"Shotgun" Politics: When You Don't Get Your Way, Bring a Gun!

If I had not known better, I would have thought that this picture (By Jack Kurtz -- Associated Press) taken at a political event was produced in a country where guerrilla warfare was occurring, or where there was a type of military government, or something similar. But I now know better. Indeed, that this occurred here, in the US, at a political rally where Obama was in Arizona. The armed protesters might have acted within the law, as Alexi Mostrous reports for the Washington Post:

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Regardless of whether these armed protesters pointed their gun at anyone or not, this is “shotgun” politics--and it is not democratic.

What do I mean by "Shotgun" politics? I mean the use of force (implied deadly force) used to influence the outcome of a debate or a political action. Why is this not democratic? Democracy requires deliberation on a wide scale (national and local community) and on a small scale (family discussion, water cooler talks, BSing at the watering hole or hang out). For democracy to flourish, deliberation must be free and not directed or forced. For this to occur, participants who are engaging in any political discourse must not feel threatened and instead feel free to express her or his feelings, support those feelings openly, and present their arguments in a logical way. Talking around someone who is carrying an “AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder,” does not allow for a free and nonthreatening space of political deliberation. Democratic argumentation cannot occur under these conditions—only a form of terror and coercion. Terror is defined here as the following (using the good ol’ wordnetweb.princeton.edu):

The use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons); ‘he used terror to make them confess.'

Sadly, shotgun politics is not only happening in Arizona (the dear state of my birth), but other places including on the net.

Meet Hal Turner (Picture by Jessica Hill for the Associated Press and used by the Washington Post), the internet radio host who decided to use his blog to protest the ruling of three federal judges when they “rejected the National Rifle Association’s attempt to overturn a pair of handgun bans.” As reported by Peter Slevin for the Washington Post, in his story titled "Blogger's Case Could Test the Limits of Political Speech: New Jersey Man was Arrested After Writing That 3 Judges 'Deserve to Killed'," Hal Turner, angry that he is not getting his way, announced the following on June 6th:

“Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.”

The next day, we are told, he proceeded to post not only photographs of the Judges he thinks should be killed but also a map of the courthouse where they worked and “noting the placement of ‘anti-truck bomb barriers’” which might, the reader is left to gather, impede any killing potential—should one of Hal’s readers feel up to the task? This too is shotgun politics.

There is nothing democratic about shotgun politics and I do not care which political party you are supporting while strapping on your metal for political commentary or meetings. Such tactics equates ethical egoism in its worse form, stating loud and clear: only my self-interest matters here and the hell with the rest of you. Me, me, me, me. Democracy is not about ME but about US. Get with the program and play nicely with your fellow humans – Please.

R

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

The White House - Blog Post - A Wonderful Day

Today, President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.  This act will counteract the Supreme Court's decision of 2007 to limit the ability of employees to take their company to court for pay discrimination.  In 2007, the supreme court ruled that employees had only 180 days from the first day a valid discrimination of pay was instituted by the company the employee was working for to file a suite.  This ruling was not a 180 days from the first day you learned of the pay descrimination, but 180 day from the moment of pay descrimination.

Why is this a problem? Because often we do not know if we are being discriminated against, since the culture of silence around discussing issues such as salary is so institutionalized.  Indeed, several companies I have worked for has required employees to sign an agreement that specifically states that they will NOT disclose their rate of pay to other employees under the threat of disciplinary action or loosing their job.  These clauses often embedded in company "loyalty" oaths statements help corporations and other smaller companies legally practice forms of civil discrimination, and in my book - this does not bode well for labor, minorities, and women.

In Lilly's case, it was years before she knew that she was being paid substantially less for doing the same job as her male counterparts and so it took years before she brought the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. to court.  for me, today is a good, as the White House Blog states, but for others it is not such a good day.

The Sunlight Foundation, a fantastic organization that works to promote transparency in government and business using technology and blogging, is worried about this action today by Obama.  In a blog post, Paul Blumenthal rightfully questions the "transparency" promises of the White House with this bill.  Blumenthal writes:

For quite some time President Obama has promised that all non-emergency
legislation will be open for public comment on Whitehouse.gov for 5
days before the President signs it. I am not sure what constitutes
“emergency” legislation; providing emergency appropriations in response
to a disaster or attack would apply. This was supposed to be a major
element to the President’s transparency efforts, even though the effect
of it can be disputed (the bill has already passed and can’t be changed).

