say McCarthy is a pretty extreme location. Pilgrim said that Alaska was the sweet name whispered by God as his firstborn came of age. That is how Pilgrim said he landed there. Kizzia says that Pilgrim searched around Alaska for 3 years before deciding to settle in Hillbilly Heaven aka McCarthy..
The story of Papa Pilgrim is fundamentally about domestic violence. The family presented to the outside world as hippie back-to-the-landers who were heavy duty Christians. Papa constantly quoted scripture. Country Rose, Papa’s wife, and the children were quiet, well-behaved in public, and quite subordinate There was no doubt Papa was the head of that household. The family played music together and entertained neighbors. The public did not see what was going on behind the scenes.
For a very long time, no one had a clue that Papa Pilgrim viciously beat Country Rose and the children, particularly his oldest daughter legally named Butterfly Sunstar and later called Elishaba. Papa had been secretly raping Elishaba and beating her repeatedly. He hid his actions for a long time but he also used verses of scripture as justification to his family. When his rape behavior became known to the family, he argued that Leviticus allowed father-daughter relationships. This was a guy who had a line of self-justification for everything he did. He actually had other family members refer to him as Lord.
The guy’s dark side included incest, multiple rapes, brutal physical assaults, kidnapping, emotional abuse and manipulation , child abuse, and theft. And all in the name of Jesus. He was finally brought down by the courageous actions of his own children who were able to step outside of Papa’s brainwashing. A criminal case put him away. Papa died in prison in 2008.
Part of Papa’s modus operandi was to isolate his family. He did not allow his children any education. Life was taken up with surviving in the very harsh, separated environment in which they had located.
Papa did work at creating conflict with the National Park Service by bulldozing a road and creating a path through National Park land to the place they settled. He never got a permit for the bulldozing. He would not talk to the National Park people at all and when they investigated, Papa and sons blocked their way. Papa had also posted signs on National Park land saying “No Trespassing NPS”. Coming after Ruby Ridge and Waco, the National Park rangers were very careful about provoking armed response. Ultimately Papa lost in federal court regarding the permit issue.
Papa was briefly a cause celebre for conservative property rights groups who hated the federal government. The Pacific Legal Foundation had taken his case. That was before he was exposed. Kizzia does a good job of pointing out the contradictions between hating the government and depending on the Alaska Permanent Fund to support the family. While Papa actively hated the government, he was happy to take the annual dividend awarded to Alaska residents that could range from $800-$2000 per person. For a family the size of Papa Pilgrim’s that was pretty good money.
Not surprisingly, Papa was a strict disciplinarian. He used a long leather bullwhip on his own family members when he believed they needed “correction”. As his children grew into their later teen years, he taught that lust was an abomination. Papa freaked out about their budding sexuality. There is a brutal description of how Papa turned a barrel on its side and whipped the boys who were made to lie on the barrel. Country Rose held the boys hands and stuffed hankerchiefs in their mouths when they screamed too loud. Papa blamed Country Rose for the boys’ sins. Among Papa’s corrections was the silent treatment. If a child was bad, they could not be spoken to. They might get no food except for bread and water. They could be made to sit out alone in the rain or snow. That treatment could go on for days.
Papa trained the children to report misbehavior and to listen for prideful or rebellious words. He closed the world off so his children had no escape from him.
Because he was a McCarthy neighbor (Kizzia and his wife owned a cabin there) Kizzia gained some degree of trust with Papa. I liked how Kizzia slowly evolved the story so that the abuse did not become apparent until later. I think the hidden aspect of domestic violence in the story is quite consistent with how domestic violence is discovered, if it is discovered. People never know what is going on next door or right down the road. Papa like many abusers was good at facade. He was very self-righteous in public.
I do have a hard time with the notion that Papa was some kind of counterculture figure. Really Papa’s values were loony and once you get past the hippie look, he was simply another deranged Christian lunatic who used biblical verses to justify all kinds of criminality. He was certainly not part of any 60’s style counterculture I would recognize. He was very much a fringe Christian. Unlike Christian homeschoolers who develop educational plans when they homeschool their children, Papa used the Bible to justify ignorance, male supremacy and violence. When you strip away the religious verbiage, he was about maintaining demagogic power and control over his family. Education threatened to expose him so he prevented it.
