There is an interesting article in the Sunday Times Magazine on the effect of auto shutdowns on the the Black Middle Class. Their route to the middle class, believe it or not, was through the assembly lines of the Big Three in Detroit. Now it is disappearing. I wonder what some of those radical union leaders of the thirties and forties would do in the face of this calamity.
Take Walter Reuther for instance. He was a Social Democrat to his core. As the President of the UAW from ’46 until his untimely death in an airplane crash in 1970, he was probably the most outstanding labor leader in the country. He firmly believed in a healthy industry that would be able to pay its employees (his union members) a living wage and give them decent working conditions.
Okay, so here’s my guess. Reuther would have called on all the unions with workers in the auto industry to unite around a common platform to save our jobs by saving the industry. He understood very well that his members’ security was directly related to the health of the industry. As soon as the cracks in GM’s finances began to appear, he would have called a national conference to save our jobs by saving the company. Would he have held the custodians of GM accountable? Indeed he would have, and that might have lead to much needed change in GM leadership back when it really mattered.
Some years ago the UAW GM Division under the leadership of Irving Bluestone, like Reuther a committed Social Democrat, initiated the creation of the Saturn Division of GM. It was an experiment in worker self-managing work teams. Its early success had Saturn buyers going to the plant to receive their cars as they came off the assembly lines so they could thank the workers for their effort in making an excellent automobile.
At the time, I was up to my ears working with companies on empowering their employees to take increasing responsibility for their work. Saturn was our model. So what happened that now puts Saturn on the GM bankruptcy dump list? It was sometime around 2005 that the GM leadership decided to just let Saturn revert to the classic “command and obey” style management that prevails pretty much in GM today. I believe there was simply not the kind of committed leadership in the UAW or GM to keep the Saturn experiment going.
All this speculation leads me back to my notion that at least some of our present economic sickness derives from the fact that we no longer have a strong Labor Movement in this country. Those workers who are losing their path to the middle class (black, white or otherwise) simply have no organization with any real clout to stand with them. It is interesting to look at what happened with the same industry in Germany. There the Metal Workers Union have permitted limited outsourcing, but have refused to let the companies do so at the expense of plant closings. Could that have happened here? I believe that with a powerful enough Labor Movement to put a couple of million workers in the streets to defend their jobs, their very livelihoods, that could have changed the outcomes.
F.D.R. had that kind of Labor Movement. It is Obama’s big disadvantage that he doesn’t.
Thanks Kate. N.H.W.Y.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Me The Mafia & Congressmen Fino
Before I get to Fino, I would just like to remind the regular readers of this Blog of my repeated attention to the impact of social unrest on society. Okay, that’s exactly what we are seeing right now in Iran. How it works out will unquestionably influence the whole Middle East and in turn the rest of the world. In the meantime, let me get back to Mr. Fino.
For so many days now in my 92nd year the obituary page of The Times reminds me of things past. Todays paper, June 19th, reports the departure of Congressman Paul Fino, “Politician Who Battled Lindsay.” At one point in that effort I was used as a battering ram.
It was 1965-67. I was Deputy Manpower Commissioner in charge of Youth Employment for the Lindsay Administration. One afternoon the phone rang, which it did constantly. My secretary said it was an important call from John Kifner of the New York Times calling from Washington. Kifner told me that Congressman Fino had just successfully had an amendment passed to the Anti-Poverty legislation requiring a loyalty oath from all people working in the Anti-Poverty Program. Fino, citing this man Schrank, a notorious known communist, was in charge of the largest anti-poverty effort in the country, dispensing millions of dollars to whoever he wanted. Kifner said that because NBC had given Fino 5 minutes on the evening news they would give me equal time to reply. He also added that he didn’t think the amendment would go anywheres as it would by all probability be killed in the Senate. He said the whole story would be in the morning paper.