As Blumenthal points out, this is a huge slip of transparency on the first major act of the Obama Presidency.  Yet the truly important point I believe that Mr Blumenthal presents us with, and a critical thinking point at that, is how does the administration and WE define emergency. 

Here is the rub!

For me, civil rights violations constitutes an emergency.  It continues to be a problem in this country, and a very serious one at that.  Being that most of the people I have heard from regarding this issue today are men, I would ask them to take a moment and consider the position of others like Lilly who has been consistently discriminate against because of their race, gender or disability.  Further, think of those solders who have served our country who are also being currently discriminated against because of corporations' fear that they will be called back to combat and so they are also being discriminated against. In general, I believe Obama's efforts here constitutes a utilitarian action - the most good for the most amount of people.

For others such as some fellow twitterers (sp?), an emergency equals only war.  I understand and emphasize with this position.  Regardless, for me, transparency should be really followed in times of war - look at the lack of transparency used to get us into our current war-and how well that came out, right?!  So how do we define 1) transparency and 2) emergency.  This is the real question and we should be debating this question right now and then relaying our definitions to the current administration.   Blumenthal and the Sunlight Foundation is quite right about being concerned here and as was pointed out in his post: "I am not sure what constitutes “emergency” legislation" (para 2), and either am I -this is a problem.  As to other "responders" who calls these concerns "retarded" (Para. 11), this is the communication approach most of us were rejecting when we voted for now President Obama. 

From a communication/ critical thinking point of view, "That's just retarded" is an example "loaded Language" and an ad baculum fallacy that ends discussion possibilities and potential for transparency, as a result of threating language and/or insults.  May I suggest that we all join the conversation and not simply end it.

All thoughts are welcome here.

Rebecca

(Note: I have published this post on both my personal and educational blogs because I think these questions are vital)

"The Elders" and the Rest of Us

The Elders :: theElders.org

So, a friend on Facebook posted this link (see above) to The Elders' website, a new site offering an old idea.  If you have not heard, The Elders are a group of powerful Men and women focused on helping solve global problems.  This impressive list of include: Nelson Mandela, Graca Machel, Desmond Tutu, Kofi Anna, Ela Bhatt, Lakhdar Brahimi, Gro Brundtland, Fernando H. Cardoso, Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, Muhammad Yunus, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

Under their history page, it states:

"1999. Peter Gabriel begins a conversation with Richard Branson about the Elders -- a new gathering of world leaders who will come together to guide and support our 'global village.' for their model they looked to traditional village elders, trusted by their people to resolve conflict within their communities.

In 2001 Gabriel and Branson take their idea to Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel.  Mandela is immediately enthusiastic and, with the help of Graca Machel and Desmond Tutu, sets about bringing together the group of Elders you see here today.

Never before has such a powerful group of leaders come together. Free from political, economic or military pressures.  The only agenda of the Elders is that of humanity.  And their only purpose is to easy human suffering in these essential areas:

1.  Offering a catalyst for the peaceful resolution of conflict.

2.  Seeking new approaches to seemingly intractable global issues.

3.  Sharing wisdom: reaching out to grassroots Elders and to the next generation of leaders.  Listening and helping to amplify voices for good all over the world."

On the surface, this feels like a good idea.  In fact, several of my personal heroes are in this group including Mary Robinson and Jimmy Carter.  Next, I am sure that this group has "our" best in their sights.  And like these "Elders," I also wish to see our "global village" a peaceful one.  Indeed, my dissertation is about how we can build cosmopolitical solidarity  rather than simply a focus on economic globalization.  Yet I am uneasy.

Why?  Because unlike the claim made above, powerful groups like this has existed in the past and will exist in the future and I am not sure that a "top down" approach is what we need.  A village that utilizes any type of "elder," utilizes a hierarchal structure where the most powerful among us tells the rest of us what is good for us.  When thinking of Kenneth Burke, the communication theorist, I agree that we are goateed by hierarchy, but I do not think this is always a good thing--and we should fight our urge to reproduce strict hierarchal forms.  Yes this group consists of impressive and compassionate people and are great women and men, but they do not speak for me necessary and to assume to do so is bothersome.  I did not elect them . . . they elected themselves.  I may accept their advice, be in awe of their power, their compassion and their strength, but part of cosmopolitanism must be a global process where we, as the so-called village, work from the bottom-up to create this new world.  Again, we must create a process of learning and growing together from a bottom-up, not a top-down process (and yes I see the irony of this post in that simply suggesting this adjustment is a top-down approach).  Regardless, all I am hearing from this website is that these "Elders" will let us bottom feeders know what to do.  It may be harsh, my usage of bottom feeders, yet that is the inference.