Papa’s “dream” had a romantic throwback quality that could appeal to those with superficial knowledge of the man. He appeared to be a rebel, living off the grid, defying the modern world. living a self-reliant, subsistence lifestyle, and raising his children by eternal Christian values. When he moved to McCarthy, he conned people into believing his family was something entirely different than what they were. Again, from a distance, his war with the National Park Service appeared to be the justified actions of a brave man striking back against an overreaching bureaucracy.
Things are often not what they seem. Up close, Papa was a nightmare. Behind the seeming god-fearing Christian was a sociopathic megalomaniac who twisted religion to justify his perverse whims. Papa did everything in the name of his religion. How often do we see this or things like it? Kizzia’s book is quite a cautionary tale. I am reminded of this quote from Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
Egypt: Cry Beloved Country by Uri Avnery – posted 8/24/2013
I am reprinting a piece written by Uri Avnery, a leader in the Israeli peace movement. Jon
I DIDN’T want to write this article, but I had to.
I love Egypt. I love the Egyptian people. I have spent some of the happiest days of my life there.
My heart bleeds when I think of Egypt. And these days I think about Egypt all the time.
I cannot remain silent when I see what is happening there, an hour’s flight from my home.
LET’S PUT on the table right from the beginning what’s happening there now.
Egypt has fallen into the hands of a brutal, merciless military dictatorship, pure and simple.
Not on the way to democracy. Not a temporary transition regime. Not anything like it.
Like the locusts of old, the military officers have fallen upon the land. They are not likely ever to give it up voluntarily.
Even before, the Egyptian military had enormous assets and privileges. They control vast corporations, are free of any oversight and live off the fat of a skinny land.
Now they control everything. Why should they give it up?
Those who believe that they will do so, of their own free will, should have their head examined.
IT IS enough to look at the pictures. What do they remind us of?
This row of over-decorated, beribboned, well-fed generals who have never fought a war, with their gold-braided, ostentatious peaked hats – where have we seen them before?
In the Greece of the colonels? The Chile of Pinochet? The Argentina of the torturers? Any of a dozen other South-American states? The Congo of Mobutu?
All these generals look the same. The frozen faces. The self-confidence. The total belief that they are the only guardians of the nation. The total belief that all their opponents are traitors who must be caught, imprisoned, tortured, killed.
Poor Egypt.
HOW DID this come about? How did a glorious revolution turn into this disgusting spectacle?
How did the millions of happy people, who had liberated themselves from a brutal dictatorship, who had breathed the first heady whiffs of liberty, who had turned Liberation Square (that’s what Tahrir means) into a beacon of hope for all mankind, slide into this dismal situation?
In the beginning, it seemed that they did all the right things. It was easy to embrace the Arab Spring. They reached out to each other, secular and religious stood together and dared the forces of the aging dictator. The army seemed to support and protect them.
But the fatal faults were already obvious, as we pointed out at the time. Faults that were not particularly Egyptian. They were common to all the recent popular movements for democracy, liberty and social justice throughout the world, including Israel.
These are the faults of a generation brought up on the “social media”, the immediacy of the internet, the effortlessness of instant mass communication. These fostered a sense of empowerment without effort, of the ability to change things without the arduous process of mass-organization, political power-building, of ideology, of leadership, of parties. A happy and anarchistic attitude that, alas, cannot stand up against real power.
When democracy came for a glorious moment and fair elections were in the offing, this whole amorphous mass of young people were faced with a force that had all they themselves lacked: organization, discipline, ideology, leadership, experience, cohesion.
The Muslim Brotherhood.
THE BROTHERHOOD and its Islamist allies easily won the free, fair and
democratic elections against the motley anarchic field of secular and liberal groups and personalities. This has happened before in other Arab countries, such as Algeria and Palestine.
The Islamic Arab masses are not fanatical, but basically religious (as are the Jews who came to Israel from Arab countries.) Voting for the first time in free elections, they tend to vote for religious parties, though they are by no means fundamentalist.
The wise thing for the brotherhood to do was to reach out to other parties, including secular and liberal ones, and lay the foundation for a robust, inclusive democratic regime. This would have been to their own advantage in the long run.