I waited for the early edition of The Times and there was the whole story. By the time I got home there were calls from my boss at the agency, Mike Sviridoff, as well as calls from the Mayor’s office and NBC. A little background. I was working at Mobilization for Youth at the time I was asked to come to work for Lindsay. I said I would make the switch, but first I needed to talk with the Mayor. One of his deputies said it was okay to tell him anything I had on my mind. “No,” I said, “I need to talk directly to Lindsay.” A few days later I was summoned to City Hall at 8.30a.m. to meet with the Mayor. Upon arrival at his office there were three or four staff “kids” as the Mayors entourage came to be known. I suggested Lindsay and I meet alone. He nodded approval and a disgruntled group of guys filed out.
I told Lindsay about my communist past and my three expulsions from the Union for “supporting communist causes.” I reminded him of the Eagleton nomination and everybody's surprise that the guy had a history of mental problems. “Mr. Mayor,” I said, “we are not going to play that game of ‘oh, if I only knew,’ because sooner or later it will come up. If that bothers you, do me a favor and don’t hire me, because if and when it does come up, I will cite this conversation.” John Lindsay was most courteous. “First off,” he said, “we have run more checks on you than anyone in NY history. The FBI says you are fine and the NYPD, which is better at this stuff than the FBI, has a phone size book about you and they say your okay. So what’s to worry about?” That is how I went to work for John Lindsay.
The next morning Mike and I headed for City Hall. A funereal atmosphere hung over the room. On my way to the Mayor’s office some of the staff suggested that I could do Lindsay a huge favor by just going away. Unfortunately for the Mayor there were a number of his staff boys who were drooling over the idea of going to the White House with Lindsay as President. They saw me as an obstacle to that effort. After a brief discussion regarding our options, I said that if there was any effort to resign me, such as an announcement that I had resigned in deference to the Mayor, I would go on NBC and take my five minutes to blast not only Fino, but the Mayor as well, citing my conversation with him prior to my employment.
Lindsay had a good sense that this was not going in the right direction. He looked over at me, smiled, and asked, “What would you do if you were me?” By this time the Blue Room at City Hall was pacted with reporters. I said, “Mr. Mayor, just go out there and tell them the truth of what happened when you hired me, as well as what you think of my record as Commissioner for Youth Employment.” He stood up said,”That’s what we’re going to do if you agree not to go on NBC?” “That’s okay with me as long as there are no slip-ups along the way.” We all shook hands and went off to the Blue Room.
Lindsay was great. He did exactly what he said he would and went far out of his way to praise my work for the City saying he would like to hire 25 more like me. Mike Sviridoff and I left delighted with the outcome. I called NBC and told them the Mayor had adequately answered all the questions.
I had one more piece of unfinished business. After reading the speech Fino made on the House Floor, it became obvious that he was not competent enough to have written it. So who did? Years before all this, when I was still in the Union, I had occasions to deal with the Mafia. At one point during a police investigation I was asked about some of their shenanigans with health insurance programs. I had written about that in our union paper. I declined saying that my job was in the Labor Movement and not as a policeman or prosecutor. At a Union Convention I had met a Mafia leader who said, “Schrank, we owe you. So call me when you need something.” And so I did. He called back ten minutes later to say, “The speech was written at the Powerhouse on 50th Street” (St. Patrick’s Cathedral by Monseigneur Ahearn). Just another New York story.
Thanks Kate. N.H.W.Y.
PS. Did I ever tell about my job interview with the Mafia bosses, the two Tony’s?
For so many days now in my 92nd year the obituary page of The Times reminds me of things past. Todays paper, June 19th, reports the departure of Congressman Paul Fino, “Politician Who Battled Lindsay.” At one point in that effort I was used as a battering ram.