The WTO, the World Economic forum, the G8, the World Bank as well as other organizations are all filled with their own elders telling us how to be, what to do, and when to do it.  It has not worked.  Granted, this organization sounds much different than those listed, but still there is the problem of the top-down approach, and what about global inclusion, transparency in activity, and decision making and the like?

Further, just like the other listed global organizations, "The Elders" are not free from political, economic, or military pressures.  None of us are and if we think we are, we are fooling ourselves.  You cannot work in any nation today without dealing with these pressures.  If you are helping to resolve a conflict, you are likely dealing with one of the three above "evils."  If your are talking any global issue, you are definitely dealing with economics, military might and political pressures.  Finally, the sharing of wisdom about our communities and how our communities can live, compete and function globally, you must also deal with specific military, economic and political pressures.  They exist and effect all us us--including "The Elders."

What I would beg of "Elders" is this: help facilitate and participate in a forum where process from the bottom up is encouraged among the people of this world.  One reason I like President Elect Obama so much is his insistence and encouragement of "service" from not only those at the top, but all of us (at the bottom). Encourage a type of cosmopolitical building as we see with the World Social Forum who, as an organization (World Social Forum Official Web page), refuses to create mandates but offers space for local groups to learn how to work together globally (read their charter of principles here).  In fact, they work against hierarchy and for a parallel approach to peace and change.

I must admit that only having the "Elders" website to go by, I have no real idea of their concrete work.  Yet going from the wordage of this organization, I see more of the same - the now deemed elite directing the chorus.  Nothing new there.

R

Teaching and Research Assistants Collective Bargaining Rights Act

Please consider signing the "PETITION IN SUPPORT OF THE TEACHING AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS ACT." This bill would "amend the National Labor Relations Act to restore collective bargaining rights to teaching and research assistants at private universities and colleges." Further, this is a public bill and petitions so anyone, non-teachers and students, programmers, anyone, can sign this petition. You may or may not be aware, but Grad student TAs and adjuncts are often paid very low pay with no benefits, for doing substantial work. I myself work a day job as a receptionist and teach two classes as an adjunct just to keep a float--but this schedule has me literally working from 8am to 10pm five days a week. If you care about education and about keeping good teachers around, please sign this petition and pass it on for others to sign. Here is what the Petition says:

To U.S. Senators and Representatives: We, the undersigned, urge you to co-sponsor and support the Teaching and Research Assistants Collective Bargaining Rights Act, which would amend the National Labor Relations Act to restore collective bargaining rights to teaching and research assistants at private universities and colleges. This bill would reverse the unjust decision by the Bush appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (in Brown University) that stripped thousands of teaching and research assistants across the country of their right to negotiate equitable pay, health benefits and workload protections. This decision to deny teaching and research assistants their internationally recognized right to freedom of association has been condemned by thousands of scholars and human rights advocates, including the International Labor Organization, an agency of the United Nations. Teaching and research assistants perform an increasing share of universities’ labor -- including teaching, research and administrative duties. Teaching and research assistants are workers who deserve, and whose livelihoods depend on, the full protections of the National Labor Relations Act, including the freedom to form unions and to bargain collectively over working conditions without fear of reprisal. Fair and secure working conditions for TA’s and RA’s at private colleges and universities mean better learning conditions for students at those institutions. Intellectual freedom and democratic exchange are hallmarks of institutions of higher learning, yet these values are undermined when TA’s and RA’s are denied their freedom of association and their right to collective bargaining. We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that you co-sponsor and support the Teaching and Research Assistants Collective Bargaining Rights Act. ***NOTE: WHEN YOU SIGN THE PETITION, ONLY YOUR NAME AND ANY AFFILIATION OR TITLE YOU CHOOSE TO ENTER WILL BE DISPLAYED PUBLICLY ***ANYONE CAN SIGN THE PETITION -- PLEASE CIRCULATE WIDELY