At the beginning it seemed that Mohamed Morsi, the freely elected president, would do so. But he soon changed course, using his democratic powers to change the constitution, exclude everybody else and start to establish the sole domination of his movement.
That was unwise, but understandable. After many decades of suffering from state persecution, including imprisonment, systematic torture and even executions, the movement was thirsty for power. Once it got hold of it, it could not restrain itself. It tried to gobble up everything.
THAT WAS especially unwise, because the brotherhood regime was sitting next to a crocodile, which only seemed to be asleep, as crocodiles often do.
At the beginning of his reign, Morsi drove out the old generals, who had served under Hosni Mubarak. He was applauded. But this just replaced the old, tired crocodile with a young and very hungry one.
It is difficult to guess what was going on in the military mind at the time. The generals sacrificed Mubarak, who was one of them, in order to protect themselves. They became the darling of the people, especially the young, secular, liberal people. “The army and the people are one!” – How nice. How naïve. How utterly inane.
It is quite clear now that during the Morsi months, the generals were waiting for their opportunity. When Morsi made his fatal mistakes and announced that he was going to change the constitution – they pounced.
All military juntas like to pose, in the beginning, as the saviors of democracy.
Abd-al-Fatah al-Sisi does not have an exciting ideology, as did Gamal Abd-al-Nasser (pan-Arabism) when he carried out his bloodless coup in 1952. He has no vision like Anwar al-Sadat (peace), the dictator who inherited power. He was not the anointed heir of his predecessor, sworn to continue his vision, as was Hosni Mubarak. He is a military dictator, pure and simple (or rather, not so pure and not so simple).
ARE WE Israelis to blame? The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, says so. It’s all the making of Israel. We engineered the Egyptian coup.
Very flattering, But, I’m afraid, slightly exaggerated.
True, the Israeli establishment is afraid of an Islamic Arab world. It detests the Muslim Brotherhood, the mother of Hamas and other Islamic movements which are committed to fighting Israel. It enjoys a cosy relationship with the Egyptian military.
If the Egyptian generals had asked their Israeli colleagues and friends for advice on the coup, the Israelis would have promised them their enthusiastic support. But there is nothing much they could have done about it.
Except one thing. It is Israel that has assured the Egyptian military for decades its annual big US aid package. Using its control of the US Congress, Israel has prevented the termination of this grant through all these years. At this moment, the huge Israeli power-machine in the US is busy ensuring the continuation of the 1.3 billion or so of US aid to the generals. But this is not crucial, since the Arab Gulf oligarchies are ready to finance the generals to the hilt.
What is crucial for the generals is American political and military support. There cannot be the slightest doubt that before acting, the generals asked for American permission, and that this support was readily given.
The US president does not really direct American policy. He can make beautiful speeches, elevating democracy to divine status, but he cannot do much about it. Policy is made by a political-economic-military complex, for which he is just the figurehead.
This complex does not care a damn for “American Values”. It serves American (and its own) interests. A military dictatorship in Egypt serves these interests – as it does the perceived interests of Israel.
DOES IT really serve them? Perhaps in the short run. But an enduring civil war – on the ground or under ground – will ruin Egypt’s shaky economy and drive away crucial investors and tourists. Military dictatorships are notably incompetent administrations. In a few months or years this dictatorship will crumble – as have all other military dictatorships in the world.
Until that day, I shall weep for Egypt.
Our Secular Heritage – Whitman had it right: ‘Argue not concerning God’ – published in the Concord Monitor 8/9/2013
When Judge John Lewis of Stratford County Superior Court ruled in June that the tax credit program for private religious schools was unconstitutional, he relied on Article 83 of the New Hampshire state constitution. That article plainly states, “no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination”.
On its face, that language seems clear. However, the case is being appealed to the state Supreme Court. Like so many other church/state issues, there are always two sides. Both sides appealed Judge Lewis’s ruling.
As Judge Lewis noted, the issue has deep historical roots. Really since the very beginning of the United States, separation of church and state, in multiple contexts, has been highly controversial. The threads of secularism and religion have been closely interwoven in American history. Judge Lewis’s decision is just the latest reflection of that tension.
People on the secular side of the divide have often been put on the defensive by religious fundamentalists and biblical literalists. They are derided and demonized as secular humanists, atheists, and elitists.