It was 1965-67. I was Deputy Manpower Commissioner in charge of Youth Employment for the Lindsay Administration. One afternoon the phone rang, which it did constantly. My secretary said it was an important call from John Kifner of the New York Times calling from Washington. Kifner told me that Congressman Fino had just successfully had an amendment passed to the Anti-Poverty legislation requiring a loyalty oath from all people working in the Anti-Poverty Program. Fino, citing this man Schrank, a notorious known communist, was in charge of the largest anti-poverty effort in the country, dispensing millions of dollars to whoever he wanted. Kifner said that because NBC had given Fino 5 minutes on the evening news they would give me equal time to reply. He also added that he didn’t think the amendment would go anywheres as it would by all probability be killed in the Senate. He said the whole story would be in the morning paper.
I waited for the early edition of The Times and there was the whole story. By the time I got home there were calls from my boss at the agency, Mike Sviridoff, as well as calls from the Mayor’s office and NBC. A little background. I was working at Mobilization for Youth at the time I was asked to come to work for Lindsay. I said I would make the switch, but first I needed to talk with the Mayor. One of his deputies said it was okay to tell him anything I had on my mind. “No,” I said, “I need to talk directly to Lindsay.” A few days later I was summoned to City Hall at 8.30a.m. to meet with the Mayor. Upon arrival at his office there were three or four staff “kids” as the Mayors entourage came to be known. I suggested Lindsay and I meet alone. He nodded approval and a disgruntled group of guys filed out.
I told Lindsay about my communist past and my three expulsions from the Union for “supporting communist causes.” I reminded him of the Eagleton nomination and everybody's surprise that the guy had a history of mental problems. “Mr. Mayor,” I said, “we are not going to play that game of ‘oh, if I only knew,’ because sooner or later it will come up. If that bothers you, do me a favor and don’t hire me, because if and when it does come up, I will cite this conversation.” John Lindsay was most courteous. “First off,” he said, “we have run more checks on you than anyone in NY history. The FBI says you are fine and the NYPD, which is better at this stuff than the FBI, has a phone size book about you and they say your okay. So what’s to worry about?” That is how I went to work for John Lindsay.
The next morning Mike and I headed for City Hall. A funereal atmosphere hung over the room. On my way to the Mayor’s office some of the staff suggested that I could do Lindsay a huge favor by just going away. Unfortunately for the Mayor there were a number of his staff boys who were drooling over the idea of going to the White House with Lindsay as President. They saw me as an obstacle to that effort. After a brief discussion regarding our options, I said that if there was any effort to resign me, such as an announcement that I had resigned in deference to the Mayor, I would go on NBC and take my five minutes to blast not only Fino, but the Mayor as well, citing my conversation with him prior to my employment.
Lindsay had a good sense that this was not going in the right direction. He looked over at me, smiled, and asked, “What would you do if you were me?” By this time the Blue Room at City Hall was pacted with reporters. I said, “Mr. Mayor, just go out there and tell them the truth of what happened when you hired me, as well as what you think of my record as Commissioner for Youth Employment.” He stood up said,”That’s what we’re going to do if you agree not to go on NBC?” “That’s okay with me as long as there are no slip-ups along the way.” We all shook hands and went off to the Blue Room.
Lindsay was great. He did exactly what he said he would and went far out of his way to praise my work for the City saying he would like to hire 25 more like me. Mike Sviridoff and I left delighted with the outcome. I called NBC and told them the Mayor had adequately answered all the questions.
I had one more piece of unfinished business. After reading the speech Fino made on the House Floor, it became obvious that he was not competent enough to have written it. So who did? Years before all this, when I was still in the Union, I had occasions to deal with the Mafia. At one point during a police investigation I was asked about some of their shenanigans with health insurance programs. I had written about that in our union paper. I declined saying that my job was in the Labor Movement and not as a policeman or prosecutor. At a Union Convention I had met a Mafia leader who said, “Schrank, we owe you. So call me when you need something.” And so I did. He called back ten minutes later to say, “The speech was written at the Powerhouse on 50th Street” (St. Patrick’s Cathedral by Monseigneur Ahearn). Just another New York story.
Thanks Kate. N.H.W.Y.
PS. Did I ever tell about my job interview with the Mafia bosses, the two Tony’s?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Good Old Ideas
As I am continuously trying to understand the world around me I stumble across interesting ideas that I ran across in my long life of observing what was going on in the world. I have mentioned the name of Karl Marx in my blog as he could explain to us the source of our present economic crisis. Looking at the tragedy that is South Africa the name Frantz Fanon came to mind.
(I wasn’t at all sure about Fanon and it was my friend Bill Kornblum who assured me I was on the right track.)
Fanon was a black man born in the Caribbean who was an active participant in the Algerian war for independence. He had a unique perspective as he was also a Psychiatrist. He wrote about the black body white mind phenomena. He was very much concerned with with what he referred to as the “colonial mind.” People who live under an oppressive colonial regime develop a way of thinking that tells them “this is the way to rule.” If and when they get rid of their oppressors the leaders tend to behave the same as the former oppressors. Why? Fanon explains it, as their only experience of what leaders do. They simply have no other frame of reference. Or an alternative way to think about it. Which brings me to South Africa.
Fifteen years after the end of Apartheid there has been progress for a number of Blacks who have made it into the middle class. Yet the conditions in the Townships has hardly changed at all. The unemployment rate hovers around 25 percent. Millions of people continue to live in the same miserable conditions that they experienced under the Apartheid regime. No running water, no electricity, no sanitary facilities, in essence no change. How can this be? You ask. This is were Fanon comes in.
Watching the farce of Jacob Zuma’s ascendance to the Presidency of South Africa is a culmination of the decline of the Afican National Congress the ANC since the departure of Nelson Mandela. His successor was Mbeki who had a masters degree in economics from the University of Sussex in Great Britain. He spent a good part of his time as the President convincing the banking investment world that South Africa was a place that the Wall Streets of the world could feel very secure about their investments. That might have been an important strategy to encourage western bankers to trust the Mbeki administration. They managed a 5 billion dollar loan for military equipment. It was in the course of negotiating that loan that the payoffs on a broad scale involved many of the ANC leaders including Mbeki and the new President Zuma. Think for a moment what 5 billion dollars might have done for the needs of the Townships? What exactly is the great need for military equipment? Who exactly is threatening South Africa? Good questions no answers. Unless, maybe it’s a concern for social unrest in the Townships that is sure to come if there is no change.
What does Fanon hve to teach us about the South Africa problem? First Mbeki and now Zuma have gone out and bought themselves a fleet of fancy cars, a series of large mansions spread around the country and I am sure Rolex watches and other appurtenances that make “no mistake as to who I am.” All to make them appear as powerful as their predecessors. It was Fanons observation that with the end of colonial rule the oppressed having experienced no other kind of relationship assume the role as ruler in the same way as their oppressor. This is the tragedy that is unfolding today in South Africa.
Fanon believed that a violent overthrow of the colonial rulers was necessary to clear out the old social relationship. The revolution would have an opportunity to create a new way for people to relate to one another. Yet it seems to me that violent revolutions do not necessarily end up with some new form of governing. The Russian Revolution ended up with a structure that very much resembled the old Czarist regime. Stalin as Ivin The Terrible.
In essence I believe that Fanon was trying to address our age old problem of heirachy. All of western civilization is based on the old military model of hierarchy. Power starts at the top. As it descends it gets distributed to the various people making up the power structure until it reaches the bottom, the local policeman on the beat. My own many years in the Labor Movement bares out the hierarchical way that power is vested in the work place and how difficult it was to try to change that.
I think I’ll stop here for now and continue this discussion in another blog.
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
(I wasn’t at all sure about Fanon and it was my friend Bill Kornblum who assured me I was on the right track.)
Fanon was a black man born in the Caribbean who was an active participant in the Algerian war for independence. He had a unique perspective as he was also a Psychiatrist. He wrote about the black body white mind phenomena. He was very much concerned with with what he referred to as the “colonial mind.” People who live under an oppressive colonial regime develop a way of thinking that tells them “this is the way to rule.” If and when they get rid of their oppressors the leaders tend to behave the same as the former oppressors. Why? Fanon explains it, as their only experience of what leaders do. They simply have no other frame of reference. Or an alternative way to think about it. Which brings me to South Africa.