The fundamentalists have framed the church/state debate as between the believers (themselves) and the non-believers (the godless). Allegedly, they have values and secularists are value-free. I think this framing is grossly unfair to those of us on the secular side. While there certainly are hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, I would stake out a different position on the secular side. It is what I would call the Walt Whitman viewpoint. I actually think this viewpoint is more consistent with the views of many Founding Fathers who were Enlightenment thinkers.
In Leaves of Grass, Whitman famously wrote:
“This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyranny, argue not concerning God…”
I think there is much wisdom in the advice “argue not concerning God”. Whitman argues for the acceptance and validity of the views of both believers and non-believers. In the face of ultimate mystery, he respects multiple perspectives. In a country as diverse as the United States, Whitman’s perspective makes much sense. Look only as far as Egypt to see the potential for bloodshed and divisiveness when one sectarian religion gains power and tries to consolidate its gains at the expense of others.
The name-calling against American secularists has obscured our secular tradition in America which is honorable and insufficiently appreciated. There is no single repository of this tradition which is part of the reason it is underappreciated.
I wanted to acknowledge some of the contributors to the American secular tradition whom I admire, including a couple who are relatively unknown now. All the secularists I highlight have fought theocracy and have struggled to make America a more egalitarian society. It has to start with Tom Paine. The outstanding propagandist of the American revolution, Paine agitated in both the American and French revolutions and always fought economic privilege. In 1805, John Adams wrote this about Paine:
“I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or affairs for the last thirty years than Tom Paine.”
In the 19th century, secularists played a vital role in both the abolitionist and women’s rights movements. I would mention the Grimke sisters, Sarah and Angelina, who were Quakers but who were fiercely anti-clerical and anti-slavery. They publicly spoke out against slavery before interracial audiences of both sexes, a practice that shocked the public of that day.
I also wanted to mention Lucretia Mott and Ernestine Rose. Both have landed in the forgotten category but they also deserve recognition and appreciation. They fought for equal rights for women in a very tough climate. Mott helped found the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Society and she also helped organize the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 which was the first public women’s rights meeting in the United States. Rose was the first Jewish immigrant to campaign aggressively for social reform in the United States. In her book, “Freethinkers”, Susan Jacoby describes Rose as “the Emma Goldman of the 1840’s and 1850’s”.
Robert Ingersoll also deserves special mention. Known as “the Great Agnostic”, Ingersoll may be the most famous man of his time who is unknown now. A lawyer and an eloquent orator, Ingersoll made fun of religion, supported the Bill of Rights, and opposed the death penalty. He has been described as the American Voltaire. He spoke widely around the country in the late 19th century and he had a gift for charming audiences by using humor to disarm opponents. Of the Founders, he wrote:
“They knew that to put God in the constitution was to put man out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible history of the church too well to place in her keeping, or in the keeping of her God, the sacred rights of man. They intended that all should have the right to worship, or not to worship; that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed. They intended to found and frame a government for man, and for man alone. They wished to preserve the individuality of all; to prevent the few from governing the many, and the many from persecuting and destroying the few.”
Moving into the 20th century, I will only mention two names – Clarence Darrow and Eugene V. Debs. I know others might question this choice. Darrow is certainly one of the most famous American lawyers of all time. In the Scopes monkey trial, Darrow represented a Tennessee high school biology teacher accused of teaching evolution. Debs, a labor leader who ran for President five times on the Socialist Party ticket, was extremely charismatic and inspirational. He was a die-hard supporter of working class Americans. Later in his career, he went to jail for opposing World War I and the military draft. At his sentencing hearing in November 1918 when he faced ten years in prison, he stated:
“Your honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”
I wanted to put in a plug for Susan Jacoby’s book, Freethinkers, that I had mentioned earlier. Freethinkers is a very comprehensive history of American secularism. It is an entertaining read and it gives great background on a far wider range of characters than I acknowledged in this short piece.
Jacoby makes the point that maybe secular humanists should call themselves freethinkers. It might be harder to demonize that term. I think it is past time for freethinkers to be defensive about arguing for reason and science rather than faith in the supernatural. There is nothing wrong with bringing a rationalist approach to fundamental questions of earthly existence. It is really a matter of intellectual integrity.
Jonathan P. Baird 