Fifteen years after the end of Apartheid there has been progress for a number of Blacks who have made it into the middle class. Yet the conditions in the Townships has hardly changed at all. The unemployment rate hovers around 25 percent. Millions of people continue to live in the same miserable conditions that they experienced under the Apartheid regime. No running water, no electricity, no sanitary facilities, in essence no change. How can this be? You ask. This is were Fanon comes in.
Watching the farce of Jacob Zuma’s ascendance to the Presidency of South Africa is a culmination of the decline of the Afican National Congress the ANC since the departure of Nelson Mandela. His successor was Mbeki who had a masters degree in economics from the University of Sussex in Great Britain. He spent a good part of his time as the President convincing the banking investment world that South Africa was a place that the Wall Streets of the world could feel very secure about their investments. That might have been an important strategy to encourage western bankers to trust the Mbeki administration. They managed a 5 billion dollar loan for military equipment. It was in the course of negotiating that loan that the payoffs on a broad scale involved many of the ANC leaders including Mbeki and the new President Zuma. Think for a moment what 5 billion dollars might have done for the needs of the Townships? What exactly is the great need for military equipment? Who exactly is threatening South Africa? Good questions no answers. Unless, maybe it’s a concern for social unrest in the Townships that is sure to come if there is no change.
What does Fanon hve to teach us about the South Africa problem? First Mbeki and now Zuma have gone out and bought themselves a fleet of fancy cars, a series of large mansions spread around the country and I am sure Rolex watches and other appurtenances that make “no mistake as to who I am.” All to make them appear as powerful as their predecessors. It was Fanons observation that with the end of colonial rule the oppressed having experienced no other kind of relationship assume the role as ruler in the same way as their oppressor. This is the tragedy that is unfolding today in South Africa.
Fanon believed that a violent overthrow of the colonial rulers was necessary to clear out the old social relationship. The revolution would have an opportunity to create a new way for people to relate to one another. Yet it seems to me that violent revolutions do not necessarily end up with some new form of governing. The Russian Revolution ended up with a structure that very much resembled the old Czarist regime. Stalin as Ivin The Terrible.
In essence I believe that Fanon was trying to address our age old problem of heirachy. All of western civilization is based on the old military model of hierarchy. Power starts at the top. As it descends it gets distributed to the various people making up the power structure until it reaches the bottom, the local policeman on the beat. My own many years in the Labor Movement bares out the hierarchical way that power is vested in the work place and how difficult it was to try to change that.
I think I’ll stop here for now and continue this discussion in another blog.
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Manual Labor As Quaint
Once again we are having an upsurge of the wonders of doing manual labor. This time it’s”Shop Class as Soulcraft” by Matthew Crawford. A short time ago it was Richard Sennett singing the praises of manual labor in “The Crafts Man.” When my own book “Ten thousand Working Days” came out in 1978, it too was cited as a praise of good old hard manual work.
I spent the first third of my working life working as a plumbers’ helper, a machinist apprentice, a machinist, a tool and die maker, and finally as New York State President of the Machinists Union. I have some ideas about manual work. In “Shop Class,” Crawford writes about how unsatisfying he found working in front of a computer screen all day. By the end of the day he had no real sense of what in fact he had accomplished. I guess one could say he was truly alienated from his work. In his youth out in San Francisco with the hippies he discovered manual work by rebuilding old Volkswagen engines. That was his introduction to work that had a “product” at the end of the day.
Mr. Crawford went on to get a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and then to a job in a Washington DC think tank. His experience at the “tank” drove him to consider the difference between working with ideas as against making or fixing something with your hands. As someone who has always worked with his hands, I could not agree more with Crawford regarding the joys and satisfaction of understanding how things work. What flows from that knowledge is the notion of how one might go about fixing things that don’t work. Anyone who has met me knows that I am an inveterate “do it yourselfer,” no matter if it is plumbing, electricity, woodworking or cars. The latter has given me the creeps since they put in the micro processors. Now diagnosing a car requires a computer to tell you what’s wrong with it. I miss listening to the engine like a doctor with a stethoscope and making decisions like, “Yup, the valves need adjustment.”
Okay, having sung the praises of manual labor, why did I leave it? It was probably some time around 1946-7. I was working in a toolroom making dies for high speed presses. There were about a dozen other guys working on that floor. It was lunch time. We were sitting outside enjoying a sunny spring day. Somehow the talk got around to the mutual health problems of the tool room gang. Now keep in mind these men were at the top of the machine shop pecking order. All them over 40 said they were having serious varicose leg problems from the constant standing. They were all wearing heavy glasses from the constant eye strain from reading the fine lines on micrometers as well as other instruments that could read ten thousands of an inch. As I looked around at their skin conditions it struck me that these men have sacrificed a major part of their physical conditions in order to do the kind of work they loved. In some unconscious way I decided then and there I was not going to end my life half-blind with varicose veins and serious skin infections from exposure to toxic cutting oils. Some years later, at the age of 47, I decided to go get a college degree so I would not have to live my life out in a factory.
It has often struck me that folks who discover the wonders of working with one’s hands are often professionals with at least a post graduate degree, as in the case of Matthew Crawford. He decided to open his own business; a motorcycle repair shop in Richmond, Virginia. Well that’s very nice. He does not punch a clock. He can come and go as he pleases. He is not doing mind-numbing, repetitive work that resembles sitting in front of a computer screen all day doing claims adjustments at an insurance office. My point is that most corporate work has been broken down into tiny pieces so that no real skill is required to do it. That is the dirty little secret behind the success of mass production; interchangeable parts as well as interchangeable people. That is the price we have paid so that we can all drive around in our nifty automobiles.
After spending years working as a manager in a variety of places, I went back to my childhood avocation in my spare time; fixing things like an old country house, building a bulkhead, and of late making antique furniture reproductions. I do not confuse those tasks with any repetitive type job in business or industry. This whole story is a classic case of lack of differentiation. Yes, it’s great to understand how the internal combustion engine runs an automobile or what happens when you flick a light switch, but please don’t confuse that with working with your hands doing hard physical labor that is not only not very satisfying but is also physically very destructive. If you want to get into some manual work as a hobby, I will be happy to advise.
Thanks Kate. N.H.W.Y.
I spent the first third of my working life working as a plumbers’ helper, a machinist apprentice, a machinist, a tool and die maker, and finally as New York State President of the Machinists Union. I have some ideas about manual work. In “Shop Class,” Crawford writes about how unsatisfying he found working in front of a computer screen all day. By the end of the day he had no real sense of what in fact he had accomplished. I guess one could say he was truly alienated from his work. In his youth out in San Francisco with the hippies he discovered manual work by rebuilding old Volkswagen engines. That was his introduction to work that had a “product” at the end of the day.
Mr. Crawford went on to get a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and then to a job in a Washington DC think tank. His experience at the “tank” drove him to consider the difference between working with ideas as against making or fixing something with your hands. As someone who has always worked with his hands, I could not agree more with Crawford regarding the joys and satisfaction of understanding how things work. What flows from that knowledge is the notion of how one might go about fixing things that don’t work. Anyone who has met me knows that I am an inveterate “do it yourselfer,” no matter if it is plumbing, electricity, woodworking or cars. The latter has given me the creeps since they put in the micro processors. Now diagnosing a car requires a computer to tell you what’s wrong with it. I miss listening to the engine like a doctor with a stethoscope and making decisions like, “Yup, the valves need adjustment.”
Okay, having sung the praises of manual labor, why did I leave it? It was probably some time around 1946-7. I was working in a toolroom making dies for high speed presses. There were about a dozen other guys working on that floor. It was lunch time. We were sitting outside enjoying a sunny spring day. Somehow the talk got around to the mutual health problems of the tool room gang. Now keep in mind these men were at the top of the machine shop pecking order. All them over 40 said they were having serious varicose leg problems from the constant standing. They were all wearing heavy glasses from the constant eye strain from reading the fine lines on micrometers as well as other instruments that could read ten thousands of an inch. As I looked around at their skin conditions it struck me that these men have sacrificed a major part of their physical conditions in order to do the kind of work they loved. In some unconscious way I decided then and there I was not going to end my life half-blind with varicose veins and serious skin infections from exposure to toxic cutting oils. Some years later, at the age of 47, I decided to go get a college degree so I would not have to live my life out in a factory.
It has often struck me that folks who discover the wonders of working with one’s hands are often professionals with at least a post graduate degree, as in the case of Matthew Crawford. He decided to open his own business; a motorcycle repair shop in Richmond, Virginia. Well that’s very nice. He does not punch a clock. He can come and go as he pleases. He is not doing mind-numbing, repetitive work that resembles sitting in front of a computer screen all day doing claims adjustments at an insurance office. My point is that most corporate work has been broken down into tiny pieces so that no real skill is required to do it. That is the dirty little secret behind the success of mass production; interchangeable parts as well as interchangeable people. That is the price we have paid so that we can all drive around in our nifty automobiles.
After spending years working as a manager in a variety of places, I went back to my childhood avocation in my spare time; fixing things like an old country house, building a bulkhead, and of late making antique furniture reproductions. I do not confuse those tasks with any repetitive type job in business or industry. This whole story is a classic case of lack of differentiation. Yes, it’s great to understand how the internal combustion engine runs an automobile or what happens when you flick a light switch, but please don’t confuse that with working with your hands doing hard physical labor that is not only not very satisfying but is also physically very destructive. If you want to get into some manual work as a hobby, I will be happy to advise.
Thanks Kate. N.H.W.Y.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Boot Strap Problem
As being one who has been characterized as a “bootstrapped” I have become increasingly concerned about it implications. It was upon the publication of “Ten Thousand Working Days” in 1978 a review in the Harvard Business Review suggested that I was a real Horatio Alger success story. I had pulled myself up from a High School dropout to the glorious heights of success as a Ford Foundation Program Officer plus lots of other nifty achievements. In other word I had pulled myself up by my boot straps and for that I was a credit to our system and myself for being able to do it.
As I thought about it it did strike me as kind of strange for an old thirties radical being hailed as evidence that the capitalist system indeed does work. All one needs to do is work hard and overcome what ever adversity might be in your path and guess what you “can make it.”'
Man, is this a dangerous notion. It clearly suggests that those who don’t make it can only blame themselves. I of course do not believe that for a minute. There are so many variables that can decide who makes and who does not. I for instance did not have to deal with race or immigrant status. I came from a very literate work oriented culture. “Learn a trade and you can always get a job.” The world of radicals I grew up in were primarily skilled workers so I became an auto mechanic, machinist, tool maker, union official. My background prepared me for all of them. Besides I was in the right geographic location, New York City. Add to that, luck was on my side.
Which brings me to the Sonia Sotomayer’s nomination to the Supreme Court. My concern is not where she grew up. That’s interesting and I am glad for her. As in the great American success stories, she grew up poor in the Bronxdale Public Housing. If that is her major achievement then I know little or nothing about what she thinks or believes in. Yes she was part of the Puerto Rican Defense fund and thats a plus. I remember that organization from my days working for John Lindsey as Deputy Manpower Commissioner.
This brings me to Justice Thomas who also grew up poor. In his case the Dems. tried their darndest to find out what was his judicial philosophy and what did he believe in? Because he never was a judge we didn’t have a clue where he would fit in the political spectrum of the court. His years on the court have convinced me that mostly he believes in Justice Anthony Scalia. I hate to admit this but I am in the same place with nominee Sotomayer.
Now in her case there is a trail of decisions she made in the Circuit Court of Appeals. I have not looked at any more than a few cases. I am sure others will do a far reaching analysis of her decisions so we can see exactly what is her judicial philosophy? Does she think the Constitution protects a women's right to privacy? I don’t know and that’s the heart of Roe V Wade. In a number of decisions involving police officers Sotomayer tilted toward the cops overturning lower courts favoring the plaintiffs. Is she an authoritarian because she grew up in an disorderly lawless community and now is a law and order compulsive? Don’t know the answers just got lots of questions.
Thurgood Marshall, was nominated as the first Black to sit in the Supreme Court. He was an absolute known entity. He had been a civil rights lawyer for all of his professional life. He brought that same commitment with him to the court. We knew exactly what we were getting up front. In the present case of Sonia Sotomayer I am not at all sure about what to expect from her. Especially since a number of Republicans are saying they are just going to let the nomination go.
I must admit I don’t remember any administration were I had so many “we’ll sees” as I have with this one. I just don’t know what our President believes in other than trying to get everyone to go along. It’s referred to as “pragmatism.” Is that just seeing what you can get the opposition to agree to and if they don’t just drop it or compromise it beyond recognition? We’ll see?
Thanks Kate N/H.W.Y.
As I thought about it it did strike me as kind of strange for an old thirties radical being hailed as evidence that the capitalist system indeed does work. All one needs to do is work hard and overcome what ever adversity might be in your path and guess what you “can make it.”'
Man, is this a dangerous notion. It clearly suggests that those who don’t make it can only blame themselves. I of course do not believe that for a minute. There are so many variables that can decide who makes and who does not. I for instance did not have to deal with race or immigrant status. I came from a very literate work oriented culture. “Learn a trade and you can always get a job.” The world of radicals I grew up in were primarily skilled workers so I became an auto mechanic, machinist, tool maker, union official. My background prepared me for all of them. Besides I was in the right geographic location, New York City. Add to that, luck was on my side.
Which brings me to the Sonia Sotomayer’s nomination to the Supreme Court. My concern is not where she grew up. That’s interesting and I am glad for her. As in the great American success stories, she grew up poor in the Bronxdale Public Housing. If that is her major achievement then I know little or nothing about what she thinks or believes in. Yes she was part of the Puerto Rican Defense fund and thats a plus. I remember that organization from my days working for John Lindsey as Deputy Manpower Commissioner.
This brings me to Justice Thomas who also grew up poor. In his case the Dems. tried their darndest to find out what was his judicial philosophy and what did he believe in? Because he never was a judge we didn’t have a clue where he would fit in the political spectrum of the court. His years on the court have convinced me that mostly he believes in Justice Anthony Scalia. I hate to admit this but I am in the same place with nominee Sotomayer.
Now in her case there is a trail of decisions she made in the Circuit Court of Appeals. I have not looked at any more than a few cases. I am sure others will do a far reaching analysis of her decisions so we can see exactly what is her judicial philosophy? Does she think the Constitution protects a women's right to privacy? I don’t know and that’s the heart of Roe V Wade. In a number of decisions involving police officers Sotomayer tilted toward the cops overturning lower courts favoring the plaintiffs. Is she an authoritarian because she grew up in an disorderly lawless community and now is a law and order compulsive? Don’t know the answers just got lots of questions.
Thurgood Marshall, was nominated as the first Black to sit in the Supreme Court. He was an absolute known entity. He had been a civil rights lawyer for all of his professional life. He brought that same commitment with him to the court. We knew exactly what we were getting up front. In the present case of Sonia Sotomayer I am not at all sure about what to expect from her. Especially since a number of Republicans are saying they are just going to let the nomination go.
I must admit I don’t remember any administration were I had so many “we’ll sees” as I have with this one. I just don’t know what our President believes in other than trying to get everyone to go along. It’s referred to as “pragmatism.” Is that just seeing what you can get the opposition to agree to and if they don’t just drop it or compromise it beyond recognition? We’ll see?
Thanks Kate N/H.W.Y.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
